January, 2013NTHMP

Warning Coordination Subcommittee Meeting

Agenda• Introductions• 2012-Action Item Review• Public Email/SMS message service• EAS Activation for Advisories – Report• Playbooks/Field Teams• Exercises• TWC Products• Haida Gwaii/SE Alaska Events• New Strat. Plan - Measures and Milestones• WCS in post-TWEA/Spectrum environment• DART Array• New Action Items

Action Item Review

• Chris Gregg report on short survey on posting of Tsunami Travel Times in non-threatening situations.

• NWS Public email/SMS services

• EAS Activation for Tsunami Advisories

• Tsunami Playbooks and Field Team interactions

Brief Survey of 2011 Tsunami Warning Products Focus Group Participants

Preliminary Findings January 27, 2013

Distribution of Survey Respondents

• Coronado, CA 7.7%• Kauai, HI 30.8%• Kodiak, AK 15.4%• Long Beach, WA 7.7%• New Hanover County, NC 15.4%• Seaside, OR 23.1%There were no responses from American Samoa and

the US Virgin Islands.

Question Posed

• Is it helpful to post tsunami travel time information in tsunami messages, bulletins, and statements when no tsunami is expected?

• Why?

53.8% of respondents answered:“No”

• Why?– The information regarding hazard warnings should be kept

applicable. If no tsunami is generated, then the added information is not needed.

– Messaging needs to be timely and not include education relevant to other scenarios.

– Providing travel times for tsunami’s that are not expected will create confusion.

– It could create the false impression that a tsunami would occur.

– Over time, it may deemphasize the differences in messaging, i.e. “the boy who cried wolf”.

46.2% of respondents answered:“Yes”

• Why?– It would prevent the need to cross-reference reports.– Even with no tsunami present, there may be surges that

Water safety officers need to prepare for.– This would allow people to get used to seeing the graphics

and information that they would otherwise only see during a tsunami warning. As it may be years between warnings, the delivery of this information would help people prepare for warnings.

– It is preferable to have all information available to improve situational awareness and would be useful for planning and drill purposes.

Tsunami Advisory

• Tsunami Advisories do not trigger the same level of public notification within the Tsunami Warning System as do Tsunami Warnings and Watches.

• This has resulted in incomplete information about what life-safety actions are needed by coastal residents and critical facilities, such as ports and harbors, within communities.

• Currently, the Emergency Alert System (EAS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather radios do not easily support tone activation for public alerting during Tsunami Advisories.

• A multi-disciplinary team has recommended the use of the Local Area Emergency (LAE) EAS event code to activate the Emergency Alert System and provide audible alerts over NOAA Weather Radios when a National Weather Service Tsunami Warning Center issues a “Tsunami Advisory”. See the definition of the LAE below.

The following scenario outlines how the proposed approach, if implemented, would fill the current gap in reception of Tsunami Advisories through the EAS and NOAA Weather Radio components of the United States Tsunami Warning System:

Television and radio stations that participate in EAS broadcasting would have their programs interrupted by the issuance of an LAE. The crawler on televisions will say, for example: "The National Weather Service has issued a Local Area Emergency on behalf of the State of Oregon for Josephine and Curry Counties". This would need to change to reflect local county distinctions. The voice portion of the EAS activation and the voice that is heard on NOAA Weather Radios will explain that a Tsunami Advisory has been issued and provide the appropriate further information for the event. The voice message would also be heard on AM and FM radio stations.

• The following actions would need to be completed prior to use of the LAE code for Tsunami Advisories:

1. Local Emergency Alert System Coordinating Committees (LECC) and State Emergency Alert System Coordinating Committees (SECC) need to approve this use of the LAE. It is anticipated that this proposed modification should not be difficult to implement since analysis of the meaning and uses appear to clearly fall within the scope of intended uses for the LAE event code.

• 2. National Weather Service offices serving areas for which this solution is desired by their state and local partners will need to modify their local procedures and software to support the issuance of the LAE event code whenever a Tsunami Advisory is issued. Since an automated method of issuing tsunami products is very near completion, we anticipate this will be a relatively simple modification. Please note the LAE is an event code that is for initiation by state and local entities; therefore, any issuance by a National Weather Service office assumes that they have a pre-arranged agreement to issue an LAE on behalf of a state or local entity. The narrative that is provided with the LAE will indicate that its issuance by the NWS is on behalf of some state or local entity.

