WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 1 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Mount Rainier
Volcanic Hazards Plan
October 2008
Pierce County Department of Emergency Management
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 2 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. 2
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 2: WORK GROUP APPROACH AND PLAN MAINTENANCE ................................... 5
CHAPTER 3: SYNOPSIS OF MOUNT RAINIER VOLCANIC HAZARDS .................................... 9
CHAPTER 4: SITUATION ................................................................................................................... 15
CHAPTER 5: MONITORING AND EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION .......................................... 27
CHAPTER 6: COMMAND AND EVACUATION.............................................................................. 49
CHAPTER 7: COLLECTION AND SHELTERING .......................................................................... 62
CHAPTER 8: MITIGATION ................................................................................................................ 70
CHAPTER 9: EMERGENCY INFORMATION ................................................................................. 74
CHAPTER 10: PUBLIC EDUCATION/LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC
AWARENESS & PREPAREDNESS ........................................................................................................ 81
CHAPTER 11: RECOVERY .............................................................................................................. 96
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................... 102
APPENDIX B: ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................. 103
APPENDIX C: 2008 FACT SHEET ....................................................................................................... 104
APPENDIX D: VOLCANIC ASH FALL – A ―HARD RAIN‖ ............................................................ 108
APPENDIX E: VOLCANIC ASHFALL: STATE TRIFOLD .............................................................. 110
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 3 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Chapter 1: OVERVIEW
A. Introduction
Mount Rainier, at 14,410 feet, is the highest peak in the Cascade Range.
The mountain is an episodically active volcano with a voluminous cap of
ice and snow. For an appreciation of the size of the ice mass, when Mount
St. Helens erupted, its ice mass was approximately 4.7 billion cubic feet.
Mount Rainier has 156.2 billion cubic feet of ice, approximately 30 times
more. This tremendous, steep-sided mass of rock and ice, with its great
topographic relief, poses a variety of geologic hazards, not only from the
inevitable future eruptions, but also during the intervening periods of
repose. Serious hazard to the greatest number of people is from lahars
(volcanic mudflows). Prehistoric lahars, some of which flowed all the way
to Puget Sound, repeatedly buried the large valleys that drain Mount
Rainier. More than 100,000 people now live on the deposits of lahars
emplaced within the past 6,000 years.
It is virtually certain that Mount Rainier will erupt again and that lahars,
either eruption-related or not, will inundate valley floors that surround the
mountain and are densely populated, causing severe social and economic
impacts. The timing, of course, is uncertain. There is no way to know
whether Mount Rainier’s next massive lahar will be generated in the near
future or centuries from now. For many people, concern about such a
catastrophe is diminished by the uncertainty of timing, by the ignorance of
Mount Rainier’s geologic record, or by the beauty of the area and the
substantial economic investment in areas at risk.
Is there a way to enjoy the benefits of these valleys in complete safety? As
unlikely as that is, warnings of impending hazardous events, emergency
response planning, public education, appropriate mitigation measures, and
plans for post-incident recovery can lessen the impacts of the inevitable.
This report is a plan for thoughtfully addressing and preparing for a
volcanic hazard crisis at Mount Rainier prior to being under the pressure
of an impending or current catastrophe. Although much of the planning
and implementation of mitigation and emergency response measures is
necessarily the province of a consortium of municipal, county, state, and
federal agencies, there is a critical role for personal responsibility as well.
Government agencies will do all they can to protect citizens, but
individuals must be prepared to get themselves out of harms’ way and to
be self-sufficient for a minimum of seven (7) days. Pierce County
government will do everything in its power to ensure the safety and well
being of everyone who lives, works, and visits Pierce County.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 4 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
B. Plan Purpose
This Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Response Plan (hereafter referred to
as the Plan) provides an overview of the geological science associated with
Mount Rainier, the current status of the river valleys, and the potential
impact to the valleys. It identifies warning and public information
methods, and outlines actions to ensure getting valley inhabitants to safe
ground in a worst-case volcanic scenario. The plan also addresses recovery
priorities and mitigation measures to lessen the impact of a re-awakening
of this majestic volcano.
C. Plan Organization
The Plan is organized in such a way to reflect a logical sequence of events
in realizing the hazard; the four phases of emergency management:
Preparedness, Response, Mitigation, and Recovery.
Chapters 1 – 5 outline the preparedness phase: An overview of the Plan,
its intent, participants in the Plan development, a brief review of the
situation, and monitoring and warning.
Chapter 6 addresses the response phase: The ICS organization of field and
support operations, evacuation and rescue strategies, and agency
responsibilities.
Chapter 7 outlines collection and sheltering of evacuees
Chapters 8 – 10 identify mitigation strategies and public information /
education efforts.
Chapter 11 briefly describes recovery priorities and issues.
Chapter 12 is a glossary of pertinent terms and acronyms.
It also must be stressed that the Plan will always be a work in progress;
much the same as the scientific research associated with the geologic
changes of the volcano, and the ebb and flow of the populations and
businesses that inhabit the river valleys.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 5 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Chapter 2: WORK GROUP APPROACH AND
PLAN MAINTENANCE A. History of Plan - Development Effort
Because of its size and unique geographical location, bordering six counties in
Washington State and the fact that it is a National Park, Mount Rainier creates
some very interesting challenges in terms of the approach to take in preparing a
regional response plan to any volcanic or lahar activity.
Early discussions, involving the scientists from the U. S. Geological Survey
(USGS) and employees of the Pierce County Department of Emergency
Management (PC DEM), and with input from other agencies and jurisdictions,
concluded that any effort to develop a plan would have to include a wide range of
entities from the federal, state, and local communities. Although Pierce County is
the principal county in which the mountain resides, a lahar incident depending on
which valley or valleys are impacted has the potential to also affect King, Lewis,
and Thurston counties. In addition a tephra eruption could cover a potentially
broader area including portions of eastern Washington and perhaps areas further
east..
It was decided that such a group would be brought together, co-chaired, at that
time, by the Director of PC DEM and the Chief Park Ranger from Mount Rainier
National Park. A list of potential participants was established and regular
meetings began in the early 1990s and continue to this day under the guidance of
the Mitigation, Planning, Exercise, Training, and Public Education Program
Manager of PC DEM. The effort is organized as the Mount Rainier Work Group.
The Work Group provides oversight and direction for actions aimed at reducing
volcanic risk in the Mount Rainier region.
The original concept for the Work Group was to design an operational response
plan to deal with future eruptions and lahars at Mount Rainier. It quickly became
evident to the Work Group that the issue would not be that simple. The
knowledge or education level about the mountain and what it has or could do in
the event of any volcanic activity was low, not only among the Work Group
members, but also among the political and elected officials involved, and the
general population. Therefore, it was apparent from the beginning that a strong
public education initiative would also be necessary. Further discussion led to a
decision to include a section of the plan dealing with mitigation issues that should
be examined as part of the effort to minimize the response component. Later yet
it was decided that there should also be a recovery section that deals with
developing a plan to restore the community and economy following any kind of
event involving the mountain.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 6 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
B. Organizational Roles in Plan Development
This plan is an Incident Annex of the Pierce County Comprehensive Emergency
Management Plan (CEMP). The CEMP outlines policies, authorities, and specific
action of Pierce County government in response to, and recovery from an
emergency or disaster. The CEMP outlines recommended actions of primary and
secondary agencies to provide for a coordinated and NIMS compliant operations.
1. Preparedness / Public Education
The level of knowledge on the hazards that the mountain represents to the
communities that surround it is in some ways limited. There was and is a
strong assumption by many people that the mountain is "extinct", or at
worse "dormant." The public education effort, led by the USGS and PC
DEM, and their public education departments, has involved countless
public presentations on the mountain to community clubs, political groups,
fairs, and any other outreach programs made available. It also has
included a scientific approach which involves the schools and the
education related venues that have expressed interest in this subject. It is
recognized that this must be a long-term effort that may even involve
additions or modifications to school curriculum in order to address the
long-term education issue for future generations.
2. Response
Over time the Work Group has consisted of local and state law
enforcement, fire and emergency medical officials, school officials, private
sector, emergency management personnel from the affected cities, towns
and counties, and state, federal agencies such as Mount Rainier National
Park, United States Forest Service (USFS), and Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). The Work Group developed the Plan to
provide guidance for warning and notification, evacuations, security,
search and rescue and related components. Due to the multi-disciplinary
and multi-jurisdictional composition of the Work Group, and the complex
response and operational aspects, the task required significant coordination
and planning.
3. Mitigation
The question of addressing the risk of having people and facilities in the
potential paths of future lahars is complex and controversial. The valleys
draining Mount Rainier are undergoing extreme development pressure as
the entire Puget Sound region continues to experience explosive growth
issues. The responsibility for land use planning outside of the national
park includes many levels of government including the counties, cities and
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 7 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
towns, subdivisions of the counties such as port districts, and Indian
reservation and trust lands. All act independently to decide where and
how to develop the properties located within their jurisdictions. Currently
there is not strong support to limit development within the region,
although Pierce County has adopted a policy that limits the types of
development in identified volcano hazard areas. However, some feel that
the current mountain planning effort is diminishing their property values
and creating a fear mentality surrounding the mountain.
4. Recovery
Restoring the community following any disaster is a very difficult process.
This issue is even more complicated in Mount Rainier’s case. Owing to
the potential for widespread damage or even total destruction of homes,
businesses and the infrastructure within some areas of the impacted valleys
from the initial lahar, it could be months or even years before significant
restoration will be accomplished. In addition, recovery efforts will be
complicated by years to decades of landscape instability in affected valleys
that typically follows lahars. The Work Group will continue to study and
address recovery concepts and priorities.
The collaborative nature of the Mount Rainier Work Group has been an
excellent forum to address these complex and difficult issues involving
Mount Rainier. It has provided a strong venue for ideas to be expressed,
solutions to be agreed upon involving a wide range of government entities,
and has created an outstanding network of individuals educated to,
familiar with, and most importantly, concerned about what Mount Rainier
may do in our future. This process has strengthened our community and
fostered relationships that will encompass more then just the issues
surrounding the mountain.
C. Plan Maintenance
The original Plan was published July 1999. This document represents the
second edition. The Work Group will review it every two years to ensure
its currency, accuracy, and that it incorporates the latest scientific research,
emergency management and incident command principles and procedures,
and technological advances associated with telecommunications and
warning. PC DEM will lead the revision process, ensuring all
stakeholders will have an opportunity to comment on the Plan.
