Summary of the Stakeholders Workshop to

Develop a National Volcano Early Warning

System (NVEWS) 

By Marianne Guffanti, William E. Scott, Carolyn L. Driedger, and John W. Ewert 

Open-File Report Series 2006-1224

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

Dirk A. Kempthorne, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia

 2006 

For product and ordering information:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

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

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

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

by the U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright

owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report.

2
Contents

Introduction....................................................................................................... .......4

Workshop Objectives................................................................................................ ..6

Workshop Attendees................................................................................................. .7

............................................................................8

Major Findings and Recommendations of the Workshop......................................................7

Crisis Response............................................................................................................7

Hazard Messages and Information Exchange

Permitting for Instrument Installation on Federal Lands...........................................................9

Regional Considerations........................................................................ ............10

Community Involvement – Beyond Warning Messages...............................................10

Post-Workshop Activities.....................................................................................................................11

Workshop Agenda ................................................................................................................................ 12

Figures

Figure 1. Map of priority volcano targets for NVEWS monitoring improvements....................6

Tables

Table 1. List of workshop attendees....................................................................................................15

3
SUMMARY OF THE STAKEHOLDERS WORKSHOP TO DEVELOP

A NATIONAL VOLCANO EARLY WARNING SYSTEM (NVEWS)

Portland, Oregon, 22-23 February 2006

Convened by the U.S. Geological Survey and

Consortium of U.S. Volcano Observatories

INTRODUCTION 

The importance of investing in monitoring, mitigation, and preparedness before natural hazards

occur has been amply demonstrated by recent disasters such as the Indian Ocean Tsunami in

December 2004 and Hurricane Katrina in August 2005. Playing catch-up with hazardous natural

phenomena such as these limits our ability to work with public officials and the public to lessen

adverse impacts. With respect to volcanic activity, the starting point of effective pre-event

mitigation is monitoring capability sufficient to detect and diagnose precursory unrest so that

communities at risk have reliable information and enough time to respond to hazards with which

they may be confronted. 

Recognizing that many potentially dangerous U.S. volcanoes have inadequate or no ground-based

monitoring, the U.S Geological Survey (USGS) Volcano Hazards Program (VHP) and partners

recently evaluated U.S. volcano-monitoring capabilities and published “An Assessment of 

Volcanic Threat and Monitoring Capabilities in the United States: Framework for a 

National Volcano Early Warning System (NVEWS)” (online at

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1164/). Results of the NVEWS volcanic threat and monitoring

assessment are being used to guide long-term improvements to the national volcano-monitoring

infrastructure operated by the USGS and affiliated groups. 

The NVEWS report identified the need to convene a workshop of a broad group of stakeholders –

such as representatives of emergency- and land-management agencies at the Federal, State, and

local levels and the aviation sector – to solicit input about implementation of NVEWS and their

specific information requirements. Accordingly, an NVEWS Stakeholders Workshop was held in

Portland, Oregon, on 22-23 February 2006. A summary of the workshop is presented in this

document. 

Development of the NVEWS assessment and implementation framework was guided by CUSVO,

the Consortium of U.S. Volcano Observatories. The principal CUSVO members are the Federal,

academic, and State agencies directly and formally involved in observatory operations – viz., the

USGS, University of Washington, University of Alaska, University of Utah, University of Hawaii,

Advanced National Seismic System, Earthscope Program of the National Science Foundation

(NSF), Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, and Yellowstone National Park. 

The NVEWS evaluation of monitoring capabilities is based on a systematic assessment of threats

posed by all of the 169 geologically active U.S. volcanic centers. The methodology involves

scoring volcanic threat for each volcano as the combination of various hazards factors (destructive

natural phenomena produced by a volcano) and exposure factors (people and property exposed to

the hazards). Based on the distribution of scores, five threat groups are identified ranging from

Very High to Very Low. For each threat group, the commensurate level of monitoring that should

be in place before the onset of an unrest crisis or eruptive activity is defined. The most threatening

volcanoes, those near communities and transportation infrastructure (ground and air) and with a

history of frequent and violent eruptions, need to be well monitored in real time with an extensive

suite of instrument types to detect the earliest symptoms of unrest and to reliably forecast behavior 

