NOAA Chief Says Communications Policy Is Under Review, May Lead to Improved Media Contact

•Report on visit to the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (March 26)

In a letter dated May 17, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Administrator Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr. responded to most of the questions sent to him in early April requesting clarification on NOAA’s communications policies for issuing tsunami warnings using the major mass media.

The letter reiterates some of what we already knew about how NOAA and the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (PTWC) react to suspected tsunamis by issuing bulletins over a large network of electronic services.

But Lautenbacher also states: “Since the December 26, 2004, tsunami, NOAA’s Public Affairs Office has been reviewing, and updating, its procedures for notifying the media in the event of another large tsunami in the Pacific. Several procedure changes are underway, or under consideration, including issuance of media advisories (in coordination with civil authorities) in addition to the tsunami bulletins.”

It’s possible I missed it in the past five months, but this is the first definitive statement I can recall that mentions what likely is a sweeping reexamination and revamping of NOAA’s communications protocols.

This obviously is a positive development and should temper somewhat the criticism directed at Lautenbacher and his agency for their early defense of protocols and procedures in place on December 26, 2004. On January 11, in a visit to the PTWC, Lautenbacher called the staff’s actions “excellent” and, according to a Honolulu Star-Bulletin story on his visit, faithful to the warning procedures in place.

It now appears new warning procedures are in the works, which is the bottom-line outcome this web log has advocated since January 2.

Lautenbacher’s letter follows; my comments are not inserted between his paragraphs but instead are referenced where appropriate within his text and listed following the letter.

Dear Mr. Carlson:

Thank you for your letter regarding the tsunami of December 26, 2004, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) media response.

NOAA recognizes the media as an important conduit of information in times of natural disasters. The Pacific and West Coast/Alaska Tsunami Warning Centers, like all of NOAA’s National Weather Service (NWS) offices, maintains procedures for communicating watches, warnings, and bulletins to the media via high speed electronic means.

Many members of the international media receive bulletins and warnings through our Family of Services subscriptions, NOAA Weather Wire, the Emergency Managers Weather Information Network, and through the Emergency Alert System. Warnings and watches are delivered with the highest priority on these systems. Customers, including the media, set subsequent priority for viewing, alerting for, or displaying products. [1]

Information in bulletins, particularly words capable of causing a public response, is crafted with the help of civil authorities in the potentially affected areas. In the case of international products, NOAA must be especially diligent about coordinating the wording of bulletins and warnings to avoid interfering with the sovereign authority of foreign governments. This is especially true with the tsunami products. Compared to severe weather events, the science of tsunami warnings is still imprecise. [2]

No NOAA or NWS policy prohibits a forecast office or center from proactively contacting media regarding a watch, warning, or bulletin. However, NOAA policy requires our offices to treat all entities “fair and equitably,” (to view the policy, see http://www.noaa.gov/partnershippolicy/). A pool operation of the type you mention is used by NOAA’s National Hurricane Center. [3]

We must remember not all countries in the Indian Ocean transmit tide gauge data, and only a few water level gauges transmit data from the region. Without such data, or a tsunami-detecting buoy, NOAA scientists have no way to detect or verify whether a tsunami was generated.

Since the December 26, 2004, tsunami, NOAA’s Public Affairs Office has been reviewing, and updating, its procedures for notifying the media in the event of another large tsunami in the Pacific. Several procedure changes are underway, or under consideration, including issuance of media advisories (in coordination with civil authorities) in addition to the tsunami bulletins. [4]

With respect to your question about the decrease in lag time between the earthquake events of December 26, 2004, and March 28, 2005, and their respective tsunami information bulletins, the difference is due to a number of changes, including the following:

• Affected countries in the Indian Ocean requested, and the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (PTWC) as well as the Japan Meteorological Agency agreed to provide, interim warning guidance to the region until it establishes its own warning capabilities;
• The initial estimated magnitude for the March 28, 2005, event was 8.5. The initial estimate for the December 26, 3004, event was 8.0, reevaluated at 8.5, 65 minutes after the earthquake occurred. [5]

The initial bulletin issued on March 28, 2005, indicated the earthquake had the potential to generate a tsunami. The additional procedures designed for the Indian Ocean and implemented by the scientists at the (PTWC) on March 28, 2005, are appropriate given our experience with the December 26, 2004, event and our long experience with international tsunami warning responsibilities in the Pacific. [6]

We share the same goal of saving lives. I appreciate your concerns and comments. Should you have any further questions, please contact NOAA’s Public Affairs Director, Jordan St. John, at (202) 482-6090.

