U.S. Geological Survey 2018 Kīlauea Volcano eruption response in Hawai'i—After-action review

Williams, Dee; Avery, Victoria F.; Coombs, Michelle L.; Cox, Dale A.; Horwitz, Lief R.; McBride, Sara K.; McClymont, Ryan J.; Moran, S. C.

doi:10.3133/ofr20201041

Cited by 13 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The outcomes of a post-response assessment will help in re-writing procedures, improving monitoring networks, re-organizing teams and staffing, and determining which interagency linkages were critical to success. Occasionally, the assessment can be undertaken by an external group, in association with observatory staff and associates (e.g., Williams et al 2020). Other times, a report might be written by neutral observers with the aim of analyzing the crisis (Fiske 1984;Voight 1990).…”

Section: Post-response Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines for volcano-observatory operations during crises: recommendations from the 2019 volcano observatory best practices meeting

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In November 2019, the fourth Volcano Observatory Best Practices workshop was held in Mexico City as a series of talks, discussions, and panels. Volcanologists from around the world offered suggestions for ways to optimize volcano-observatory crisis operations. By crisis, we mean unrest that may or may not lead to eruption, the eruption itself, or its aftermath, all of which require analysis and communications by the observatory. During a crisis, the priority of the observatory should be to acquire, process, analyze, and interpret data in a timely manner. A primary goal is to communicate effectively with the authorities in charge of civil protection. Crisis operations should rely upon exhaustive planning in the years prior to any actual unrest or eruptions. Ideally, nearly everything that observatories do during a crisis should be envisioned, prepared, and practiced prior to the actual event. Pre-existing agreements and exercises with academic and government collaborators will minimize confusion about roles and responsibilities. In the situation where planning is unfinished, observatories should prioritize close ties and communications with the land and civil-defense authorities near the most threatening volcanoes.To a large extent, volcanic crises become social crises, and any volcano observatory should have a communication strategy, a lead communicator, regular status updates, and a network of colleagues outside the observatory who can provide similar messaging to a public that desires consistent and authoritative information. Checklists permit tired observatory staff to fulfill their duties without forgetting key communications, data streams, or protocols that need regular fulfilment (Bretton et al. Volcanic Unrest. Advances in Volcanology, 2018; Newhall et al. Bull Volcanol 64:3–20, 2020). Observatory leaders need to manage staff workload to prevent exhaustion and ensure that expertise is available as needed. Event trees and regular group discussions encourage multi-disciplinary thinking, consideration of disparate viewpoints, and documentation of all group decisions and consensus. Though regulations, roles and responsibilities differ around the world, scientists can justify their actions in the wake of an eruption if they document their work, are thoughtful and conscientious in their deliberations, and carry out protocols and procedures developed prior to volcanic unrest. This paper also contains six case studies of volcanic eruptions or observatory actions that illustrate some of the topics discussed herein. Specifically, we discuss Ambae (Vanuatu) in 2017–2018, Kīlauea (USA) in 2018, Etna (Italy) in 2018, Bárðarbunga (Iceland) in 2014, Cotopaxi (Ecuador) in 2015, and global data sharing to prepare for eruptions at Nyiragongo (Democratic Republic of Congo). A Spanish-language version of this manuscript is provided as Additional file 1.

show abstract

Section: Post-response Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines for volcano-observatory operations during crises: recommendations from the 2019 volcano observatory best practices meeting

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the fall of 2018, the decision was made by the National Park Service and the US Geological Survey to relocate the HVO operation and offices to Hilo, approximately 30 miles to the northeast from Kīlauea caldera. This relocation meant that for the first time in its 110year history, scientists would no longer be making direct field observations from the edge of Kīlauea summit (Williams et al 2020).…”

Section: Management Response To Kīlauea Volcano Eruption Of 2018 and ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Threats go both ways in the management of volcanic protected areas

Tormey¹,

Casadevall²

2022

Parks Stewardship Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Volcanoes are true wonders of the planet. Managers of volcanic protected areas face the dual challenge of protecting the volcanic landscape from overuse and damage, and protecting visitors and local residents from the range of geophysical risks presented by volcanic activity. Without clear recognition of how the volcano works, there is the potential that the risk of hazardous conditions (e.g., eruptions, gas emissions, fumarolic activity, landslides, seismic activity, and other volcanic hazards) may not be adequately addressed in the site's management plan. Two examples illustrate current best practice in response to this management challenge. Managers at Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument face a decision on what civil engineering measures to take in response to a large lake formed by a debris avalanche during the 1980 eruption that poses cata strophic flood and debris flow risks to more than 50,000 downstream residents. Managers of Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park in Hawai'i faced imminent threats to residents of the island during eruptions of Kīlauea volcano in 2018 and 2020, which also destroyed a research observatory and park visitor facilities. The management response was to fully close the area near the volcanic vent and move the research center to the city of Hilo, 30 miles northeast of the Kīlauea summit.

show abstract

“…Our overall goal was to provide as much reliable information about landslide behavior as possible to inform decisions being made by others, namely, emergency managers overseeing search and recovery operations. The objective was not reconnaissance or exploratory science but rather science to support decision making, similar to that used during volcano eruptions (e.g., Williams et al 2020). This differed from typical postevent factfinding missions.…”

Section: Landslide Monitoring Purposementioning

confidence: 99%

When hazard avoidance is not an option: lessons learned from monitoring the postdisaster Oso landslide, USA

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On 22 March 2014, a massive, catastrophic landslide occurred near Oso, Washington, USA, sweeping more than 1 km across the adjacent valley flats and killing 43 people. For the following 5 weeks, hundreds of workers engaged in an exhaustive search, rescue, and recovery effort directly in the landslide runout path. These workers could not avoid the risks posed by additional large-scale slope collapses. In an effort to ensure worker safety, multiple agencies cooperated to swiftly deploy a monitoring and alerting system consisting of sensors, automated data processing and web-based display, along with defined communication protocols and clear calls to action for emergency management and search personnel. Guided by the principle that an accelerating landslide poses a greater threat than a steadily moving or stationary mass, the system was designed to detect ground motion and vibration using complementary monitoring techniques. Near real-time information was provided by continuous GPS, seismometers/geophones, and extensometers. This information was augmented by repeat-assessment techniques such as terrestrial and aerial laser scanning and time-lapse photography. Fortunately, no major additional landsliding occurred. However, we did detect small headscarp failures as well as slow movement of the remaining landslide mass with the monitoring system. This was an exceptional response situation and the lessons learned are applicable to other landslide disaster crises. They underscore the need for cogent landslide expertise and ready-to-deploy monitoring equipment, the value of using redundant monitoring techniques with distinct goals, the benefit of clearly defined communication protocols, and the importance of continued research into forecasting landslide behavior to allow timely warning.

show abstract

U.S. Geological Survey 2018 Kīlauea Volcano eruption response in Hawai'i—After-action review

Cited by 13 publications

References 0 publications

Guidelines for volcano-observatory operations during crises: recommendations from the 2019 volcano observatory best practices meeting

Guidelines for volcano-observatory operations during crises: recommendations from the 2019 volcano observatory best practices meeting

Threats go both ways in the management of volcanic protected areas

When hazard avoidance is not an option: lessons learned from monitoring the postdisaster Oso landslide, USA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About