4
5

of the volcano. Waiting until unrest escalates to augment monitoring capabilities at these highthreat volcanoes puts people (including scientists in the field) and property at undue risk. Remote,

isolated, or less frequently erupting volcanoes that nevertheless can pose hazards to air-traffic

corridors require sufficient monitoring capability with ground-based instruments to detect and

track unrest in real-time so that other agencies responsible for enroute flight safety can be kept

apprised of the potential for explosive, ash-cloud-forming eruptions. Volcanoes that erupt

infrequently and that pose little threat on the ground or in the air can be monitored by sparser

networks and surveillance with meteorological satellites.

In the NVEWS monitoring assessment, the current monitoring level at each volcano is compared

to the level indicated by its threat score to identify those volcanoes with significant monitoring

gaps that require improvements (e.g., much of the Cascade Range) and highlights those that have

no ground-based monitoring whatsoever (for example, parts of Alaska and the Northern Mariana

Islands). Priority targets for monitoring improvements are dispersed throughout the United States,

including in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (Figure 1).

At the time of the report’s publication in April 2005, PRIORITY NVEWS TARGETS were:

• 5 volcanoes currently or recently in eruption (Mount St. Helens in Washington, Kilauea in

Hawaii, Anatahan in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, CNMI) or

exhibiting heightened unrest (Mauna Loa in Hawaii, Mount Spurr in Alaska). After

publication of the NVEWS report, Augustine Volcano in Alaska erupted from January to April

2006, and Anatahan stopped erupting in September 2005; both remain in states of heightened

unrest as of July 2006;

• 13 very-high-threat volcanoes with insufficient monitoring (Rainier, Hood, Shasta, South

Sister, Lassen, Crater Lake, Baker, Glacier Peak, and Newberry in the Cascade Range and

Redoubt, Makushin, Akutan, and Augustine in Alaska);

• 19 high- and moderate-threat volcanoes that have high aviation-threat scores and no real-time

ground-based monitoring (Semisopochnoi, Seguam, Kiska, Vsevidof, Yantarni, Little Sitkin,

Recheschnoi, Cleveland, Amukta, Bogoslof, Amak, Kasatochi, and Yunaska in Alaska, and

Pagan, Agrigan, Alamagan, Guguan, Farallon de Pajaros, and Asuncion in the CNMI); and

• An additional 21 under-monitored volcanoes in Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii,

Alaska, the CNMI, and Wyoming.

The NVEWS report identifies five main elements for effective implementation:

• Ensure that the most threatening volcanoes are properly instrumented before the onset of

unrest; • Evaluate monitoring data and provide volcanological expertise and rapid event notification

during periods of escalating unrest and eruption at well-monitored volcanoes on a 24/7 basis; • Improve both content of and access to hazard information products; create an NVEWS website

that will post daily status reports covering all monitored volcanoes, including graphics and

plots of monitoring data and links to related sites and official warning products; • Create a National Volcano Data Center to archive diverse kinds of monitoring and related data

in support of research to better forecast the onset, style, and duration of eruptive activity; and • Efficiently utilize monitoring resources across agencies and institutions.
Figure 1. Map of priority volcano targets for NVEWS monitoring improvements. 

WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES 

No effort to provide reliable forecasting of volcanic hazardscan succeed without cooperation of

land managers where networks are sited and hazards originate. Furthermore, earlier warnings of

volcanic unrest will have little benefit to agencies charged with mounting a response or

undertaking mitigation actions unless the information is conveyed in a manner they expect and

understand. Broad participation in NVEWS planning is crucial to its success. 

The main objectives of the workshop were to: 

• Improve risk awareness – explain the results of the NVEWS analysis and implications for

mitigation of volcanic threat. 

• Assess user needs – solicit input about information products that NVEWS should and can

provide. 

• Foster interagency coordination and collaboration with partners at the Federal, State, &

local level. 

