U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Open-File Report 2020–1041

U.S. Geological Survey 2018 Kilauea Volcano Eruption 

Response in Hawai’i—After-Action Review
Cover: U.S. Geological Survey scientist documenting an approximately 50-meter-high 

lava fountain at fissure 7 of the Kilauea Volcano, Island of Hawai’i, Hawai’i. Photograph 

by Brett Walker, volunteer with U.S. Geological Survey, May 27, 2018.
U.S. Geological Survey 2018 Kīlauea Volcano Eruption 

Response in Hawai'i—After-Action Review 

By Dee M. Williams, Vic F. Avery, Michelle L. Coombs, Dale A. Cox, Lief R. Horwitz, Sara K. McBride, 

Ryan J. McClymont, and Seth C. Moran

Open-File Report 2020-1041

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

DAVID BERNHARDT, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

James F. Reilly II, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2020

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth,

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit

https://www.usgs.gov/ or call 1–888–ASK–USGS (1–888–275–8747).

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications,

visit https:/store.usgs.gov.

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may

contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items

must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Williams, D.M., Avery, V.F., Coombs, M.L., Cox, D.A., Horwitz, L.R., McBride, S.K., McClymont, R.J., 

and Moran, S.C., 2020, U.S. Geological Survey 2018 Kīlauea Volcano eruption response in Hawai'i—

After-action review: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2020-1041, 56 p., 

https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20201041.

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)
iii

Contents

Contents ........................................................................................................................................................iii

Abbreviations.................................................................................................................................................vi

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................... 3

Description of the Event ............................................................................................................................. 3

Event Timeline ........................................................................................................................................... 5

Timeline by Date.................................................................................................................................... 5

U.S. Geological Survey Response Overview................................................................................................. 9

Science ...................................................................................................................................................... 9

Emergency Management and Administration........................................................................................... 13

External Communications ........................................................................................................................ 18

Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 20

After-Action Review Methods ................................................................................................................... 20

Survey Instrument Insights: What Went Well and Why? .......................................................................... 23

Summary of Survey Data Responses ...................................................................................................... 24

General Crisis Management (23 comments) ....................................................................................... 24

Incident Command System (5 comments)........................................................................................... 25

Safe Science Planning and Coordination (5 comments)...................................................................... 25

Data Acquisition and Management (9 comments) ............................................................................... 26

Application of UAS Technology (6 comments)..................................................................................... 27

Communications (18 comments) ......................................................................................................... 27

Survey Instrument Insights: What Can Be Improved and How?............................................................... 28

Planning (181 comments).................................................................................................................... 28

Issue 1: Absence of a Clear VSC Internal “Response Structure” ..................................................... 28

Issue 2: Better Integration of Volcano Science Center Staff into Response ..................................... 29

Issue 3: Lack of Understanding of Incident Command System and Federal Emergency

Management Agency ................................................................................................................. 29

Issue 4: Enhanced Workforce Planning............................................................................................ 29

Issue 5: Enhanced Safety................................................................................................................. 30

Issue 6: Enhanced Science Coordination......................................................................................... 31

Training (108 comments)..................................................................................................................... 31

Issue 7: Enhanced Onboard Training ............................................................................................... 31

Issue 8: Promote Deliberate Mentorship........................................................................................... 32

Communications (160 comments) ....................................................................................................... 32

Issue 9: Improve Standardization of Communications...................................................................... 32

Equipment and Resources (124 comments)........................................................................................ 33

Issue 10: Ensure Data Quality and Records Management............................................................... 33

Issue 11: Administration of Human Resources................................................................................. 34

Issue 12: Advanced Preparation for Equipment and Gear................................................................ 34

Excerpted Findings from Other Sources .................................................................................................. 34

Department of the Interior Strategic Sciences Group........................................................................... 35

Office of Communications and Publishing ........................................................................................... 35

Hawai'i Volcano Observatory Interactions with the National Park Service........................................... 36

Hawai'i County Civil Defense Debrief .................................................................................................. 36
iv

On the topic of Communications:...................................................................................................... 37

On the topic of Operations:............................................................................................................... 38

On the topic of Safety and Training: ................................................................................................. 39

Recommendations....................................................................................................................................... 39

Consolidated Recommendations by Topic ............................................................................................... 40

PLANNING .......................................................................................................................................... 40

Topic 1.0: Develop More Comprehensive Planning Documents (Aligns with Issues 1,10,11,

and 12)....................................................................................................................................... 40

Topic 2.0: Create a More Customized Fit Within the Incident Command System (Aligns with

Issues 2, 3, and 4) ..................................................................................................................... 43

Topic 3.0: Establish a Regional Hazards Coordinator (Aligns with Issues 2, 3, and 4).................... 44

Topic 4.0: Initiate Science Leadership Early (Aligns with Issues 5 and 6) ....................................... 45

Topic 5.0: Prioritize Safety in All Response Operations (Aligns with Issues 5 and 12).................... 46

TRAINING............................................................................................................................................ 46

Topic 6.0: Formalize Incident Response Training Protocols (Aligns with Issues 6 and 7) ............... 46

Topic 7.0: Enhance Volcano Science Center Interoperability (Aligns with Issues 6, 7, 8, and 9) .... 47

COMMUNICATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 48

Topic 8.0: Establish a Hazard Response Communication Plan (Aligns with Issue 9)...................... 48

Topic 9.0: Improve Situational Awareness Throughout the Entire Volcano Science Center

(Aligns with Issues 6 and 9) ....................................................................................................... 49

Topic 10.0: Initiate Adaptive Traditional and Social Media Procedural Guidelines Early (Aligns

with Issue 9)............................................................................................................................... 49

Topic 11.0: Consolidate Community Outreach Opportunities from 2018 experiences (Aligns

with Issue 9)............................................................................................................................... 50

EQUIPMENT AND RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 50

Topic 12.0: Ensure Facility Access and Better Coordination with the National Park Service

(Aligns with Issues 1, 2, 4,and 6) ............................................................................................... 50

Topic 13.0: Improve Collection and Dissemination of Field Data (Aligns with Issues 6, 9, and 10) . 50

Topic 14.0: Expand Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations Within the Volcano Science Center 

(Aligns with Issues 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, and 11) .................................................................................. 51

Topic 15:0 Enhance Flexible Administration of Human Resources During Disasters (Aligns with 

Issues 11 and 12) ...................................................................................................................... 51

Final Thoughts............................................................................................................................................. 55

Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................................... 56

References Cited......................................................................................................................................... 56

Figures

Figure 1. Photograph showing lava advancing west from fissure 7 of the Kīlauea Volcano on Leilani 

Avenue, with lava fountain in background, Puna District, Island of Hawai'i, Hawai'i` ..................................... 4

Figure 2. Photograph showing lava fountains as high as about 70 meters erupted from a new fissure

on the Kīlauea Volcano, Puna District, Island of Hawai'i, Hawai'i .................................................................. 6

Figure 3. Photograph showing Halema'uma'u crater rim and walls continue to slump inward and

downward with ongoing subsidence at the Kīlauea Volcano summit, Island of Hawai'i, Hawai'i.................... 6

Figure 4. Photograph taken from helicopter overflight of Lower East Rift Zone, Kīlauea Volcano,

Island of Hawai'i, Hawai'i ............................................................................................................................... 7
v 

Figure 5. Photograph showing acid-and-steam lava-haze (“laze”) plume where lava entered the

Pacific Ocean at Kapoho Bay resulting from the fissure 8 lava flow from Kīlauea Volcano, Island of

Hawai'i, Hawai'i.............................................................................................................................................. 8

Figure 6. Photograph showing Hawai'ian Volcano Observatory geologist measuring a temperature

of 103 degrees Celsius at a crack in Leilani Estates, Island of Hawai'i, Hawai'i .......................................... 10

Figure 7. Image showing lava flow coverage from Kīlauea Volcano, Island of Hawai'i, Hawai'i, as

reported through August 20, 2018 ............................................................................................................... 11

Figure 8. Preliminary image showing estimated lava thicknesses across the flow field, from Kīlauea 

Volcano, Island of Hawai'i, Hawai'i .............................................................................................................. 12

Figure 9. Schematic showing configuration of the emergency management structure for the Kīlauea 

Volcano eruption, including brief descriptions of the various responsibilities of key roles 1–11, Island of 

Hawai'i, Hawai'i, 2018.................................................................................................................................. 16

Figure 10. Photograph showing Hawai'i County Civil Defense Forward Operating Base check-in station in 

Puna, Island of Hawai'i, Hawai'i................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 11. Photograph showing one of a series of community meetings held in Pahoa High School 

cafeteria to brief residents from the District of Puna about the Lower East Rift Zone eruption of the

Kīlauea Volcano, Island of Hawai'i, Hawai'i ................................................................................................. 19

Figure 12. Pie diagram showing relative distribution, by home office, of respondents to survey of the

U.S. Geological Survey response to the 2018 Kīlauea Volcano eruption on the Island of Hawai'i,

Hawai'i ......................................................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 13. Pie diagram showing relative distribution of respondents, by the functional role they

played in the response office, to survey of the U.S. Geological Survey response to the 2018 Kīlauea 

Volcano eruption on the Island of Hawai'i.................................................................................................... 22

Figure 14. Graphs showing summary of clearly positive consensus of data responses to survey of

the U.S. Geological Survey response to the 2018 Kīlauea Volcano eruption on the Island of Hawai'i,

Hawai'i ......................................................................................................................................................... 23

Figure 15. U.S. Geological Survey Event Support Map landing and reference page for spatial data, 

applications, team notes, reports and other response information............................................................... 25

Table

Table 1. Summary of recommendations..................................................................................................... 53
vi 

Conversion Factors

U.S. customary units to International System of Units

Multiply By To obtain

Length

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

acre 4,047 square meter (m2)

acre 0.4047 hectare (ha)

Volume

cubic yard (yd3) 0.7646 cubic meter (m3) 

Flow rate

gallon per second (gal/s) 3.78541 liter per second (L/s)

International System of Units to U.S. customary units

Multiply By To obtain

Length

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

meter (m) 1.094 yard (yd) 

Area

square kilometer (km2) 247.1 Acre

square kilometer (km2) 0.3861 square mile (mi2)

Flow rate

square meter per second (m2/s) 10.7639 square foot per second (ft

2

/s) 

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F = (1.8 × °C) + 32.

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows:

°C = (°F – 32) / 1.8.

Abbreviations

CERT Community Emergency Response Team

CISM Crisis Incident Stress Management

CONUS Continental United States

COOP Continuity of Operations 

DISC Deputy Scientist-in-Charge 

DOI Department of the Interior

EOC Emergency Operations Center

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESM Event Support Team 

FAQ frequently asked questions 

FCO Federal Coordinating Officer
vii 

Abbreviations—Continued

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FOB Forward Operating Base 

GAR Green-amber-red alert system

GIRT Geospatial Information Response Team 

GIS geographic information system

GSA General Services Administration

HAVO Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park

HCCD Hawai'i County Civil Defense 

HiEMA Hawai'i Emergency Management Agency

HING Hawai'i National Guard

HREC Hazard Response Executive Committee

HVO Hawai'ian Volcano Observatory 

ICS Incident Command System 

IMAT Incident Management Assistance Team

IMT Incident Management Team

IT Information Technology

JIC Joint Information Center 

LERZ Lower East Rift Zone

lidar light detection and ranging 

M Magnitude 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NCAC National Civil Applications Center 

NGP National Geospatial Program

NHMA Natural Hazards Mission Area

NPS National Park Service

OCAP Office of Communications and Publishing 

OEI Office of Enterprise Information
viii

Abbreviations—Continued

OEM Office of Emergency Management

OMS Office of Management Services

PIERC Pacific Islands Ecological Research Center

PPE personal protective equipment

SIC Scientist-in-Charge 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SSG Strategic Sciences Group

UAS Unmanned Aircraft Systems

UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

UHH University of Hawai'i Hilo

USGS (or “the 

Bureau”)

U.S. Geological Survey 

VHP Volcano Hazards Program

VSC Volcano Science Center
1 

U.S. Geological Survey 2018 Kīlauea Volcano Eruption 

Response in Hawai'i—After-Action Review 

By Dee M. Williams1

, Vic. F. Avery2, Michelle L. Coombs3, Dale A. Cox4, Leif R. Horwitz5, 

Sara K. McBride6, Ryan J. McClymont7, and Seth C. Moran8

Executive Summary

Americans are more at risk from cascading natural hazard events than ever before, and 

volcanoes hold high potential for catastrophic loss. The response of the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) Hawai'ian Volcano Observatory (HVO) to the 2018 Kīlauea Volcano eruption

(hereinafter Kīlauea eruption) vividly demonstrates that dedicated civil servants play an

indispensable role in mitigating natural hazards and making our society a safer place to live. The

HVO, through its core staff and extended support network, responded to the Kīlauea eruption by 

courageously working through dangerous and exhausting conditions to save lives; reduce 

economic losses; and mitigate local, national, and international impacts with a variety of

adaptive hazard monitoring and emergency response activities.

The 2018 eruption lasted 107 days, and now ranks as Kīlauea’s most destructive event 

since 1790, and as one of the most costly volcanic disasters in U.S. history. Multiple 

simultaneous hazard events unfolded, including sustained seismic activity leading to collapse at 

the summit of Halema'uma'u crater and severe damage to the HVO facility, with additional 

eruption of lava in Kīlauea’s Lower East Rift Zone that progressively grew to a total of 24 

fissure openings. Eruptive activity became focused at fissure 8, where lava fountains reached 

heights of about 80 meters and formed a channel that ultimately entered the ocean at Kapoho 

Bay. The lava flow devastated surrounding communities, forcing approximately 2,500 people to 

evacuate their homes. 

Eleven HVO scientists were positioned 24 hours per day, 7 days per week (24/7), at the 

County Emergency Operations Center in Hilo. HVO also staffed the State Emergency 

Management Agency facility on O'ahu, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) Incident Management Assistance Team in Hilo. As considerable assistance arrived from 

beyond Hawai'i, the “extended HVO” expanded to involve other components of USGS and the 

Department of the Interior (DOI) to ensure continuity of operations and hazard management in 

1

USGS, Alaska Regional Office (Team Lead)

2

USGS, Volcano Hazards Program

3

USGS, Alaska Volcano Observatory

4

USGS, Science Application for Risk Reduction 

5

USGS, Northwest Regional Office

6

USGS, Earthquake Science Center in Menlo Park

7

USGS, Western States Office of Communications

8

USGS, Cascades Volcano Observatory
2 

near real time. Over time the USGS response team increased to include 29 personnel from 

Hawai'i and 83 personnel from elsewhere across 17 different program offices, plus 31 USGS 

volunteers and 52 personnel from other DOI operations. The response team handled nearly 700 

media inquiries from outlets all over the world, and more than 1.5 million people viewed daily 

video updates from HVO scientists. In recognition for such meritorious public service, the HVO 

scientist-in-charge and the extended HVO team were honored for selection as a 2019 finalist for 

the prestigious Samuel J. Heyman Service to America Medal. Finalist achievements are 

considered eloquent testimony to the many ways civil servants make a difference for our country 

every day (see https://servicetoamericamedals.org/about/).

This report builds on a wide variety of prior documents (situational reports, published 

articles, technical reviews, small team “hot wash”9 exercises) that have already been generated 

by USGS activities concerned with the 2018 Kīlauea Volcano eruption and goes beyond 

preexisting sources by using two different survey instruments to gather direct input from the 

USGS team members who participated in the response action. The first survey collected interim 

commentary from 65 respondents in July 2018 while the eruption was still ongoing, and the 

second survey collected retrospective commentary from 32 respondents in December 2018 after 

the eruption had ended. Their aggregated feedback was consolidated into about 100 pages and 

then systematically analyzed and synthesized by the After-Action Review team, which focused 

on two basic questions: (1) what went well, and why?; and (2) what can be improved, and how? 

This report compiles and summarizes the most notable themes of successful 

accomplishments (alternately viewed as “best practices”) into six main categories: (1) General 

Crisis, (2) Incident Command System (ICS), (3) Safe Science Planning and Coordination, 

(4) Data Acquisition and Management, (5) Application of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) 

Technology, and (6) Communications. Likewise, this report compiles and summarizes the most 

notable themes of suggested improvements into four main categories: (1) Planning, (2) Training, 

(3) Communications, and (4) Equipment and Resources. Across those four categories, the report 

identifies 12 main issues in need of improvement. 

Survey respondents conveyed a strong consensus in the overall view that the USGS 

response to the Kīlauea eruption was primarily impressive and inspiring. Suggestions for 

improvement generally were offered in the context of targeted adjustment to an otherwise highly 

effective response operation. Excerpt findings from small team reflective exercises that occurred 

external to the survey effort also are included in the section, “Discussion.” This report then 

draws collectively from the wide assortment of all received input to advance a refined set of 

recommendations for targeted adjustments that focus on each of the following topics: 

● Develop more comprehensive planning documents. 

● Create a more customized fit within the ICS. 