• 3. Television and radio station engineers will also need to make sure their equipment is programed to properly pass through the LAE event code automatically upon receipt. Ensuring that this is accomplished for all TV and radio stations in a given area can be a significant effort. Since this is already an operational EAS code, however, it is envisioned that most EAS decoders are already prepared to process the LAE properly.

• Local Area Emergency (LAE). An emergency message that defines an event that by itself does not pose a significant threat to public safety and/or property.

• However, the event could escalate, contribute to other more serious events, or disrupt critical public safety services. Instructions, other than public protective actions, may be provided by authorized officials.

• Examples include: a disruption in water, electric or natural gas service, road closures due to excessive snowfall, a potential terrorist threat where the public is asked to remain alert or the issuance of a Tsunami Advisory.

Tsunami Emergency Preparedness and Response Tools in Tsunami Emergency Preparedness and Response Tools in CaliforniaCalifornia

Evacuation planning playbooks

Tsunami field observation team and webcam projects

13

Partners =

Evacuation Planning Playbooks Secondary evacuation zones that

could have been utilized during the Warning-level 2011 Tohoku-oki tsunami in CA (and 2012 Haida Gwaii tsunami in HI)

Lines/Zones of evacuation from large Advisory events, small/medium Warnings events, and scenarios where short-time time for evacuation (local, Cascadia, Aleutians/Alaska)

Playbooks can be used for exercises and/or incorporated into evacuation planning for non-worst-case events

Presented idea to NTHMP MMS and MES in July 2012

25% of coastline is complete in CA

Recent supplemental information: NOAA Sea-Level Rise viewer

Monterey; 1m, 2m, 3m, and 4m elevation lines at Mean High

Water

14

15

16

17

Example: Formula for determining playbook evacuation line to use ( FA-S-T-E-R ):

FA: Forecasted Amplitude from Warning Center

+

S: Storm surge or existing ocean conditions

+

T: Maximum tidal height (first 5 hours of tsunami)

+

E: Forecast error potential (30%; analysis of 2010-11 events)

+

R: Site amplified run-up potential (from previous modeling)

_________________________________

= Maximum tsunami run-up height

= Playbook elevation line

Example for March 11, 2011 event at Crescent City:

FA + S + T + E + R = Height2.5m + 0m + (-1m) + 0.75m + 0.5m = 2.75m

3m elevation below purple line below

Evacuation Planning PlaybooksExample of use ( FASTER approach)

18

19

March 11, 2011 Tsunami - "Warning" level locations in CA

Forecast Amplitude (meters)

Storm/ other conditions

Tidal conditions

first 5 hours

potential Error in forecast

modeling (FAx0.3)

potential site-specific

Run-up (FAx0.2)

Total tsunami

elevation or run-up

Recommended Playbook

Evacuation Level

Crescent City 2.50 0.00 -1.00 0.75 0.50 2.75 3m

Humboldt Bay 1.33 0.00 -1.00 0.40 0.27 1.00 2m

Arena Cove 1.30 0.00 -1.00 0.39 0.26 0.95 none or 1m

Bodega Bay 0.92 0.00 -1.00 0.28 0.18 0.38 none or 1m

Point Reyes 0.63 0.00 -1.00 0.19 0.13 -0.06 none or 1m

Half Moon Bay 0.92 0.00 -1.00 0.28 0.18 0.38 none or 1m

San Francisco 0.73 0.00 -1.00 0.22 0.15 0.10 none or 1m

Santa Cruz 1.01 0.00 -1.00 0.30 0.20 0.52 none or 1m

Monterey 0.52 0.00 -1.00 0.16 0.10 -0.22 none or 1m

Morro Bay 1.18 0.00 -1.00 0.35 0.24 0.77 none or 1m

Port San Luis 2.14 0.00 -1.00 0.64 0.43 2.21 3m

Evacuation Planning PlaybooksExample of use ( FASTER approach)

20

March 11, 2011 Tsunami - "Warning"

level locations in CA - AT HIGH TIDE

Forecast Amplitude (meters)

Storm/ other conditions

Tidal conditions

first 5 hours

potential Error in forecast

modeling (FAx0.3)

potential site-specific

Run-up (FAx0.2)