6
WORKSHOP ATTENDEES 

Seventy-five people attended the workshop representing a cross-section of agencies, communities,

and businesses (Table 1) that need and use volcanic-hazard information. People with diverse

backgrounds and professions were brought together – scientists from the five U.S. volcano

observatories and partnering institutions, airline dispatchers, air-traffic controllers of the Federal

Aviation Administration, land managers from National Forests, Wildlife Refuges, and Parks,

emergency management professionals from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

and several states and counties, and representatives from the National Weather Service, U.S. Air

Force, Yakama Nation, and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The workshop was

structured with panels and breakout sessions to facilitate open discussion among attendees. 

MAJOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE WORKSHOP 

The two-day workshop highlighted the need to make the connection between improved volcano

monitoring and the use of volcanic-hazard information in education, mitigation, and response

activities at local, state, and national levels. Many lessons were shared from direct experience

during volcanic crises and disasters in the past quarter century and from other recent natural

disasters. 

Major findings and recommendations from the panel and breakout sessions are highlighted below,

organized by topics of crisis response, hazard messages and information exchange, permitting,

regional issues, and community involvement. 

Crisis Response 

The Incident Command System imparts common communication and terminology and clear

authority and structure during public crises. A commander oversees four major branches –

Planning, Logistics, Finance/Administration, and Operations – as well as other units such as

Information, Safety, and Liaison. Needed positions and qualifications for those positions are predetermined. The system is meant to be flexible and enlarges and shrinks as needs dictate.

In accordance with the National Response Plan and the National Incident

Management System, as well as with coordination plans being written for

several U.S. volcanoes, future volcanic crises involving ground-based hazards

will be managed using the principles of the Incident Command System. 

Communication during a response should be as seamless as possible among agencies. The 

message to the public must be consistent, even if there is not complete agreement among

scientists. Close working relationships among scientists and public officials are crucial throughout

a volcanic response.

Linking USGS to the command structure of civil authorities and availability of

scientists to participate is an absolute necessity. 

When Mount St. Helens reawakened in 2004, the ability of the USGS Cascades Volcano

Observatory to respond to media interest was overwhelmed, and setting up a Joint Information

Center with the U.S. Forest Service and other partners proved to be a great help.

The concept of a Joint Information Center (JIC) composed of representatives

from key agencies to get a consistent (“seamless”) and accurate message to the

public was strongly endorsed at the workshop. 

Detecting unrest does not mean that scientists can always interpret what will happen (forecast)

accurately. The best forecasts of volcanic activity have come from those volcanoes where we 

7
have multiple historic events to study and data from multiple types of instrumentation such as at

Mount St. Helens and Augustine.

Developing better monitoring capabilities as part of NVEWS will enable

scientists to make the best forecasts possible and thus aid in supporting the JIC

and Incident Command organizations. 

According to one experienced emergency responder, "Five minutes before a party is not the time

to learn to dance." Each relevant agency should have critical information compiled – on the shelf,

in plans, on web sites, etc. – clearly specifying “what to do” and “with whom to do it” during a

volcanic crisis. 

As part of NVEWS, interagency response plans should be formulated for all

very high and high threat volcanoes. Yearly reviews and practice of plans

should be conducted to keep plans current. 

An example of a response plan is the Mt. Rainier Volcanic Hazards Response Plan at

http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/pc/abtus/ourorg/dem/EMDiv/Mt%20Rainier%20VHRP.htm 

The media time frame is 24/7. The advice of a land manager (USFS) is not to let a media vacuum

develop, particularly when volcanoes are accessible to the public such as in the Cascades; in a

vacuum, misinformation too easily can fill the void. Good communicators can make up for

incomplete information.

Scientists must talk directly to the press frequently and with a coherent message. 

Hazard Messages and Information Exchange 

An important point was made in various contexts throughout the workshop: Trust in the 

messenger [of hazards information] is crucial to effectively convey the content of the message.

Building and keeping that trust must be held as an explicit value by all the

agencies and institutions involved with helping people live safely and conduct

their lives and businesses appropriately when faced with volcanic hazards. 

The Internet age has changed the process of information dissemination, making it less top-down

from the hazard agency to the users. People want ready access to information, with a substantial

segment wanting to be able to specify what they will receive and filter out what they don’t want.

Information dissemination must allow for both pushing information out by the hazard agency

(such as alert-level changes) and pulling it in when needed by the users (such as status reports of

volcanic activity). 