● Establish a Regional Hazards Coordinator.

● Initiate science leadership early.

● Prioritize safety in all response operations.

● Formalize incident response training protocols.

● Enhance interoperability within the Volcano Science Center (VSC). 

9 “Hot wash” has become a common term for the practice of providing immediate evaluation of 

performance by a team or an agency following a major trial event. It apparently derives from the 

practice used by some soldiers of dousing their weapons in hot water to remove debris after 

firing as a preliminary step to more thorough cleaning. 
3 

● Establish a Hazard Response Communication Plan. 

● Improve situational awareness throughout the entire VSC. 

● Initiate media procedural guidelines early.

● Consolidate community outreach opportunities from 2018 experiences. 

● Ensure facility access and renewed coordination with the National Park Service . 

● Improve collection and dissemination of field data. 

● Expand UAS operations within the VSC. 

● Enhance flexible administration of human resources during disasters.

Introduction

Globally, there are about 1,500 active volcanoes, and about 800 million people living 

within range of eruptive activity. Population growth and economic development are twin drivers 

that put more people close to volcanic hazards, but visitors and homeowners also are 

increasingly drawn voluntarily to spectacular landscapes and volcanic activity (Brown and 

others, 2017). Multiple social and environmental factors contribute to a reality where increases in 

disaster losses tend to outpace population growth and other demographic changes. In short, as 

risk creation continues largely unchecked by society, people and assets become more exposed to 

disaster-related losses that affect the socio-economics, health, culture, and environment of local 

communities (Brown and others, 2017; Vahedifard and AghaKouchak, 2018; National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, 2019). This steady global growth of disaster risk, whether 

volcanic or otherwise, compels the USGS to fortify disaster preparedness capabilities, and to 

ensure that institutional capacities are in place to optimize effective planning, response, and 

mitigation. The 2018 Kīlauea Volcano eruption offers a prime opportunity to review, assess, and 

improve on those capacities for potential replication both domestically and abroad. 

The purpose of this After-Action Review is to identify priorities for programmatic or 

policy improvements that the USGS could feasibly implement to advance strategic preparation 

for future disasters, and thereby reduce public vulnerabilities. Specifically, the report is intended 

to help the USGS respond even better than before to the next eruption in Hawai'i or elsewhere by 

advancing any of the following goals: 

● Design better planning scenarios; 

● Enhance response team effectiveness; 

● Assist local decision-makers; 

● Promote new areas of strategic research; and 

● Streamline administrative, finance, and Incident Management Team (IMT) support 

functions during a crisis to secure continuity of operations and essential records 

management. 

Description of the Event

Kīlauea is the youngest volcano in Hawai'i and one of the world’s most active volcanoes, 

with lava erupting from vents in largely uninhabited areas since 1983, and a lava lake present at 

the summit since 2008. Those conditions changed on May 3, 2018, when lava began erupting 

from fissures in the Leilani Estates in the Puna District of the Island of Hawai'i (fig. 1), and the 

summit lava lake drained, precipitating the largest Kīlauea summit caldera collapse in about 

200 years. The initial eruption was followed on May 4 by a Magnitude (M) 6.9 earthquake, and 

subsequently was accompanied by a sustained rate of more than 40 M3+ shallow earthquakes per 
4 

day. The 2018 eruption lasted 107 days, pausing on August 17 with the last live lava visible on 

September 5, and ranks as Kīlauea’s most destructive event since 1790. Hawai'i County officials 

estimate by some accounts that the economic costs for long-term recovery could exceed 

$800 million, including public infrastructure projects, purchases of lava zone property, and 

housing assistance (Dayton, 2018). 

Figure 1. Photograph showing lava advancing west from fissure 7 of the Kīlauea Volcano on Leilani 

Avenue, with lava fountain in background, Puna District, Island of Hawai'i, Hawai'i. U.S. Geological Survey, 

public domain, May 27, 2018. 

As the eruption progressed, a total of 24 fissures opened along the Lower East Rift Zone 

(LERZ). The fresh lava flows covered more than 35 km2 and flowed at dangerous rates of as 

much as 5 m per minute, covering 58 mi of road, causing about $28 million in farm losses, and 

destroying more than 700 homes and dozens of structures including damage to the Puna 

Geothermal Venture energy plant, which previously supplied about 22 percent of the island 

power grid. The lava flow extended more than 12 mi across before meeting the ocean at Kapoho 

Bay, where it established a new lava delta of about 875 acres. The lava flow devastated 

surrounding communities, with about 2,500 people forced to evacuate their homes. A public 

shelter at the Pahoa Community Park was open for 137 days, with a daily population that ranged 

from 100 to more than 500 people. An additional shelter opened at the Kea'au Community 

Center to serve about 50 more people. 

Ash plumes at the summit extended as high as 32,000 ft. above sea level and threatened

air traffic, and air quality was compromised to an unhealthy level on many occasions by a local 

record release of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas (averaging more than 50,000 tons per day and for 

some time exceeding 100,000 tons per day based on preliminary analyses). Upon contact with 

oxygen, water, and air particulate matter, the gas emissions produce volcanic smog (or “vog”) 

and acid rain, which can aggravate respiratory problems, damage crops, and contaminate 

household water supplies. As lava comes into contact with ocean water, a deadly acid steam is 

formed (lava and haze) known as “laze” that can extend for a distance of as much as 15 mi. The 
5 

dangerous mix also produced ballistic projectiles that resulted in serious injuries to both coastal 

residents and dozens of tour boat passengers. 

Frequent earthquakes and collapse events led to significant damage to infrastructure and 

roads throughout Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park (HAVO). Within the HAVO, the USGS 

Pacific Islands Ecological Research Center (PIERC) closed because of the threat of ashfall and 

seismic activity. The Hawai'ian Volcano Observatory (HVO), vulnerably perched on the 

northwest rim of the summit caldera in HAVO, sustained such damage from seismic activity that 

the facility was permanently closed and condemned, creating numerous technical and 

administrative challenges to maintain continuity of operations. HVO and PIERC employees 

relocated to a temporary emergency site provided by the University of Hawai'i at Hilo (UHH). 

Despite all the dangers, through close coordination between HVO and Hawai'i County 

Civil Defense, there were no fatalities on the island even though the vents erupted in the middle 

of a rural subdivision. Losses were reduced and mitigated through effective hazard monitoring 

and emergency operations. What made this response so successful, and what can be gleaned 

from the experience to further advance and improve USGS preparations for a future event? 

These are the two basic questions on which this report will focus. 

Event Timeline

Prior to May of 2018, the Kīlauea Volcano was characterized by two active eruption 

vents: a lava lake within the summit of Halema'uma'u crater and the Pu'u Ō'ō cone with 

associated fissures along the East Rift Zone from 20 to 50 km to the southeast. The 2018 

eruption proved unusually complex because it involved a summit caldera collapse and a flank 

fissure eruption. Because the event already has been thoroughly described by Neal and others

(2018) in the December issue of Science, we provide here a succinct account of the chronology 

of key events. 

Timeline by Date

2018 

March 23: The HVO sent their first email to Hawai'i County Civil Defense (HCCD) about the gradual 

growth of deformation at Pu'u Ō'ō cone and the potential for a new eruption.

April 17: After observing the continued growth of deformation at Pu'u Ō'ō cone, the HVO issued a public 

warning because of concern that a new eruptive vent might form to relieve pressure from 

accumulating magma.

April 21: Accumulating magma caused the summit lava lake to rise and overflow onto the floor of 

Halema'uma'u crater.

April 30 Indications of new seismic activity occurred as the Pu'u Ō'ō cone collapsed and magma began to 

migrate eastward, down rift toward the lower Puna District.

May 1: The HVO issued a public warning that an eruption was possible down rift of Pu'u Ō'ō

somewhere in the Lower Puna area. Lava lake levels at Halema'uma'u crater began to drop as 

magma drained and the caldera summit began to deflate.

May 3: The first of 24 eruptive fissures opened in Leilani Estates subdivision. Initial fissure eruptions 

extended several hundred meters and lasted for minutes to hours (fig. 2). The initial lava was 

viscous, suggesting long-term storage prior to eruption. The Kīlauea Volcano Alert Level was 

raised to WARNING.

May 4: A M6.9 earthquake occurred, the strongest to hit the island in more than four decades, centered 

19 km southwest of Leilani Estates, followed by sustained aftershocks from hundreds of daily 

M3–4 summit earthquakes.
6 

May 8: The VSC Director began to distribute briefing memorandums and daily situational reports.

May 10: Halema'uma'u crater lava lake disappears from view (fig. 3). The HVO issued a status update to 

warn that more lava outbreaks were likely. Sporadic eruptions of ash and rock reached heights 

of about 2,000 m above the summit vent. Because of building closures, HVO and PIERC 

employees began to use the temporary emergency site provided by the UHH.

Figure 2. Photograph showing lava fountains as high as about 70 meters (230 feet) erupted from a new 

fissure on the Kīlauea Volcano, Puna District, Island of Hawai'i, Hawai'i. U.S. Geological Survey, public 

domain, May 5, 2018. 

Figure 3. Photograph showing Halema'uma'u crater rim and walls continue to slump inward and downward 

with ongoing subsidence at the Kīlauea Volcano summit, Island of Hawai'i, Hawai'i. U.S. Geological Survey, 

public domain, June 12, 2018.
7 

As the eruption progressed through mid-May, two simultaneous hazard events unfolded: 

sustained seismic activity leading to collapse at the summit of the crater by the end of May and 

an additional eruption of lava in the Kīlauea Lower East Rift Zone that progressively increased

to a total of 24 fissure openings.

May 11: Most of HAVO closed, contributing to a significant decrease in tourism.

May 15: The HVO issued a Volcano Observatory Notice for Aviation, increasing the aviation threat level 

from ORANGE to RED, because of increased ash venting at the summit.

May 17: The highest ash plume occurred at the summit, reaching 8,100 m (about 26,500 ft) above ground 

level. SO2 emission rates intensified, exceeding 50,000 tons per day at peak rate . 

May 18: Hotter and less viscous lava began erupting to create fast-moving lava flows at an unusually 

high effusion rate (fig. 4). The HVO began producing rapid preliminary lava-flow path 

forecasts. The USGS Alaska Regional Office initiated daily USGS internal coordination calls 

with participating offices across the Bureau.

May 19: Lava entered the ocean near MacKenzie State Recreation Area.

Figure 4. Photograph taken from helicopter overflight of Lower East Rift Zone, Kīlauea Volcano, Island of 

Hawai'i, Hawai'i. U.S. Geological Survey, public domain, May 19, 2018. 

May 28: Eruptive activity was focused at fissure 8, where lava fountains reached heights of about 80 m 

and formed a channel that ultimately entered the ocean at Kapoho Bay on June 4, about 12 km 

to the southeast.

May 29: Caldera down drop accelerated, with onset of near-daily summit collapse events that each 

released energy equivalent to about a M5 earthquake. Lava flow overran Hawai'i Route 132, 

blocking an important access road between Kapoho and Pāhoa.

June 3: Lava erupting from fissure 8 reached the ocean at Kapoho Bay (fig. 5). 

June 4: The northeastern flow of lava quickly advanced and destroyed the subdivision of Vacationland.
8 

Figure 5. Photograph showing acid-and-steam lava-haze (“laze”) plume where lava entered the Pacific 

Ocean at Kapoho Bay resulting from the fissure 8 lava flow from Kīlauea Volcano, Island of Hawai'i, 

Hawai'i. U.S. Geological Survey, public domain, June 9, 2018.

June 24: Aviation Color Code was lowered to ORANGE because collapse events no longer produced 

ash.

July 16: A total of 23 passenger tourists on a commercial tour boat were injured by an ocean entry 

explosion, underscoring the challenges of safeguarding residents and tourists throughout the 

eruption.

July 17–19: The Department of the Interior (DOI) Strategic Sciences Group (SSG) convened a 

multidisciplinary team of 13 experts in Hilo to consider cascading consequences of the eruption.

August 4: High eruption rates diminished abruptly, and large summit subsidence events ended.

August 17: Eruption at fissure 8 paused and the HVO lowered the alert level of Kīlauea Volcano from 

WARNING to WATCH.

August 21: Ocean entries of lava became inactive.

September 1–4: Lava activity at fissure 8 were observed to be weak.

September 20: The last activity report was filed for the USGS eruption response.

September 22: HAVO partially reopened. 

December 5: After 3 months of inactivity, the eruption event entered technical cessation, although the HVO 

continued to monitor for any changes. The Volcano Alert Level changed to ADVISORY 

(YELLOW).

2019 

March 26: The HVO lowered the Volcano Alert Level for ground-based hazards from ADVISORY to 

NORMAL. This means that the volcano was at a non-eruptive, background state. The Aviation 

Color Code was also lowered from YELLOW to GREEN. 
9 

U.S. Geological Survey Response Overview

Although planning is always essential, USGS staff demonstrated that a successful 

response also requires dedication, adaptability, creativity, and effective communication. The 29 

personnel members resident at the HVO quickly set up 24/7 operations and established a 

presence in the local Emergency Operations Center to advise the County Civil Defense. The 

initial response was greatly complicated by aftershocks from the M6.9 earthquake on May 4. 

These aftershocks caused stress for HVO staff and resulted in the damage to the HVO facility 

that eventually led to its evacuation. Meanwhile, staff at other USGS volcano observatories were 

organized to remotely assist monitoring during evenings and nights, supplementing the HVO 

staff to ensure continuity of operations and hazard management. This “extended HVO” that 

expanded to involve other components of USGS, including 83 personnel across 17 different 

program offices and the Department of the Interior, simultaneously addressed three crisis events: 

(1) the collapse of the summit caldera with sustained seismic activity, (2) the lava eruption in the 

Kīlauea Lower East Rift Zone, and (3) the loss of the HVO facility. 

Given the complex situation, the extended HVO had to develop creative solutions to new 

challenges as they occurred. The team came together to (1) monitor the volcano and develop 

hazard assessments, (2) work closely with emergency managers, (3) respond to media inquiries 

as local authorities coordinated public evacuations, (4) conduct essential scientific fieldwork, 

(5) provide daily situation reports and briefings to a large body of decision-makers, and 

(6) organize and participate in public town-hall meetings. The team accomplished this under 

dangerous and exhausting circumstances, all while preparing a back-up HVO facility forced by 

evacuation. 

The team worked continuously under adverse conditions while maintaining tremendous 

flexibility to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances. After evacuating their home base of 

operations, they quickly adjusted and almost seamlessly continued to monitor the volcano and 

communicate with emergency managers from a temporary facility at the UHH. They found 

creative ways to use new technology pathways, resulting in more efficient communications and 

data sharing between scientists, emergency managers, news media, and the public. In support of 

emergency evacuation operations, the extended HVO used Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) 

to help track lava flows and guide evacuations, including the rescue of a local resident. 

In response to the complex and uncertain nature of the 2018 Kīlauea eruption, USGS 

team activities tended to coalesce around several interrelated core functional areas: science, 

emergency management and administration, and external communications. 

Science 

Science was the foundation of the USGS response to the 2018 eruption. Scientific 

activities were interwoven throughout all aspects of the response, so much so that it is difficult to 

distinguish between activities that were purely scientific and those that were purely operational. 

The overarching goals of the 2018 scientific response were to (1) collect information, data, 

images, analyses, and interpretations necessary for hazard monitoring and assessment; and (2) 

record as many aspects of the eruption as possible to enable post-eruption research into processes 

underlying various aspects of the 2018 eruption. 
10 

In 2018, USGS scientists met these goals through a variety of activities, including the 

following: 

1. Closely monitoring data streams from real-time instruments (seismometers, Global 

Positioning System receivers, tilt meters, cameras, gas sensors, infrasound, radar, and 

UAS-based video streams when available) for indications that hazardous conditions 

might increase;

2. Collecting, processing, and analyzing data from ground-based monitoring networks as 

well as from satellites, UAS and (or) helicopter-based surveys (gas, photogrammetry, 

thermal maps), and a wide range of field observations at the summit and in the LERZ;

3. Augmenting instruments and the telemetry network for monitoring activity in the LERZ; 

and 

4. Collecting lava and ash samples for laboratory analysis to better determine what was 

happening inside Kīlauea Volcano. 

Although much of the emphasis was on real-time or near real-time data collection and 

interpretation, scientists also deployed non-telemetered instruments (for example, fig. 6) to 

collect various types of data (seismic, geodetic, gas, cameras, and ash-collection buckets) for 

subsequent retrospective analysis. 

Figure 6. Photograph showing Hawai'ian Volcano Observatory geologist measuring a temperature of 103 

degrees Celsius (218 degrees Fahrenheit) at a crack in Leilani Estates, Island of Hawai'i, Hawai'i. The 

asphalt road was described as "mushy" from the heat. U.S. Geological Survey, public domain, May 9, 

2018.