Total tsunami

elevation or run-up

Recommended Playbook

Evacuation Level

Crescent City 2.50 0.00 1.00 0.75 0.50 4.75 All

Humboldt Bay 1.33 0.00 1.00 0.40 0.27 3.00 4m

Arena Cove 1.30 0.00 1.00 0.39 0.26 2.95 3m

Bodega Bay 0.92 0.00 1.00 0.28 0.18 2.38 3m

Point Reyes 0.63 0.00 1.00 0.19 0.13 1.95 2m

Half Moon Bay 0.92 0.00 1.00 0.28 0.18 2.38 3m

San Francisco 0.73 0.00 1.00 0.22 0.15 2.10 3m

Santa Cruz 1.01 0.00 1.00 0.30 0.20 2.52 3m

Monterey 0.52 0.00 1.00 0.16 0.10 1.78 2m

Morro Bay 1.18 0.00 1.00 0.35 0.24 2.77 3m

Port San Luis 2.14 0.00 1.00 0.64 0.43 4.21 All

Evacuation Planning PlaybooksExample of use ( FASTER approach)

Modified to high tide conditions

Developing State Work Group to help:

Create consistent, useful products for EMs

Develop guidance for application

Coordinate with CA Coastal Conservancy and NOAA CSC on mutual interests (tsunami and sea-level rise; tide gauges)

Plan: maps/guidance completed summer-fall/2013

Feedback/Questions for NTHMP WCS:

Should national guidance be developed on creation and implementation of playbooks?

Specific feedback on FASTER approach?

Evacuation Planning Playbooks

Example: Formula for determining playbook evacuation line to use ( FA-S-T-E-R ):

FA: Forecasted Amplitude from Warning Center

+

S: Storm surge or existing ocean conditions

+

T: Maximum tidal height (first 5 hours of tsunami)

+

E: Forecast error potential (30%; analysis of 2010-11 events)

+

R: Site amplified run-up potential (from previous modeling)

_________________________________

= Maximum tsunami run-up height

= Playbook elevation line

21

Developing tsunami observation teams

Integrating into State EM plan and the digital CA Earthquake Clearinghouse

Held several workshops and field trips

Identified key locations, many without tide gauges

Over 50 geologist/engineers state-wide

Develop real-time online webcam network

Questions to NTHMP WCS:

Should protocols for real-time data collection be vetted by WCS and be consistent between states?

What funding support can NOAA provide to integrate and maintain this network of observers/webcams into tsunami warning system long-term?

Tsunami Observation Team Project

Idealized multiple webcams statewide capturing tsunami in real

time 22

Exercises• CaribeWave/Lantex 2013 – March 20, 2013• Pacifex 2013 – March 27, 2013

– Link to Plans

• PacWave Plans• EAS/NWR Test Plans• Any Others?• 2014 Exercises

– Pacific – March 27, 2014 – USGS SAFFR– Atlantic – Select Date and Scenario (Portugal?)

Tsunami Products

• Western Region TLS

• EAS Automation

• New Products – Examples on web site– Re-create warning products on site– Suggested updates

WR UPDATE: LOCAL TSUNAMI STATEMENTS AND INITIAL

“NWR/EAS PRODUCT”Jan 22, 2013

Agenda

• Local statements in WR– SPS (transition to TLS)

• Local initial “product” for NWR– NWR Broadcast– EAS activation

Local Statements

• WR currently uses SPS for local statements– Subset of official information (from WC/ATWC

bulletins)– Emphasis on local information and impacts:

• Headline• EQ info• Arrival Times• Forecast heights (when available)• Impacts (expected / actual)

Local Statement Automation• Currently…heavy emphasis on manual generation/editing of local

statements (SPS)– Time-intensive– Leads to inconsistencies in format/content (despite WR Supp guidance)

• Developing GUI and formatter for faster generation of local statements– Will also help standardize format/content

• Use of SPS product header will continue for time-being• Hope to begin testing/using new GUI and formatter this year• Goal: Transition to “TLS” header (Tsunami Local Statement) (time frame

TBD)– Headers approved for WFOs– Plan to test with 1-3 WR coastal WFOs initially– TLS format/content same as SPS – only header to change– Use of TLS will again free up SPS for other uses during tsunami events

Local Statement Example(Current SPS)

Local Statement Example(New SPS/TLS)

Local Statement Interface

Local Initial NWR “Product”(for EAS Activation)

• Takes ~ 90 sec to read (less w/o observation info)• Planning to add to Local Statement GUI (stand-alone option also planned)