Accordingly, it is necessary to target subsets of users of hazard information by creating a variety

of information products and by offering filters that are customized by users. For example, an

NVEWS web space should consider offering an online “menu” of information products and

delivery mechanisms from which people could customize a “subscription” (much as the USGS

Earthquake Hazards Program website now does at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/ens/).

The information dissemination mechanism must be flexible enough to provide

the type and frequency of online information required by individual users.

Furthermore, warning messages should be carefully constructed to minimize

unfamiliar jargon and employ the most appropriate format and units for various 

users. 

Some information products are event driven (for example, a warning that a major eruption has

occurred or is forecast) while others are time driven (a regular weekly or daily update).

Once volcanic activity starts, regular status reports are needed even when

conditions at the volcano have not changed much; the most recent update must be

prominently identified as such on websites. To reach citizens without access to the 

8
Internet, agencies should use alternate methods such as television and newspaper

outlets and phone lines with recorded updates. 

Emergency managers from Pierce County, Washington, which encompasses Mount Rainier,

presented an instructive example of linking USGS monitoring information to the mitigation

actions of local users. A system for automatic detection of lahars (mudflows) has been installed

along rivers on the western flank of Mount Rainier. When a lahar is detected, the system

generates an automatic alarm that goes to local agencies responsible for notifying people of what

action to take if lahars move toward populated areas (e.g., immediate evacuation from vulnerable

areas). From the beginning of the project, USGS has worked closely with Pierce County on the

development of the detection system, and both sides have clearly defined roles. The county uses a

variety of methods to notify the public and builds redundancy into the warning system. The 

county is well aware that calling for an evacuation carries its own risk of panic, injury, and even

death, so the stakes are very high that the detection and warning system be as reliable and accurate

as possible. 

Ashfall is the volcanic phenomenon/hazard that can affect the greatest number of people during an

eruption. The National Weather Service and USGS have overlapping mandates to issue ashfall

warnings to the public.

The workshop participants recommended that the USGS and NWS work

together to improve ash fall forecasts, including better graphical depictions of

where ash deposition is forecasted to occur. 

Both the aviation sector and ground-hazards sector need reliable hazard information but have

some significant differences in their perspectives. The aviation sector very quickly must ascertain

and track the status of a changing set of volcanoes on a short-term basis during daily to weekly

flight planning and dispatching, whereas responses to ground hazards often focus on the behavior

of one volcano over the course of several months to years. A senior airline dispatcher at the

meeting noted that airlines actively seek and use online information about volcanic activity and

that it is best to have volcanic information early in the flight-planning process before flights take

off. 

Airlines have stated to the Federal Aviation Administration that information 

about ash-producing eruptions needs to get to regional air-traffic control

centers very quickly, ideally within 5 minutes of the event, so that in-flight

aircraft in the vicinity of an erupting volcano can be promptly notified and rerouted away from an ash cloud. 

The USGS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Federal Aviation

Administration, and Air Force Weather Agency (which provides ash-hazard notifications for U.S.

Forces worldwide) actively collaborate to share data and continually refine communication

protocols so that eruption and ash-hazard information quickly reaches commercial and military

pilots, dispatchers, and air-traffic controllers. 

Permitting for Instrument Installation on Federal Lands 

Acquiring permits for installation of NVEWS monitoring equipment on sensitive federal lands

such as Wilderness Areas can be a lengthy, difficult process.

NVEWS is envisioned to be a long-term project, and the USGS should consider

assigning someone to become an expert in permitting for NVEWS. 

Some land managers expressed confusion regarding how instrument sites and overall goals of the

NSF’s Earthscope Program relate to those of NVEWS. An expressed goal of NVEWS is to

incorporate and use efficiently all appropriate monitoring resources, including those installed and

operated by other institutions. The primary goal of deploying Earthscope instruments at volcanoes 

9
is to provide data for deformation research. Such instruments are being deployed at a limited

number of U.S. volcanoes in support of research, but they are being sited and deployed in

cooperation with the USGS Volcano Hazards Program and, in addition to research data, will

provide critical hazards information about the status of the volcanoes on which they are sited.