In addition to the revision process is the development and implementation
of an exercise program specific to Mount Rainier. Exercises will focus on
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 8 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
the Plan, emergency response and operations, and consequences associated
with an eruption. All lessons learned from the exercise activities will be
incorporated into the following revision. Due to existing exercise
requirements and programs of emergency first responders, it may be
impossible to do a lahar-specific exercise every two years. The Work
Group recommends a regional exercise dealing with a major lahar scenario
be conducted at least every four years.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 9 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Chapter 3: SYNOPSIS OF MOUNT RAINIER
VOLCANIC HAZARDS
A volcano’s past is a good guide to its future behavior. At Mount Rainier, geologists
continue to uncover a rich history of volcanic events from the study of the deposits of
numerous eruptions and lahars that have occurred since the latest ice age (roughly the past
10,000 years). This record gives critical information about the types, magnitudes, and
frequencies of past events and shows which areas were affected by them. It provides the
basis for a hazard assessment, including hazard-zone maps (U.S. Geological Survey
Open-File Report 98-428). Other information critical to assessing potential hazards come
from studies of the structure of the volcano, especially the identification of zones of
weakness that might be sources of future landslides and related lahars.
It is commonly difficult to grasp the significance of a hazard with which one has no
personal experience. The potential hazards from Mount Rainier are no exception. The
written history of Mount Rainier encompasses the period since about A.D. 1820, during
which time one or two small eruptions, many small debris flows, and several small
landslides occurred. Our knowledge of the prehistoric record makes it clear that the
written record is simply too brief to guide us in estimating the future behavior of this half-
million-year-old volcano. Interestingly, Native American oral traditions record apparent
eruptions and lahars, but offer few details about the character or date of such events.
During the past 10,000 years, eruptions of Mount Rainier did not occur at regular time
intervals, but were clustered in eruptive periods that lasted several decades to more than
1000 years. Eruptive periods were separated by apparent dormant intervals that lasted
from several centuries to almost 2000 years. Such an irregular pattern of activity makes
predicting the onset of future eruptions impossible and highlights the importance of
maintaining a robust geophysical-monitoring network on the volcano in order to detect
the early-warning signs of volcanic unrest that may herald renewed volcanism.
Typical eruptions of Mount Rainier produce a variety of potentially hazardous events (see
Figure 1. Volcanic Hazards and USGS Fact Sheet 2008-3062 in Appendix C). Explosions
eject tephra (volcanic rock fragments of all sizes). Sand and dust-sized tephra can drift
downwind from the volcano for tens to hundreds of miles. Most of the cone is built of
lava flows that oozed from vents and flowed down the steep flanks of the volcano. Both
explosions and collapse of active lava flows on steep slopes generate hot pyroclastic
flows that swiftly melt snow and glacier ice to produce mixtures of water, rocks, and mud
called lahars (or volcanic mudflows) that may sweep many tens of miles down valleys.
Landslides of weakened rock can also spawn lahars. Such landslides occur most often
during eruptive periods, but can also occur during dormant intervals under certain
conditions. Once lahars fill channels, destroy vegetation, and deposit thick layers of mud,
rocks, and organic debris on valley floors, years to decades follow during which rapid
erosion and high sediment loads severely affect valleys farther downstream. These
processes are discussed more fully below.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 10 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Figure 1. Volcanic Hazards
Mount Rainier has
only rarely produced
large-volume
eruptions of tephra
that blanketed areas
on the flanks of the
volcano with from
several to tens of feet
of pumice and ash and
probably several
inches of ash several
hundred miles
downwind. More
typical have been
eruptions that
deposited one foot or
less of ash and
pumice on the
volcano’s flanks, one
inch of ash 10 to 20
miles downwind, and
just a fraction of an
inch 100 miles
downwind. Many
events probably produced only dustings of ash near the volcano, but such events may
have been frequent during eruptive periods. Unlike Mount St. Helens, Mount Rainier is
only a moderate producer of tephra. Even so, tephra fallout in populated areas can cause
numerous problems and can greatly affect aviation (see USGS Fact Sheet 027-00 in
Appendix D).
Due to their high viscosity, past lava flows rarely flowed off the cone itself and most
remained within the boundaries of Mount Rainier National Park. Lava flows chiefly built
the volcano’s edifice and much of the summit cone is composed of lava flows emplaced
during the past few thousand years.
Pyroclastic flows generated by collapse of active lava flows on steep slopes or by
explosive eruptions have rarely extended beyond the base of the cone. Pyroclastic flows
are rapidly moving and extremely hazardous, making evacuation prior to an event the
only effective mitigation. But it is the ability of pyroclastic flows to swiftly melt snow
and ice coupled with the large mantle of seasonal snow and glacier ice on Mount Rainier
that create ideal conditions for generation of lahars during eruptions.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 11 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Lahars look and behave like flowing wet concrete owing to their high concentration of
entrained sediment (boulders, gravel, sand, and mud). They flow down valleys, typically
as multiple surges led by steep fronts charged with boulders, logs, and any other large
debris. They fill pre-existing channels and spread across adjacent valley floors, sweeping
away or burying mature forests and any structures in their paths, including bridges, dams,
roads, pipelines, and buildings. The larger the volume of a lahar, the more deeply it will
inundate a valley, the faster it will flow, and the farther it will travel. Lahars can flow
many tens of miles from Mount Rainier and represent the greatest volcanic threat to
populated areas.
During the past few thousand years, lahars from Mount Rainier inundated one or more of
the surrounding valleys at a frequency of about one sizeable lahar every few centuries.
These valleys are becoming increasingly densely settled, and future lahars have the
potential to directly affect thousands to tens of thousands of inhabitants. The potential for
inundation is depicted on a map of flow hazard zones (Figure 2,below) showing that
future lahars as well as post lahar sedimentation, could affect densely populated and
economically important areas in several river valleys. Both the ports of Tacoma and
Seattle lie at the mouths of rivers that head on the volcano and major bridges and
highways cross potential hazard zones. A possible mitigating factor is that all major
valleys except the Puyallup have dams that could act as traps for lahars. Although not
designed for lahars, Mud Mountain Dam on the White River is a flood-control structure
that might provide substantial storage for lahars and minimize downstream damage
unless lahars or related floods overtopped it. Likewise Cowlitz Falls, Mossyrock and
Mayfield Dams on the Cowlitz River and Alder and LaGrande Dams on the Nisqually
form impoundments that could trap lahar sediment if reservoir levels were lowered
beforehand.
Most far-traveled lahars at Mount Rainier occurred during eruptive periods, whether
generated by pyroclastic flows that swiftly melted snow and ice; by explosive expulsion
of a crater lake; or by large landslides of wet, weakened rock on the steep upper flanks.
Lahars generated by pyroclastic flows require that magma, or molten rock, rise to a
shallow level and drive an explosion or flow out onto the surface to create a lava flow.
Rising magma is typically heralded by earthquake swarms, deformation of the cone and
immediate area, and release of volcanic gases. Monitoring systems can detect such
changes and thereby provide forecasts of impending hazards weeks to months ahead of an
eruption. An active lava flow can likewise be monitored for signs of instability or
collapse prior to formation of pyroclastic flows. An explosion that empties a crater lake
is likely only during periods of volcanic unrest. The timing of lahars formed by large
landslides of weakened rock with respect to eruptions is less clear. Rising magma,
earthquakes, pressurization of ground water by heating, and deformation of the edifice
could trigger landslides early in volcanic unrest, weeks or months before an eruption
begins. Such triggers could even occur during intrusive events that fail to generate
eruptions. Explosive eruptions themselves could provide triggers for landslides. Such
landslides could also be triggered after an eruptive period was underway.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 12 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Figure 2.Various Flow Hazard Zones Surrounding Mount Rainier, Washington
Although most landslide-generated lahars at Mount Rainier formed during eruptive
periods, at least one perhaps did not. The ~500-year-old Electron lahar started as a
landslide from Sunset Amphitheater on the upper west flank of the volcano. The lahar
swept through the Puyallup valley depositing as much as 50 feet of mud, boulders, and
woody debris near present-day Orting. The cause of the initial Electron landslide is
unknown, but a detailed search has failed to find convincing evidence of eruptions near
the time of the Electron lahar. The volcano could have erupted around that time, but the
eruption was so small that it left no discernible evidence in the geologic record. Other
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 13 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
possible origins are a shallow intrusion of magma that never culminated in an eruption or
a non-volcanic event, such as a strong local earthquake.
Recent studies of Mount Rainier show that weakened rock underlies much of the upper
west flank of the volcano. Other parts of the volcano have no or small local areas of
weakened rock. Thus the Puyallup and, to a lesser extent, Nisqually valleys have the
greatest degree of hazard from lahars generated by landslides. A lahar-warning system
installed in the Puyallup valley about 17 miles from the volcano’s summit is designed to
detect lahars large enough to affect settled areas beyond the Park boundary. Detectors
cannot be usefully located closer to the volcano because they would send alarms for
frequent, small debris flows (see below) whose effects are restricted to areas in, or
occasionally, immediately adjacent to, the Park. Once a sizeable lahar is detected,
warnings will be issued by multiple systems and initiate evacuation and other emergency
responses. Estimated minimum travel times for a large lahar in the Puyallup valley are
summarized in the following table. The times are estimated from statistics on historical
lahars worldwide, which suggest that the front of a large lahar would advance at an
average speed of about 20 miles per hour between the detection chute and Orting and
about 15 miles per hour between Orting and Commencement Bay.
Table 1 Puyallup Valley Lahar Travel Times
1 Times rounded to nearest 5 minutes.
2 Detection chute is located about 17 miles from landslide source area on upper west
flank of Mount Rainier. Estimated time for lahar to reach chute and detection be
completed is about 30 minutes. 3 Locations are city centers.
During a period of eruptions, lahars could affect any or all of the valleys that head on the
volcano, depending on details such as vent location and eruption duration and character.
During eruptions of the past few thousand years, lahars generated by pyroclastic flows
have traveled many tens of miles down the White, Cowlitz, Nisqually, and Puyallup
River valleys. Some were large enough to reach Puget Sound. Lahars generated by
landslides like those of the past few thousand years will chiefly affect valleys to the
west—the Puyallup and Nisqually.
