Question

the best conclusion to a volcano project

Answer 1

recommendations developed elsewhere in this report. Major conclusions are printed in italics and recommendations in bold.

The VHP is comprised of a dedicated scientific and technical staff that has a wealth of practical experience, coupled with good theoretical understanding of underlying volcanic and hydrologic processes. To help society prepare for and deal with the effects of volcanic eruptions, the VHP uses five interrelated approaches: (1) long-term hazard assessment, (2) monitoring baseline measurements that allow premonitory changes to be recognized, (3) crisis response when a volcano is erupting, (4) topical studies of geologic processes that allow for better understanding of the causes and consequences of volcanic hazards, and (5) communicating with civil authorities and the surrounding communities about the results of their studies. These five approaches all aim to help society respond to the dangers posed by volcanoes. Another way to view these activities is to consider a continuum of three overlapping types of societal response to eruptions: research (knowledge acquisition), operations (knowledge application), and outreach (knowledge translation). Research provides the basic information and concepts that underlie the various methods of volcano data collection and interpretation.

The committee was asked to address two questions: (1) Do the activities, priorities, and expertise of the VHP meet appropriate scientific goals? (2) Are the scientific investigations and research results throughout the program effectively integrated and applied to achieve hazard mitigation? The committee’s views with respect to these questions are summarized below and at the end of Chapters 2, 3, and 4.

Basic research in the VHP, although reasonably well integrated, is being threatened by budgetary and personnel constraints, which may diminish the program’s ability to meet appropriate scientific goals. If

Page 104

Suggested Citation:"7 Principal Conclusions and Recommendations." National Research Council. 2000. Review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Volcano Hazards Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9884.

×

these problems are not solved, the program will likely be forced to reduce levels of in-house basic research and/or to increase collaboration with non-USGS scientists. Hazard assessment, while traditionally strong in geologic mapping, radiometric age dating, and related activities, has to be strengthened in modeling and probabilistic approaches if the program is to continue to meet appropriate scientific goals. Existing hazard assessment activities at individual volcano observatories are effectively integrated and applied to hazard mitigation issues. The one-volcano, one-scientist projects under way at some volcanoes, although scientifically appropriate, may not be effectively integrated with each other or with the VHP as a whole.

Continuing budgetary pressures place four types of constraints on the VHP’s ability to monitor volcanoes. (1) Aging equipment is not replaced soon enough (or at all), increasing the chances of failure during a crisis. (2) The VHP’s traditional role as the developer and tester of new monitoring equipment and techniques is jeopardized. (3) The number and extent of regular instrumented surveys, which are crucial for the success of any monitoring program, are restricted. (4) Personnel familiar with new techniques are not hired. If the current situation is not reversed, the VHP may not be able to field the best instruments or to maintain its traditional high standards for monitoring. These issues apply to varying degrees to all of the monitoring methods used by the VHP, and if they are not addressed in the near future, the program runs the risk of not being able to meet appropriate scientific goals. On the other hand, the monitoring methods currently employed in the VHP seem to be well integrated and applied to achieve hazards mitigation.