1. UTILIZING INPUT FROM EMERGENCY MANAGERS, THE MEDIA, THE PUBLIC AND LOCAL NWS METEOROLOGISTS TO BETTER COMMUNICATE SURGE AND OTHER STORM HAZARDS Betty Hearn Morrow SocResearch Miami for Eastern Research Group and NCAR Jeffrey K. Lazo National Center for Atmospheric Research Jamie Rhome and Robbie Berg National Hurricane Center Lou Nadeau, Evan Fago and Linda Girardi Eastern Research Group, Inc. Interdepartmental Hurricane Conference Tropical Cyclone Research Forum College Park, MD March 7, 2013 Presented via Go-to-Meeting

2. Background Research supported by:  HFIP Socio-Economic Working Group  NOAA Coastal Services Center Conducted through:  National Center for Atmospheric Research  Eastern Research Group, Inc.  SocResearch Miami Leadership: Jesse Feyen, National Ocean Service Jennifer Sprague, National Weather Service Richard Knabb, National Hurricane Center 2

3. OBJECTIVES To determine the concerns and needs of key stakeholders regarding storm surge and storm surge forecast communication To evaluate several prototype surge inundation graphics To begin to explore ways to improve storm track forecast communication To evaluate a prototype graphic for communicating potential damaging winds To evaluate a prototype graphic for communicating combined wind and track forecasts To evaluate a prototype graphic for communicating the arrival of tropical storm force winds 3

4. TASKS Develop, test, and refine storm surge and wind prototype graphics – One-on-one webinars, interviews with key stakeholders – Discussions with groups of EMs and NWS personnel – Exhibit at 2012 AMS Weatherfest – Booth and survey at 2012 National Hurricane Conference Develop survey questions for key stakeholders – OMB approval – Pre-test Conduct 6 surveys (including add-ons to other surveys) 4

5. SURVEYS Coastal EMs TC Online Survey (NCAR) – NC to TX – N = 53, 45% response rate Coastal EMs ET TC Online Survey (NCAR) – Atlantic, Gulf, Pacific, Alaska, Hawaii – 90% vulnerable to tropical cyclones – N = 102, 52% response rate Coastal Broadcast Mets ET TC Online Survey (NCAR) – 4 major local TV stations (ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC) in each market – Atlantic, Gulf, Pacific, Alaska, Hawaii – 82% vulnerable to TC, 90% vulnerable to ET – N = 51, 42% response rate 5

6. SURVEYS (continued) Coastal Public ET TC Telephone Survey (NCAR) – Atlantic, Gulf, Pacific, Alaska, Hawaii – N = 900, 59% completion rate (of 1525 screened) – 38% ET, 30% TC, both 32% Coastal Public ET TC Online Survey (ERG) – Atlantic, Gulf, Pacific, Alaska, Hawaii – N = 459, 51,000 emails, 84% cooperation rate NWS WCM ET TC Survey (ERG) – Eastern, Southern, Western, Pacific, Alaska – N = 54, 77% response rate 6

7. CONCERNS Public – Concerned about severe coastal storms Most concern about wind and tornadoes – Often not aware of surge and flooding potential EMs – Very concerned about storm surge – Most believe the public does not understands its surge risk Media – Very concerned about wind and storm surge – Believe only about 1/3 of public understands its risk 7

8. POSITIVE SUPPORT FOR STORM SURGE WARNING 76% EMs TC survey 87% EMs ET-TC survey 95% Broadcast mets 72% Public telephone survey 94% Public online survey 77% NWS WCMs Most support the label “Storm Surge Warning” 8

9. REASONS FOR STORM SURGE WARNING Serious lack of public understanding of surge Too much focus on categories Would increase public attention to surge Would result in greater emphasis in EM decisions Would lead to better communication of surge threat in weathercasts COUNTER ARGUMENTS: Public familiar with current coastal flood warnings Already too many warnings Concern about NWS’s ability to provide reliable, timely information at necessary spatial and temporal scale 9

10. PREFERRED DESCRIPTIONS FOR EXPRESSING DEPTH OF WATER 83% EMs – height of water above land 82% Broadcast media – height of water above land 66% Public Tel. Survey – feet above ground level 87% Public On-Line Survey – above ground level 86% WCMs – above ground level Other suggestions: – Ocean water above land – Depth of water on land 10