Areas on the flanks of Mount Rainier and upper reaches of valleys within Mount Rainier
National Park are subject to frequent small rock avalanches and small lahars, which we
Point along lahar
path
Distance from
detection chute to
downstream location
(miles)
Minimum probable travel time1
from when lahar is detected to
downstream location
(hours:minutes)
Detection chute2 0 0
Orting3 15 0:40
Sumner 23 1:05
Puyallup 25 1:20
Commencement Bay 32 1:50
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 14 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
refer to as debris flows to differentiate them from larger eruption-related or landslide-
generated lahars. Debris flows are typically generated by intense rainstorms, rapid
snowmelt, or outbursts of water from glaciers. Several occur nearly every year and
sometimes affect trails, bridges, and roads in the Park. Even the largest of these events
have only minimal affects immediately outside the Park. The Park’s geologic hazard plan
addresses such events. Brochures and signs at campgrounds, trailheads, and other Park
facilities inform visitors of potential hazards from such events.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 15 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Chapter 4: SITUATION
Mount Rainier is an episodically active volcano that towers more than 14,000 feet
above expanding suburbs in the river valleys that lead to nearby Puget Sound.
Geologic study indicates that Mount Rainier has repeatedly produced lahars that
today would be catastrophic in size, loss of life, and destruction of infrastructure
and property. Ash clouds drifting downwind from the volcano and fallout of ash
can also adversely affect air traffic and communities. Due to their potential for
harm, our primary focus here is on lahar incidents.
Scientists and emergency management officials classify Mount Rainier lahar
incidents into three categories. 1) Debris flows are relatively small in size and
destruction potential does not extend far beyond the boundaries of the Mount
Rainier National Park. 2) Most lahars occur with warning that the mountain is re-
awakening or erupting. The warnings will likely include days to months of
increased seismic activity within the mountain, increased glacial melting, and
increased gas venting, or evidence that the mountain is erupting. 3) The worst-
case scenario, but the least likely, is a large, fast moving lahar with no warning
initiated by a sudden landslide of water-saturated, weakened rock.
A. Introduction
With thousands of people now living in the Puget Sound and Western Washington
region, the risk from Mount Rainier’s hazards has increased. With development
and population on the rise, increasing knowledge about Mount Rainier’s hazards
has brought the risk to the local population to the forefront. Planning to lessen the
impact of a volcanic event is critical and must address warning and notification,
emergency response and operations, public education strategies, appropriate
mitigative measures, and post-incident recovery priorities.
Mount Rainier casts a long shadow, and the region surrounding the mountain is
diverse culturally, economically, ecologically, geographically and socially. Due to
this diversity, the region has several attractions that bring in millions of visitors
each year. The Pierce County’s Visitor and Convention Bureau estimates that
Pierce County hosts approximately 2.5 million overnight visitors annually.
Individually, Mount Rainier National Park hosts approximately 2 million visitors
and the Western Washington (Puyallup) Fair, lying in the potential path of a lahar
in the Puyallup Valley, has approximately 1.5 million visitors each year. Other
attractions located in Pierce County close to the mountain include the Crystal
Mountain Resort, Northwest Trek, the Mount Rainier Scenic Railway and the
restaurants and businesses located along Highways 7, 706 and 410. Historic
communities like Wilkeson, Eatonville, and Buckley.
In Lewis County, the businesses lying along Highway 12 in particular, reap the
rewards from the tourist industry heading for the outdoors along the Cowlitz
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 16 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
River, the South Cascades, and the east and south sides of Mount Rainier National
Park. The campgrounds along Riffe and Mayfield Lakes and the towns of
Morton, Packwood and Randle act as congregation points for those seeking
recreational opportunities.
Not only will a Mount Rainier eruption with large lahars directly impact the
people of Pierce County and neighboring counties, it will disrupt the region’s
economy. Unemployment will increase. Many small businesses will not recover.
The damage and destruction to the impacted infrastructure may have long-term
impacts on the region from which it may not recover in the foreseeable future.
B. Pertinent Information on Potentially Affected Counties
1. Pierce County
a. Population and Demographics
The beauty of the Puget Sound and Western Washington region attracts
many people. It is a desirable place to live, work, and play. Permanent
residents, workers, and visitors can be equally affected by the hazards of
Mount Rainier.
As of July 2008, Pierce County had a resident population of approximately
805,400. The unincorporated population of Pierce County was estimated
at 377,660 and the incorporated population was estimated at 427,740.
Within these numbers are the special populations. The following is a
sampling of those populations.
Twenty percent (20%) of the working age adults in Pierce County have
a disability that does not require them to be institutionalized.
Forty-four percent (44%) of retirement age people have a disability.
Twelve percent (12%) of the population does not speak English as
their primary language.
Ten percent (10%) of the population are seniors, aged 65 and older.
Pierce County’s economy includes a large number of businesses. Pierce
County’s location on Puget Sound with easy access to the trade routes
across the Pacific Ocean makes it an ideal center for commerce. As
examples, the Port of Tacoma is the sixth largest container port in North
America and among the top 25 container ports in the world. The county
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 17 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
also has a large military population. Fort Lewis Army Post, Madigan
Army Medical Center, McChord Air Force Base, and Washington Military
Department are located in Pierce County with a combined military
population of 34,000 and 19,000 civilian employees.
Each and every one of these people has the potential of being affected,
directly or indirectly, by the hazards of Mount Rainier. An exact number
of people who may be affected by the lahars generated by Mount Rainier
cannot be determined due to the changing size and nature of the population
and the wide range in possible lahar sizes and distribution. With either the
threat of a large lahar or a activation of the lahar warning system due to a
spontaneous lahar, it is estimated that up to 100,000 people may need to be
evacuated. Furthermore, many more people could be affected by volcanic
ashfall; under certain wind conditions, much of the southern Puget
Lowland could be affected.
b. Terrain
With an elevation of 14, 410 feet (4,392 meters), Mount Rainier is the
tallest of the Cascade volcanoes. With 26 named glaciers, it is also the
most heavily glaciated Cascade volcano.
Glaciers and exposed rock cover the higher elevations of the mountain’s
slopes. In the lower elevations, it is largely covered by old growth forests
and flowered meadows.
The Carbon, Cowlitz, Nisqually, Puyallup, and White Rivers all begin on
the high slopes of Mount Rainier and run into the lowland drainage basins.
The White River borders Pierce County to the north and is connected to
the Puyallup River by way of the Stuck River between Puyallup and
Sumner. The Nisqually River borders Lewis and Thurston Counties to the
south and flows all the way to the Puget Sound. The Carbon and Puyallup
Rivers join near Orting and continue to flow into Commencement Bay.
The Cowlitz River drains the southeast corner of the National Park.
Turning to the west and southwest, it joins the Columbia River at the City
of Kelso. These rivers are the sources of interaction between the events
occurring on Mount Rainier and the population of both the Puget Sound
region and southwest Washington.
c. The Road Network
The geologic and demographic makeup of the Puget Sound region creates
unique challenges to the evacuation efforts in Pierce County and other
counties that would be impacted by a worst-case scenario lahar.
Geologically, most of Pierce County is sandwiched between Puget Sound
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 18 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
and the Cascade Mountain range. A small portion is located to the west of
Puget Sound on the Kitsap Peninsula. These natural barriers limit the
actual and potential growth of transportation corridors throughout the
region. Interstate 5 runs north and south. East / west state routes run
through or in the inundation zone and / or the Cascade Mountains. Other
natural barriers, the Puyallup and Nisqually rivers, have the potential of
isolating Pierce County from the rest of the region.
The Puget Sound region is densely urbanized. Ninety-two percent (92%)
of Pierce County’s population lives in densely settled urbanized areas.
Twenty-five percent (25%) of Pierce County workers commute to other
counties for employment. The result is a high volume of commuter and
industrial traffic. Even on ―normal‖ days, gridlocks are common with
sizeable traffic ―backups‖. Envision an additional ten or twenty thousand
cars filled with people desperate to get to safety; the gridlock will be
unimaginable.
The road network of Pierce County is a complex system of state, county,
local, and private roads. The state route highways and interstates are the
most heavily traveled roads in Pierce County.
The state routes in Pierce County consist of the following:
Interstate 5: Extends northerly from the Washington-Oregon border
through Tacoma and continues on to the international United States-
Canada border.
State Route No. 7: Begins in downtown Tacoma following Pacific
Avenue in a southward direction and extends to the Pierce-Lewis
county border.
State Route No. 16: Begins at a junction with Interstate 5 at
Tacoma, extends northwesterly by way of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge,
and ends at a junction with State Route No. 3 outside of Pierce
County. In a scenario with large lahars flowing down both the
Nisqually and Puyallup Valleys all the way to Puget Sound, State
Route 16 could be the only ground route out of Pierce County.
State Route No. 161: Begins at a junction with State Route No. 7
near La Grande, extends northeasterly through Eatonville and on to
Puyallup, then to a junction with State Route No. 18 outside of Pierce
County.
State Route No. 162: Begins at a junction with State Route 410 at
Sumner, extends south and easterly to State Route 165 near South
Prairie.
State Route No. 167: Begins at a junction with Interstate 5 near
Tacoma, extends easterly through the Puyallup/Sumner area and
extends northerly to the Auburn / Kent area outside of Pierce County.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 19 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
State Route No. 410: Begins at a junction with State Route No. 167
at Sumner, extends easterly through Buckley on past the boundaries of
Pierce County.
State Route No. 512: Begins at junction with Interstate. 5, south of
Tacoma, extends easterly to a junction with State Route No. 7, south
of Tacoma, and continues on to a junction with State Route No. 167
near Puyallup.
Interstate 705: Begins at a junction with Interstate 5 in Tacoma and
extends northerly as a feeder route into downtown Tacoma connecting
with Schuster Parkway leading to the Old Town portion of the City.
Even though Pierce County has identified and marked lahar evacuation
routes. The possibility exists that, with a rapidly generated lahar requiring
evacuation, they may become nothing other than parking lots. With a
gradually escalating volcanic eruption, threatening a lahar, many people
may either elect to self evacuate or in a case where the threat has become
imminent the number of people allowed in the danger zone may be
limited. It is recommended that everyone who lives in the lahar inundation
zone identify several routes to safety and ―dry run‖ all of them so there
will be no question as to which way to turn when an evacuation order is
broadcast.