Notably, the 2018 Kīlauea eruption was the first time the Federal government used UAS 

to assist in a volcano eruption response in the United States. UAS provided the ability to survey 

areas otherwise inaccessible or too hazardous for field crews or manned aircraft, collect multiple 

types of data, and provide 24/7 real-time situational awareness. As fissure openings multiplied, 

the UAS team was mobilized to work with geologists in tracking fissure activity and the advance 

of flows. Information passed rapidly among team members and then was relayed in a timely 
11 

manner to emergency managers. The continuous preparation and dissemination of map products 

(for example, figs. 7 and 8), sometimes multiple times daily, for the duration of the event 

achieved unprecedented performance standards.

Figure 7. Image showing lava flow coverage from Kīlauea Volcano, Island of Hawai'i, Hawai'i, as reported 

through August 20, 2018. U.S. Geological Survey, public domain, August 20, 2018. 
12 

Figure 8. Preliminary image showing estimated lava thicknesses across the flow field, from Kīlauea 

Volcano, Island of Hawai'i, Hawai'i. Areas in green are thin flows, often occurring at the margins, and areas 

in red represent the greatest lava-flow thicknesses. m, meters; ft., feet. U.S. Geological Survey, public 

domain, February 19, 2019.

During the eruption, UAS cameras collected about 2,800 aerial photographs that were 

used to calculate a rough estimate of the total volume of lava erupted and added to the land 

surface—about 0.8 km3 (more than 1 million yd3). When corrected for voids in the lava and 

divided by the duration of the eruption, this yields a minimum eruption rate of about 

50–200 m2/s (13,000–53,000 gal/s), which is substantially larger than most, if not all, known 

sustained Kīlauea eruption rates.

Supplementing the work of HVO personnel through the duration of the event, a group of 

12–15 volunteers also assisted in the performance of core functions that were critical to a 

successful eruption response, including lava-flow sampling, dispatch activities, and food 

preparation for HVO staff. Likewise, a group of 6–10 collaborators from Hawai'ian universities 

conducted important scientific work following their own specific expertise. 
13 

Emergency Management and Administration

Another core functional area involved actively facilitating emergency management, both 

internal and external to USGS. Over the course of the Kīlauea eruption, the HVO made use of 

established close working relationships with numerous collaborating agencies and partners to 

prepare for continued outbreak and flow of lava that could threaten people and infrastructure. 

These collaborating agencies included the following: 

• HCCD, 

• Hawai'i State Emergency Management Agency (HiEMA), 

• The National Park Service (NPS), 

• The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 

• National Weather Service,

• National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 

• The DOI Office of Aircraft Services,

• The UHH, and 

• Others.

By May 8, two senior USGS volcanologists also began working with the Region 9 FEMA 

Incident Management Assessment Team (IMAT) in Oakland, California, that formed in support 

of the response. By May 12, a USGS subject-matter expert was mission-assigned to the FEMA 

IMAT that had already relocated to Hilo. On or about May 16, the HVO positioned a scientist 

24/7 at the County Emergency Operations Center in Hilo and another scientist to work at the 

HiEMA facility on O'ahu (Honolulu). 

Internal to USGS, the Natural Hazards Mission Area (NHMA) and the Alaska Regional 

Office played a ubiquitous role in the daily management of the eruption response on a national 

scale. Working within that broad management structure, there were many vital USGS internal 

emergency management entities, and their adapted roles for this response are outlined as follows: 

• Scientist-in-Charge (SIC), Hawai'ian Volcano Observatory. The person in this role 

provided overall senior management of the on-site response. It included situational 

awareness reporting to external partners (local, State, and Federal emergency managers), 

active participation in public meetings, management of responding Continental United 

States (CONUS) science staff, and oversight of all local administrative aspects of the 

HVO facility relocation. The SIC also provided a crucial role in recovery planning efforts 

with local, State, and Federal authorities.

• Deputy Scientist-in-Charge (DSIC), Hawai'ian Volcano Observatory. The DSIC was 

the primary backup for the SIC and led management of operational aspects of eruption 

response including aviation support, safety, some aspects of FEMA reporting, interface 

with NPS in the conduct of the green-amber-red alert (GAR) system. The DSIC also was 

the primary HVO spokesperson at more than a dozen community meetings in Pahoa 

during the eruption. 
14 

• Director and staff, Volcano Science Center (VSC). The VSC is based in the Alaska 

Region, yet it manages the five U.S. volcano observatories and about 200 employees 

throughout the West Coast, including the HVO in Hilo; the Alaska Volcano Observatory 

in Anchorage; the Cascades Volcano Observatory and Yellowstone Volcano Observatory 

in Vancouver, Washington; the California Volcano Observatory in Moffett, California;

and the internationally scoped Volcano Disaster Assistance Program. The VSC worked 

closely with the Alaska Regional Office to play a vital role in facilitating the required 

managerial pivot from normal operations to disaster response. This involved ensuring 

substantial reassignments of personnel throughout the observatories to support the HVO, 

advancing the creation and dissemination of a wide variety of situational reports and 

media communications, and coordinating geospatial map products and Information 

Technology (IT) services to meet the needs of FEMA and other response partners. The 

VSC also provided knowledge and skills to physically move HVO operations to an 

alternate office location and storage facility. 

• Emergency Management Coordinator, Reston, Virginia. The person in this role 

designed and managed the activity reporting process with the DOI Office of Emergency 

Management (OEM) that established Essential Elements of Information for volcanic 

eruptions for the DOI and FEMA. The Emergency Management Coordinator coordinated 

the process, administration, and application of FEMA mission assignments related to the 

eruption and conducted several Hazard Response Executive Committee (HREC) 

emergency meetings to provide USGS leadership with situational awareness and 

coordinate response and recovery actions. 

• Emergency Management Specialist, on-site. The person in this role served as 

Continuity of Operations (COOP) coordinator and liaison to the NPS HAVO IMT, 

FEMA Response and Recovery, and the Hawai'i County Civil Defense IMT. With 

Regional and HREC direction, the COOP provided the overall execution of HVO/PIERC 

hazardous waste and chemical clean-up and removal, provided drone management 

support and aviation coordination of light detection and ranging (lidar) missions, and 

coordinated with the various response components to address emerging issues.

• Hazard Response Executive Committee (HREC). This group provided executive 

direction, oversight, and support to USGS managers in response to the Kīlauea eruption 

without interfering with the activities of programmatic or response teams. 

• Volcano Hazards Program (VHP) Office. The Volcano Hazards Program Coordinator, 

Associate Program Coordinator, and one scientific assistant served as volcano subjectmatter experts within USGS Headquarters and the DOI as well as to other relevant 

Federal agencies at the national level. The VHP office provided high-level briefings to 

the Secretary of the DOI, the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, the National 

Security Council, the President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Federal 

interagency Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction, and FEMA Headquarters. VHP Office 

staff also helped coordinate the leveraging or monitoring of assets from NASA and 

National Science Foundation-funded Principal Investigators, and additionally conducted 

live interviews with national news media and answered media questions by email.
15 

• USGS/DOI Drone Team. This group deployed an assortment of rotor and fixed-wing 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and sensors to support the remote sensing data 

acquisition needed for monitoring the Kīlauea Volcano eruptions at the summit and 

LERZ. They provided situational life-saving information and scientific information to 

Hawai'i County Civil Defense (HCCD) Emergency Operations Center (EOC), Hawai'i 

State EOC, FEMA, DOI Interior Operations Center, and other internal USGS partners. 

• USGS Advanced Systems Center. This group was the hub of operations for the National 

Civil Applications Program, which provided for the acquisition, dissemination, and use of 

remote sensing systems and data in support of mission responsibilities for land and 

resource management, including response to hazards and natural disasters. This group 

also provided high-quality, lava-flow shapefiles with the format and frequency conducive 

to operational monitoring, and more generally helped to compensate for lack of 

geographic information system (GIS) staffing at the HVO.

• Geospatial Information Response Team (GIRT). USGS established GIRT within the 

National Geospatial Program to ensure that timely geospatial data are available for use by 

emergency responders, and land and resource managers, and for scientific analysis during 

a disaster event. This group provided the Event Support Map, coordinated space-based 

and UAS imagery collection during daily calls, and facilitated access to data archived in 

the Hazards Data Distribution System. 

• Office of Management Services (OMS). This group helped evaluate the structural 

integrity of the damaged HVO facility and management of the search and acquisition 

details of securing replacement facilities and the transfer of property to interim and 

permanent locations. The unfolding plan to reestablish USGS facilities in HAVO through 

shared space and services between HVO and PIERC is expected to require 3 years to 

complete the design, construction, and occupancy. 

• Office of Enterprise Information (OEI). This group provided the critical information 

management and technology foundation for the USGS science mission. It managed data 

storage solutions, software applications, web infrastructure, SharePoint® and cloudhosting services, disposition of Federal records, and other critical information. This group 

played a vital role in maintaining continuity of operations for data flow and storage 

throughout the disaster response and facility transfer. 

• Office of Administration. This group provided direction related to business 

administration, financial accounting, and general support services. This group made it 

possible to rapidly mobilize the "extended HVO" both into and out of Hawai'i in a 

controlled, yet efficient, manner. This group also helped troubleshoot many accounting 

complications related to travel, safety, purchasing, and overtime pay. 

External to USGS, there were many entities that played key roles in the Kīlauea eruption 

emergency management structure. A schematic showing the configuration of the emergency 

management structure for the Kīlauea eruption, including brief descriptions of the various 

responsibilities of key roles, is provided in figure 9. 
16 

Figure 9. Schematic showing configuration of the emergency management structure for the Kīlauea 

Volcano eruption, including brief descriptions of the various responsibilities of key roles 1–11, Island of 

Hawai'i, Hawai'i, 2018.
17 

DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSIBILITES OF KEY ROLES: 

Hawai'i State Emergency Management Agency (HiEMA): Responded to Hawaii County requests for State assistance. Once the State 

was unable to support the request in full, HiEMA recommended to the Governor to declare a State Emergency Proclamation, which then 

cascaded into FEMA-4366-DR, Hawai'i Disaster Declaration. USGS staffed a geologist as a science liaison to the State and Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) at HiEMA Emergency Operations Center (EOC) for 12-hour day shifts from 18 May to 22 June.

FEMA: National Incident Management Assistance Team (IMAT) West originally was dispatched to HiEMA EOC in Honolulu, but 

eventually sent some team members forward to the Island of Hawai'i, Hawai'i County Civil Defense EOC. The team improved coordination 

to the overall response efforts. At the end of the IMAT West rotation, the FEMA mission was handed off to FEMA Region IX coordinating 

authorities. 

FEMA Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) and Deputy Officers from Region IX were integral to the assessment of the overall disaster 

needs and supporting the county and State in implementation of recovery efforts. The FCO established a disaster field office in Hilo in 

concert with a Disaster Recovery Center in Pāhoa and then Hilo.

Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park (HAVO): The Kīlauea eruption event and associated hazards occurred in two separate locations—the 

Kīlauea caldera summit in HAVO and the Lower East Rift Zone (LERZ) in Lower Puna District. The National Park Service (NPS) HAVO 

had command and control of everything inside the NPS boundaries.

NPS Type 2 Incident Management Team (IMT): The NPS quickly deployed an IMT composed of local assets. However, once the 

eruption period passed 15 days, the HAVO Park Superintendent, functioning also as the Incident Commander, called in a Continental 

United States (CONUS) NPS Type 2 IMT. This team consisted of primary Incident Command System positions (operations, finance, and 

logistics section chiefs, along with 2–4 safety officers).

NPS IMT interaction with Hawai'ian Volcano Observatory (HVO) staff: The NPS IMT implemented sign-in/sign-out personnel 

accountability protocol and personal protective equipment (PPE) evaluation at the Volcano EOC within HAVO. Accountability and PPE 

was required for anyone entering HAVO. The NPS also was responsible for Search and Rescue if required.

NPS Crisis Incident Stress Management (CISM) deployment: The NPS has a cadre of staff trained in CISM intervention. At the request 

of the Scientist-in-Charge, owing to the duration of the event, the NPS deployed two CISM team members twice to HAVO and HVO for 

responding to staff needs. CISM is a highly structured, professionally recognized form of peer-to-peer support to mitigate the impact of the 

event. 

LERZ, Lower Puna District: The second location of the Kīlauea event took place in the Lower Puna District, specifically east of State 

Route 130. Command and control of this area was under the authority of the Hawai'i County Civil Defense, at the direction of County 

Mayor, Harry Kim.

Hawai'i County Civil Defense (HCCD) EOC, Hilo: HCCD used their main headquarters as the EOC for the duration of the eruption 

event. Mayor Kim held a daily overall briefing for all to attend at 07:00 hours, followed by a HCCD multidisciplinary operational team 

meeting at 08:30 hours. The USGS staffed a geologist liaison position at the EOC for the duration of the event, in two 12-hour shifts, and 

later in three 8-hour shifts, for nominal 24/7 coverage during most of the response. This proved to be an enormous service to HCCD, 

FEMA, and other partners. 

HCCD Forward Operating Base (FOB): At the early signs of volcanic activity in Lower Puna, HCCD used the Pāhoa Fire Department as 

a staging area for first responders. It was used to check response personnel in and out of restricted zones, as an immediate information hub, 

and a location for food and water and some PPE for police and fire responders. As the volcanic activity increased and fissures began to open 

in the Leilani Estates neighborhood, HCCD and Mayor Kim deployed a designated Forward Operating Base on State Route 130 and 

relinquished the fire department facility (fig. 10).

Supplemental Staffing of the FOB and HCCD headquarters. As the event grew larger, Mayor Kim and HCCD called in a Type 3 IMT 

from Maui County. Their job was to transition staging from the Pāhoa Fire Department to the newly created FOB. After a 2-week rotation, 

HCCD used the National IMT registry to staff the incident with CONUS Type 2 teams until the event was declared terminated. 

Supporting agencies:

● Hawai'i National Guard (HING): Responsible for maintaining evacuation zones and manning checkpoints. HING also staffed 

24/7 helicopter search and rescue units at Hilo airport; conducted spot measurements of SO2 concentration upon request; and 

completed some night flying that, with more advanced coordination, could potentially have provided useful footage. 

● Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Responsible for real-time air-quality monitoring for the public. The EPA also assisted 

with PIERC and HVO hazardous waste and chemical removal from HAVO.

● Community Emergency Response Team (CERT): A FEMA program of trained volunteers, responsible for patrolling Leilani 

Estates and assisting HING with checkpoint duties, they also coordinated and disseminated information to and from public 

meetings to residents unable to attend in person. The CERT team went door-to-door in some areas to ensure that residents were 

situationally aware, including those with no internet or cell phone communication.

Figure 9.—Continued.
18 

Figure 10. Photograph showing Hawai'i County Civil Defense Forward Operating Base check-in station in 

Puna, Island of Hawai'i, Hawai'i. Photograph by Brett Walker, Hawai'ian Volcano Observatory volunteer, 

June 14, 2018. 

External Communications

Another core functional area involved public outreach and communications. The local, 

national, and international media interest in the eruption remained high throughout the response 

period. The USGS participated in weekly public meetings held in Pahoa (fig. 11) that were 

organized by HCCD, as well as daily briefings for the news media. USGS teams also routinely 

communicated with the public by fielding direct inquiries and by providing continuously updated 

information on public websites. The USGS also initiated an around-the-island series of meetings 

with communities to discuss ashfall and vog hazards, as well as meetings in Volcano Village to 

discuss summit-collapse activity. Team activities also produced daily situation reports and 

briefings that the VSC Director compiled, synthesized, and circulated to many decision-makers, 

both internal and external to the USGS. 

The improvised coordination and communication between field operations, dispatch, the 

EOC, and the extended HVO team proved to be timely, effective, and noteworthy. One astute 

reporter from Forbes magazine accurately observed “... very few people have been injured. The 

reason? The extraordinary work of the United States Geological Survey, its scientists, and the 

outstanding communication spearheaded by the Hawai'ian Volcano Observatory....” (Siegel, 

2018). Indeed, the team responded to nearly 700 media inquiries from outlets all over the world, 

and more than 1.5 million people viewed daily video updates from HVO scientists. 
19 

Figure 11. Photograph showing one of a series of community meetings held in Pahoa High School 

cafeteria to brief residents from the District of Puna about the Lower East Rift Zone eruption of the Kīlauea 

Volcano, Island of Hawai'i, Hawai'i. Photograph by Steve Brantley, U.S. Geological Survey, May 4, 2018. 

Public and professional feedback to USGS has been overwhelmingly positive, including 

direct input from the White House, Congress, other Federal agencies, the State of Hawai'i, 

external media outlets, and the affected communities. 

