FYI: National Weather Service Assessment Report from the April 27, 2011 tornado outbreak

   

Service Assessment

The Historic Tornadoes of April 2011

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Weather Service

Silver Spring, Maryland

NWS Service Assessment Report from the April 27, 2011 tornado outbreak.

Following is the Executive Summary, but for the report can be found online at  http://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/assessments/pdfs/historic_tornadoes.pdf 

 

ooooooooooooooooooooo

On April 27, 2011, a series of devastating tornadoes struck the southeastern United States.

This tornado event was the third deadliest in the country since systematic tornado record keeping

began in 1950. With 316 fatalities (31 in Mississippi, 234 in Alabama, 32 in Tennessee, 15 in

Georgia, and 4 in Virginia), it follows only the 1974 Super Tornado Outbreak (368 deaths) and

the 1965 Palm Sunday Tornado Outbreak (337 deaths). Damages from this tornado episode

resulted in over $4.2 billion in property damage and more than 2,400 injuries.

The National Weather Service (NWS) formed a Service Assessment Team to evaluate its

performance. To strengthen NWS relationships with other federal agencies involved with

disaster work, for the first time this assessment had a co-leader from the Federal Emergency

Management Agency. The team interviewed staff and reviewed products from the Storm

Prediction Center (SPC), Weather Forecast Offices at Memphis and Morristown, TN, Jackson,

MS, Huntsville and Birmingham, AL, and Peachtree City, GA. The team gathered feedback

from partners and users of NWS products including media outlets, Emergency Managers at the

state and local level, first responders, and the public. One

of the team’s tasks was to assess

societal impacts of this event.

This tornado outbreak was anticipated and forecast days in advance. The SPC began

focusing on the affected area in its convective outlook products 5 days prior to the event. It

continued emphasizing, refining, and enhancing the threat leading up to the event, ultimately

issuing a high risk convective outlook on the morning of April 27 for a large portion of the

impacted area.

The Weather Forecast Offices (WFO) in the affected area prepared for severe weather

operations and indicated the risk of severe weather and tornadoes as much as 5 days in advance.

Hazardous Weather Outlooks, Web images, pre-recorded multimedia briefings, and webinars

discussed the potential impacts. Emergency Managers and media staff interviewed indicated

they were well prepared for the severe weather that occurred.

All tornado fatalities occurred within the boundaries of tornado watches and were preceded

by tornado warnings. There were several tornado watches issued in the afternoon before severe

weather began. The lead time, the time from the initial three watch issuances to the first

tornadoes in those watches, averaged 2.4 hours. Watch lead times to the first significant tornado

in each area ranged from 3-6 hours. The mean lead time for tornado warnings in the assessment

area was 22.1 minutes. The probability of detection was 89 percent and the false alarm ratio was

49 percent.

Despite the excellent performance of the SPC and WFO staff, the tornadoes resulted in a

substantial death toll. Contributing factors to the high number of casualties included:

A large number of rare, long-track, violent tornadoes

Tornado tracks intersecting densely populated areas

Damage to warning dissemination sources

Individuals in the affected areas who did not respond to warnings until confirmed by

more than one communication source

People in the paths of the storms who waited for visual confirmation before taking

protective action

The rapid pace of the storms, which moved at 45-70 mph, giving people who waited for

secondary confirmation a smaller window of time in which to take shelter

Residences that did not have adequate storm shelters

So many deaths resulting from an event in which the NWS performed well suggested that

societal and sociological factors regarding warning response played a role. To address this, the

NWS included four social scientists on the assessment team: one each from NWS, the Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention, the University of Northern Alabama, and the University of

Delaware. This team had the largest number of social scientists ever included on a Service

Assessment, reflecting the depth of sociological information in this report. Appendix C

describes procedures for data collection and assessment methodologies employed by the social

scientists.

The team determined that WFOs and state and local emergency management had developed

excellent relationships. The team also found opportunities for improved use of NWS products

and services in planning and training for natural hazards.

There were several success stories during this event. The relationships fostered by WFOs

with their media and emergency management partners allowed for efficient exchange of

information before and during the tornadoes. WFOs in impacted areas used webinars,

multimedia presentations, Web graphics, and social media services to disseminate information to

key partners and the public. Emergency management and media partners unanimously praised

these decision support services. Members of the public who heeded the warnings and took cover

in underground storm shelters survived the most violent tornadoes.

The team submitted 24 recommendations to address NWS performance, safety, and outreach

programs. In addition, the team identified 14 best practices. Appendix B offers definitions of

facts, findings, recommendations, and best practices followed by a complete listing of findings,

recommendations, and best practices found in the main body of the report. Appendices D and E

contain summaries of the tornado events that impacted the St. Louis metropolitan area and

North Carolina/South Carolina/Virginia, respectively.

Categorized under:

If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Comments

No comments yet.

Leave a comment

(required)

(required)


*