An effort will be made through NVEWS to coordinate the deployment of

instruments by other groups such as those funded by the National Science

Foundation to reduce confusion, avoid duplication of effort, and ensure that

instruments can provide the hazards monitoring and research data sets. 

The workshop also recommended that an interagency team be formed to

recommend strategies for dealing with permitting issues. This team should 

consist of a representative from each relevant agency (U.S. Forest Service,

National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and USGS). The NPS 

representative should be a superintendent of a park with a hazardous volcano.

The members of the team would not have power to issue permits, but would

serve as facilitators and information sources for both land managers and permit

requestors (usually the USGS). 

Regional Considerations 

NVEWS implementation must be tailored to account for regional differences – both in the nature

of the hazards and in the societal setting – that occur across a country as large and diverse as the

United States. In terms of the nature of the hazard, these differences include: potential for

tsunami generation in Alaska, Hawaii, and the CNMI; lahar threats in the Cascades; rapid lava

inundation in Hawaii; and vog effects on respiratory health in Hawaii and the CNMI. In terms of 

societal setting, differences include: temporary tourist concentrations at resort areas and National

Parks, Monuments, and Forests in the conterminous U.S. and Hawaii; dominance of aviation risks

over ground risks in Alaska and the CNMI; exposure to non-U.S. ash hazards in Alaska; desire by

some people for pristine wilderness untouched by monitoring installations in Alaska, the

Cascades, and Yellowstone; and people at risk that are off power/communication grids in Alaska,

Hawaii, and the CNMI.

Given these differences, NVEWS implementation must build on the local and

regional expertise of the observatory structure within the U.S.

Community Involvement -- Beyond Warning Messages 

There was widespread consensus that the emergency-response community wants the USGS to

provide interpretation of the significance of monitoring data; some groups also want the

underlying data, but all emergency-response groups need scientific interpretation and situational 

awareness. 

Scientists need to work closely with emergency managers, directly explaining

uncertainty in forecasts of expected hazards and helping them to make the best

decisions with the information at hand.

Communication is more than information dissemination. The great tragedy of Armero – a town in

Colombia where nearly 23,000 people were buried alive by a mudflow generated by small

eruption of the ice-clad volcano Nevado del Ruiz – was that communication of identified hazards

failed. A Colombian geologist involved in responding to the eruption emphasized that the goal of

communication is to form relationships among people involved in the issue.

The challenge for scientists is to participate over the long term in the 

transformative process by which knowledge is changed into specific actions taken

by communities and officials. 

10
The social sciences bring useful perspectives about how hazard warnings are perceived. Scientists 

and civil authorities should be aware of concepts that can color a person’s thinking, such as

normalization bias (little damage has occurred in recent events, so there is no problem with the

current situation), optimization bias (some other person is at risk, not I), and transfer of

responsibility (other people are responsible for preparedness).

Warnings and outreach should be preceded and followed by research in societal

complexity, including case studies of hazard perception and preparedness to aid

in gauging community readiness. 

POST-WORKSHOP ACTIVITIES 

CUSVO will continue to develop an NVEWS implementation plan by constituting small working

groups to provide input on topics identified prior to the workshop: requirements and standards for

monitoring instrumentation, online technical information products, data management and access,

observatory interoperability, and an external grants program. These aspects of NVEWS are

necessary for the CUSVO partners to provide the level of hazards information and analysis that

land managers, emergency-management officials, and the aviation sector need and the public

deserves. 

A central theme raised often in the workshop is that expanded volcano-monitoring capability to

detect and warn of escalating unrest and eruption must be accompanied by better community

preparation, education, and action in areas that will be affected by volcanic activity. As one

speaker said, "All emergencies are essentially local emergencies." Building stronger ties with

people and organizations affected by the success or failure of hazard assessments and warnings is

vital to reducing societal and economic disruptions and saving lives during future volcano activity. 

Accordingly, a working group will be constituted to provide advice to CUSVO

and the USGS Volcano Hazards Program on “Reducing Community 

Vulnerability to Volcanic Risk.” The membership of the group will be mostly

non-USGS people and will be charged with identifying strategies to help

communities become more disaster resilient with respect to volcano hazards by

improving use of early warnings and USGS/CUSVO information products. 