Since the cessation of eruption activities, there have been several notable ongoing public 

outreach and communication activities. The HVO staff continues to engage with communities 

affected by the 2018 eruption to directly share information, as well as to inform residents of the 

continuing presence of HVO scientists and technicians in the lava-flow area as they rebuild, 

restore, and harden monitoring stations and conduct post-eruption field studies. For example, on 

March 16, HVO staff provided an update on the Kīlauea Volcano status and prognosis, and 

described ongoing HVO work along the Lower East Rift Zone to members of Leilani Estates 

Community Association, which proved to be ground zero for much of the eruptive activity. On 

April 26, two HVO scientists presented a similar update to board members of the Nānāwale 

Estates Community Association. Nānāwale Estates was affected by poor air quality during the 

protracted eruption and could have been affected by lava flows if the flow field had evolved 

differently. Helicopter noise also was a critical concern for these residents because of frequent 

flights over the 2018 lava flows. 
20 

Discussion

After-Action Review Methods

This report builds on a wide variety of documents that already have been generated by 

the USGS during and after the 2018 Kīlauea Volcano eruption. The most relevant prior 

documents include the following: 

• Sixty-three situational reports that briefed USGS leadership on a near-daily basis from 

May 10 to August 20, 2018; 

• A technical report produced by the DOI SSG after convening a multidisciplinary group of 

13 experts in Hilo from July 17 to 19, 2018, to evaluate the short- and long-term social, 

economic, and environmental impacts of the Kīlauea eruption;

• A summary of action items generated by immediate “hot wash” group discussions that 

occurred on November 13, 2018, between HVO managers and key staff, and NPS 

managers of HAVO; 

• A summary of reflective notes generated post-response within the Office of 

Communications and Publishing (OCAP); 

• A summary of action items generated in November 2018 by immediate “hot wash”

group discussions among managers and staff at HVO and the Hawai'i County Civil 

Defense; and

• A summary report of action items generated by the SIC at HVO. 

This report combines insights from these documents with responses to confidential 

survey instruments administered to individuals involved in the response during and shortly after 

the eruption, to develop new insights that can be applied to future events. Given the large number 

of individuals and geographic distances separating USGS participants in the Kīlauea response, it 

is clearly challenging to achieve a single all-encompassing group reflection on actionable 

“lessons learned”. Rather than attempt to convene a forum to bring everyone together in a 

common physical space, the Bureau has come to rely primarily on the use of confidential survey 

instruments to systematically organize the broad array of individual commentary about response 

activities into a collective team assessment. 

Two different survey instruments were circulated internally among all USGS members of 

the multifaceted response team at different stages of the event. Survey 1 was developed by the 

USGS Emergency Management staff and VSC leadership. It was piloted with several people 

who already had been involved in the response and was revised based on their feedback. The 

revised survey 1 then was circulated by the USGS Emergency Management group on July 18, 

before eruption activity ended, to collect interim input and commentary from individuals who 

had actively participated in the disaster response. A version of this survey also was adapted to be 

shared with volunteers or individuals outside the USGS who were involved in response, as they 

were unable to access the online survey form. A total of 65 people responded to the survey 1 

instrument. 

Survey 2 was developed jointly between the USGS OEM with direct input from the 

Alaska Regional Office, and distributed on December 2, after the eruption response officially 

ended. Survey 2 allowed for additional input from anyone who had previously responded to 

survey 1, but explicitly requested input from those individuals who had been closely involved in 

the response action yet had not previously completed the survey 1. A total of 32 people 
21 

responded to the survey 2 instrument. The relative distribution of survey respondents by home 

office is shown in the pie diagram in figure 12. A snowball sampling method was used for this 

survey, as those initially contacted to complete these forms were asked to share the form with 

others who were involved in the response. Response data from both surveys was treated as 

confidential; it was collected, anonymized, and aggregated using standardized protocols 

developed by the USGS Emergency Management group. 

Figure 12. Pie diagram showing relative distribution, by home office, of respondents to survey of the U.S. 

Geological Survey response to the 2018 Kīlauea Volcano eruption on the Island of Hawai'i, Hawai'i. %, 

percent.

While the survey 2 response data was gathered, the Alaska Regional Office assembled an 

After-Action Review team and launched their first deliberations on February 8, 2019 (delayed 

more than 1 month by a partial Federal government shutdown). 

Survey responses were analyzed separately, but were consistently organized into three 

major respondent categories by functional role: (1) science operations, (2) emergency 

management/administration, and (3) media and communications. The relative distribution of 

survey respondents by the functional role they played in the response office is shown in the pie 

diagram in figure 13. 
22 

Figure 13. Pie diagram showing relative distribution of respondents, by the functional role they played in 

the response office, to survey of the U.S. Geological Survey response to the 2018 Kīlauea Volcano 

eruption on the Island of Hawai'i, Hawai'i. %, percent.

The After-Action Review team organized into four separate work groups to sort through 

the response data, grouping comments by functional role and by theme, then summarizing

comments into succinct statements of best practices, lessons learned, and (or) recommended 

actions. 

One of the work groups used NVivo®, a qualitative data analysis computer software 

package to facilitate observation of patterns and response correlations within text-based and (or) 

multimedia information. The NVivo® program allowed the review team to quantify the response 

themes by frequency and co-occurrence as well as sentiment valence. It also facilitated 

awareness of any notable differences in thematic response between the survey instruments. For 

example, it allowed the team to determine that the order of thematic concerns in survey 1 heavily 

emphasized planning, followed by communications, followed by equipment and resources, 

followed by training; whereas those concerns in survey 2 completely reversed order, with almost 

equal emphasis given to training and equipment/resources, followed by almost equal emphasis 

between communications and planning. However, relative concern over the Incident Command 

System (ICS) increased strongly within the second survey, as did relative concern over staff 

safety and burnout, as well as relative concern over internal communication and the need for 

more local orientation.

It is not clear why substantive differences emerged between the two surveys. We 

hypothesize that each survey captured somewhat different types of respondents who occupied 

different functions during the response; it is also likely that any repeating respondents wanted to 

highlight different topics the second time around, or perhaps over time, agency staff simply 

developed alternative narratives about the event. 

After analyzing the survey response data, the After-Action Review team expanded the 

scope of their analysis to specifically incorporate relevant USGS documents that identified 

recommendations as generated by other response review teams. These recommendations have 
23 

been summarized separately and incorporated in this report under the section, “Excerpted 

Findings from Other Sources.” They are ultimately synthesized and merged with survey input to 

yield our list of recommended actions. 

A draft internal report was completed on April 30 and circulated to managers of relevant 

program offices for review comments and the opportunity for additional input. The review period 

lasted from May 1 to May 28. The draft report then was edited to accommodate received input 

during the review period. Upon completion of a revised draft by the After-Action Review team, 

this report was orally presented and formally delivered to the Hazard Response Executive 

Committee (HREC) on September 18. The HREC formally validated the internal report on 

October 8 and then referred it to executive leadership within the NHMA, the VSC, and the 

Alaska Regional Office to assess the suite of recommendations, establish priorities, and convey 

all endorsed actions to responsible parties for implementation and (or) further solution 

development. The HREC will continue to monitor the ongoing status of these actions through 

regular briefings. Because of the broad scientific and hazard management interest in the Kīlauea 

eruption response, the internal report was prepared for public distribution in November 2019. 

Survey Instrument Insights: What Went Well and Why?

“Wow, does HVO have superb staff! Every one of them has done heroic work, and they've all given us reason to be 

proud. And it's been awesome to see the huge response across the VSC in support of HVO. The response to the crisis 

has been highly successful, and it's made me even prouder than I've been to work for such an organization.” (Note:

All italicized quotations from here through the remainder of the report are excerpted from statements of survey 

respondents, 2018.)

“The HVO staff was unwaveringly resilient in the face of this monumental challenge.”

This section synthesizes the variety of comments that were collected through the formal 

survey instruments about what worked well during the event. These insights may be alternately 

construed as “best practices.” Survey respondents conveyed a strong consensus in the overall 

view that the HVO and broader USGS response to the Kīlauea eruption primarily was impressive 

and inspiring (fig. 14). Respondents frequently used superlatives to assess their own personal 

experiences and observations; the two quoted comments above are representative. 

 

Figure 14. Graphs showing summary of clearly positive consensus of data responses to survey of the U.S. 

Geological Survey response to the 2018 Kīlauea Volcano eruption on the Island of Hawai'i, Hawai'i. 
24 

Summary of Survey Data Responses 

This report compiles the most notable themes of successful accomplishment into six main 

categories: (1) General Crisis Management at HVO and the VSC, (2) Working within the ICS, 

(3) Safe Science Planning and Coordination, (4) Data Acquisition and Management, (5) 

Adaptable Application of UAS Technology, and (6) Communications. 

General Crisis Management (23 comments)

“The scientific knowledge and collaboration were impressive, along with the accurate forecasts. Methodical and 

diligent work by all really felt like a team... and the main objective, no matter how tired, was to provide accurate 

science and observations.”

The HVO and the entire VSC performed exceptionally well in reacting to a challenging 

and uncertain situation. The success was due to several factors, including the following: 

● HVO staff rose to the occasion in many ways despite facing evacuation. They tirelessly 

worked to do their jobs, often at great personal expense, and showed admirable 

willingness to give each other the benefit of the doubt under such stressful conditions. 

Additionally, the relationships that HVO staff had established with the Hawai'i 

community and other Federal agencies over the previous several decades established a 

primary reason for the successful response—HVO staff were highly trusted. 

● The integration of VSC staff from outside the HVO went well. This indicated a strong 

camaraderie and showed that VSC staff maintain a good understanding at an organic 

level of what needs to be done, and getting it done in a professional manner. It also 

indicated good cross-observatory familiarity that stemmed from past rotations with the 

HVO, as well as VSC Director efforts to improve interoperability by centralizing 

several VSC functions and by forming VSC-wide working groups to address various 

issues that affect all observatories. It also indicated a mostly effective onboarding 

process, which was achieved through guidance documents provided by the VSC, HVO, 

and other groups, as well as on-site mentoring by experienced staff. 

● The rapid and universal adoption of the open-source messaging/data distribution tool, 

Mattermost® (implemented with help from the Alaska Volcano Observatory), as a 

primary inter-observatory communication tool was one of the hallmarks of the eruption 

response. Mattermost® made it remarkably straightforward for HVO staff working from 

home and in the field, and VSC staff working at five different office locations and on 

the mainland, to stay up-to-date on developments. 

● The Event Support Map (ESM) provided important situational awareness data and was 

used by resource managers in the office and the field (fig. 15). The ESM is mobilized 

by the GIRT for major disaster events and used to provide a coordination and 

communication structure for USGS teams managing the USGS response. The ESM is a 

“one-stop” landing and reference page for spatial data, applications, team notes, reports 

and other agency information that can easily be accessed and used during the event. 
25 

Figure 15. U.S. Geological Survey Event Support Map landing and reference page for spatial data, 

applications, team notes, reports and other response information. U.S. Geological Survey, public domain.

Incident Command System (5 comments)

“Public and professional feedback to USGS has been overwhelmingly positive, including direct input from FEMA 

[and many other agencies].”

The VSC performed well in the ICS that was established during the first week of the 

eruption. This was especially remarkable given that this was the VSC’s first experience working 

in a full-scale ICS. The success was due to many factors, including the following: 

● Outstanding performances by many who worked at the various EOCs and who 

interacted with ICS workers at the Forward Operating Base (FOB) and Pahoa Fire 

Department.

● The ability of USGS staff to quickly react and adapt to fast-changing situations through 

the initial stages of confusion as the response structure was established.

● Many of the VSC staff had ICS training and were familiar with ICS structure.

● Mattermost® made it easy for USGS scientists in multiple ICS locations to coordinate 

their efforts and work at same level of situational awareness. 

● The strong relationships fostered by HVO over the last several decades with local 

response agencies including the Hilo County EOC and the Pahoa Fire Department, 

which placed all USGS scientists in a position where they were implicitly and explicitly 

trusted by local emergency responders. 

Safe Science Planning and Coordination (5 comments)

“I was impressed with USGS management's response to the situation. It seems like we were given just about any 

resource we needed. That allowed us to keep working, with minimal impact to our health and well-being.”

The overall safety record during the response was very good, especially considering the 

collective number of hours worked in the field, the quantity of miles driven through 
26 

compromised roads and infrastructure, and the hundreds of helicopter sorties flown, many 

involving pilots unfamiliar with Hawai'ian airspace. A desire to provide accurate science, 

observations, and forecasts drove all VSC scientists to perform diligently, methodically, but also 

creatively. An outgrowth of this desire was an abundance of rather organic planning and 

collaboration that occurred. The success of the scientific response can be attributed in part to the 

following factors: 

● The role of senior scientists with decades of geologic experience on Kīlauea.

● The event-tree analysis process was familiar to, and accepted and used by members of 

the response team. It was also effective in sharing information and understanding, in 

addition to developing forecasts.

● LERZ field geology shifts were managed efficiently and staff were willing to 

participate.

● The capacity to use infrasound monitoring and develop new alarms. 

● The application of UAS to data gathering. 

● The generous budget for helicopter flights, which vastly increased the density of 

observational and other data acquisition. 

Data Acquisition and Management (9 comments) 

“Timely geospatial data is pure gold in this response—especially when lava flows are moving quickly, and the 

evacuation situation is shifting accordingly.”

There were several notable achievements during the eruption response regarding data. 

The testing and development of an online data distribution tool (Mattermost®), which could be 

seen and accessed by multiple users from multiple devices, worked very well. The quick 

adoption of Mattermost® showed a transformative adaptation in our ability to move information 

around the observatory, to the emergency managers, and to social media. Mattermost® allowed 

for uploading of real-time images and data, including obtaining weather reports from other field 

crews. The VSC also successfully established a dedicated service for sharing preliminary map 

data on the internet that could be accessed and used in geospatial software or other online tools. 

The continuity of operations in geophysical monitoring also was remarkable. The OEI group 

stepped up and helped HVO technical staff avoid any stoppage in real-time monitoring. The 

technical team also achieved rapid and critical installations and upgrades to allow for monitoring 

capability of the LERZ. The success was due to many factors, including the following: 

● The OEI office worked with Amazon Web Services to provide backup devices to move 

data from the HVO to cloud-hosting services. 

● The HVO had accumulated much experience over the previous decade dealing with 

prolonged concurrent eruptions and a persistent low-level crisis mode since the 2008 

onset of summit activity. Through a series of recurring crises, HVO staff became 

accustomed to delivering GIS shapefiles and lava-flow forecasts as needed by 

emergency managers, while continually practicing and improving methods for 

monitoring and measuring activity.

● The HVO benefitted from working with very skilled pilots who had prior familiarity 

with monitoring requirements.

● The HVO benefitted from the gradual refinement of methods for communicating with 

the public about threatening lava flows. 
27 

● The HVO benefitted tremendously from a long-standing collaborative relationship with 

the National Civil Applications Center (NCAC), which provided high-quality lava-flow 

shapefiles in a manner conducive to operational monitoring. 

Application of UAS Technology (6 comments)

“Our UAS team was able to contribute so much to the response in terms of science and hazards research, as well as 

public safety.”

UAS proved to be an incredibly valuable tool during the eruption—to such a degree that 

the VSC probably should develop its own dedicated drone response team. UAS operations 

played a critical role in providing near real-time scientific data and situational awareness to 

emergency managers, and demonstrably contributed to public safety in direct ways. The success 

was attributable to many factors, including the following: 

● The UAS and HVO staff proved highly adaptable and nimble while operating in a 

volatile field situation. A total of 38 different UAS operators and data processors across 

three departmental agencies proved they could function safely and work well together. 

● Safety was a high priority for all involved. The team was very methodical in planning 

and executing missions through an efficient “go-slow and test” manner. 

● The team established good benchmark launch and recovery locations for effectively 

mapping the most affected areas on a regular basis.

● The Emergency Certificate of Authorization provided the authority to use innovative 

technologies and flight lines that will continue to benefit the proof of concept for 

emergency response.

● Key individuals showed a willingness to lead and maintained a positive attitude 

throughout the mission.

Communications (18 comments)

“The daily teleconference media briefings were hugely successful to keep media informed, who in turn, helped keep 

the public informed. Media depended on and greatly appreciated those briefings.”

The USGS provides subject-matter expertise, data, and information through various 

public mediums during natural hazard events. This information must be communicated in a 

timely, relevant, accessible, understandable, and accurate manner to our local, State and national 

response partners and to the public, both within and beyond the framework of the National 

Incident Management System. The success was due to many factors, including the following: 

● The HVO performed incredibly well working with the OCAP to inform people about 

what could happen, what was happening, and what to expect moving forward. 

● The VSC assembled and digitally delivered daily situation reports by 7:00 a.m. Eastern 

Time, in advance of morning briefings for USGS and DOI management. The VHP 

Office referenced the situation reports in reporting to the White House National 

Security Council, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Congress, and DOI 

upper management. 

● Daily telecommunications media briefings were successful in keeping the media 

informed. The community and USGS partners noticed that the agency worked very 

hard to provide good information despite great adversity. 
28 

● The capacity to provide graphical details of continuous adjustments of Kīlauea through 

updated images, videos, and graphics built public confidence that the USGS knew what 

it was doing, while leading the government response to an uncontrollable natural 

hazard.

