1. Connecting the Dots: A Communications Model of the North Texas IWT
Dennis Cavanaugh – Melissa Huffman – Jennifer Dunn – Mark Fox
National Weather Service
Rio Vista, TX
Image: Kevin Rose

2. 15 May 2013 Tornado Outbreak Overview
19 tornadoes
One EF-4 tornado (Granbury)
One EF-3 tornado (Cleburne)
6 fatalities, over 50 injuries
Over $100 million in property damage
Dallas/Fort Worth
Metroplex
Granbury
Cleburne
Tornado Paths

3. Integrated Warning Teams
Local emergency management/government officials
National Weather Service
Media representatives
Public
Virtual Operations Support Teams (VOST)
Can also include agencies that support FEMA’s Emergency Support Functions, amateur radio

4. Integrated Warning Teams
Get persons in a threat area to take protective action
Protective action decision making requires a need for repetitive messaging as individuals will seek to confirm threats from multiple sources (Mileti and Sorensen, 2000)
Build community resiliency

5. Data
To evaluate IWT messaging during the event, 1229 instances of communication were collected from the following sources:
Emergency Operation Center (EOC) Timelines & Logs
Media Coverage (Transcribed Minute-by-Minute)
NWS Staff Interviews
Amateur Radio Communication Logs
NWS Chat Logs
Interviews with Local Emergency Management
Internal NWS
Communication Logs
Twitter & Facebook
Interactions

6. IWT Interactions NWS Media EM Public VOST 4 113 133 115 114 40 16 19
Communications documented between 7-10 PM
Columns represent receivers, rows represent communicators
NWS
Media EM
Public
VOST 4
113
133
115
114 40 16 19
461 15 49 32 28 66 76 36 30 26 21 46

7. Digraph for communication of an NWS warning
Rumor Tracking
Emergency Management
VOST
Public
Media
NWS
Identified pieces of information (rumors) to track
Created adjacency matrix to document directed communications from data
Successful communication defined as documented instance of interaction occurring within 15 minutes of introduction into the IWT
Digraph used to visualize adjacency matrix
Digraph for communication of an NWS warning

8. Rumor Modeling – By Example
An rumor network:
Ann
Ehaz
Dana
Carla
Bert
Senders
Recipients
Ann
Carla, Ehaz
Bert
Carla, Dana
Carla
Ehaz
Dana
Ann, Carla
Digraph for communication of an NWS warning

9. Rumor Modeling – By Example
An rumor network:
Senders
Recipients
Ann
Carla, Ehaz
Bert
Carla, Dana
Carla
Ehaz
Dana
Ann, Carla
Ann
Bert
Carla
Dana
Ehaz 1
Digraph for communication of an NWS warning

10. Rumor Modeling – By Example
An rumor network:
Ann
Ehaz
Dana
Carla
Bert
Ann
Bert
Carla
Dana
Ehaz 1
Digraph

11. Corresponding adjacency matrix
Rumor Modeling: NWS Warning Communication
Emergency Management
VOST
Public
Media
NWS
NWS
Media EM
Public
VOST 1
Corresponding adjacency matrix
Digraph

12. Rumor Modeling: NWS Warning Communication
Why is NWS to public communication assigned a 0 in the model?
15 May 2013 Public Response Survey, NWS Fort Worth
29 Respondents
CASA Public Response Survey, Dr. Joseph Trainor
169 Respondents

13. Rumor Modeling: NWS Warning Communication
Emergency Management
NWS
Media EM
Public
VOST 1
NWS
VOST
Media
Public
Corresponding adjacency matrix
Digraph

14. Results: Granbury Tornado
Confirmation of the Tornado
Report of Significant Damage
Emergency Management
Emergency Management
NWS
VOST
NWS
VOST
Media
Public
Media
Public

15. Results: Granbury Tornado
With several IWT members not receiving the message, the availability of the message for public consumption was limited.
Given enough time for message transmission,
are there any communication gaps within the IWT?
Confirmation of the Tornado
Report of Significant Damage A5
NWS
Media EM
Public
VOST 2 3 A5
NWS
Media EM
Public
VOST 2 3 A5
NWS
Media EM
Public
VOST 90 69 91 44
121 61 31 22 30 16 60
Confirmation of the tornado is result of IWT members viewing public as endpoint as opposed to part of larger communication network; Zeroes show members of the IWT who did not receive the message; this limited the availability of the message for public consumption after 75 minutes

16. Results: Granbury Tornado
With a message being communicated back to the IWT, the public has significantly more opportunities to receive the message.
Confirmation of the Tornado
Report of Significant Damage A5
NWS
Media EM
Public
VOST 2 3 A5
NWS
Media EM
Public
VOST 90 69 91 44
121 61 31 22 30 16 60
Higher likelihood of public receiving message for report of significant damage because message communicated back into the IWT allowing for better message amplification; significant damage benefitted from better IWT communication, which allowed the message to snowball in frequency making it more available to the public

17. Communicating with your IWT/Partners
Phone call/texts
Usually only reaches one partner at a time (takes a long time to contact the entire IWT)
Has the benefit of conveying tone of voice
briefings
Can reach multiple partners at once (saves time)
Information can become old and irrelevant very quickly
Difficult to convey any sort of tone/urgency
NWSChat
Can reach multiple partners all at once
Information has the opportunity to be ALWAYS CURRENT, if you’re making the effort to provide information here.
Difficult to convey tone still, but can be bridged by interacting with the IWT real-time via Q&A.
Message amplification through the IWT provides more opportunities to confirm a threat

18. Questions?
Dennis Cavanaugh Melissa Huffman Jennifer Dunn Mark Fox