The group will make recommendations about: the most effective methods for disseminating

information to first responders before and during a crisis; how USGS/CUSVO, emergency

managers and land-management agencies can work together during time between eruptions to

better inform and educate the public; how an investment in NVEWS technology and science can

be most effectively linked to risk-wise policy decisions; and which communities are high-priority

targets for more intensive education, preparedness, and response planning. 

11
12

STAKEHOLDERS WORKSHOP TO DEVELOP A

NATIONAL VOLCANO EARLY WARNING SYSTEM: NVEWS

22-23 February 2006, Portland, Oregon

AGENDA

WEDNESDAY MORNING, 22 FEB. 2006

OPENING PLENARY SESSION, WILLAMETTE FALLS ROOM

8:30 Welcome

Session Chair: Linda Gundersen, USGS, Acting Associate Director for Geology

8:35-8:45 Overview of Workshop Objectives

James Quick, USGS, Volcano Hazards Program Coordinator

Keynote Addresses

8:45-9:00 Readiness and Effective Mitigation

John Pennington, FEMA Region 10, Regional Director

9:00-9:15 Playing Catch Up with Volcano Hazards: Mount St. Helens Then and Now

Stephen Malone, Univ. of Wash., Director, Pacific NW Seismograph Network

9:15-9:30 Volcano Monitoring and Hazard Notification

John Power, USGS, Alaska Volcano Observatory

9:30-9:45 Applying Katrina Lessons to Volcanic Crises: A National Perspective

William Lokey, Chief, Operations Branch of the Response Division of FEMA

9:45-10:00 Volcanic Crises from the Perspective of County Emergency Management

Steven Bailey, Pierce County WA, Director, Dept. of Emergency Mgt.

10:00-10:15 Preserving Wilderness While Obtaining Volcano Data That Preserves Public Safety

Kimberly Bown, Director of Lands, Rec., & Res., U.S. Forest Service, Region 6

10:15-10:45 Break

Framework for a National Volcano Early Warning System (NVEWS)

10:45-11:00 Preparing for Eruptions: the Alaska Experience

Thomas Murray, USGS, Scientist-in-Charge, Alaska Volcano Observatory

11:00-11:30 Assessment of Volcanic Threat and Current Monitoring Capabilities in the U.S.

Marianne Guffanti, USGS, Chair, Consortium of US Volcano Observatories

11:30-12:00 Improved Volcano Monitoring: How Communities will Benefit from NVEWS

John Ewert, USGS, NVEWS Project Chief

12:00-1:00 Lunch, Willamette Falls Room
13

WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON, 22 FEB. 2006

PLENARY PANEL 1, WILLAMETTE FALLS ROOM

1:00-2:30 Lessons Learned That Will Help Design and Implement NVEWS

Vicki McConnell, Oregon State Geologist (Chair)

John Ewert, USGS

Gail Ferguson, FAA

Bruce Houghton, University of Hawaii

Claire Lavendel, USFS

2:30-3:00 Break

BREAKOUT SESSIONS

3:00-4:30 Monitoring Networks: Planning, Permitting and Installation, Willamette Falls Room

Moderators: Lindsay McClelland, NPS, and John Power, USGS

3:00-4:30 What Users Need from NVEWS Information Products, Wahkeena Falls Room

Moderators: Gari Mayberry, USGS, and Peter Cervelli, USGS

THURSDAY MORNING, 23 FEB. 2006

PLENARY PANEL 2, WILLAMETTE FALLS ROOM

8:30-10:00 Notifications of Volcanic Activity: Content, Structure, Dissemination

Marianne Guffanti, USGS (Chair)

Leonard Salinas, United Airlines

Jeff Osiensky, NWS, Alaska

Michael Pierce, Dept. of Interior

Ken Parrish, Pierce County WA Dept. Emergency Mgt.

Fernando Muñoz, Community Communications Consultant

10:00-10:30 Break

BREAKOUT SESSIONS

10:30-12:00 What Users Need on an NVEWS Website, Elowah Falls Room

Moderators: Chris Nye, Alaska Div. Geol. & Geophys. Surveys,

and Dina Venezky, USGS

10:30-12:00 Volcanic Monitoring Information for Effective Decision Making: What Works?