● Regular internal coordination calls among various USGS offices outside Hawai'i, led by 

Alaska Region management, directly supported the eruption response. Participants 

included upper-level management from Facilities, UAS, the VSC (but not the HVO), 

the VHP Office, Office of Administration, OCAP, OEI, Land Resources, Science 

Application for Risk Reduction, NCAC, National Geospatial Program (NGP), National 

Earthquake Information Center, Emergency Management, and Safety. These meetings 

enhanced collaboration, reduced duplication of effort, and revealed how broad the 

USGS response was Bureau-wide. They also focused on issues not reported in situation 

reports, such as details relevant to continuity of operations.

● The SSG also contributed to DOI response activities and community outreach by 

identifying expertise, coordinating travel, holding local workshops and stakeholder 

meetings, and documenting those interactions in a cooperator and open-file reports. 

Survey Instrument Insights: What Can Be Improved and How?

This section synthesizes the diverse and thoughtful input collected through the survey 

instruments about suggestions for improvement. The synthesis imposes organizational structure 

and consolidation on incoming suggestions to provide context and background information for 

the formal recommendations that later emerge from this report. Not every suggestion for 

improvement is necessarily translated into a discrete actionable recommendation by the report 

authors. Instead, the process calls for sorting, compiling, and shaping received input into a 

coherent summary for the potential attention of responsible decision-makers within the Bureau. 

Many survey respondents emphasized how their suggestions were offered in the context 

of modest adjustment to an otherwise impressive response operation. In the interests of clarity 

and consistency with preestablished after-action reporting structure, this report compiles the most 

notable themes of targeted improvement into four main categories: (1) Planning, (2) Training, (3) 

Communications, (4) Equipment and Resources. 

Planning (181 comments)

Survey respondents consistently identified the great need for improvement in several 

aspects of planning for the HVO (and all volcano observatories), both to facilitate operations 

during crisis response and to reduce overall stress. 

Issue 1: Absence of a Clear VSC Internal “Response Structure”

The most predominant feedback from survey respondents points to challenges of 

understanding both internal and external roles and responsibilities with our response partners in 

times of crisis. This lack of clarity contributed to confusion, conflict, ill-defined expectations, 

and stress at different times during the response. 

In retrospect, it seems advisable that the HVO and VSC should both have moved from a 

normal management structure to an explicit and predetermined “response structure.” It is 

difficult to know when to shift to such a structure as an event is unfolding, and the HVO was
29 

facing an extraordinary number of crises all at once, which made it extremely difficult to 

consider changing management schemes. HVO and VSC staff adapted primarily by identifying 

what needed to be done and then finding the means to get it accomplished. 

There is always a tension between the need to have a response plan with roles, 

responsibilities, and chain of command clearly defined and to allow the flexibility to react and 

respond as the situation requires. The latter was a positive hallmark of the Kīlauea eruption and a 

primary reason why the response was so effective. However, the lack of a clear response plan 

contributed to confusion and stress at different levels during the event, and thereby became a 

reason why the scientific response may not have been as fully complete or effective as it might 

ideally aspire to be. 

A more formal response plan needs to be prepared, circulated, and practiced before a 

disaster event occurs. However,, a response plan also needs to allow for flexibility, particularly 

in the field, and to acknowledge the value of people being allowed to respond to unanticipated 

situations as they occur without spending valuable time obtaining approvals from up the chain of 

command. 

Issue 2: Better Integration of Volcano Science Center Staff into Response

Survey respondents frequently commented about challenges in coordinating actions 

within and across the ICS. HVO staff generally lacked awareness about who was coming and 

going (visitors were doing so at a fast pace), and what role they were serving. Onboarding was 

done as a collateral duty split amongst several HVO and VSC staff, which led to confusion at 

times. Having to train and integrate new people also was sometimes a strain, as it required 

several HVO insiders to divert their attention from other duties. More effective and structured 

communication on what was expected by whom, what projects were ongoing, and what 

opportunities existed to join in group efforts (to name a few items) would have helped ensure 

that everyone had the same level of situational awareness, that the right people and skill sets 

were matched to the tasks at hand, and that no one was excluded. 

Issue 3: Lack of Understanding of Incident Command System and Federal Emergency Management 

Agency

Interacting with FEMA was initially a challenge because of limited understanding within 

the USGS of the administrative functions within an ICS, particularly on the financial side. 

Furthermore, many people brought in by FEMA had little to no experience with volcano events; 

much of their experience was with wildfires, which did not fully prepare them for an eruption 

crisis. Additionally, at times there was confusion amongst USGS staff embedded within county 

and State EOCs with respect to communications. For example, it was unclear when it was or was 

not appropriate to make information requests through Mattermost®. More fundamentally, the 

priorities and pathways for third-party communications were not always clear, and briefings at 

State and county levels were not necessarily synchronized. For example, HiEMA held their own 

briefings, including a presentation from the USGS liaison that HCCD did not attend. This 

seemed inefficient, as the HVO-HCCD liaison also provided a situational briefing each morning. 

Issue 4: Enhanced Workforce Planning

HVO management externally delegated the role of determining rotations for visiting VSC 

staff during the response, which provided useful flexibility. However, that delegation created 

management challenges in knowing the availability of relative skill sets and the degree of interest 
30 

to assist in the eruption response across the VSC. It also created management challenges in 

ensuring compliance with applicable laws and regulations, such as designating an Essential 

Records liaison and coordinating with the Records Officer on the appropriate handling of Federal 

records, including data. 

There was some concern that overtime rules were not properly followed or 

communicated by supervisors for both exempt and non-exempt staff. There was some concern 

about striking a proper balance between long work shifts (often done at the discretion of the 

employee) and time off for necessary rest and recharge, pointing to a need for crews to allow 

more time between long shifts. There was also some concern over perceived tension in tasking 

people appropriately to balance among science operations, EOC duties, and social media 

coverage. 

Because so many staff came from outside HVO, newcomers often had an imperfect idea 

of what was needed. This occurred with the UAS group, where it became apparent that a data 

manager and UAS coordinator were needed. People brought in often had an imperfect 

understanding of their charge, and some respondents noted that a prior UAS crew did not always 

know what was required with these new positions, which produced some fairly significant 

misunderstandings. 

Issue 5: Enhanced Safety

Survey respondents expressed multiple concerns about reinforcing safety protocols. HVO 

did not have a safety officer present at the beginning of the response. Individuals were 

responsible for acquiring their own personal protective equipment (PPE), yet guidelines for this 

PPE were not always made clear to incoming personnel. A job hazard analysis for the LERZ was 

not complete until July, 2 months after the eruption began. The resulting analysis covered more 

than 20 activities and provided mitigation steps for each risk, which improved safety protocols 

and procedures considerably through the remainder of the eruption. To the degree practical, it is 

advisable to initiate the job hazard analysis sooner and designate an Essential Records liaison to 

ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

There also were some issues at the summit and the LERZ where USGS scientists were 

not allowed to access field sites because of safety concerns. At the summit, there was no access 

to conduct field work in the caldera until June 5, and limited provision thereafter. Virtually all 

science was conducted remotely. At the LERZ, particularly in the last few months of the 

eruption, FOB personnel became increasingly concerned that USGS personnel were taking too 

many risks, particularly with respect to gas exposure. On one hand, this was due largely to FOB 

personnel having no experience or knowledge of volcanic hazards and falling back on overly 

restrictive Occupational Safety and Health Administration limits. However, some HVO staff and 

others placed themselves in high-risk areas. The HVO discussed these matters at staff meetings, 

appealing to good judgement instead of establishing rigid guidelines. It may be that guidelines 

tailored to the HVO need to be formalized. 

Many people commented that UAS safety procedures and protocols were not followed as 

much as they needed to be, especially during the first few weeks of the response. The initial UAS 

crew was very busy with the emergency response nature of the first weeks of the eruption and 

lacked dedicated time for proper flight and safety briefings. Subsequent crews instituted safety 

standards and briefings in accordance with DOI Operational Procedures Memorandum-11 

guidelines. 
31 

Issue 6: Enhanced Science Coordination

Some scientists expressed frustration over lack of access to traditional field work 

opportunities; however, several scientists thought that the USGS response was very effective 

from a crisis-management and science communication perspective, but less so from the 

perspective of capturing ephemeral data. At the summit, there was little on-the-ground 

monitoring of cracks; at the LERZ, there was no systematic approach to activities such as taking 

temperature measurements at cracks, nor was there a systematic way of recording of such 

measurements, other than through field notebooks and ad hoc reports in Mattermost®. There 

were no systematic plans for collecting and documenting thickness of ash/cinder deposits at 

either site. This likely indicates the initial heavy emphasis on monitoring large changes during 

the initial stages of the eruption, as well as safety concerns. The alternate view presented is that 

HVO management considered whether to acquire such data but made a reasoned decision that 

such data collection did not warrant the safety risk or the overhead expenses. 

Some scientists perceived a general disconnect between GIS and field geology, with no 

systematic effort in place to organize field observations into a GIS. Tension was reported in the 

UAS group about prioritizing flights for response rather than for gathering science information. 

The gas project was understaffed, which had a direct impact on the ability of the team to 

respond. For example, the available staff could not take measurements at both the summit and 

LERZ, process data, and communicate findings to the broader response team in a timely manner, 

despite everyone working extremely long hours every day and on weekends. There was a 

perceived need to establish a protocol for SO2 measurements with respect to public health 

hazards with continuous sensors and a method for consistent flow of data back to the EOC. 

Other survey respondents noted that citizen scientists were very involved in the response, 

but that staff could do better highlighting their activities, publicly thanking them, and ensuring 

that they also have what they need during the response, as they play a valuable role in our 

science infrastructure. 

Training (108 comments)

Training processes varied widely among USGS responders. Although some responders 

brought existing skill sets (human resources, records storage protocols, VDP Event Trees) and 

relationships with major players, others had to be trained quickly for their roles. The latter could 

be hindered by lack of training documents stating clear roles and responsibilities at the beginning 

of the response, which evolved during the response. On-site training tended to range from 

accessing reading materials, shadowing predecessors for a short time period, or talking with staff 

already involved in the eruption response. Consistent systems, protocols, and reporting tools 

shared by all observatories; former work experience at HVO; and individual initiative helped 

VSC responders ramp up quickly. 

Issue 7: Enhanced Onboard Training

Survey respondents consistently commented about the need to improve the onboarding 

processes of visiting staff. Each observatory should develop their own “best-practices” briefing 

document (for all to read and sign) that addresses region-specific topics such as volcano safety, 

call-down procedures, data/photograph sharing, archiving procedures, behavior while in the 
32 

field, cultural sensitivities, and other best practices. Some respondents thought that more 

attention during orientation is needed to ensure that biosecurity considerations are included into 

disaster-response protocols, especially for non-Hawai'ian residents.

The EOCs need to have on-hand useful training materials specific to their unique roles 

and responsibilities. People assigned to EOCs need to expect shifts to last as long as 11 hours 

and be prepared to adapt to changing situations with new protocols. Incoming personnel need to 

join Mattermost® discussions ahead of arrival to gain knowledge of EOC liaison duties and how 

they relate to USGS personnel. 

Issue 8: Promote Deliberate Mentorship

There is a perceived need to make allowances for personnel with extensive experience to 

work more closely with those who have less experience. There is an expressed need to have 

more overlap of senior field-oriented physical-volcanologists with next-generation scientists to 

maintain basic research on highly hazardous past eruptive phenomena. For persons assigned to 

EOC duty within the State and county, there is a perceived need to allow for at least 1 day of 

overlap with personnel who are rotating out. 

Communications (160 comments)

Communication across all disciplines and partners is critical to keep all responders 

speaking as one voice and working toward a common purpose. 

Issue 9: Improve Standardization of Communications 

Internal to the USGS, there is a need to adopt a uniform communications platform that 

(1) everyone in the response can use, including external collaborators; (2) enables 24/7 

distribution of data; (3) allows for archival functions; (4) provides defined pathways for vertical 

communications within disciplines; and (5) works independently of cell towers, which can be 

destroyed by lava. There also is an expressed need to improve coordination among regional and 

national USGS communication staff. There is a perceived need to establish more regular HVO 

internal conference calls, including remote response participants, to facilitate informationsharing with HVO management and keep everyone informed of developments. 

External to the USGS, survey respondents expressed a perceived need to establish a 

proper debriefing order among various ICS entities (such as FOB, and county and State EOCs) 

so that eruption status information is delivered on time from the field for daily scheduled 

briefings. Other respondents expressed a need to adopt a more structured approach that 

establishes and maintains a tracking list of very important person engagement and Congressional 

visits to the site of a disaster. There is need to establish protocols for communications in the field 

between the USGS and the FOB, including the use of consistent radio frequencies and specific 

devices (radios instead of inReach phones), with enough radios on hand and FOB personnel 

trained in using them. 

There is also a need to improve visual materials for public consumption. In the case of 

Kīlauea, this would include a labeled map of the summit area that includes significant features—

road names, HVO and Park Service sites, overlooks, caldera rim, current and new outlines of the 

crater, the Volcano House, and cardinal direction. Photographs also should be labeled 

accordingly. One problem that emerged after the response was that photographs posted in 

Mattermost® were stripped of their exchangeable image file (EXIF) format headers, which 
33 

included coordinates of the photographer. For drone footage, captions should describe the 

direction of travel. Survey respondents also expressed a need to improve website materials to 

provide better orientation and better explanations on the deformation page. 

Given that social media increased in importance throughout the eruption, there is a need 

to be more attentive to resident concerns and feedback to enhance USGS credibility. It was 

suggested that on-the-ground photography and video footage should be more inclusive of the 

human element, yet with due regard for honoring privacy concerns. Progress toward improved 

standardization in communications also would tend to improve compliance with regulations 

under records management. 

Equipment and Resources (124 comments)

Many survey respondents indicated the need to use the Kīlauea experience to determine 

what equipment and crew resources are most essential to provide the type of emergency support 

and data products that are required from the USGS to promote real-time situational awareness. 

Several different topics emerged around this concern.

Issue 10: Ensure Data Quality and Records Management

Survey respondents expressed concern over data consistency and quality control. There 

tended to be too much variability in the type of observations and amount of data placed in 

various logs. 

Although a few geologists were using some mobile GIS in the field, there was no 

systematic effort to organize and store all the spatial data being generated by the field crews. 

Furthermore, there was no good unitary system for computing, data storage, backup, and 

uploading, primarily because people relied on their personal work computers from other projects, 

or personal phones and Wi-Fi hotspots, using alternate email accounts because the enterprise 

system would prohibit some participants from being able to access important Google DocsTM and 

shared folders. There also was no defined method in place to quickly convey geospatial data to

emergency management partners, and because of previous years of chronic understaffing at the 

HVO, there was no one at HVO specifically tasked to gather geospatial data and accomplish this 

during a crisis. Despite awareness of the need, a dedicated GIS position did not exist at the HVO, 

forcing a few dedicated employees to fill the void and adapt to a lead role on GIS during the 

eruption response. 

Mattermost®, although serving a vital function as an excellent communication tool, 

became for some people the only path through which they reported observations. This has 

proven problematic for long-term record keeping because of inadequate archival functions and 

because using the software as a service requires documentation for “authority to operate.” 

Identifying metadata is a records-management requirement that needs to be maintained even in 

the event of a disaster. In a crisis, there often is only time to file one detailed report, so there 

should be more thought put into how scientists report observations and codify them. Other 

respondents noted that people sometimes seemed to be more interested in taking images and 

posting them immediately on Mattermost® than in observing, thinking, and taking notes during 

the observations. Data archiving remains a big problem, with negative implications for both 

response coordination and subsequent scientific work, so the VSC needs to consider using 

professional assistance for this purpose. Each group used their own approach, with varying 

degrees of success. 
34 

Improved coordination across all USGS observatories is a critical and essential next step 

forward in volcano monitoring for safeguarding people and communities. Having a permanent 

USGS staff member at the HVO dedicated to managing geospatial data will help address this 

gap. 

Issue 11: Administration of Human Resources

Many survey respondents expressed a need to better optimize staffing to confront 

persistent challenges that resulted from the constant stress of filling gaps in coverage and 

extremely long work shifts. The USGS response team was stretched too thin by the event, having 

a direct effect on their ability to perform. Some respondents thought that the VSC needs a larger 

team of field people in general, and geologists in particular. Other respondents thought the VHP

office needs an additional full-time employee to help handle media, meeting notes, and reporting 

tasks during eruption responses, as most regular work (data calls, cooperative agreements) 

cannot be placed on hold. Some expressed the idea that an external grants program could 

potentially enhance our ability to bring in science partners from other research agencies for help 

during a crisis.

There was substantial concern expressed about stress management and staff burnout. It 

was also noted that difficulties with implementing interagency travel agreements translated into 

lost expertise and insights. Resolving such administrative challenges needs to happen prior to the 

activation of an emergency response. Other staff were not always used in the most efficient 

manner. For example, some respondents suggested that full staffing support was not regularly 

needed for most meetings, and that time might be better spent for some participants if questions 

were addressed as a task item sent afterwards. 