Questions/Discussion

Tsunami Products•  

•  • ...A TSUNAMI WARNING IS NOW IN EFFECT...•  •  • WARNINGS/ADVISORIES/WATCHES - UPDATED• -------------------------------------• TSUNAMI WARNING IN EFFECT FOR...•  • * THE COASTAL AREAS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AND ALASKA FROM THE• NORTH TIP OF VANCOUVER ISLAND BRITISH COLUMBIA TO CAPE• DECISION ALASKA/LOCATED 85 MILES SE OF SITKA/

Tsunami Products•  

•  • ...A TSUNAMI WARNING IS NOW IN EFFECT...•  • WARNINGS/ADVISORIES/WATCHES - UPDATED• -------------------------------------• TSUNAMI WARNING IN EFFECT FOR...•  • * THE COASTAL AREAS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AND ALASKA FROM THE• NORTH TIP OF VANCOUVER ISLAND BRITISH COLUMBIA TO CAPE• DECISION ALASKA/LOCATED 85 MILES SE OF SITKA/

• * FOR OTHER US AND CANADIAN PACIFIC COASTS IN NORTH AMERICA -• THIS IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY.

• - OR –

• * FOR OTHER US AND CANADIAN PACIFIC COASTS IN NORTH AMERICA - • THE LEVEL OF TSUNAMI DANGER IS BEING EVALUATED. FURTHER• INFORMATION WILL BE PROVIDED IN SUPPLEMENTARY MESSAGES.

Tsunami Products•  

•  • IMPACTS FOR TSUNAMI WARNING AREAS• ---------------------------------• * A TSUNAMI WITH SIGNIFICANT WIDESPREAD INUNDATION OF LAND IS• EXPECTED.• * WIDESPREAD DANGEROUS COASTAL FLOODING ACCOMPANIED BY POWERFUL• CURRENTS IS POSSIBLE AND MAY CONTINUE FOR MANY HOURS AFTER• TSUNAMI ARRIVAL.• * THE FIRST WAVE MAY NOT BE THE LARGEST.

Tsunami Products

• NOAA Tsunami Product Social Science Study Results

• PTWC Domestic Product update

• Advisory Terminology

• The 2D tsunami warning problem in a 1D Environment

• New Google Maps overlays on WCATWC site– Travel Time– Maximum Amplitude

Recommendations for WCATWC and PTWC Warning Messages

Chris Gregg, David Johnston and John SorensenEast Tennessee State University, GNS Science/Massey University, ORNL (Consultant)

Annual NTHMP Meeting, Hilton Doubletree, Portland, OR

January 28-30, 2013

Outline

• Previous Work• Reporting • Current Recommendations

Previous Work• Phase 1: Focus Groups in 2011 provided stakeholder

feedback on WCATWC Tohoku messages– Interim report issued in Oct 2011 to TWCs and J.

Hollingsworth’s NWS Tiger Team– That report and NWS Tiger Team report/ Prototypes used

to guide revisions to products– live Nov 2012

• Phase II: Message Metric grounded in warning research– Developed by Gregg, Johnston, J & B Sorensen– Report issued with recommendations Aug 31, 2012

Recommended Revisions to Warning Product Prototypes of the NWS Pacific and West Coast/Alaska Tsunami Warning

Centers

Prepared for:Michael Angove, Acting Director

National Weather Service, Tsunami ProgramSilver Springs, Maryland

Prepared by:

Chris E. Gregg1, Liesel Ritchie2, David M. Johnston3, John Sorensen4, Barbara-Vogt Sorensen5

Funding provided by NOAA NWS Award NA10NWS4670015

August 31, 2012

Reporting: TOCExecutive Summary ivProject Background 1Background Literature on Warnings 5Preparation of the Prototypes by the NWS and NTHMP 8The Warning Message Metric and Review of Message Prototypes8The Warning Message Metric 8Review of Message Prototypes 11Message Content Factors 11Receiver Characteristics 18Order and Formatting 18Message Style Factors 18Proposed Revisions 20Recommendations 24References 25

Reporting: TOTList of TablesTable 1. Characteristics of message prototypes reviewed. 2Table 2. Official list of Warning Products of the PTWC. 3Table 3. Official list of Warning Products of the WCATWC. 4Table 4. Stages in the sequence of decision making and

their outcomes in terms of people receiving TWC tsunami messages. 7

Table 5. The tsunami warning message metric. 9Table 6. Formats of information sections in WCATWC and

PTWC first message prototypes. 11Table 7. Recommended model for revised prototypes. 12Table 8. Summary Recommendations to prototypes. 20

Current Recommendations

Message Headings or Categories

Description Rational

WMO Header Identifies zone, indicator for relative magnitude of event and TWC

Required by NWS protocol.