Sincerely,

/signature/
Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr.
Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere

cc: Senator Daniel K. Inouye

Comments

[1] Inarguably, NOAA and the NWS have a vast array of electronic networks with which to disseminate tsunami bulletins, but as noted in the list of questions sent to Lautenbacher, there’s reason to question whether the media act universally upon the bulletins after they’ve been sent. One Honolulu journalist says the PTWC’s bulletins are inserted automatically and unobtrusively into the news wire that services Hawaii’s media, including broadcast stations, with no special notification to alert newsrooms. Lautenbacher’s letter does not answer the question pertinent to this issue: “Are urgent tsunami-related messages differentiated in any way from the routine?” The ultimate differentiation for warnings about impending calamitous events would be a telephone call made under pre-coordinated and rehearsed protocols to a handful of key media outlets with world-wide communication capabilities. Point [2] below shows that considerable coordination would be required internationally.

[2] March 23 and 25 posts to this blog highlighted the “control” issue. The final communiqué of the early-March Paris conference on the creation of a tsunami warning system for the Indian Ocean included this paragraph: “Agree that the Member States should have the responsibility to have control over the issuance of warning within their respective territories….” On its surface, this point seems like a reasonable acknowledgement of a Member State’s sovereignty, but does this mean that media such as the BBC and CNN are not to carry confirmed reports of a tsunami that is approaching the shores of a Member State? More thinking on the “control” issue is indicated.

[3] Lautenbacher disavows the existence of a NWS policy that “won’t allow” the PTWC to directly contact the news media via the telephone. Center Director Charles McCreery first alluded to a possible prohibition during my March 25 visit, a report of which is linked above. Since we must take Lautenbacher at his word that no such prohibition exists, we’re left to examine what his admonition “to treat all (media) entities ‘fair and equitably’” really means. I don't think it means that since you can't call everyone, you can't call anyone. His acknowledgement that media pools already are standard fare for NOAA at the National Hurricane Center should result in NOAA considering them for the issuance of tsunami warnings.

[4] This is the letter’s most important paragraph in my estimation. NOAA clearly has backed away from the mindset that drove Lautenbacher’s testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation at its February 2 hearings on S.50, The Tsunami Preparedness Act of 2005. As noted in a February 3 post, Lautenbacher’s testimony contained the following in a space of four paragraphs on page 4: “It is not the Center’s responsibility to issue local tsunami warnings from seismic events outside of the United States.” “NOAA Tsunami Warning Centers have no authority or responsibility to issue tsunami warnings for the Indian Ocean basin.” “As the Indian Ocean is outside the NOAA tsunami area of responsibility, NOAA Tsunami Warning Centers have no procedures in place to issue a warning for this region.” Authorized or not, NOAA obviously has a different stance today than it did within the first two months after the tsunami. The ongoing review of its procedures is a good development.

[5] and [6] Not to hammer this point to death, but as noted in a March 30 post, scientists acknowledged after the March 28 earthquake that quakes of 8.0 magnitude are generally known to be potentially tsunami-producing. I respectfully recommend that NOAA put less energy into explaining away its actions on December 26 and vigorously pursue the aforementioned policy review.

Summary

Admiral Lautenbacher has clarified some points and opened other issues for continued examination. The fact that a policy review is ongoing suggests there’s still time for outsiders to influence the outcome.

The issue of Member States’ sovereignty over tsunami warnings within their territories is thorny, but national sovereignty in this century isn’t what it used to be. Giving here and there on that point in favor of allowing life-saving messages to be transmitted into one’s country might just be the most noble thing a president or national sovereign could do for his or her people.

I thank Admiral Lautenbacher for addressing most of the points in my April letter. Now that the policy review has been officially mentioned, it can be the focus of this blog and the efforts of others to improve tsunami communications. I invite readers to post your comments on Lautenbacher's letter by clicking the link below.

Restating the Tsunami Warning Issues & Questions as NOAA Shifts Focus to '05 Hurricane Season

•Report on visit to the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (March 26)

As the December tsunami continues to fade into the background buzz, NOAA Administrator Conrad Lautenbacher Jr. and his associates have been all over the media this week with their forecasts for hurricane season, which begins in three weeks. Regions vulnerable to hurricanes – the Gulf and East Coast states and Hawaii – are well served by NOAA’s work in hurricane forecasting and tracking.