Issue 12: Advanced Preparation for Equipment and Gear

There was concern that safety equipment should be inventoried and updated regularly to 

prevent any shortfalls or gaps in distribution. Having an easy-to-move and well-tracked cache of 

equipment would be an improvement for future eruption responses. 

There is a clear need for redundant sensor arrays and rapid-deployment sensors. 

Redundant channels of telemetry communication also are needed, along with serious 

vulnerability analysis. 

Clothing also became an issue when very few people had appropriate USGS or DOI 

visual identity and no one had sufficient visual identity to be properly representing the agency 

every day in the field. FEMA, NPS, and other agencies seemed to have an endless supply of 

visual identity gear that enabled their employees to conspicuously represent their respective 

agencies. Several people commented that a logistics manager should be mobilized to an event 

site to handle the various challenges associated with lodging, gear, safety supplies, and other 

logistic items.

Excerpted Findings from Other Sources

This section highlights excerpts of findings that were derived from numerous sources 

external to the survey instruments. The bulleted lists that follow capture specific suggestions for 

action derived from structured after-action group discussions (“hot wash” exercises) that warrant 

explicit reiteration in this report. However, not every suggestion here is carried through with 

identical phrasing into the final set of recommendations advanced by this report. 
35 

Department of the Interior Strategic Sciences Group

The DOI SSG developed a technical report (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2018) that 

explained in detail many examples of potential actions that likely would help mitigate adverse 

effects in a future eruption. Some of the specific suggestions for action from that report that

pertain most directly to the USGS VHP include the following key concepts: 

● Seize opportunities to develop new partnerships within and outside DOI to address 

facilities issues caused by seismic damage and park closure. 

● Support ongoing efforts to create redundancy for HVO instrumentation through 

alternate instrumentation or siting.

● Educate community members and workers to increase early detection of invasive 

species and establish new wash stations at the entrance of Volcanoes National Park to 

address biosecurity threats posed by increased commuting from more distant Hilo 

locations. 

● Create a "vog officer" position to ensure better coordination and consistency in 

communication about vog hazards across Federal, State, and county agencies. 

● Use lava-flow risk maps to facilitate discussions between the NPS and local landowners 

about the possible creation of public lava viewing areas for use in future eruptions. 

Office of Communications and Publishing

The OCAP developed an internal document after team discussion on the Kīlauea 

response. Some of the specific suggestions for action from that report are summarized here:

● Visiting staff should be more aware of local sensitivities and adopt a supportive and 

deferential role toward local staff. 

● Two vital communication functions should begin right away and not await external 

initiative—organizing a coordinated news media response and organizing community 

meetings.

● Plan to deploy a strong public affairs presence early on, and then reduce activity later if 

not needed. 

● Establish clear buy-in from the SIC and the resident media specialist about the types of 

roles and responsibilities needed to fulfill national media needs. Each visitor should 

arrive with an invitation and full awareness by the SIC, and work within a defined 

space.

● Assert early control over media interactions by dictating procedures through tactics 

such as using out-of-office voicemail directing callers to join collective media calls, 

establishing a website template for tracking the status of media inquiries, dividing event 

email traffic into national and local inquiries, and streamlining review and approval 

processes for social media posts.

● Establish a clear policy that defines the circumstances under which media can be 

permitted to shadow scientists in the field, and then coordinate specific field trip 

opportunities with FEMA and other relevant agencies.
36 

Hawai'i Volcano Observatory Interactions with the National Park Service

After-action “hot wash” activities specific to HVO interactions with the NPS also resulted in a 

collection of lessons learned, which are summarized here: 

● The HVO should develop a written plan of interaction between the USGS and NPS that 

summarizes roles, responsibilities, and protocols during a response. 

● The HVO should plan for a formal liaison position at NPS Incident Command. This

person would need awareness of ICS protocol, the USGS mission, HVO operations, 

and local Hawai'ian culture.

● USGS observatories should increase general awareness of ICS principles and 

procedures by accessing free online annual training courses on DOI Talent. 

● The USGS needs to tighten control of employee tracking and reporting in dangerous 

conditions, while preventing rogue activities. This might be handled through more 

extensive use of radios, phone applications, or badges with embedded trackers. 

● The HVO should adopt the GAR Operational Risk Assessment Model used by the NPS 

to improve situational awareness and mitigate safety risk during an eruption. Risk 

calculation worksheets can be used to align risk decisions with appropriate managerial 

levels.

● The HVO should work with the NPS to simplify gate lock combinations and park maps 

for easier use by approved non-NPS partners during an emergency. 

● The HVO should make more use of NPS radio communications by adding call names, 

shared frequencies, training, and standard operating procedures. 

● The HVO should join the rapid message methodology SENDWORDNOW to share 

urgent messages with the NPS.

● The HVO should work with the NPS to streamline management of aviation vendors.

● The HVO should coordinate with the NPS to allow participation in NPS all-hands 

meetings to receive and share monthly updates. 

● The HVO should coordinate with the NPS about sharing social media responsibilities 

during the next eruption. 

● The HVO should coordinate with the NPS to conduct half-day realistic eruption 

scenarios for small teams. 

● The HVO should coordinate with the NPS to establish proper orientation briefings for 

all visiting staff. 

● The HVO should coordinate with the NPS to develop local hazard maps that are 

consistent with USGS products. 

● The HVO should coordinate with the NPS to develop a master map of roads in HAVO, 

with possible redesignation of the summit road as an emergency route. 

● The HVO should determine with the NPS how UAS footage can and cannot be used. 

● The HVO should coordinate with the NPS how to attain research permits during a 

response.

Hawai'i County Civil Defense Debrief

The HVO also conducted a thorough after-action debrief with HCCD in November 2018. 

A summary of key suggestions (arranged by topic) from that “hot wash” exchange is 

presented here. 
37 

On the topic of Communications: 

● The start of weekly HVO communications to HCCD on March 23 was well-timed and 

sufficiently informative, allowing HCCD to be proactive in response preparation. 

However, the HVO should alert HCCD earlier about possible rare events such as 

summit explosions. 

● The HVO should subscribe to HCCD text alert messaging for specific categories of 

interest.

● The HVO should run early public messaging text by HCCD for review. Expert help in 

hazard communication would be valuable in the beginning of a crisis. Public messaging 

should include any uncertainties in forecasting. 

● HCCD should strengthen early messaging to improve public compliance. Investigate 

methods of tracking messaging effectiveness, possibly through social media by 

HiEMA. 

● HCCD messaging should focus on the hazards present by area (for example, Leilani 

Estates was not going to have the ashfall mentioned in more general messaging). 

Investment in more complex messaging by area will relieve HVO staff of responding to 

public confusion over which hazard to expect. Investigate developing an online tool 

that would allow the public to learn about hazards specific to their location, with oncamera testimony and a tailored frequently asked questions (FAQ) document. 

● HVO and HCCD should establish a Joint Information Center (JIC) to facilitate HCCD 

participation in USGS-moderated media calls that reach local, national, and 

international media outlets. A JIC also could coordinate planning of smaller community 

meetings. A possible location for a JIC is in a complex across the road from HCCD.

● HVO and HCCD should pursue a combination of local in-person briefings and media 

calls to reach the widest audience. Community meetings were very popular with the 

public and are very effective at mitigating misinformation. However, they need more 

consistent messaging and better workload balance among presenters, shorter briefings, 

consistent HCCD presence, and NPS presence for meetings in communities near the 

park. The use of local moderators to focus meetings and mitigate tensions should be 

continued. Expand messaging about specific eruption scenarios at community meetings, 

jointly reviewed by HCCD and the HVO.

● Nā Leo TV® was a valuable partner in recording community meetings. Request their 

advice on meeting frequency, and how to livestream future meetings on Facebook to 

reach a wider audience and increase trust in authorities. 

● Establish a HCCD-HVO education working group to develop new, multi-audience 

materials to educate HCCD staff, USGS non-VHP staff, and the public on volcanic and 

earthquake hazards. Write volcanic preparation pamphlets at two different levels (for 

kids and adults). Work with Nā Leo TV® to develop a documentary about the 

community experiences and effects of this event.

● HVO and HCCD should offset social media misinformation disseminated by grassroots 

organizations over which responders have little influence. Suggestions include 

coordinating with Nā Leo TV® as a trusted local entity to send out more targeted daily 

local reports; recruiting upper levels of responders to better monitor social media; 

updating more frequently the availability of public information at HCCD shelters; and 

using dedicated misinformation correction threads on social media, such as a Microsoft 

smart algorithm for scrubbing. 
38 

● HCCD should use established Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT) to 

better empower citizens to reach evacuation decisions on their own through direct 

information dissemination.

● HVO should send a scientist as liaison to the HCCD EOC at the beginning of 

activation. This position is critical in allowing HVO to reach HCCD through cell phone 

and Mattermost® texting capability. 

On the topic of Operations: 

● The HVO should work with HCCD to implement a formal ICS tailored to Hawai'i 

County to enable information flow from HCCD back to the HVO. This may help in 

defining a common crisis response terminology. Use the Incident Action Plan to 

deconflict and schedule various briefings ahead of time for a logical response flow. 

Analyze timing of HVO briefings and revise as needed.

● Revive the old HVO call-down list for the start of different crisis events and revise as 

necessary, using the expertise of the USGS Emergency Management Office. 

● Insert daily virtual policy/logistics meetings with select HVO (as needed) and HCCD 

personnel. The meetings would inform HVO of HCCD-specific response actions, such 

as evacuation routes and use of sirens that would influence HVO fieldwork. 

● Early in the response, mobilize someone who understands FEMA mission assignments 

who can act as a FEMA liaison and a USGS Safety officer. The HVO should refine 

their workflow to complete ICS Form 214—daily log reporting of significant events—

to HCCD to support FEMA reimbursement.

● Ask FEMA if future geology interpreter liaisons stationed at the HiEMA could come 

from the University of Hawai'i system to relieve the HVO of that duty. 

● Develop a common operating picture platform with elements such as a dashboard, 

Mattermost®, and someone to create visualizations from reporting. Determine which 

agencies/personnel would have access. HCCD can ask FEMA to be the lead in data 

collection, delivery, and standardization across agencies, particularly for maps, 

including those of the HiEMA. 

● Consider HCCD opening the EOC earlier, prior to the EOC being formally activated, 

for initial closed-door partner briefings, so that all partners have the same level of 

situational awareness. 

● Investigate HVO adopting the free “collector” application for gas and crack data, 

photographs, and videos. HCCD uses this application and can train the HVO. 

Investigate incorporating a web form that feeds into the collector application database 

so that the public also can contribute to it. 

● The HVO and HCCD should define systems, standards, and workflow about collecting, 

archiving, distributing, and using gas data, as well as public education on gas hazards. 

Define standards for gas mask type and use that are unique to each agency and train 

accordingly. Work with the Hawai'i Department of Health to define mask type and use 

standards for the public.

● Plan ahead of time which resources (fuel, food, water, and sleeping quarters) will be 

available to HVO personnel at an FOB. Arrange for the HVO to access help with 

instrument deployment, storage space at the FOB, a camper van for sleeping after shifts 

in the field, and installation of temporary cell towers during response. 
39 

● HVO should develop a lava-flow cooling model that will feed HCCD criteria for 

allowing citizens and businesses back into flow areas, especially where lava will be 

removed from driveways and roads. 

● HVO should continue to develop UAS live feed capability to the EOC, increasing IT 

capability as needed. Talk with the UHH about technologies to process UAS footage in 

real time in the field for quicker georeferencing of the footage. 

● HVO should ensure that sufficient information is passed to HiEMA (maximum of 4–5 

Microsoft PowerPointTM slides), and that it matches information provided to the HCCD.

On the topic of Safety and Training: 

● Develop first responder baseline safety standards. Develop and train separate safety 

standards for the HVO that address the HVO unique mission, which requires a higher 

risk tolerance than HCCD. 

● Radios with locators and satellite phones with trackers would facilitate HVO 

accountability and safety without reliance on cell towers.

● ICS training for all partners would improve many coordination and communication 

issues. Determine which HVO staff to train in the use of Incident Action Plans as part 

of ICS training. High-level volcano hazards training is needed for ICS and other 

responders coming from off-island. 

● Hold HVO-HCCD biannual meetings with briefings on different eruption scenarios and 

forecasting tools such as event trees. 

● HCCD should include the HVO in future liaison training.

● Maintain the policy of having the HING accompany the media into the field. This has 

freed up HVO and HCCD resources while preserving the necessary safety precautions. 

Recommendations 

“This event was a wake-up call for all USGS offices. A bigger event will leave USGS scrambling and unable to 

conduct our mission unless we can take advantage of this learning moment.”

This report draws collectively from the wide assortment of received feedback, as 

identified and discussed in the section, “Discussion,” to advance a concise set of 

recommendations for targeted adjustments that might improve the USGS response to future 

events. It is anticipated that USGS leadership will further assess these recommendations, 

prioritize them, and then refer the endorsed actions to appropriate responsible parties for 

implementation and (or) further solution development. A summary of these recommendations is 

shown in table 1, located at the end of this section. 
40 

Consolidated Recommendations by Topic

PLANNING

Topic 1.0: Develop More Comprehensive Planning Documents (Aligns with Issues 1,10,11, and 12) 

1.1 Update Continuity of Operations (COOP) planning. 

The scale of the Kīlauea eruption brings into sharp focus the ongoing need for updated 

COOP planning, not only at the Bureau level but also at the local level of each science center 

and, in the case of the VSC, each observatory. Each COOP should follow the template 

established by FEMA, with all the integral component parts, including (1) identification and 

prioritization of mission essential functions, (2) order of succession and delegation of authority 

specifications, (3) continuity of facilities, (4) continuity of communications through physical 

hardware and procedural guidance, (5) essential records-management, (6) continuity of 

personnel, (7) training and drills, and (8) reconstitution of operations. 

Following direct “lessons learned” from the Kīlauea event, each local COOP plan should 

include the following elements: 

• Clearly identify who has decision-making authority, and how decisions will be made. 

• Include a strategy to relocate or duplicate the core functions of vital equipment so that 

each observatory could abandon a facility during an emergency yet still perform 

critical functions elsewhere.

• Consider the feasibility of increasing the mobility of operations using trailers, steel 

shipping containers, or mobile homes that would allow for rapid relocation of 

laboratories and communication resources to support incident command centers. 

• Confirm that personnel are set up with virtual private network (VPN) accounts for 

remote DOI access.

• Beware of the cumulative effect of multiple COOP plans using the same backup 

resources during a crisis. 

Potential Action Office: Scientists-in-Charge and Regional Safety Manager 

1.2 With specific regard to continuity of facilities, following direct “lessons learned” from 

the Kīlauea event, the COOP plan for each observatory should include the following elements: 

• Develop a full Reconstitution Plan for those facilities operating in areas of high hazard 

risk, with discussion of options and future space needs related to rebuilding and leasing. 

• Outline when a building must be evacuated and under what circumstances it is safe to 

return.

• During an event, establish a dedicated point of contact early in the process (within 2 

weeks) who would have authority to make decisions regarding space and funding, and 

could obtain training in Emergency Space Acquisition. 

• Under conditions of evacuation, contact partners and use Cooperative Agreements and 

Interagency Agreements where possible to maintain continuity of operations. If Federal 

space is not available, the OMS should coordinate with General Services Administration 

(GSA) to expedite the process through procurement vehicles such as Emergency Leases 
41 

and Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition; consideration may also turn 

to the use of Categorical, Special Purpose, and Delegation space authorities.

• Coordinate with the Office of Acquisition and Grants for short-term blanket emergency 

contracts (such as Moving Services) to provide manpower to relocate personal property, 

historic artifacts, and other valuable items.

• Maintain awareness that in an emergency, normal market forces change unexpectedly, 

and rental space can escalate in cost during the acquisition process.

Potential Action Office: Scientists-in-Charge and Office of Management Services

1.3 With specific regard to continuity of communications, following direct “lessons learned” 

from the Kīlauea event, the COOP plan for each observatory should include the following 

elements: 

• Identify how to maintain priority service for cellular and landline communications, 

including “waiver use” of university or National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration networks as backup in times of emergency to allow for more redundancy. 

• Identify redundant configurations for each data center, identifying viable backup options 

using cloud-hosting services, another observatory, or the USGS Earth Resources 

Observation and Science Center.

• Consider new opportunities to better leverage sensor to cloud technologies. 

• Consider new opportunities to better leverage local cloud-hosting solutions during 

disaster recovery.

• Identify a prescribed GIS tool (such as Mattermost®) for consistent use across the VSC

and the Natural Hazards Program that establishes a sanctioned IT solution with formal 

“authority to operate” for sharing files internally and with external partners. 

Potential Action Office: Scientists-in-Charge and Office of Enterprise Information

1.4 Draft an internal Incident Response Plan.

In close association with an updated COOP plan, each volcano observatory needs to 

prepare an internal Incident Response Plan that predefines staff roles and responsibilities, as well 

as capabilities, during an eruption response. This would help reduce confusion and redundancy 

of effort during a crisis. The plan can be informed by past efforts, such as the 2006 Augustine 

eruption, the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory response plan, and the 2018 Long Valley 

eruption VSC tabletop exercise. 