2. Lewis County
a. Population and Demographics
As of 2008, Lewis County had a resident population of approximately
74,700. The majority of these citizens lives in the central and western
parts of the county, and so is not likely to be directly affected by volcanic
hazards other than ashfall. However, several unincorporated communities
in the headwaters of the Cowlitz River Valley could be affected by lahars
from Mount Rainier. Those communities include Glenoma, Randle, and
Packwood with a combined estimated population of 7,100.
Lewis County in the Upper Cowlitz River Valley is largely rural, where
over 6,500 people live in areas at risk to lahars and other geologic hazards.
In addition, the area hosts another 350,000 to 400,000 visitors during the
summer tourist season each year (June through October, or about 3,000 to
5,000 people per day (Mount Rainier National Park and Mount St. Helens
National Monuments records, 1995-1997). A much smaller but still
substantial number of people visit the area for autumn hunting and winter
skiing. Moreover, US Highway 12 supports a significant transit
population in approximately 1,700,000 vehicles a year (U.S. Forest
Service study) and related commerce because it is one of the few
transportation corridors across the Cascade Range.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 20 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Residents live and work in developments and private sector infrastructure
that exceed $300 million in assessed value (1997 Lewis County Auditor
data) as well as facilities built by federal and state governments that
exceed several tens of millions of dollars in additional investment.
Among the more valuable facilities at risk are the highway system and
associated support structures, two lumber mills, two USFS district
compounds with associated vehicles and equipment, and a number of
small businesses (banks and others, 1998). Two elementary schools and a
high school are also at risk.
b. Terrain
Lewis County trends east and west across western Washington from the
crest of the Cascades on the east to Pacific County on the west, only 22
miles from tidewater in Willipa Bay.
Eastern Lewis County is composed of rugged mountainous terrain rising
up to nearly 8000 feet in the Goat Rocks Wilderness Area along the crest
of the Cascades. Along the very northern edge the County’s eastern end it
incorporates the southern portions of Mount Rainier National Park. This
includes going almost to the headwaters of the Cowlitz River and
including the lower portions of its tributary the Ohanapecosh River, both
which begin on the slopes of the volcano. Slightly further to the west,
below the terminus of the Nisqually Glacier, the County boundary follows
the Nisqually River out of the Park and then west to the town of Elbe and
Alder Lake. From there it no longer follows the river but runs straight
west 46 miles where it takes a small jog to the north before continuing
west again to Pacific County.
As one travels west across the County from the eastern mountains the
landscape gradually looses elevation taking on the character of low
mountains, then hills and finally the low farming country of Centralia and
Chehalis. It is here that the Newaukum and Skookumchuck Rivers join
the Chehalis on its way to Aberdeen, Grays Harbor and the Pacific Ocean.
Further to the west the terrain begins to rise again into gently rolling hills
to the boundary with Pacific County.
Slightly further to the south from the City of Chehalis the Cowlitz River
after being impeded by Cowlitz Falls, Mossy Rock and Mayfield Dams,
enters the low rolling country that extends south to Cowlitz County, Kelso
and the Columbia River.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 21 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
c. Road Network
The road network in Lewis County is made up of federal (National Forest
System and U.S. Highway), state, county, and private roads. Since much of
the County is forest land there are few roads that lead to towns or
communities once you leave the main river valleys.
Routes in Lewis County include the following:
Interstate 5: Extends northerly from the Lewis County/Cowlitz
border through Chehalis and Centralia and continues on north into
Thurston County eventually reaching the Canadian border.
State Route No. 6: Extends westward from Chehalis initially
following the Chehalis River and Rock Creek, leaving the County then
climbing over the Willipa Hills and descending to Raymond on Hwy
101 near Willipa Bay.
State Route No. 7: Extends south from the Pierce-Lewis county
border (near Elbe) to the town of Morton, where it meets U.S.
Highway 12.
State Route 508: Parallels Highway 12 from Morton to Interstate 5
from 3 to 5 miles to the north.
U.S. Highway 12: Enters Lewis County along with Interstate 5 from
the north and then extends from Interstate 5, eastward through Lewis
County occasionally following the path of the Cowlitz River and enters
Yakima County at White Pass.
State Route No. 123: Begins at a junction with U.S. Highway 12
about 6 miles North of Packwood, and extends north to Cayuse Pass
and State Route No. 410. Provides access to southeastern portion of
Mount Rainier National Park.
State Route 131: Begins at U.S. Highway 12 (in Randle), and
extends south to National Forest roads 23 and 25. Provides access to
Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument and the Gifford
Pinchot National Forest.
Stevens Canyon Road: Leaves Hwy123 5 miles norrth of the Hwy
12/State Route 123 junction and winds up to Paradise in Mount
Rainier National Park.
3. King County
a. Population and Demographics information to be developed
b. Terrain information to be developed
c. King County has an extensive road network linking the various
portions of the County together and connecting the County with the
surrounding counties. This network is extended to the west by the use of
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 22 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
the Washington State Ferry System linking the mainland portion of the
County with Vashon and Bainbridge Islands and the Kitsap Peninsula.
Interstate 5: Extends north from the Pierce/King County border
through Seattle and continues on north into Snohomish County and
other counties eventually reaching the Canadian border.
4. Thurston County
a. Population and Demographics information unavailable at time of
printing
b. Terrain information unavailable at time of printing
c. The road network in Thurston County is made up of federal
(National Forest System and U.S. Highway), state, county, and private
roads. Since much of the County is forest land there are few roads that lead
to towns or communities once you leave the main river valleys.
Interstate 5 is Thurston County’s primary transportation corridor.
It enters Thurston County from the north near the Nisqually Indian
Reservation and travels southeast through Lacey, and then south through
Olympia and Tumwater continuing into Lewis County.
● State Route 507 is the primary east-west roadway in southern
Thurston County. It connects the cities of Yelm Rainier, and Tenino and
the town of Bucoda.
● State Route 510 traverses the northeast portion of Thurston
County, running from its western terminus at Interstate 5 near Lacey to its
eastern terminus at State Route 507 in Yelm.
● U.S. Route 12 crosses the southwestern corner of Thurston County.
It travels from Grays Harbor County to the west, north of the Chehalis
Indian Reservation through the community of Rochester until it intersects
with I-5 at exit 88 in the town of Grand Mound.
● State Route 8 runs east-west through the northeastern portion of
Thurston County. It travels from Grays Harbor County to the west along
the northern boundary of the Capital Forest to its intersection with U.S.
Route 101.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 23 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
● U.S. Route 101 enters Thurston County from Mason County to the
northwest near Steamboat Island. It runs southeast to Tumwater where it
intersects with I-5.
C. Example of Possible Economic Impact from a Large Lahar
A large lahar will not only impact the State of Washington but has the potential to
impact the nation.
The Port of Tacoma is one of the world’s finest deep-water, ―gateway‖ ports.
International shippers are now using the Port of Tacoma as their West Coast USA
hub because of growth restrictions at the California ports. In 2004 the Port did
$26 billion in business, up from $19 billion in 2000. More than 101,000 jobs in
Washington State are related to port activities.
Three-quarters (3/4) of the Port’s international container cargo services the central
and eastern portions of the United States. This is in addition to the local container
traffic. Annually, 70% of the goods shipped to the State of Alaska, including
food, pass through terminals at the Port of Tacoma. The cargo and goods
intended for other destinations such as Chicago and Kansas City are loaded
primarily on rail. Other cargo and goods are loaded onto trucks and travel via the
road network. Regardless of the mode of transportation, these destinations are
east of the region and require passage through the Cascade Mountain range.
Economically, this scenario will devastate the local economy and the quality of
life to which we are accustomed. Nationally, some consumer goods will likely
become scarce.
D. Shelter and Housing
A large Mount Rainier lahar will result in a tremendous challenge to the region’s
capacity to find both short and long-term housing for the displaced population. A
lahar could in some areas be deeper than the tops of the houses in its path. Not
only would individual houses be damaged, but for many families there will be
nothing left. Their entire home and belongs would have been either carried away
by the lahar or buried by the mud. Infrastructure, like roads, will be buried or
scoured out; power lines will be non-existent; and, gas and water lines would have
broken when the buildings were destroyed. Exacerbating the problem is the fact
that the soft mud and post lahar sedimentation that will follow could prevent
repopulation for some period of time, possibly years. Due to the inability of
people to return to their homes, up to 100,000 people may need to be sheltered
and provided basic human needs for a period that could last for months. Many of
them may need to permanently relocate, not just because their homes are
destroyed, but also because, depending on the destruction to the economic base,
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 24 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
many of them may need to relocate to seek work.
The other alternative, that the mountain enters an eruptive phase may require areas
around the mountain be closed for the safety of the public. This could be
especially necessary in the valleys threatened by a pyroclastic flow initiated lahar.
Situations like this will require support and housing for individuals and families
temporarily displaced for a few months or longer. Evacuation from these areas
could become more controversial as time progresses because the threat may never
materialize. Housing needs while temporary may have a feel of being permanent.
Even with the memory of Mt. St. Helens still in many people’s minds, a desire to
return home combined with a fear of loosing the belongings that were left behind
could put pressure on local authorities to reopen areas closed. A tremendous
pressure could develop for citizens to return to communities.
1. Short Term Sheltering
Current sheltering needs for a major incident like a large lahar coming down the
Puyallup Valley are not adequate to meet the expected need, even for a very short
period of time.
The American Red Cross has been the lead in providing emergency shelter for
many years. Serving the communities with both shelter and feeding facilities, the
American Red Cross continues to provide shelter for those displaced from their
residences for the small scale emergencies that happen on a regular basis. This
includes not just the family displaced by a fire but also, for example, those who
leave their home temporarily because of a threat of a flood or temporary power
outage in a neighborhood. As first responders, the mission of the ARC is to be
short term (three days), providing immediate basic needs such as sheltering,
clothing, and food. Under normal emergencies, when some residents must stay
more than a few days, and as populations in the shelters drop, those residents that
are unable to return home are placed in hotels until other arrangements can be
made. In a catastrophic incident like the lahar this would not be possible. Some
shelters will need to be designated as long term shelters until other arrangements
can be made for the residents.