11. ASSESSMENT OF PROTOTYPES 1 Storm Surge Warning Area Map 3 Storm Surge Inundation Maps 2 Potential for Damaging Winds Maps 3 Current Forecast Track Cone and alternatives 1 Arrival of Storm Force Winds Map 11

12. STORM SURGE WARNING AREA Criteria: Ease of understanding 92% by EMs 96% by Media 63% by WCMs Effectiveness 96% Public 12

13. STORM SURGE INUNDATION MAP 13

14. STORM SURGE INUNDATION MAP 14

15. STORM SURGE INUNDATION MAP Criteria: Ease of understanding 86% by EMs 96% by Media 77% by Public 90% by WCMs Usefulness 84% by EMs 94% by Media 98% by Public 83% by WCMs The majority of respondents in all surveys preferred this map May affect evacuation decisions at both extremes Problems with using “low” to describe storm surge hazard 15

16. TRACK FORECAST CONES Criteria: Ease of understanding 64% by EMs 50% by WCMs 83% by Media Usefulness 84% by EMs 50% by WCMs 83% by Media Comments about too much information, too much jargon, confusing 16

17. TRACK FORECAST CONES Criteria: Ease of understanding 65% of EMs 72% of Media 50% of WCMs Usefulness 66% of EMs 69% of Media 40% of WCMs Research problem: non-equivalency to current cone and other characteristics that make comparison difficult 17

18. TRACK FORECAST CONES Evaluated on: Ease of understanding 70% of EMs 76% of Media 93% of Public 56% of WCMs Usefulness 72% of EMs 74% of Media 87% of Public 46% of WCMs 18

19. POTENTIAL FOR DAMAGING WINDS Criteria: Ease of understanding 91% of EMs 83% of media 99% of public 74% of WCMs Usefulness 94% of EMs 88% of media 99% of public 70% of WCMs Some concern that probabilities may be too low (10%-20%) 19

20. POTENTIAL FOR DAMAGING WINDS PLUS CONE Criteria: Ease of understanding 75% of EMs 62% of Media 95% of Public 57% of WCMs Usefulness 75% of EMs 64% of Media 55% of WCMs 20

21. POTENTIAL FOR DAMAGING WINDS PLUS CONE – LAND ONLY Criteria: Ease of understanding 75% of EMs 64% of Media 55% of WCMs 89% of Public Usefulness 75% of EMs 62% of Media 90% of Public 50% of WCMs Of the two maps, most preferred the one that showing the winds over both land and water 21

22. ARRIVAL OF TROPICAL STORM FORCE WINDS Criteria: Ease of understanding 83% of EMs 95% of Media 83% of Public 74% of WCMs Usefulness 81% of EMs 95% of Media 81% of Public 70% of WCMs Most public respondents were able to interpret correctly 22

23. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS Maps should be: – High resolution – Interactive Allow zooming to view neighborhood Mouse-overs with explanations – Usable on smart phones, etc. 23

24. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS (continued) NWS websites need to be more user friendly WFO websites are under-utilized by public Too many NWS products and too much text Timing of storm surge information is too late for EMs Timing of forecast products too close to media broadcast times 24

25. SUMMARY Strong support for Storm Surge Warning from all stakeholder groups Positive assessment of Storm Surge Warning Area Map Positive assessment of Storm Surge Inundation Map using multiple colors to show depth Strong support for Potential for Damaging Winds Map Strong support for Combined Winds and Cone (particularly from the public) Mixed review of Forecast Track Cone (current and alternatives) Strong support for Arrival of Tropical Storm Force Winds Map (especially from the media) 25

26. AREAS FOR FUTURE WORK Track forecast communication (cone?) Format and content of text products such as public advisory and Hurricane Local Statement Coordination and streamlining of TC and ET forecast products More user friendly web sites Interactive communication products 26

27. Four reports are available open access on UCAR OpenSky website: http://opensky.library.ucar.edu Please send comments or questions to: betty@bmorrow.com lazo@ucar.edu Linda.Girardi@erg.com 27