The Incident Response Plan should address the following specific concerns: 

• Backup power and fuel supplies, 

• Backup communications equipment, 

• Accountability for staff, 

• Safeguarding hazardous materials, 

• Continuing the best practice of establishing telemetry redundancies across monitoring 

networks, 
42 

• The identification of predefined backup observatory facilities in coordination with 

GSA, and 

• The identification of critical IT systems and plans for mandatory reporting outages to 

DOI.

Additionally, the Incident Response Plan should include: 

• A clear definition about when unrest phenomena would activate the response plan; 

• Criteria for engaging USGS scientists outside the VSC;

• An expedited purchasing capability for supplies and equipment; 

• Dedicated internal communication platforms by activity;

• Provision for a centralized database of observations; 

• Regular internal VSC coordination calls; and

• Identification of appropriate leads for all the necessary components of a large 

coordinated response (scheduling, logistics, administrative functions, finance and 

acquisitions, science collaborations, IMT liaisons, geospatial data services, and 

information technology and data management). This may lead to additional Full-Time 

Equivalent positions or redefinition of some position descriptions. 

For example, the scheduling component of the Incident Response Plan should strategize 

how to: 

• Identify gaps in staffing; 

• Vet available personnel from outside the primary responding observatory in a fair 

manner; 

• Onboard external personnel with a briefing on their duties so as to manage their 

expectations; 

• Develop onboarding training materials covering local concerns, consider cultural 

sensitivities, messaging standardization, and predictable complications;

• Maintain a running list of downtime tasks for personnel; 

• Maintain tracking of USGS and DOI staff whereabouts on the island (modelled on the 

Fukunaga Google sheet); and 

• Maintain a personnel roster so that everyone knows names, affiliations, and 

assignments of the visiting staff.

The scheduler would give HVO staff priority in assignments for which they have the relevant 

skill set.

The logistics component should strategize how to coordinate money, resources, lodging, 

vehicle, and travel needs, while interacting directly with each IMT. The administrative 

component should strategize how to track the status of time and attendance for all deployed 

personnel, exempt and nonexempt employee designation, comp time instead of overtime 

eligibility and consecutive days worked so that potential violations of the Fair Labor Standards 

Act are avoided. The finance component should strategize how to optimally coordinate with 

FEMA over mission assignments, overtime pay, hazard pay, and purchasing needs. The science 

collaboration component should strategize how to evaluate and facilitate external research 

collaborations and project requests in advance of an eruption. The IMT liaison component should 

strategize how to vet FEMA requests, assist with mission control, and possibly draw salary 
43 

through FEMA mission assignment. It would also establish protocols for communications in the 

field between USGS and the FOB, including use of consistent radio frequencies and specific 

devices (radios instead of inReach phones), with enough radios on hand and FOB personnel 

trained in using them. 

The geospatial data services component of the Incident Response Plan should strategize 

how to bring in, distribute, and catalog all the latest lava-flow mapping, drone data, forward 

looking infrared, instrument and observation station positions, and lidar from a centralized 

system that can be accessed by multiple users from multiple devices. The Incident Response Plan 

should assess needs for different map formats ahead of time and facilitate the release of 

information in shape files and suitable metadata. It would also further evaluate the capacity of 

ScienceBase as a data repository. The USGS GIRT of the NGP should be included as a support 

component of the geospatial data services plan, with explicit coordination planning. 

The IT/data management component should strategize how to address the collection, 

preservation, organization, and disposition of Federal records, including data, in accordance with 

existing laws, regulations, and policies. The OEI is available to help in this effort, with specific 

regard to telecommunications, cloud and data storage (including communication logs) for future 

studies and the scientific record with a dedicated data processing unit, centralized storage area, 

and staff who are authorized to release data. The data management component also should 

strategize how to: 

• Facilitate access to new computers, 

• Fast-track experimental software (in-house code and internet tools), 

• Test freeware tools that might be useful but are not allowed on DOINet, 

• Facilitate access to data from mobile devices, 

• Facilitate access to non-DOINet computers for instrument-dependent data download 

tools that have been erroneously identified as malware, and 

• Establish a central repository for all documents.

The Incident Response Plan should explain who is in charge of what; and, roles and 

responsibilities should be clearly defined and communicated, with frequent reiteration, especially 

as changes occur in management structure. Yet, the planning should not be overly rigid, as there 

needs to be flexibility for people to respond to situations as they occur, especially when 

circumstances are changing quickly.

Potential Action Office: Scientists-in-Charge and the Volcano Science Center, with input 

from the Regional Safety Manager 

Topic 2.0: Create a More Customized Fit Within the Incident Command System (Aligns with Issues 2, 3, 

and 4) 

The VSC will be interacting with an ICS during any future eruption crisis at a volcano 

with hazards affecting major population centers and critical infrastructure. To plan better for 

such interactions, the VSC should do the following: 

2.1 Ensure that more VSC staff are trained with ICS. 

2.2 Establish closer ties with the IMT community, in addition to the traditional focus on 

community preparedness.
44 

2.3 Establish several dedicated liaison positions at the start of a crisis, including a position to 

help the VSC navigate the financial aspects of a FEMA-involved response, and to act as a liaison 

between various IMTs and the USGS. 

2.4 At the start of a crisis, diagram how communication flow should occur between USGS 

staff at different IMT posts, particularly regarding anticipated requests for information.

2.5 Identify triggering criteria for scientists embedded in EOCs to be replaced by a dedicated 

contact at the local volcano observatory; for example, as waning or steady-state is established.

2.6 Establish protocols for communications in the field between USGS and the FOB, 

including use of consistent radio frequencies and specific devices (radios instead of inReach 

phones), with enough radios on hand and FOB personnel trained in using them. 

2.7 The USGS liaison to the ICS should establish a proper debriefing order among various 

ICS entities (FOB, county and State EOCs) so that eruption status information is delivered on 

time from the field for daily scheduled briefings. Such briefings should plan to incorporate 

improved visual materials for public consumption. 

2.8 In the absence of a full-time employee, assign a Geospatial Data Manager, who would 

ensure during a crisis that data received from the drone team or field crews are quickly used to 

generate maps for internal and external distribution through a streamlined ScienceBase-like 

approval process. This manager would establish a single web-based location to direct individuals 

and agencies for access to USGS spatial data. For example, a ScienceBase web service was 

eventually created during the Kīlauea response to serve data as a cartographic product that could 

be incorporated in web-based mapping programs, Google EarthTM, and desktop GIS applications. 

This vision could be expanded to streamline and improve future efforts. This assigned manager 

would also ensure that large-volume datasets are managed appropriately, with IT infrastructure 

that meets the needs for UAS-generated and other field-based data. The role would also facilitate 

management of relevant satellite data. 

Potential Action Office: Natural Hazards Mission Area and the Alaska Regional Office 

Topic 3.0: Establish a Regional Hazards Coordinator (Aligns with Issues 2, 3, and 4) 

The multiple tasks of disaster response require action that will exceed the ordinary 

capacity of a science center or observatory, requiring support from the Regional Office in the 

form of a USGS “Regional Hazards Coordinator” who will support science centers with an 

understanding of all the natural hazards within their region. The coordinator would communicate 

with local and regional responders within and outside the USGS, complementing and 

augmenting the work that the volcano observatories already do in these areas. The coordinator 

would support the science center and observatories by engaging with the various EOCs to assure 

that mutual protocols, roles, responsibilities, and guidelines are clearly communicated between 

the USGS and EOC personnel. The coordinator would introduce USGS personnel and products, 

as well as science capabilities to assure understanding and usefulness, during crisis and noncrisis time frames. 
45 

A key role of the Regional Hazards Coordinator would be to work with science centers to 

develop a customized Hazard Response Communication Plan (see Topic 8.0) that establishes 

internal and external roles between USGS subject-matter experts, OCAP, and the emergency 

response community through the National ICS protocols. 

A Regional Hazards Coordinator would be trained in the National Incident Management 

System (ICS-100 and -200-course level, minimum) and regularly participate in FEMA, State and 

interagency steering committees, and preparedness events. The coordinator would participate in 

and suggest mock exercises with the USGS and the local, State, and national response 

communities for each natural hazard within their region. The location, time zone, remoteness, 

population/infrastructure of each threat will make each response unique. 

The Regional Hazards Coordinator and OCAP lead would assume responsibility for 

coordinating public as well as internal and interagency communications. The coordinator would 

assume responsibility for engaging with and onboarding outside communications assistance. 

Onboarding activities would include introductions to USGS subject-matter experts on the 

response team and among other agencies, familiarization with the communication plan, and 

promotion of situational awareness to local sensitivities. The size of the response team could be 

adjusted, depending on the situation, although the idea is to come in quickly with strong support 

and reduce support later, rather than catching up later. 

Potential Action Office: Alaska Region, with Natural Hazards Mission Area, OCAP

Topic 4.0: Initiate Science Leadership Early (Aligns with Issues 5 and 6)

4.1 Each observatory should establish a plan to (1) quickly identify scientific priorities for a 

response; (2) communicate those priorities to all involved; (3) develop an approach to address 

those priorities (including any systematic observations that need to be taken); (4) systematically 

evaluate priorities and change them, if necessary; and (5) perform periodic quality-assurance

checks to ensure that the science is addressing the priorities. This could be done through a single 

science coordinator, discipline-specific coordinators, or geography-based science coordinators. 

This tasking should remain separate from, but in close communication with, operational 

leadership. 

4.2 Each observatory should develop a more systematic process and format for internal 

project coordination during an event with clear specification of (1) what products are expected 

by whom and when; (2) what projects are ongoing and in need of external assistance; and (3) 

what types of training/skills are required to participate in the projects requiring additional staff. 

4.3 It is advisable to establish a more deliberate process to evaluate and facilitate outside 

research. A standing steering committee could be organized at the center level to evaluate 

outside requests, identify gaps within USGS that could be filled by others, and then proactively 

reach out to coordinate such efforts. 

4.4 It is advisable to incorporate more scenario-based planning in future hazard assessments. 

Advance preparation of event-tree scenarios with associated reference materials may well 

promote improved science delivery. Likewise, it is advisable for observatories to prepare new 

regional hazard assessments that include not only a long-term analysis (for example, for land-use 

planning), but also with anticipation for use during a crisis response. In short, the VSC should 
46 

work in a more deliberate manner to better understand and use the linkages between long-term 

and short-term hazard analysis. One important aspect of this strategy involves the development 

and practice with scenario-based event trees.

Potential Action Office: Scientists-in-Charge 

Topic 5.0: Prioritize Safety in All Response Operations (Aligns with Issues 5 and 12)

The VSC and each observatory need to take additional measures to ensure that the established 

culture of safety is not subordinated by science or data gathering, even during a crisis. 

5.1 At the onset of a disaster response, a dedicated full-time safety officer should be on site, 

and should remain for the duration of the response. The USGS safety officer, at the onset of and 

throughout the duration of the eruption, should perform the following functions: (1) work with 

FEMA and each ICS to establish a job-hazard analysis for all field-based activities; (2) ensure 

that safety orientation and training requirements are met for all activated employees; (3) manage 

the distribution and use of PPE and other safety gear; and (4) document proper limits for SO2

exposure and other safety protocols ahead of time. The safety officer would also assume 

responsibility to ensure better coordination and consistency in communication about vog hazards 

across Federal, State, and county agencies. The safety officer also would explain how PPE 

should be selected, what exposures were measured or estimated, and how employees and 

volunteers would know if and when PPE might become insufficient. For prolonged events where 

safety officers are on rotation, a hand-off of information should take place. The response plan 

should specify whether a tool is developed or if there will be staff overlap to allow for inbriefings and debriefings. 

5.2 Additionally, a UAS safety officer and (or) airspace coordination expert also may be 

desirable, depending on the response activities. This officer should establish a clear internal and 

external chain-of-command and define roles and responsibilities, including identification of who 

sets the schedule for the day, who has the authority to modify the mission, and who has 

responsibility for the mission and safety of the team. All members of the UAS team should be 

made aware of this structure during mandatory orientation sessions given to all crews before they 

deploy to the field for the first time. 

5.3 The VSC should further develop an ash hazards response strategy with rapid response 

protocols and establish partnerships in this area with the National Weather Service, Federal 

Aviation Administration, and Washington Volcanic Ash Advisory Center. 

5.4 Safety equipment should be inventoried and updated regularly. Prepare in advance an 

easy-to-move and well-tracked cache of equipment for use in future eruption responses. 

Potential Action Office: Volcano Science Center and Regional Safety Manager

TRAINING

Topic 6.0: Formalize Incident Response Training Protocols (Aligns with Issues 6 and 7)

The anticipated implementation of an internal Incident Response Plan will involve increased 

annual training on ICS principles and procedures. Such individual training currently is available 

on DOI Talent (free of charge) through the National Park Service. 
47 

6.1 It is advisable to conduct joint NPS/HCCD/HVO ICS training exercises, and VSC-wide 

ICS training events so that ICS roles and protocols are better understood, response interactions 

go smoothly with minimal misunderstandings, and time is well-managed. ICS training should 

include response operations with multiple ICS teams. In the training, explore ICS response 

situations unique to volcanic eruptions. 

6.2 At the beginning of a disaster response, it is advisable for the USGS to provide some 

degree of training for on-site safety personnel at the FOB as to the role and capacities of USGS 

personnel; and to provide a better understanding of how volcanoes work, the various hazards that 

can be expected, and how USGS operates in the hazardous environment. 

6.3 It is advisable for each observatory to incorporate a process that ensures safety 

orientation and training requirements are met for all activated employees. Establish onboarding 

briefing materials on volcanic hazards for ICS staff and encourage the ICS leadership to enforce 

its use (ICS responders will not always listen to USGS). Materials should differentiate between 

fire and volcano hazards, which do not present as often as fire hazards, and may not be familiar 

to all responders. Key personnel should maintain compliance with all required training, such as 

A-100, respirator clearance, first-aid, and other safety equipment/training so that they can 

respond in a timely manner to an event with the proper PPE. 

6.4 It is advisable for each observatory to develop their own “best-practices” briefing 

document for all to read and sign that addresses region-specific topics such as volcano safety, 

call-down procedures, data/photograph sharing, archiving procedures, behavior while in the 

field, cultural sensitivities, and other relevant topics.

6.5 In the event of evacuation, it is advisable to initiate training for the facilities management 

point of contact and the leasing contracting officer to work efficiently within an ICS. 

Potential Action Office: Scientists in Charge

Topic 7.0: Enhance Volcano Science Center Interoperability (Aligns with Issues 6, 7, 8, and 9) 

7.1 It is advisable to increase cross-training and interoperability among geophysical 

monitoring network staff in volcano observatories, but with recognition that different 

observatories will always have some unique challenges and solutions. 

7.2 The EOCs should have on-hand useful training materials specific to their unique roles 

and responsibilities. People assigned to EOCs should expect shifts to last as long as 11 hours and 

should be prepared to adapt to changing situations with new protocols. Incoming personnel need 

to join Mattermost® discussions ahead of arrival to gain knowledge of EOC liaison duties and 

how they communicate with USGS personnel. 

7.3 Onboarding orientations should include clear instructions about proper use of 

Mattermost® within the ICS. 
48 

7.4 Each observatory should try to promote mentorship moments in the field, to reaffirm 

safety, but also to maintain continuity of operations and enhance interoperability. For example, 

people assigned to EOC duty within the State and county should have at least 1 day of overlap 

with the person rotating out. 

Potential Action Office: Volcano Science Center

COMMUNICATIONS

Topic 8.0: Establish a Hazard Response Communication Plan (Aligns with Issue 9)

The USGS Hazard Response Communication Plan should detail who is deployed, who is taking 

media inquiries, and how to manage the opportunities and challenges associated with managing a 

high volume of information requests from traditional and social media.

8.1 The Hazard Response Communication Plan should identify how best to reach different 

audiences (media, public, homeowners, landowners, emergency responders, science community, 

and cooperators). Natural hazard events can easily become a 24/7 full-time affair. They can 

disrupt the regular order of science center business and stress our staff. A Hazard Response 

Communication Plan should be devised to plan for this intensive and long-term involvement to 

reduce stress on science center management, identify alternate facilities, and develop “on-call” 

subject-matter experts to support USGS personnel who may be negatively affected by the event. 

8.2 A Hazard Response Communication Plan should clearly detail roles, responsibilities, and 

protocols in line with the National Incident Management System. 

8.3 Social media allows us to communicate with our constituents in real time. However, an 

ad hoc approach can be unsustainable. It is advisable to develop an FAQ document for broad use 

in answering public inquiries about the natural hazard and the response. 

8.4 To implement such a plan, there should be focused media training for key subject-matter 

experts and public affairs officers, including training in the National Incident Management 

System (ICS-100 and -200), training in use of media inquiry tracker, how to effectively use 

social media, where to send inquiries (volcanomedia@usgs.gov), and how to update the active 

FAQs.

