Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
where radio and cable television are not locally controlled, the EAS notiication was not picked
up and broadcast.
At approximately 9:11 PM PDT, the CSWC received a second message from the WC/ATWC,
cancelling the tsunami warning after conirmation that a tsunami had not been generated by
the earthquake. The CWSC transmitted the notiication of the cancellation via CALWAS to the
surrounding communities (noncoastal counties), and the CLETS network notiied local govern-
ment agencies in the potential tsunami zone.
THE EVENT AND RESPONSE IN WASHINGTON STATE
Just as California was affected by the tsunami warning on June 14, the state of Washington
was also under alert because the WC/ATWC notiied it of its assessment for the generation of
possible tsunami waves at approximately 7:55 PM PDT. Upon the arrival of this warning, the
Washington State EAS, with input from websites and buoy data, decided to inform local of-
icials of the warning of tsunami activity. Unlike the case in California, oficials in Washington
found the NOAA message transmitted through the WC/ATWC to be clear and had no prob-
lems deciphering the message. Minutes later, the news media picked up the message from
the PTWC, seemingly contradicting the initial tsunami warning. This conlicting message in
addition to the unoficial sources commenting on the progression of the events to the public
caused much confusion among the people of Washington. Upon the next hour, Emergency
Operation Center (EOC) oficials in Washington contacted local law enforcement divisions and
other emergency contacts, while the NWS transmitted the primary tsunami warning via EAS
to the counties under alert. The warning was also broadcast on television and AM/FM radio
stations in the surrounding area. In the state of Washington, under “Home Rule,” local oficials
are responsible for evacuation orders. Several counties did choose to enact evacuation orders
for their communities through local EAS systems. At 8:40, an oficial State EMD Public Informa-
tion Oficer spoke to several radio and television stations regarding the evacuation sugges-
tions, reminding citizens and oficials that the warning of evacuation was only set in place for
those living “on the beach” or in “low lying areas.” Approximately 20 minutes later, the State
EOC received the tsunami cancellation message, which it transmitted to the public via NAWAS
5 minutes later.
Fortunately, no major tsunami occurred and the events of June 14 served as a “stress test”
for the notiication system technology, the training of warning personnel, and the response of
the public to a potential tsunami. The following were important lessons learned:
•
The format and content of the information and warning statement from the two TWCs
with shared responsibilities for coast lines in the Atlantic and Paciic basin can cause
confusion. Tijuana in Baja California was not at risk, but San Diego and Coronado, a few
miles to the north in California, were at risk.
•
Managing information low from multiple sources (e.g., media, warning centers,
NAWAS, etc.) and reducing confusion requires trained and dedicated staff and the