Pierce County Department of Emergency Management has developed a plan for
community sheltering. A number of strategically placed shelters will house
clients that have been displaced following a disaster. Located out of the valleys
these shelters are supported by various agencies, non-profit and governmental.
Short term residency is defined as less than five days. Memoranda of
Understanding (MOUs) have been signed with the organizations owning the
facilities. Further agreements are being negotiated with the region’s parks and
recreation departments, the local military, and schools and universities to expand
the region’s catastrophic sheltering capacity.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 25 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
2. Long Term Housing
In a large lahar scenario, many homes will be destroyed so displacement may be
long-term. Depending on the course and depth of the lahar, displacement of the
existing river channels, engineering problems with development on new deposits,
unstable channels with high sediment loads and continued volcanic activity some
areas may take years or even decades to stabilize. In fact some people may not
want to, or may never be able to, return to where they once lived.
In the situation where Mount Rainier is threatening to send a lahar down valley
due to entering an eruptive phase, local temporary housing will need to be
established that may have to house the majority of those evacuated for months or
longer depending on the length of the eruptive phase and the perceived threat to
the valleys.
Long term recovery support consists first of care teams created from different
volunteer and public agencies. They provide information and support to families
and individuals following a crisis. Implementation of other services such as food
and transportation will be sought by the agencies providing the commodities while
maintaining support through the care team members.
Housing concerns and/ or relocation to other states may be necessary. Depending
on the actual event, all housing options will be considered. For situations
requiring long term support local housing authorities will need to become
involved. Due to the lack of immediately available housing, a request for state
and federal resources may be necessary.
3. Animal Support
It has been observed in many emergency situations where people are asked to
evacuate that they insist on bringing their pets with them. Considered part of the
family, many people, especially senior citizens, will refuse to abandon their pets
and will not evacuate without them. In some cases this has led to the death of
those who refused to evacuate. In order to facilitate the evacuation and sheltering
of displaced persons, the housing of companion animals that accompany them
requires special consideration. Due to health and safety concerns, pets other than
service animals are restricted from entry into essentially all shelters. Separating a
family pet during times of crisis adds to the already existing anxiety, fear, and
hopelessness experienced by many of the evacuees.
The Pierce County Animal Response Team consist of all the Animal Control
agencies in Pierce County. Tacoma/Pierce County Humane Society, Mutt Shack,
and many other animal rescue organizations, are involved in planning for and
training volunteers, along with local government agencies in disaster response for
animals. Pet shelters will be placed outside the general population shelters to
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 26 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
house the pets of shelter clients. Citizens are encouraged to bring their pets in
cages or travel crates. Each client is expected to care for their own pet while they
reside at the shelter. In order to assist keeping track of pets, they will all be tagged
and tracked not only at the initial shelter but if need be, as they are transferred to
another shelter.
4. Other Shelter Issues
Families need to be kept together. This may require placing the medically
needy within the shelter with their close relatives.
With a large number of evacuees mass feeding stations will need to be set
up. Volunteer organizations like Emergency Food Network, Salvation
Army, the American Red Cross and various religious organizations will
cover part of this, but with a very large evacuation will need
supplementary assistance.
All shelter residents will be registered and attempts will be made to
reconnect those separated from other family members.
E. Public Safety Organizations
The urbanized, Puget Sound / Western Washington area has large numbers of
emergency first responders. The outlying areas do not. Regardless of availability,
emergency first responders are professionals, meeting regulatory and performance
requirements. The emergency response agencies responding to a volcanic incident
will conduct operations in accordance with the incident command system (ICS) /
National Incident Management System (NIMS). All responding agencies (state,
local, and private sector) shall provide adequate support and equipment in
accordance with agency and state policy. Resource requirements beyond local
capacity are provided via mutual aid agreements and mobilization of regional and
state assets. The Area Command Center (see Chapter 6) will identify and
coordinate additional resources.
Other public safety agencies that are not involved in the actual field operation but
are critical to the emergency coordination and management of the incident are
diverse and may not commonly be recognized as being part of public safety.
Those agencies include but are not limited to: school districts, hospitals and public
health, Washington State Department of Transportation, National Weather
Service, volunteer organizations, and the National Park Service.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 27 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Chapter 5: MONITORING AND EMERGENCY
NOTIFICATION
A. Monitoring
By law, the USGS has the responsibility to monitor volcanoes and to give timely
warnings to the public and public officials about volcanic activity, which, in the
Cascades, is a primary function of the Cascades Volcano Observatory (CVO).
CVO works closely with its chief partner, the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network
at the University of Washington. Scientists rely on a variety of techniques to
assess the state of a volcano including seismicity, ground deformation, gas
emissions, geochemistry of springs and streams, and a host of visual,
photographic, thermal, and satellite observations. A network of telemetered
seismometers on and around Mount Rainier provides real-time monitoring of
earthquakes. Additional seismometers have been recently installed to increase the
effectiveness and robustness of the network. Seven continuous GPS receivers
monitor ground movements in real time. An existing array of numerous
benchmarks can be resurveyed if weather and snow conditions permit using
Global Positioning System receivers (GPS) in order to better define deformation
of the volcano’s flanks. Other techniques, such as airborne measurements of
volcanic gases, are employed sporadically, but would be used frequently during
periods of unrest or eruption.
Since the mid-1990s PC-DEM in cooperation with USGS and WEMD has
operated the Puyallup valley lahar-warning system. The system, which is installed
along the Carbon and Puyallup River valleys, is unique in that its detection
component is fully automated. Each river valley has seven instrument sites: Two
radio repeaters and five acoustic flow monitors (AFMs). The AFMs detect
ground vibrations that are specific to lahar activity and send data through the
repeaters to base stations at WEMD and Pierce County Law Enforcement Support
Administration (LESA). The computers have USGS designed software that
receives, interprets the data, and sounds an audible alarm. Duty officers and
dispatchers respond to the alarm by initiating the transmission of the emergency
alert system (EAS) message and notifying the public safety and other
organizations identified in Attachments 2 and 3.
The upper Nisqually River valley, which is less subject to lahars generated by
landslides than the Puyallup, does not have lahar detectors owing to steep terrain,
proximity to the mountain, and other issues. The White and Cowlitz River valleys
have little risk from lahars generated by landslides, but are likely paths for lahars
generated by eruptions. As such, they, along with the Nisqually, would be sites
for installation of lahar-detection systems if the volcano becomes restless. USGS-
CVO maintains a cache of lahar detectors available for deployment on short
notice to restless Cascade volcanoes. Public education campaigns, focusing on
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 28 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
the hazards of the mountain, preparedness, and self-sufficiency are mitigative
activities for all areas. Additionally, the public has a responsibility for their own
safety, in these valleys and throughout the region.
B. Incident Notification
1. Ground-based Hazards
Description of Volcano Alert Levels
The USGS ranks the alert level at a U.S. volcano using the terms Normal, Advisory,
Watch, and Warning (table 1). These levels reflect conditions at the volcano and the
expected or ongoing hazards. Assigning an alert level depends upon monitoring data and
interpretation of changing phenomena. Alert levels are not always followed sequentially
and escalate or de-escalate depending on volcanic behavior. Volcano-alert notices are
accompanied by explanatory text to give fuller explanation of the observed phenomena
and to clarify hazard implications to affected groups. Updates that describe the ongoing
activity are issued on a regular basis, at increasing frequency at higher activity levels.
Volcanic events are different enough that it is not possible to predetermine a detailed set
of geophysical and geochemical criteria for each level that would be applicable
universally. The alert-level definitions are guidelines for scientists to use to gauge the
level of hazardous activity and for public officials and the public to consider when
deciding what actions they need to take. Note that Watch is used for both heightened
precursory unrest and for minor eruptive activity because both states bear close watching
but do not have immediate, major hazardous effects. Because the size, style, and reach of
eruptions can vary substantially, a higher level (Warning) is needed to highlight very
hazardous eruptive activity.
Normal: Typical background activity of a volcano in a noneruptive state
This level applies to inactive, non-erupting volcanoes, with allowance for
periods of increased steaming, seismic events, deformation, thermal
anomalies, or detectable levels of degassing as long as such activity is
within the range of typical non-eruptive phenomena seen at a volcano
during its monitoring history (or at similar types of volcanoes).
Advisory: Elevated unrest above known background activity
This level is declared when a volcano is exhibiting signs of elevated unrest
above known background levels. Progression toward eruption is by no
means certain. After a change from a higher level, Advisory means that
volcanic activity has decreased significantly but continues to be closely
monitored for possible renewed increase.
Watch: Heightened or escalating unrest with potential for eruptive activity
OR a minor eruption underway that poses limited hazards
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 29 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
This level is declared for two situations: (1) when a volcano is exhibiting
heightened or escalating unrest with potential for eruptive activity (not
necessarily imminent) or (2) when a minor eruption is underway with
limited hazardous impact. When changing from Advisory, this level
implies increased potential for an eruption (timeframe variable). When
changing from Warning, this level signifies that the volcano is still
showing signs of heightened activity that may lead to renewed highly
hazardous activity or that the volcano has settled into minor eruptive
activity with limited hazards.
Warning: Major or highly hazardous eruption underway or imminent
This level is declared by the USGS when a major or highly hazardous
eruption appears to be imminent or is confirmed or suspected to be
underway. Owing to remoteness or poor weather conditions, some
eruptions may not be confirmed visually or by satellite imagery, but
ground-based monitoring data may strongly suggest that eruptive activity
is occurring; in such cases, the accompanying information will say that a
―suspected‖ rather than a ―confirmed‖ eruption is underway.
Accompanying information will indicate in as much detail as possible the
eruption’s time of onset, duration, size, intensity or explosivity, and impact
on the landscape and atmosphere. When the major eruptive period ends or
settles into milder, less hazardous activity, the level is downgraded.
Information Statement: Notable event at a volcano, not necessarily eruptive
Phenomena such as prominent steam plumes, small avalanches and rock
falls, minor mudflows, changes in appearance of a lake in a volcanic
crater, and minor seismic activity may occur while a volcano is at a
Normal level. Most such events are short-lived and lack recognizable
precursors and do not necessarily suggest volcanic unrest or major flank
instability that would warrant a crisis response. However, owing to public
and media inquiries that often result from a notable event, the USGS along
with other involved agencies will attempt to verify the nature and extent of
the event and issue explanations in the form of an Information
Statement. An Information Statement also may be issued periodically
to provide commentary about a significant event or change occurring
within higher alert levels.