8.5 The Hazard Response Communication Plan should identify preestablished triggers that 

will call for the immediate deployment of a strong response team to include the Regional 

Hazards Coordinator, OCAP lead, videographer, pre-identified subject-matter experts, and 

alternates at the scene to support center management and USGS personnel. The plan will reside 

in the cloud and include preestablished products, including the following: 

• USGS Response and Communication Plan Schematic, 

• FAQ Template with Pre-Identified Themes, 

• Shared Event Calendaring System, 

• B-Roll (Still and Video), 

• Social Media Team Members Contacts, 

• Daily Press Briefing Instructions (teleconference and EOC), 

• Facebook Live Instructions, 
49 

• Community Meetings Format and Instructions to Emphasize Practical Information, 

• Congressional Outreach Contacts, and

• Media Inquiry tracker. 

Potential Action Office: Office of Communications and Publishing

Topic 9.0: Improve Situational Awareness Throughout the Entire Volcano Science Center (Aligns with 

Issues 6 and 9) 

9.1 It is advisable to start internal coordination calls immediately when the eruption response 

starts so that issues can be addressed and reporting can be conveyed up the chain-of-command as 

necessary. 

9.2 Ensure that call attendees are on the mailing list for dedicated daily internal reports. Premeeting materials should include a daily internal USGS report on various topics (including IT 

needs), all housed on a shared drive. 

9.3 When reporting response activities, it is advisable to include home office designations of 

USGS staff outside the responding observatory so that cross-program assistance can be 

documented. 

9.4 VSC management should hold occasional all-VSC conference calls during a disaster 

response for major events. 

9.5 VSC management should share with all VSC staff the situation reports that are written for 

upper USGS/DOI management.

9.6 Extend Mattermost® training and read access to participants of the internal coordination 

calls to keep them better linked to eruption response events, with dedicated channels to topics, if 

possible. 

Potential Action Office: Volcano Science Center 

Topic 10.0: Initiate Adaptive Traditional and Social Media Procedural Guidelines Early (Aligns with Issue 9)

10.1 It is advisable to assert early control over media interactions by dictating procedures 

through tactics such as (1) using out-of-office voicemail directing callers to join collective media 

calls; (2) establishing a website template for tracking the status of media inquiries; (3) dividing 

event email traffic into national and local inquiries; and (4) streamlining review and approval 

processes for social media posts.

10.2 It is advisable to establish a JIC to facilitate external partner participation in USGSmoderated media calls that reach local, national, and international media outlets. Such a center 

could also coordinate planning of smaller community meetings. A possible location for a JIC is 

in a complex across the road from HCCD.

10.3 Investment in more complex messaging by geographic area could relieve HVO staff of 

responding in those community meetings to public confusion over which hazard to expect. 

Potential Action Office: Office of Communications and Publishing 
50 

Topic 11.0: Consolidate Community Outreach Opportunities from 2018 experiences (Aligns with Issue 9)

11.1 It is advisable to work with Nā Leo TV® to develop a documentary about community 

experiences and effects from this event.

11.2 It is advisable to coordinate with HCCD to ensure that future hazards messaging will 

allow the public to learn about hazards specific to their location, perhaps with an online tool that 

includes on-camera testimony and tailored FAQs.

11.3 It is advisable for each observatory to improve the utility of visual materials for public 

consumption, with proper labels and orientation. Future events need to be more attentive to 

resident concerns and feedback to enhance USGS credibility.

Potential Action Office: Hawai'ian Volcano Observatory and Office of Communications 

and Publishing

EQUIPMENT AND RESOURCES

Topic 12.0: Ensure Facility Access and Better Coordination with the National Park Service (Aligns with 

Issues 1, 2, 4,and 6) 

12.1 Ongoing USGS and NPS discussions over reconstruction of HVO facilities should 

include a comprehensive facility usage and access agreement in HAVO so that any future 

management changes do not adversely affect USGS access. 

12.2 The HVO should develop a written plan of interaction between the USGS and NPS that 

summarizes roles, responsibilities, and protocols during a response. 

12.3 The HVO should coordinate with the NPS to simplify lock combinations and gate maps 

in HAVO to facilitate more efficient USGS access during emergency response. 

12.4 The HVO should coordinate with the NPS to improve radio communication, including 

additional call names, shared frequencies, standardized operating procedures, and improved 

mutual training opportunities. 

12.5 The HVO should join the SENDWORDNOW network to share emergency messages 

more quickly with the NPS. 

Potential Action Office: Hawai'i Volcano Observatory and Hawai'i Volcanoes National 

Park

Topic 13.0: Improve Collection and Dissemination of Field Data (Aligns with Issues 6, 9, and 10) 

It is necessary to include GIS in the collection of field data. We need a system that can be 

viewed by multiple personnel at different locations, receive data from multiple sources, and 

facilitate the collection of field data in a way that is useful to geologists. This system should 

allow data to be entered and updated in a central location either through network connectivity or 

through disconnected editing. 
51 

It is necessary to ensure that technologies are robust and redundant so that field personnel 

can be connected and can upload data/observations 24/7. The USGS needs to develop a system 

for reporting observations that allows access by USGS and their cooperators (not limited to DOI 

only). It is also necessary to develop protocols for data management that allow for some degree 

of review and oversight on the efficacy of measurements. 

13.1 It is a high priority that the VSC work with the OEI to decide on a communications 

platform that everyone can use and that meets requirements for archiving communications. If 

Mattermost® is the preferred solution moving forward, then the application needs to be properly 

documented in such a way that the VHP acquires a formal authority to operate. The OEI has 

expressed interest to be engaged and will require that the data and the network are properly 

secure, and that the application be adopted for standardized use throughout the Natural Hazards 

Mission Area.

13.2 The VSC should invest in short message service as a standard messaging service 

component to enable most telephone, internet, and mobile device systems to exchange text 

messages.

13.3 Scientists should work to develop a lava-flow cooling model that would provide 

information to emergency managers as they determine when to allow citizens and businesses 

back into flow areas, especially where lava will be removed from driveways and roads. 

Potential Action Office: Volcano Science Center

Topic 14.0: Expand Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations Within the Volcano Science Center (Aligns 

with Issues 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, and 11) 

Because the UAS team was able to contribute so much to the response in terms of 

science, hazards research, and public safety, it is advisable that the VHP evaluate whether and 

how to develop its own dedicated UAS response team. It is also advisable to continue to develop 

UAS live feed capability to the EOC, increasing IT capability as needed. In advance of the next 

eruption, the VSC should work to establish a clear a list of what can and cannot be achieved with 

UAS footage. 

Potential Action Office: Volcano Science Center

Topic 15.0: Enhance Flexible Administration of Human Resources During Disasters (Aligns with Issues 11

and 12) 

15.1 It is advisable for the VHP to document more efficient methods to transfer money 

between agencies during emergencies so that team members are not prevented from rotation 

simply because it is difficult to pay them. 

15.2 The VHP should improve the ability to track and report the whereabouts of staff working 

in dangerous settings and isolated locations. Rogue field efforts should not occur. 
52 

15.3 The VHP should ensure that all supervisors understand the rules surrounding overtime. 

Moreover, some comprehensive strategy should be developed across the Bureau that, during a 

crisis, will help properly balance the accommodation for rules, coverage of duty, and employee 

choice. 

15.4 It is advisable for the VHP to develop more efficient methods to transfer money between 

agencies during emergencies. For example, adjust the Interagency Travel Agreement procedures 

to allow for more flexible implementation during a crisis. 

15.5 The VHP needs to better manage the distribution and use of PPE and other safety gear. 

Response plans must acknowledge the necessity to provide adequate breaks for staff. There is 

also a need to develop minimum temporary duty length (perhaps 2 weeks) to minimize 

operational inefficiencies. 

Potential Action Office: Natural Hazards Mission Area and the Office of Administration
53 

Table 1. Summary of recommendations

[Abbreviations: COOP, Continuity of Operations; EOC, Emergency Operation Center; FAQ, frequently asked 

questions; FOB, Forward Operating Base; GIS, geographic information system; HAVO, Hawai'i Volcanoes 

National Park; HCCD, Hawai'i County Civil Defense; HVO, Hawai'ian Volcano Observatory; ICS, Incident 

Command System; IMT, Incident Management Team; JIC, Joint Information Center; NPS, National Park Service; 

NHMA, Natural Hazards Mission Area; OEI, Office of Enterprise Information; OMS, Office of Management 

Services; SIC, Scientist-in-Charge; UAS, Unmanned Aircraft Systems; VSC, Volcano Science Center] 

Proposed recommendation Actors

PLANNING 

Topic 1 Develop more comprehensive planning documents. SIC

Update COOP planning with regional safety manager.

Establish continuity of facilities with OMS.

Establish continuity of communications with OEI.

Draft an Incident Response Plan for each observatory.

Topic 2 Create a more customized fit within the ICS. NHMA

Ensure that more VSC staff are trained with ICS.

Establish closer ties with the IMT community.

Establish several dedicated liaison positions.

Map out communication flow with different IMT posts.

Identify triggering criteria for staffing at EOC.

Establish field communication protocols with the FOB.

Establish a proper debriefing order among various ICS entities.

Assign a geospatial data manager.

Topic 3 Establish a Regional Hazards Coordinator. Region

Develop new position to interface among emergency responders during a crisis.

Topic 4 Initiate science leadership early. SIC

Establish a plan to quickly identify scientific priorities for a response.

Establish a more deliberate process to evaluate and facilitate outside research.

Perform periodic quality-assurance checks to ensure that science is addressing the 

priorities.

Incorporate more scenario-based planning into future hazard assessments.

Topic 5 Prioritize safety in all response operations. VSC

Assign a dedicated full-time safety officer for the duration of the response.

Establish a UAS safety officer and (or) airspace coordination expert.

Further develop an ash hazards response strategy.

Regularly inventory and update safety equipment.
54 

Proposed recommendation Actors

TRAINING

Topic 6 Formalize incident response training protocols. SIC

Conduct joint NPS/HCCD/HVO ICS training exercises

Provide training for on-site safety personnel at the FOB.

Incorporate a process that ensures safety orientation.

Develop observatory specific “best-practices” briefing document for all to read and 

sign.

Initiate ICS training for facilities management points of contact.

Topic 7 Enhance VSC interoperability. VSC

Increase cross-training and interoperability among geophysical monitoring network 

staff.

Develop useful training materials for each EOC role.

Develop clear instructions about proper use of Mattermost® within the ICS.

Promote more mentorship opportunities.

COMMUNICATIONS 

Topic 8 Establish a Hazard Response Communication Plan. OCAP

Identify how best to reach different audiences.

Detail roles, responsibilities, and protocols within the National Incident Management 

System.

Develop a FAQ document for public inquiries about the hazard and response.

Provide focused media training for key subject-matter experts.

Identify preestablished triggers for immediate deployment of a strong response team.

Topic 9 Improve situational awareness throughout the entire VSC. VSC

Start internal coordination calls immediately as eruption response begins.

Ensure that call attendees are on the mailing list for dedicated daily internal reports.

Include home office designations of USGS staff outside the responding observatory.

Hold occasional all-VSC conference calls during the disaster response.

Share the Situation Reports with all VSC staff.

Extend Mattermost® training and read access to participants of internal coordination 

calls.

Topic 10 Initiate media procedural guidelines early. OCAP

Assert early control over media interactions by dictating some procedures.

Establish a JIC to facilitate external participation.

Invest in more complex messaging by geographic area.

Topic 11 Consolidate community outreach opportunities from 2018 experiences. HVO

Work with Nā Leo TV® to develop a documentary.

Coordinate with HCCD to ensure that future hazard messaging is location-specific.

Improve the utility of visual materials for public consumption.
55 

Proposed recommendation Actors

EQUIPMENT AND RESOURCES 

Topic 12 Ensure facility access and better coordination with the NPS. HVO

Achieve facility-use and access agreement in HAVO.

Develop a plan of interaction to summarize protocols during a response.

Coordinate with the NPS to simplify lock combinations and gate maps in HAVO.

Coordinate with the NPS to improve radio communications.

Join the SENDWORDNOW network.

Topic 13 Improve collection and dissemination of field data. VSC

Work with the OEI to develop a GIS communications platform that all can use.

Standardize use of short message service for emergency text messaging.

Work to develop a lava-flow cooling model.

Topic 14 Expand UAS operations within the Volcano Hazards Program.

Develop a dedicated response team for immediate deployment of UAS technology.

Topic 15 Enhance flexible administration of human resources during disasters. NHMA

Document more efficient methods to transfer money between agencies during 

emergencies.

Improve ability to track and report whereabouts of staff.

Ensure that supervisors understand rules surrounding overtime.

Develop more efficient methods to transfer money between agencies during 

emergencies.

Improve management of the distribution and use of safety gear.

Final Thoughts

The 2018 Kīlauea Volcano eruption was a remarkable and highly destructive event that 

has prompted much discussion and rethinking in various fields, spanning the science of 

volcanology to emergency management operations and land-use planning. Hawai'ian Volcano 

Observatory scientists and the extended network of support throughout the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) The Volcano Science Center will continue with the effort to better understand 

the eruption and its significance for years to come. 

One prominent observation emerged as a frequent theme of sobering concern among 

many survey respondents with this After-Action Review: the USGS does not seem to be properly 

prepared to respond to more than one volcano in such a substantial level of unrest or eruption at 

any given time. This one eruption tasked most USGS resources, leaving no reserves for any 

simultaneous large event. Hopefully, all the energy that has been generated to learn and adapt 

from this event will prove decisive in expanding our institutional capacity to respond in the 

future. 
56

The suite of recommendations developed from this review process will only prove 

worthwhile if the entire USGS is vested in improving the USGS response to future volcano 

eruptions and other hazards. Adaptive approaches to planning, training, communications, and 

equipment must be developed and implemented to prepare the USGS workforce for additional 

challenges certain to develop. It is imperative that we all play our part in translating these 

inventories of observations and lessons learned into actionable improvement.

Acknowledgments

This report deliberately builds on a wide variety of prior documents that have been 

previously generated by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) activities concerned with the 2018 

Kīlauea Volcano eruption. In support of the After-Action Review process, many dedicated and 

often anonymous USGS personnel contributed to this report by providing text, photos, figures, 

survey response input, and draft review suggestions. The authors wish to thank these individuals 

for their respective contributions to this report.

References Cited

Brown, S.K., Jenkins, S.F., Sparks, R.S.J., Odbert, H., and Auker, M.R., 2017, Volcanic fatalities 

database—Analysis of volcanic threat with distance and victim classification: Journal of 

Applied Volcanology, v. 6, no.15, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13617-017-0067-4.

Dayton, Kevin, 2018, Recovery from Kīlauea eruption might cost $800M: Honolulu, Hawai'i, 

Star Advertiser (Hawai'i News), September 1, 2018, 

https://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/09/01/hawaii-news/recovery-from-kilauea-eruptionmight-cost-800m/.

Neal, C., Brantley, S.R., Antolik, L., Babb, J., Burgess, M., Calles, K., Cappos, M., Chang, J.C.,

Conway, S., Desmither, L., Dotray, P., E., Tamar., Fukunaga, P., Fuke, S., Johanson, I.A.,

Kamibayashi, K., Kauahikaua, J., Lee, R.L., Pekalib, S., and Fisher, G., 2018, The 2018 rift 

eruption and summit collapse of Kīlauea Volcano: Science, v. 363, no. 6425, p. 367–374,

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav7046.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2019, U.S. billion-dollar weather and climate 

disasters—Overview: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Centers for 

Environmental Information web page, https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/.

Siegel, Ethan, 2018, The USGS Hawai'ian Volcano Observatory is a trusted source for the 

Kīlauea eruption: Forbes Magazine online, May 24, 2018, 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/05/24/the-usgs-hawaiian-volcanoobservatory-is-a-trusted-source-for-the-kilauea-eruption/#16e4f6225e97.

U.S. Department of the Interior, 2018, Results from the Department of the Interior Strategic 

Sciences Group technical support for the 2018 Kīlauea eruption: U.S. Department of the 

Interior web page, https://www.doi.gov/strategicsciences/.

Vahedifard, F., and AghaKouchak, 2018, The risk of ‘cascading’ natural disasters is on the rise:

The Conversation, October 22, 2018, PhyOrg web page, accessed April 25, 2019, at

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-cascading-natural-disasters.html.
Publishing support provided by the U.S. Geological Survey

Science Publishing Network, Tacoma Publishing Service Center

For more information concerning the research in this report, contact the

Regional Director, Alaska

U.S. Geological Survey

4210 University Drive

Anchorage, Alaska 99508-4560

https://www.usgs.gov/science/regions/alaska-region
ISSN 2331-1258 (online)

https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20201041

Williams and others—U.S. Geological Survey 2018 Kilauea Volcano Eruption Response in Hawai’i—After-Action Review—Open-File Report 2020–1041