Wahkeena Falls Room

Moderators: Cynthia Gardner, USGS, and David Summer, USFS

10:30-12:00 Mitigation Beyond Warning Messages: NVEWS as a Catalyst for Hazard Education,

Preparedness, and Response Planning, Willamette Falls Room

Moderators: Carolyn Driedger, USGS, and Chris Jonientz-Trisler, FEMA

12:00-1:30 Lunch, Willamette Falls Room
14

THURSDAY AFTERNOON, 23 FEB. 2006

BREAKOUT SESSIONS

1:30-2:30 Volcano Monitoring and Mitigation: Topics Specific to Western Conterminous US,

Elowah Falls Room

Moderators: Bill Steele, UW, and Jake Lowenstern, USGS

1:30-2:30 Volcano Monitoring and Mitigation: Topics Specific to Pacific Islands and Alaska,

Wahkeena Falls Room

Moderators: Jim Kauahikaua, USGS, and Tina Neal, USGS

2:30-3:00 Break

CLOSING PLENARY SESSION, WILLAMETTE FALLS ROOM

3:00-4:00 Major Findings of the Workshop

Willie Scott, USGS and John Ewert, USGS

Adjournment

************************************************************************
Table 1. Workshop attendees 

NAME POSITION AFFILIATION 

David Applegate Senior Advisor, Earthquake & Geologic Hazards USGS Headquarters 

David Ashe Park Ranger NPS, Mount Rainier National Park 

Steven Bailey Director Pierce County (Washington), Department of 

Emergency Management 

Teri Bequette Workshop logistics USGS, Cascades Volcano Observatory 

Andy Bohlander Emergency Management Coordinator Washington Emergency Management 

Division 

Betty Bollert Dispatch Training Manager Alaska Airlines 

Kimberly Bown Director of Recreation, Lands, and Mineral 

Resources USDA, U.S. Forest Service, Region 6 

Steve Brantley Deputy Scientist in Charge USGS, Hawaiian Volcano Observatory 

Anthony Calvo Planner, Federal Program Coordinator Emergency Mgt. Office, Commonwealth of 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Peter Cervelli Research Geophysicist, Volcano geodesy USGS, Alaska Volcano Observatory 

Phil Cruz District Ranger, Bend-Fort Rock USDA, Deschutes National Forest 

Claude Denver Response Unit Leader Alaska Division of Homeland Security and 

Emergency Management 

James Devine Senior Science Advisor USGS Headquarters 

Carolyn Driedger Outreach Coordinator, Hydrologist USGS, Cascades Volcano Observatory 

John Ewert Geologist and NVEWS Project Chief USGS, Cascades Volcano Observatory, 

National Volcano Early Warning System 

Gail Ferguson Traffic Management Officer Federal Aviation Administration, 

Anchorage Center 

Steve Frye Superintendent NPS, Katmai National Park 

Leon Fullner Supervisory Traffic Management Coordinator Federal Aviation Administration, Seattle 

Center 

Cynthia Gardner Observatory Scientist-in-Charge USGS, Cascades Volcano Observatory 

Chris Gregg Assistant Professor of Geology East Tennessee State University 

Marianne Guffanti Research Geologist and Chair of Consortium of US 

Volcano Observatories USGS, Reston VA 

Linda Gundersen Acting Associate Director for Geology USGS, Headquarters 

Charles Holliday Meteorologist, Branch Chief U.S. Air Force Weather Agency, Satellite 

Applications Branch 

Bruce Houghton State Volcanologist University of Hawaii 

Chris JonientzTrisler Natural Hazards Program Specialist FEMA Region 10, Mitigation Division 

James Kauahikaua Observatory Scientist-in-Charge USGS, Hawaiian Volcano Observatory 

Paul Kennard Region Geomorphologist NPS, Mount Rainier National Park 

Aleta Knight Management Assistant NPS, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park 

Susan LaKomski Division of Realty US Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska 

Region 

Claire Lavendel Forest Supervisor USDA, Gifford Pinchot National Forest 

Mike Lisowski Research Geophysicist, Volcano geodesy USGS, Cascades Volcano Observatory 

