Open-File Report 2006-1224

Summary of the Stakeholders Workshop to Develop a National Volcano Early Warning System (NVEWS) By Marianne Guffanti, William E. Scott, Carolyn L. Driedger, and John W. Ewert Open-File Report Series 2006-1224 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Dirk A. Kempthorne, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2006 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/ Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/ Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. 2 Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………………….…..……….… .......4 Workshop Objectives………………………………………………………………….…….….…..…. ..6 Workshop Attendees…………………………………………………………………….…….…….…. .7 Major Findings and Recommendations of the Workshop………………………………………………7 Crisis Response…………………………………………….........................................................7 Hazard Messages and Information Exchange ............................................................................8 Permitting for Instrument Installation on Federal Lands ...........................................................9 Regional Considerations……………………………………………………………… ............10 Community Involvement – Beyond Warning Messages………………………………...........10 Post-Workshop Activities.....................................................................................................................11 Workshop Agenda................................................................................................................................12 Figures Figure 1. Map of priority volcano targets for NVEWS monitoring improvements………...........6 Tables Table 1. List of workshop attendees ....................................................................................................15 3 SUMMARY OF THE STAKEHOLDERS WORKSHOP TO DEVELOP A NATIONAL VOLCANO EARLY WARNING SYSTEM (NVEWS) Portland, Oregon, 22-23 February 2006 Convened by the U.S. Geological Survey and Consortium of U.S. Volcano Observatories INTRODUCTION The importance of investing in monitoring, mitigation, and preparedness before natural hazards occur has been amply demonstrated by recent disasters such as the Indian Ocean Tsunami in December 2004 and Hurricane Katrina in August 2005. Playing catch-up with hazardous natural phenomena such as these limits our ability to work with public officials and the public to lessen adverse impacts. With respect to volcanic activity, the starting point of effective pre-event mitigation is monitoring capability sufficient to detect and diagnose precursory unrest so that communities at risk have reliable information and enough time to respond to hazards with which they may be confronted. Recognizing that many potentially dangerous U.S. volcanoes have inadequate or no ground-based monitoring, the U.S Geological Survey (USGS) Volcano Hazards Program (VHP) and partners recently evaluated U.S. volcano-monitoring capabilities and published “An Assessment of Volcanic Threat and Monitoring Capabilities in the United States: Framework for a National Volcano Early Warning System (NVEWS)” (online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1164/). Results of the NVEWS volcanic threat and monitoring assessment are being used to guide long-term improvements to the national volcano-monitoring infrastructure operated by the USGS and affiliated groups. The NVEWS report identified the need to convene a workshop of a broad group of stakeholders – such as representatives of emergency- and land-management agencies at the Federal, State, and local levels and the aviation sector – to solicit input about implementation of NVEWS and their specific information requirements. Accordingly, an NVEWS Stakeholders Workshop was held in Portland, Oregon, on 22-23 February 2006. A summary of the workshop is presented in this document. Development of the NVEWS assessment and implementation framework was guided by CUSVO, the Consortium of U.S. Volcano Observatories. The principal CUSVO members are the Federal, academic, and State agencies directly and formally involved in observatory operations – viz., the USGS, University of Washington, University of Alaska, University of Utah, University of Hawaii, Advanced National Seismic System, Earthscope Program of the National Science Foundation (NSF), Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, and Yellowstone National Park. The NVEWS evaluation of monitoring capabilities is based on a systematic assessment of threats posed by all of the 169 geologically active U.S. volcanic centers. The methodology involves scoring volcanic threat for each volcano as the combination of various hazards factors (destructive natural phenomena produced by a volcano) and exposure factors (people and property exposed to the hazards). Based on the distribution of scores, five threat groups are identified ranging from Very High to Very Low. For each threat group, the commensurate level of monitoring that should be in place before the onset of an unrest crisis or eruptive activity is defined. The most threatening volcanoes, those near communities and transportation infrastructure (ground and air) and with a history of frequent and violent eruptions, need to be well monitored in real time with an extensive suite of instrument types to detect the earliest symptoms of unrest and to reliably forecast behavior 4 of the volcano. Waiting until unrest escalates to augment monitoring capabilities at these high- threat volcanoes puts people (including scientists in the field) and property at undue risk. Remote, isolated, or less frequently erupting volcanoes that nevertheless can pose hazards to air-traffic corridors require sufficient monitoring capability with ground-based instruments to detect and track unrest in real-time so that other agencies responsible for enroute flight safety can be kept apprised of the potential for explosive, ash-cloud-forming eruptions. Volcanoes that erupt infrequently and that pose little threat on the ground or in the air can be monitored by sparser networks and surveillance with meteorological satellites. In the NVEWS monitoring assessment, the current monitoring level at each volcano is compared to the level indicated by its threat score to identify those volcanoes with significant monitoring gaps that require improvements (e.g., much of the Cascade Range) and highlights those that have no ground-based monitoring whatsoever (for example, parts of Alaska and the Northern Mariana Islands). Priority targets for monitoring improvements are dispersed throughout the United States, including in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (Figure 1). At the time of the report’s publication in April 2005, PRIORITY NVEWS TARGETS were: • 5 volcanoes currently or recently in eruption (Mount St. Helens in Washington, Kilauea in Hawaii, Anatahan in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, CNMI) or exhibiting heightened unrest (Mauna Loa in Hawaii, Mount Spurr in Alaska). After publication of the NVEWS report, Augustine Volcano in Alaska erupted from January to April 2006, and Anatahan stopped erupting in September 2005; both remain in states of heightened unrest as of July 2006; • 13 very-high-threat volcanoes with insufficient monitoring (Rainier, Hood, Shasta, South Sister, Lassen, Crater Lake, Baker, Glacier Peak, and Newberry in the Cascade Range and Redoubt, Makushin, Akutan, and Augustine in Alaska); • 19 high- and moderate-threat volcanoes that have high aviation-threat scores and no real-time ground-based monitoring (Semisopochnoi, Seguam, Kiska, Vsevidof, Yantarni, Little Sitkin, Recheschnoi, Cleveland, Amukta, Bogoslof, Amak, Kasatochi, and Yunaska in Alaska, and Pagan, Agrigan, Alamagan, Guguan, Farallon de Pajaros, and Asuncion in the CNMI); and • An additional 21 under-monitored volcanoes in Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Alaska, the CNMI, and Wyoming. The NVEWS report identifies five main elements for effective implementation: • Ensure that the most threatening volcanoes are properly instrumented before the onset of unrest; • Evaluate monitoring data and provide volcanological expertise and rapid event notification during periods of escalating unrest and eruption at well-monitored volcanoes on a 24/7 basis; • Improve both content of and access to hazard information products; create an NVEWS website that will post daily status reports covering all monitored volcanoes, including graphics and plots of monitoring data and links to related sites and official warning products; • Create a National Volcano Data Center to archive diverse kinds of monitoring and related data in support of research to better forecast the onset, style, and duration of eruptive activity; and • Efficiently utilize monitoring resources across agencies and institutions. 5 Figure 1. Map of priority volcano targets for NVEWS monitoring improvements. WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES No effort to provide reliable forecasting of volcanic hazardscan succeed without cooperation of land managers where networks are sited and hazards originate. Furthermore,

Load more