Aviation Color Codes
Eruptions threaten aviation safety when plumes of volcanic ash are explosively erupted
and disperse as airborne clouds in flight paths of jet aircraft. Numerous instances of
aircraft flying into volcanic-ash clouds have demonstrated both the economic costs and
life-threatening potential of this hazard. The accepted mitigation strategy is to avoid
encounters of aircraft with ash clouds, which requires that pilots, dispatchers, and air-
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 30 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
traffic controllers quickly learn of occurrences of explosive eruptions and the
whereabouts of airborne ash clouds globally.
For the aviation sector, in accord with recommended ICAO procedures, the USGS issues
color-coded activity levels – Green, Yellow, Orange, and Red – focused on ash hazards
(table 2). Color-codes are especially suitable for the aviation sector because pilots,
dispatchers, and air-traffic controllers planning or executing flights over broad regions of
the globe quickly need to ascertain the status of numerous volcanoes and determine if
continued attention, re-routing, or extra fuel is warranted. As with the Watch term,
Orange is used for both heightened precursory unrest and minor eruptive activity, and
there are two levels (Orange and Red) to cover the range of eruption size and impact.
All Volcano Advisories, Watches, and Warnings will include the ―Aviation Color Code,‖
clearly identified as such to differentiate it from other hazard statements. In most cases,
the term and aviation-specific color code will move together (e.g., Normal and Green;
Advisory and Yellow; Watch and Orange; Warning and Red). However, there may be
occasions when activity at a volcano poses a hazard to the aviation sector that is
significantly lower than hazards posed to ground-based communities. In those cases, the
aviation color code will be lower than what is normally associated with the alert term. An
example is a large lava flow heading towards a town (Volcano Warning in effect) that is
unlikely to produce any ash in flight routes or near an airport (Aviation Color Code
Orange). Conversely, an ash plume that does not yield significant ash fall onto ground
communities but does drift into air routes might warrant a Volcano Watch and Aviation
Color Code Red.
VOLCANO ALERT LEVELS
NORMAL
Volcano is in typical background, noneruptive state
or, after a change from a higher level,
volcanic activity has ceased and volcano has returned to noneruptive background state.
ADVISORY
Volcano is exhibiting signs of elevated unrest above known background level
or, after a change from a higher level,
volcanic activity has decreased significantly, but continues to be closely
monitored for possible renewed increase.
WATCH
Volcano is exhibiting heightened or escalating unrest with increased potential of eruption,
timeframe uncertain,
OR
eruption is underway but poses limited hazards.
WARNING
Hazardous eruption is imminent, underway, or suspected.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 31 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
2. Aviation Color Code
Table 2. AVIATION COLOR CODES
GREEN
Volcano is in typical background, noneruptive state
or, after a change from a higher level,
volcanic activity has ceased and volcano has returned to noneruptive background state.
YELLOW
Volcano is exhibiting signs of elevated unrest above known background level
or, after a change from a higher level,
volcanic activity has decreased significantly but continues to be closely monitored
for possible renewed increase.
ORANGE
Volcano is exhibiting heightened or escalating unrest with increased potential of eruption,
timeframe uncertain,
OR
eruption is underway with no or minor ash emission [plume height specified, if possible].
RED
Eruption is imminent with significant emission of ash into the atmosphere likely
or
eruption is underway or suspected with significant emission of ash into the atmosphere
[plume height specified, if possible].
C. Communications and Emergency Notification
1. Effective communications are critical to the response and survival of any
emergency of significant scope and severity, but history has shown it to be
one of the greatest challenges. To add to the challenge, the telephone and
cellular systems are often off-line due to damage or overuse. These
systems may be off-line for hours and possibly days if the incident causes
widespread damage. Alternative methods to obtain emergency
information and notification are required in these situations.
2. One emergency notification system common to the public, public safety,
and the entire region is the Emergency Alert System (EAS) (see
Attachment 1). The EAS, a national warning system, replaced the
Emergency Broadcast System several years ago. EAS sends the message,
local media broadcasts the message, and the NOAA All Hazards Radio
receives the message. The NOAA All Hazards Radio is a reliable way to
ensure receipt of emergency notifications and warnings. Televisions and
radios also receive the EAS message but must be turned on for any benefit.
Future technology will be available for televisions and radios to
automatically turn-on when the EAS tones are detected.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 32 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
All contributors to this document cannot express enough the
importance of everyone living within the volcanic hazard area of
Pierce County and the neighboring counties purchasing and regularly
testing the NOAA All Hazards Radio. It can truly be the difference
between life and death.
3. Pierce County DEM has installed and maintained the Lahar Warning
System. The system is a network of 25 sirens located throughout the
Puyallup River valley, beginning in Orting and ending in Fife. Initially the
system was considered to be the primary warning system for the valley but
numerous tests have not always resulted in success. The time of day,
nearby traffic noise, being inside or outside, and an individual’s hearing
ability all impact the effectiveness of the siren system in communities
along the Puyallup River.
The Lahar Warning System is wired into the EAS. When a lahar is
detected with the warning system, the trigger to blow the sirens also
activates the EAS.
4. Actions associated with sending EAS messages (see Attachment 1 EAS
Activation Procedures), sounding sirens, or disseminating lahar
information are:
A lahar is detected and verified by either the AFMs sensing an
encroaching lahar, by visual assessment, or by other means.
The sirens are triggered and sound the alarm.
Simultaneously, pre-recorded (pre-recorded to save critical time) lahar
EAS messages are transmitted (See attachment 2 to this chapter). Local
EAS messages are scripted and sent by the Law Enforcement Support
Agency (LESA), Washington Emergency Management Division
(WEMD), PC DEM, or the National Weather Service (NWS).
Media will broadcast the message (KIRO 710 AM and KPLU 88.5 FM are
legally mandated as the local primary and secondary radio stations to
broadcast messages) and the NOAA All Hazards Radio, television and
radio receive the message. The message includes a brief description of the
emergency and critical, life-saving steps to take, to not call 9-1-1, and
listen to the local media for additional information.
Additional EAS messages may be sent with incident-specific information.
Ensuring that the NOAA All Hazards Radio has a charged battery at all
times will ensure the receipt of these messages.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 33 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Simultaneously, WEMD and LESA will begin the emergency notification
of public safety responders. Local and regional agencies are notified by
LESA. State agencies are notified by WEMD (see Attachments 2 and 3).
The Pierce County Crisis Communications website will have available
information along with websites from other emergency management
organizations.
A regional JIC will open for the continued dissemination of critical
information and life-saving actions. The JIC will be staffed with
representatives from impacted and stakeholder agencies. See Chapter 8:
Emergency Information for additional information on JIC operations.
5. Pierce County E-9-1-1 Administration Program has implemented a
―reverse 9-1-1‖ system called Target Notification. It provides a platform
that uses GIS applications to highlight the geographical boundaries of
emergencies and disasters, to script incident-specific messages, and
provide repeated notifications. Selected Public Safety Answering Points
(PSAP) personnel and PC DEM duty officers are authorized to activate the
system. Target Notification uses the AT&T non-cellular database and
dials each telephone number until it is answered by either a person or a
message service. Cellular and systems other than landline telephones are
not included in the system.
6. The Puyallup Valley has a local emergency radio station, AM 1580,
funded for the public’s notification of a lahar coming down the valley and
how they should respond. It will also be used for rumor control in the
event there is a false alarm or a small debris flow that will not impact the
valley. This station, while initially developed for lahar warnings, is an all
hazard information station.
7. Tacoma Public Utilities (TPU) owns the Nisqually Hydroelectric Project.
The project comprises two dams (LaGrande and Alder) with each having a
powerhouse for the purpose of electricity generation. TPU has a
responsibility to inform local public safety agencies in the event of an
emergency at either or both of the dams or powerhouses. Public safety
agencies have the responsibility to inform the public.
As soon as a lahar on the Nisqually River has been confirmed, TPU
notifies LESA. With the assistance of TPU, LESA scripts a message.
LESA sends the message via EAS and begins emergency notifications as
identified in Attachment 3. If for any reason LESA is unable to promptly
send the EAS message, WEMD will be responsible for sending it.
Simultaneously, TPU conducts internal emergency notifications and
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 34 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
begins emergency operations.
The following are specific actions taken by TPU in the event of a lahar
impacting the Nisqually Project.
Upon receiving notification that a lahar has potentially occurred:
Confirm situation with TPU and Mount Rainier dispatch
Evacuate all personnel from powerhouses and areas subject to flooding
Contact the dam safety engineer to discuss action being taken
Immediately staff the office and monitor lake levels and cameras
Consider the dispatch of person(s) to remain in radio or phone contact
and observe from an upstream location where visual observation can
be made without jeopardizing safety
If SUFFICIENT FREEBOARD exists (Alder below elevation 1197) no
spill need be initiated but spill should be preplanned. Spill levels shall
be planned at current inflow plus 500 cubic feet per second (cfs) or
current outflow, whichever is greater. Should lake levels begin rising
due to a lahar inflow, generation should be shutdown and spill
initiated. It is up to the project to use reasonable judgment on when to
make this decision based on rate of rise, levels, etc.
If INSUFFICIENT FREEBOARD exists (Alder Lake above elevation
1197) and no visual observer can be in position within 30 minutes,
generation shall be ceased and spill shall be initiated at the level of
downstream flow currently being discharged at LaGrande Dam and
powerhouse. Should a rise due to the lahar be noted, spill shall be
increased by 500 cfs or to a level of previous river inflow plus 500 cfs,
whichever is greater.
If PROJECT OVERTOPS or OVERTOPPING APPEARS
IMMINENT initiate the TPU emergency activation plan (EAP) with
first message. Follow up EAP notification on estimated level of
overtopping and / or failure of the project should occur within 20-30
minutes.