Andy Lockhart Geophysicist, Field instrumentation USGS, Cascades Volcano Observatory 

William Lokey Chief, Operations Branch of the Response Division FEMA, Headquarters 

Jacob Lowenstern Observatory Scientist-in-Charge USGS, Yellowstone Volcano Observatory 

Stephen Malone Network Director Pacific Northwest Seismograph Network, 

University of Washington 

Margaret Mangan Associate Scientist-in-Charge USGS, Long Valley Observatory 

15
NAME POSITION AFFILIATION 

Gari Mayberry Geoscience Advisor to Office of Foreign Disaster 

Assistance USGS, Washington DC 

Lindsay McClelland Geologist, NPS-USGS liaison National Park Service, Headquarters 

Vicki McConnell State Geologist Oregon Department of Geology and 

Mineral Industries 

Ken McGee Research Geologist, Volcanic emissions USGS, Cascades Volcano Observatory 

Ed Miller Project Manager, Volcanic Ash & Aviation Safety Air Line Pilots Association 

Seth Moran Research Geophysicist, Volcano seismology USGS, Cascades Volcano Observatory 

Fernado Muñoz Volcanologist and Community Communications 

Consultant Chandler, Arizona 

Thomas Murray Observatory Scientist-in-Charge USGS, Alaska Volcano Observatory 

Manny Nathenson Associate Team Chief Scientist USGS, Volcano Hazards Team 

Tina Neal Research Geologist, Volcano hazards USGS, Alaska Volcano Observatory 

Christopher Nye Volcanic Geologist, State of Alaska lead for 

Alaska Volcano Observatory 

Alaska Division of Geological and 

Geophysical Surveys

David O'Hara Emergency Services Coordinator Mono County (California), Sheriff's 

Department 

Jeff Osiensky Volcanic Ash Program Coordinator National Weather Service, Anchorage 

Ken Parrish Emergency Operations Pierce County (Washington), Department of 

Emergency Management 

John Pennington Regional Director FEMA Region 10 

Mike Pierce Emergency Manager U.S. Department of Interior, Washington 

DC 

John Power Research Geophysicist, Volcano Seismology USGS, Alaska Volcano Observatory 

Will Prescott President and Geophysicist UNAVCO 

James Quick Program Coordinator USGS, Volcano Hazards Program 

Tom Ring Hydrogeologist, Water Resources Program Yakama Nation 

Leonard Salinas Dispatcher & Representative of American 

Dispatchers Federation United Airlines 

Dave Schneider Research Geophysicist, Satellite remote sensing USGS, Alaska Volcano Observatory 

Willie Scott Research geologist, Volcano hazards USGS, Cascades Volcano Observatory 

Bill Steele Director of Information Services University of Washington, Pacific 

Northwest Seismograph Network 

George Stephens Remote Sensing Scientist NOAA, National Environmental Satellite, 

Data, and Information Services 

Barbara Stunder Meteorologist NOAA, Air Resources Laboratory 

David Summer Fire Operations Specialist USDA, U.S., Forest Service, Region 6 

Steve Targosz Pilot, Volcanic Ash and Aviation Safety Program Air Line Pilots Association 

Donald Thomas Center Director Center for Study of Active Volcanoes, 

University of Hawaii 

Frank Trusdell Research Geologist, volcano hazards USGS, Hawaiian Volcano Observatory 

David Uberuaga Park Superintendent NPS, Mount Rainier National Park 

Dina Venezky Geologist, Volcano Hazard Program Web Sites USGS, Menlo Park 

Jacky Verna Workshop logistics USGS, Cascades Volcano Observatory 

William Werkheiser Hazard Team Leader USGS, Headquarters 

David Wieprecht Photographer USGS, Cascades Volcano Observatory 

Jay Wilson Earthquake and Tsunami Coordinator Oregon Emergency Management 

16
NAME POSITION AFFILIATION 

Seth Wittke Geologist Wyoming State Geological Survey 

Jody Woodcock Program Manager and PIO Pierce County (Washington), Department of 

Emergency Management 

Jeff Wynn Team Chief Scientist USGS, Volcano Hazards Team 

17