[EAS] NWS Impact Based Warnings

[Mike McCarthy]

Suzanne,

It doesn't work that way with the NWS. They're a direct to the public 
provider and they have their own warning standards. Some states use the 
NWS for a variety of tasks related to or in support of EAS. I support 
that ancillary role without question.They provide a very useful tool in 
the EAS message dissemination toolbox.

We monitor NWS for relaying only TOR's and FFW's these days. We used to 
forward Blizzard Warnings until  a couple which didn't pan out and they 
were issued days in advance. Hardly short fuse. I will say the Blizzard 
of 2011, which had hurricane force winds off Lake Michigan, was a true 
unquestionable blizzard by anyone's standard.

The issue is the methodology they have chosen to create the ultimately 
disseminated warning messages.  Such as the polygons covering only 
sections of a county when it's expected the whole county will ultimately 
be impacted. Thus necessitating multiple warnings for the same county 
for the same event.  Especially where distinct SVR warnings are first 
issued for NW and SW corners as part of larger polygons. Then activity 
passes through west to east through the whole county. That could be four 
SVR warnings for one county.  HUH?

So while I applaud them for tailoring the message to suit the 
threat/hazard, it's the messages in totality and the polygon outline 
policy which needs more review.

MM

On 2/5/2013 7:47 PM, suzanne at mab.org wrote:
> Remember that, aside from EAN, all alert codes are voluntary. We dumped SVRs in Maine last July. It was a blissfully quiet summer, first time in more than 15 years. And the relatively few TOR warnings we receive didn't get lost amid the 25, 30 or more SVRs issued on a given afternoon. The fact that NOAA did not include SVR in its list of CMAS/WEA-actionable events was telling. Work with your state SECC on a rewrite of your state EAS plan.
>
> -Suzanne Goucher
>
> On Feb 5, 2013, at 2:46 PM, "Mike McCarthy"<towers at mre.com>  wrote:
>