D. References - TBD
E. Terms and Definitions - TBD
F. Attachments
Attachment 1: Pierce County Emergency Alert System Activation Procedures
Attachment 2: Radio 1580 AM Pre-scripted Messages
Attachment 3: Washington Emergency Management Division Notifications
Attachment 4: Law Enforcement Support Agencies Notifications
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 35 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Attachment 1
PIERCE COUNTY
EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM
ACTIVATION PROCEDURES
PRIMARY AGENCIES
Pierce County Department of Emergency Management (PC DEM)
Washington State Emergency Management Division (WEMD)
SUPPORT AGENCY
Tacoma – Pierce County Law Enforcement Support Agency (LESA)
I. INTRODUCTION
The Emergency Alert System (EAS) permits federal, state, and local governments
to communicate instructions and essential information to the public during
emergencies through commercial and public radio, and television broadcast
stations. The EAS provides a process for public officials to rapidly disseminate
emergency information intended to reduce loss of life and property, and to
promote rapid recovery in the event of a natural or man-made disaster, or a
terrorist attack on the United States.
The Federal Communication Council (FCC) has regulatory oversight of EAS.
EAS replaced the Emergency Broadcast System (EBS) in the mid 1990s. EAS
allows for bottom-up (local and state governments) message dissemination as well
as top-down (federal government) message dissemination. The EBS allowed only
top-down. When an EAS message is sent, it is re-broadcast by area radio and
television stations. Even though it is re-broadcast over multiple stations, KIRO
NewsRadio 710 AM and KPLU 88.5 FM are FCC mandated to re-broadcast
messages generated in the Central Puget Sound.
A. Purpose
This document will identify roles, responsibilities, and procedures for
Pierce County when requesting activation of the EAS. It is meant to
supplement the Central Puget Sound Emergency Alert System Area Plan.
B. Scope
Procedures identified in this Plan are guidelines for activating the EAS in
Pierce County. All guidelines and procedures established by this
document and the Central Puget Sound Emergency Alert System Area
Plan, including guidelines established for broadcast station providers, will
be followed.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 36 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
II. POLICY
WEMD has primary responsibility for transmitting EAS messages for Pierce
County. LESA may offer assistance to WEMD if necessary. The Director of PC
DEM, or designee, has primary local responsibility for the authorization of those
messages. EAS messages will be utilized as a last resort and when the following
criteria are met.
Lives must be in danger.
Direction provided via the EAS has the potential to save lives.
Effective warning cannot be accomplished by any other means.
After the EAS message is transmitted, further instructions and information will be
disseminated to the media by the Pierce County Joint Information Center (PC
JIC).
Weather related EAS messages will be authorized and transmitted by the National
Weather Service. The National Weather Service has transitioned from
transmitting only weather related messages an all hazard notification/warning
system.
III. SITUATION
A. There will be times when it is critical to warn the public and local officials
of imminent or actual emergencies or disasters.
Examples of incidents that may require warning and the use of the EAS
include, but are not limited to: earthquake, volcanic activity, severe
weather, flooding, and hazardous materials releases. There are many other
natural and man-made emergencies or disasters that are addressed in the
Pierce County Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis (published
separately) that may also meet the criteria for the use of the EAS.
B. Planning Assumptions
The incident is imminent, or actually occurring, making conventional
methods of warning and media notification inadequate.
Lives must be in jeopardy and will be saved with immediate actions.
Communications paths will be available among EAS activation points and
broadcast stations.
Other methods of warning will be used in addition to the EAS, whenever
possible.
Radio, television, and cable broadcasters will broadcast EAS messages in
a timely manner.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 37 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
IV. CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS
A. In addition to the Director of PC DEM, or designee, authorized to initiate
EAS messages, there are also federal and state authorities that initiate
messages of broader scope to warn the public of actual or potential life-
threatening incidents. These authorities are the President, and the director
of the Washington Emergency Management Division (WEMD).
B. Certain equipment is required to transmit EAS messages. An encoder can
generate warnings which may be preset requiring only the pressing of a
button. A computer can be used with the encoder to send customized
messages. A decoder accepts two (2) attention bursts and translates it into
an audio and/or printed message. Messages are limited to two minutes and
must contain concise emergency information and instructions. After the
message two (2) more attention bursts concludes the transmission.
C. The method of transmitting these messages among local agencies and
broadcasters is via UHF radio. By using radios, many broadcasters are
able to receive messages at the same time. Those broadcasters outside the
frequency range or who do not have decoders will need to receive the
message from other broadcasters.
D. Request for Activation
When the incident commander or highest ranking official at the scene of
an incident determines that an EAS message must be initiated to save
lives, has the potential to same lives, or if there is no other way to warn the
public, he/she will contact the authorized individual from their jurisdiction
who has the authority to request activation of the EAS. That person will
contact LESA by calling 253-798-4063. LESA will immediately contact
the WEMD duty officer (1-800-253-5990) and the Pierce County DEM
duty officer (253-798-7470). LESA may validate the incident by calling
the affected public safety answering point (PSAP).
All requests for activation must meet the following criteria:
Lives must be in danger.
Direction provided via the EAS has the potential to save lives.
Effective warning cannot be accomplished by any other means.
D. Procedures
The decision to authorize the use of the EAS will be based on best
available information available at the time of the decision. Informational
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 38 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
sources include the field incident command, immediately accessible
subject matter experts, the affected PSAP, and the Director of PC DEM.
All EAS messages will include:
Name and title of person delivering the message.
What will happen?
When it will happen.
Where it will happen.
Geographic area affected.
Emergency protective measures for the public.
If evacuation is required, identify the hazard area and specify
the primary evacuation route(s).
Reassurance that officials are addressing the incident.
KIRO NewsRadio 710 AM is the primary radio station that the public
should monitor for further information and instructions.
PC DEM public information officer will be the point of contact for all
media inquiries. The PC EOC will open to support emergency operations.
PC DEM will open the PC JIC, if indicated (see Pierce County CEMP
ESF 15).
V. RESPONSIBILITIES
A. PC DEM has primary local responsibility authority for activating the EAS
for incidents in Pierce County.
PC DEM will:
Appoint a lead EAS liaison.
Maintain the EAS so it can be activated 24 hours a day.
Designate personnel who may initiate EAS messages.
Train personnel on EAS operating procedures.
Test the EAS equipment and procedures regularly.
Open the PC EOC to support emergency operations
Open the PC JIC to manage the media’s and public’s need for
information.
B. WEMD has primary responsibility for transmitting EAS messages for
Pierce County.
WEMD will:
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 39 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Appoint a lead EAS liaison.
Provide an adequate facility / work station for the EAS.
Cooperate with PC DEM to ensure that personnel are designated and
adequately trained to initiate EAS messages.
C. LESA provides support in collecting, verifying, and scripting information
in preparation to send an EAS message and follow-up activities.
VI. REFERENCES
Title 47 U.S.C. 151, 154 (i) & (o), 303 ®, 524 (g) & 606; and 47 C.F.R. Part 11,
FCC Rules and Regulations, Emergency Alert System
Central Puget Sound EAS Local Plan
Pierce County Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis
Pierce County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
VII. TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
None
VIII. ATTACHMENTS
None
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 40 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Attachment 2
RADIO 1580 AM PRE-SCRIPTED MESSAGES
White River upstream from Greenwater
This is the Law Enforcement Support Agency with an emergency evacuation message
from the Pierce County Department of Emergency Management. The following is not a
test; I repeat this is not a test. A debris flow has been observed coming from Mount
Rainier down the White River.
The size of the debris flow is unknown at this time. Those people near the White River
upstream from Greenwater could be threatened. If you are near the White River upstream
from Greenwater move to higher ground immediately. Do not delay. Do not call 9-1-1.
Move to higher ground immediately. Park your vehicles off the roads areas so that others
can evacuate.
I repeat this is not a test. This is the Law Enforcement Support Agency with an
emergency evacuation message from Pierce County Department of Emergency
Management. This is not a test. A debris flow has been observed coming from Mount
Rainier down the White River.
The size of the debris flow is unknown at this time. Those people near the White River
from Greenwater could be threatened. If you are near the White River upstream from
Greenwater move to higher ground immediately. Do not delay. Do not call 9-1-1. Move
to higher ground immediately. Park your vehicles off the road areas so that others can
evacuate.
Stay tuned to your local radio station for further details. This an emergency evacuation
message from the Law Enforcement Support Agency for Pierce County Department of
Emergency Management.
Nisqually River upstream from the Alder Reservoir
This is the Law Enforcement Support Agency with an emergency evacuation message
from the Pierce County Department of Emergency Management. The following is not a
test; I repeat this is not a test. A debris flow has been observed coming from Mount
Rainier down the Nisqually River.
The size of the debris flow is unknown at this time. Those people near the Nisqually
River bed upstream from the Alder Reservoir could be threatened. If you are near the
Nisqually River bed upstream from the Alder Reservoir move to higher ground
immediately. Do not delay. Do not call 9-1-1. Move to higher ground immediately.
Park your vehicles off the road areas so that others can evacuate.
I repeat this is not a test. This is Law Enforcement Support Agency with an emergency
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 41 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
evacuation message from the Pierce County Department of Emergency Management.
This is not a test. I repeat this is not a test. A debris flow has been observed coming
from Mount Rainier down the Nisqually River.
The size of the debris flow is unknown at this time. Those people near the Nisqually
River bed upstream from the Alder Reservoir could be threatened. If you are near the
Nisqually River bed upstream from the Alder Reservoir move to higher ground
immediately. Do not delay. Do not call 9-1-1. Move to higher ground immediately.
Park your vehicles off the road areas so that others can evacuate.
Stay tuned to your local radio station for further details. This is an emergency evacuation
message from the Law Enforcement Support Agency for the Pierce County Department of
Emergency Management.
Cowlitz River
This is the Law Enforcement Support Agency with an emergency evacuation message
from the Pierce County Department of Emergency Management. The following is not a
test; I repeat this is not a test. A debris flow has been observed coming from Mount
Rainier down the Cowlitz River.
The size of the debris flow is unknown at this time. Those people near the Cowlitz River
upstream from Packwood could be threatened. If you are near the Cowlitz River
upstream from Packwood move to higher ground immediately. Do not delay. Do not call
9-1-1. Move to higher ground immediately. Park your vehicles off the road areas so
others can evacuate.
I repeat this is not a test. This is Law Enforcement Support Agency with an emergency
evacuation message from the Pierce County Department of Emergency Management.