I’m sure NOAA has not lost interest in learning the lessons of the tsunami so procedures can be improved. Any perceived criticism of NOAA here is not directed at the agency’s scientific capabilities. We’ve been focused on what NOAA does with the information gathered from its science – specifically, whether current policies and practices allow communication of tsunami warnings via the news media, which arguably represent the fastest channel to populations in danger thousands of miles away.

Because we have reason to believe policies do exist that prevent the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (PTWC) from directly contacting the news media (see report on my visit to the Center, linked above), the following 10 questions were sent to Admiral Lautenbacher in April. I trust that someone is attending to the answers, even as the agency works to raise awareness about the hurricane threat.

Here are the questions in the April 5 letter to Admiral Lautenbacher:

• Is there a policy that deliberately curtails PTWC contact with the media?
• If so, where is that policy to be found in writing?
• Just how does the Center send tsunami alerts to the news media? What specific channels are used and how do they operate?
• Which media receive these messages? Which organizations are on the recipient list?
• Are any media recipients outside the PTWC's traditional area of responsibility -- the Pacific Basin? Are any Indian Ocean regional media on the list?
• Have recipients been added since December 26?
• Are urgent tsunami-related messages differentiated in any way from the routine? If so, how is attention drawn to them? (One Honolulu journalist in a position to know says PTWC bulletins are inserted automatically and unobtrusively into the Associated Press's "state" wire, with no special notification to alert newsrooms that they're there.)
• Is a formal review of communications policy underway at NOAA arising from the December and March earthquakes?
• What changes in communications policy or PTWC standard operating communications procedures have been initiated since December 26?
• Scientists didn’t transmit a bulletin about a presumed tsunami in December until 65 minutes after the earthquake; that lag time was shortened to 19 minutes on March 28. Did a policy change at NOAA, NWS and/or PTWC result in the shorter time?

NOAA In No Hurry To Respond, but Get This: Inouye's Office Has Been Waiting for 3.5 Years!

"I'll check." That was the totality of a NOAA staffer's response to my inquiry about when to expect an answer from Admiral Lautenbacher to my April 5 letter. Call me crazy, but I thought the issues we've been discussing had an urgency about them and that an answer might come rather quickly.

But then I got this note from a staffer in Senator Daniel Inouye's office about what to expect from NOAA: "...the senator would be pleased to make an inquiry on your behalf, but please keep in mind that I am still waiting on NOAA reports the senator asked for about 3 1/2 years ago."

Three and one-half years? Is that the way it works in Washington these days? One of the Senate's longest-serving members has been waiting three and one-half years to get a report out of NOAA?

And I'm getting antsy after five weeks. That's almost funny.

Honolulu's Mayor Weighs In, Says He'll Write Senator Inouye re NOAA Media-Contact Reform

•Report on visit to the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (March 26)
•May 9 Update: Still waiting on Lautenbacher letter (see April 28)

Office of the Mayor
City and County of Honolulu

April 27, 2005

Dear Doug,

Thank you for your letter of April 17, 2005. At your suggestion, I will be happy to write Senator Inouye asking him to support communications reform within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (PTWC).

Given the devastating travesty that occurred in the Indian Ocean region on December 26, 2004, any way to improve early warning should be instituted.

Thank you for alerting me to this opportunity, as I am pleased to assist.

Sincerely,

/signature/
MUFI HANNEMANN
Mayor

MediaChannel.org Boosts this Blog's Visibility**

•Report on visit to the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (March 26)

Danny Schechter is a television producer and independent filmmaker who writes and speaks about media issues. He’s editor and "blogger in chief" of MediaChannel.org.

The TSUNAMI LESSONS blog came to his attention after he published a March 30 column on his NewsDissector.org site titled Tsunami Questions, Few Answers. One question we're both interested in is how the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center uses the news media to communicate tsunami messages to populations in danger. Turns out, it doesn't. (See above link to the report on my visit to the Center.)

Danny has enthusiastically supported our search for answers and asked me to write a commentary for MediaChannel.org. It’s currently (5/2) headlined at that site’s home page, with a link to the commentary: The Media Are Excluded from Transmitting Tsunami Warnings, and They Don’t Care.

** FOR EXAMPLE: Saying "it still rankles to know that the deaths could have been prevented," Indian Online Journalism quotes the MediaChannel.org commentary in an item titled "the death game".

Mahalo for your support, Danny.

Meanwhile, the wait continues for Admiral Lautenbacher's response to the request he revoke policies that inhibit direct distribution of tsunami warnings to the news media (see April 28 post). (UPDATE ON 5/5: Still waiting.)

Doug Carlson
Honolulu, HI