Bulletin Identifies significance of message Required by NWS protocol for warnings/advisories/watches, but not Tsu. Seismic Inf. Statements

Message Title- self heading

eg, Tsunami Message Number 1 or Tsunami Seismic Information Statement

Identifies number of a Bulletins─ tracks message order

Audience Describes the expected audience― emergency managers, media, public

To improve uptake

Source Lists the two TWCs and USGS─ add date/time stamp of message ─

To improve likelihood that message source is trusted

Updates Expanding warning area, new observations of tsunami activity, etc

To provide important changes up front in the message, allow for selective reading by Em. Managers

Warnings/Advisories/Watches

States and defines alert levels and locations of affected/ unaffected areas

To clarify an alert level and its meaning for specific areas

Evaluation States important elements in summary form, may be expanded in lower sections

Provides critical information and rational for concern, up-front

Table 7. Recommended model for revised prototypes. PART 1 of 2

Table 7. Recommended model for revised prototypes. PART 2 of 2

Recommended Actions States specific actions people should take So they know what to do and what not to do to protect themselves and household members

Expected Impacts States the associated hazards and their threat to people and property, plus env. and social cues, informal warnings, etc

So people can assess or know what types of hazards and damages and warning phenomena to expect

Forecasts of Tsunami Activity

States anticipated start time of the tsunami in selected locations, duration of dangerous event,, and expected height above the tide

Improves understanding of need for protective actions

Observations of Tsunami Activity

States tsunami heights and time of impact. Also states limitations of the information for other areas

Helps to personalize risk and to not underestimate impacts in their area

Preliminary Earthquake Parameters

Magnitude, local time, location, depth Increases spatial and temporal understanding of the earthquake-tsunami event

Next Update and Additional Information

Provides maximum time until next update (message repeated if no new information), information sources

Improves warning confirmation and speed of information searching.

Recommendations for (Part 1 of 3):• reformatting of existing material, addition of new

material, standardization of products within and across warning centers, and shorter durations of time until the next updates.

• addition of new material will increase length of new products and

• shorter time durations between updates will increase the number of messages disseminated and received by end-users. However,

Recommendations for (Part 1 of 3):

• additional length & additional number of messages will not likely be a problem for end-users of the products (Emergency Managers, Media and General Public), because:– media & public will want additional detail & shorter updates. – In absence of new & frequently updated information they will

generally increase information seeking;– emergency managers need to know what information is

provided to the media & to the public; and– emergency managers can avoid redundancy & information over-

load by screening the UPDATES section which clarifies changes from previous messages

Recommendations for (Part 1 of 3):

• Revised prototype files provide guidance• Gregg could work with WCATWC/PTWC to revise

Enhancing Tsunami Alerts for Areas with Multiple Shorelines

John SchellingWashington Emergency Management

MES Co-Chair

Tsunami Alert Bulletin

Which Washington Coast?

The Pacific Ocean Coast

The Columbia River Coast

The Strait of Juan de Fuca Coast

The Puget Sound Coast

Recent Events

• Haida Gwaii

• Southeast Alaska

WCS in post-TWEA world

• Funding– What do we need to keep momentum going from last 5

years?• Warning dissemination• Warning reception• Product guidance• National Exercises• Shared Warning Experiences

– What is necessary to complete future milestones?

• Functions– What are the main WCS functions to ensure continuation?

WCS in post-Spectrum world

• How will we address different funding scenarios:– Zilch– Return to pre-spectrum levels– No loss from Spectrum levels

• TsunamiReady– How can WCS support TsunamiReady Program?

• Should we be shifting into other functions?

If there is Time…

– DART Array– International alert levels

New Actions

– EAS Activation for Advisories?– Establish date and scenario for 2014 Atlantic – Products

• Implement changes?• Review Social Science suggestions?• Graphics?• Travel times based on CG survey?• Advisory Terminology?• 2D Problem?

New Actions

– Exercises• Create 2014 Exercise Handbooks • ITIC to keep WCS informed on exercise plans

– Post-event review process?– Terms of Reference - Update