This is not a test. I repeat this is not a test. A debris flow has been observed coming
from Mount Rainier down the Cowlitz River.
The size of the debris flow is unknown at this time. Those people near the Cowlitz River
upstream from Packwood could be threatened. If you are near the Cowlitz River
upstream from Packwood move to higher ground immediately. Do not delay. Do not call
9-1-1. Move to higher ground immediately. Park your vehicles off the road areas so
others can evacuate.
Stay tuned to your local radio station for further details. This is an emergency evacuation
message from the Law Enforcement Support Agency for the Pierce County Department of
Emergency Management.
Carbon River
This is the Law Enforcement Support Agency with an emergency evacuation message
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 42 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
from the Pierce County Department of Emergency Management. The following is not a
test; I repeat this is not a test. A debris flow has been observed coming from Mount
Rainier down the Carbon River.
The size of the debris flow is unknown at this time. Those people near the Carbon River
upstream from Highway 165 Bridge could be threatened. If you are near the Carbon
River upstream from Highway 165 Bridge move to higher ground immediately. Do not
delay. Do not call 9-1-1. Move to higher ground immediately. Park your vehicles off the
road areas so others can evacuate.
I repeat this is not a test. This is Law Enforcement Support Agency with an emergency
evacuation message from the Pierce County Department of Emergency Management.
This is not a test. I repeat this is not a test. A debris flow has been observed coming
from Mount Rainier down the Carbon River.
The size of the debris flow is unknown at this time. Those people near the Carbon River
upstream from Highway 165 Bridge could be threatened. If you are near the Carbon
River upstream from Highway 165 Bridge move to higher ground immediately. Do not
delay. Do not call 9-1-1. Move to higher ground immediately. Park your vehicles off the
road areas so others can evacuate.
Stay tuned to your local radio station for further details. This is an emergency evacuation
message from the Law Enforcement Support Agency for the Pierce County Department of
Emergency Management.
Puyallup River
This is the Washington State Emergency Operations Center. The following is not a test. I
repeat, this is not a test. A Debris Flow has been observed coming from Mount Rainier
down the Puyallup River.
The size of the Debris Flow is unknown at this time. Those people near the Puyallup
River upstream from Electron could be threatened. If you are near the Puyallup River
upstream from Electron move to higher ground immediately. Do not delay. Do not call
911. Move to higher ground immediately. Park your vehicles off the road areas so that
others can evacuate.
I repeat, this is not a test. A Debris Flow has been observed coming from Mount Rainier
down the Puallup River
The size of the Debris Flow is unknown at this time. Those people near the Puyallup
River upstream from Electron could be threatened. If you are near the Puyallup River
upstream from Electron move to higher ground immediately. Do not delay. Do not call
911. Move to higher ground immediately. Park your vehicles off the road areas so that
others can evacuate.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 43 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Stay tuned to your local radio station for further details. This is an emergency evacuation
message from the Washington State Emergency Operations Center.
Puyallup, Carbon and Nisqually Rivers
This is the Washington State Emergency Operations Center. The following is not a test. I
repeat, this is not a test. A lahar has been observed coming from Mount Rainier down the
Puyallup and/or Carbon River Valleys and possibly the upper Nisqually River.
This lahar has the potential to bury the valley areas in Pierce and King Counties. People
in and around valley areas near the towns of Orting, Sumner, Puyallup Tacoma, Fife,
Pacific, Algona, and in the Auburn Valley south of highway 18 are threatened. Areas in
the upper Nisqually River Valley above Alder Dam in Pierce, Thurston and Lewis
Counties may also be threatened.
If you are in valley areas around the Puyallup, Carbon, and the upper Nisqually Rivers
move to higher ground immediately. Do not delay. Do not call 911. Move to higher
ground immediately. Park your vehicles off the road areas so that others can evacuate.
I repeat, this is not a test. A lahar has been observed coming from Mount Rainier down
the Puyallup and/or Carbon River Valleys and possibly the upper Nisqually River.
This lahar has the potential to bury the valley areas in Pierce and King Counties. People
in and around valley areas near the towns of Orting, Sumner, Puyallup Tacoma, Fife,
Pacific, Algona, and in the Auburn Valley south of highway 18 are threatened. Areas in
the upper Nisqually River Valley above Alder Dam in Pierce, Thurston and Lewis
Counties may also be threatened.
If you are in valley areas around the Puyallup, Carbon, and the upper Nisqually Rivers
move to higher ground immediately. Do not delay. Do not call 911. Move to higher
ground immediately. Park your vehicles off the road areas so that others can evacuate.
Stay tuned to your local radio station for further details. This is an emergency evacuation
message from the Washington State Emergency Operations Center.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 45 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Response Plan
WORKING DRAFT MAY 2008
Attachment 3
Washington Emergency
Management Division
Notifies
LESA Notifies
Nisqually &
Puyallup Tribes
Governor’s
Office
McChord Air
Force Base
Fort Lewis
Army Post
WA State
Patrol
King County
OES
Lewis County
DEM
Thurston Co
EM
WA
Department of
Transportation
US Geological
Survey
US Corps of
Engineers
Washington Emergency Management Division
Notifications
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 46 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Response Plan
WORKING DRAFT MAY 2008
Attachment 4
Law Enforcement Support Agency Notifications
LESA
NOTIFICATIONS
Tacoma
Public
Utilities
Pierce Co
Sheriff’s Dept
Orting & Sumner
School Districts
TFD Dispatch
Tacoma DEM
Port of Tacoma
Railroads
Medical
Examiner
WEMD
EOC
Mount Rainier
Nat’l Park /
Lewis Co
Dispatch
Pierce
County
DEM
Pierce Transit: 581-8109 or 581-8113
Red Cross: 474-0400 or 474-0300
DMCC: 848-0465
Buckley PD
Dispatch
Carbonado
Buckley
Eatonville
Orting
South Prairie
Wilkeson,
Cities and
Fire Districts
Sumner PD
Dispatch
City of Sumner
City of Bonney
Lake
Puyallup
PD
Dispatch
City of
Puyallup
Milton Fire
Fire Districts
Fife PD
Dispatch
Fife
Milton PD
Eatonville PD & Fire
Lakewood
Fire Comm
Fire Districts, Eatonville Fire /
East Pierce F & R / Central
Pierce F & R / Orting Fire
Tacoma PD
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 47 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Response Plan
WORKING DRAFT MAY 2008
Puyallup River Valley Operations Division Attachment 2
ZONE AREA UNIFIED COMMAND STAGING RESPONSIBILIITESSouth Hill South Hill / PCSD South Hill PCSD South Hill Estabish unified command
Orting PD, Sumner PD, and Graham 271 John Bananola 271 John Bananola Assign on-site staging officer
Puyallup PD will join UC Puyallup 98374 Puyallup 98374 Restrict traffic to southbound routes off SR 512
ASAP after evacuating Restrict traffic to westbound routes off SR 162
cities Orting - Kapowsin Hwy
Notify PC DEM duty officer 253-798-7470
ZONE AREA COMMAND POST STAGING RESPONSIBILITIESBonney Lake SR 410 / SR 167 Bonney Lake PD Bonney Lake PD Establish incident command
Buckley PD 18421 Old Buckley Hwy 18421 Old Buckley Assign on-site staging officer
PCSD Foothills Det. Bonney Lake 98391 Hwy, Bonney Lake Restrict SR 410 eastbound traffic
WSP 98391 Restrict traffic into the valley at secondary intersections
King Co Sheriff
Bonney Lake, Buckley,
& King Co Public Works
Pierce Co Fire Zone 8
WSP SR 512 / WSP HQ WSP Tacoma, Establish incident command
Lakewood PD Portland Ave 112 th St S 2502 - 112th St E, Assign on-site staging officer
Tacoma PD Tacoma Restrict SR 512 eastbound traffic
WDOT Provide traffic controll at I-5 / SR 512 intersection
Pierce Co Fire Zone 7 Restrict traffic into the valley at secondary intersections
Fife I-5 / Fife Milton Public Safety Dept Milton PD Establish incident command
Edgewood, Tacoma & 1000 Laurel St 1000 Laurel St Assign on-site staging officer
Federal Way PDs Milton 98354 Milton 98354 Direct all I-5 traffic to northbound
WSP Seattle Office Restrict SR 161 eastbound traffic
King Co Sheriff Restrict traffic into the valley at secondary intersections
Tacoma Public \Works
WDOT
Lakewood Lakewood / Lakewood Police Dept Lakewood FD Sta 1 Establish incident command
University Place & Fort Lewis 5504 - 112TH St SW 10928 Pacific Hwy Assign on-site staging officer
DuPont PD Lakewood 98499 SW Direct all I-5 traffic to southbound
Ft. Lewis MPs Restrict traffic into the valley at secondary intersections
Pierce Co Fire Zone 8
ZONE AREA COMMAND POST STAGING RESPONSIBILITIESAuburn South King Co Auburn Police Dept Auburn FD Establish incident command
Kent PD 1101 "D" St NE Assign on-site staging officer
WSP Belleve Office Auburn 98002 Restrict SR 167 southbound traffic
Auburn Public Works Restrict traffic into the valley at secondary intersections
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 49 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Chapter 6: COMMAND AND EVACUATION
A. Introduction
1. Purpose
The goal of this Chapter 6 of the Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Response
Plan is to outline emergency actions and operations required to successfully
evacuate, with minimal confusion and delay, as many people as possible in the
path of a lahar. These recommended procedures and considerations are not
unique to a volcanic eruption; many of the same procedures and considerations
will apply to any mass evacuation effort.
2. Scope
This chapter will focus on the emergency operations necessary in response to a
worst-case lahar. The worst-case scenario is a spontaneous, large landslide and
resulting lahar in the Puyallup, including its tributary the Carbon, River
drainage. This drainage differs from the other drainages because of the greater
population density located in the inundation zone and the automated warning
system that has been installed in the valley. Most of the concepts and
procedures will apply to all river drainages. Unique differences will be
addresses separately.
This chapter outlines general operational considerations that may not be
hardened policy but are broad objectives that will provide for the greatest
protection of life that can be achieved with resources available. It should be
used as a guideline for those in command and should not be viewed as a
prescribed action plan. More information regarding the roles of public safety
providers is found in jurisdictional CEMPs and other pertinent operations plans.
3. All emergency operations will be in compliance with the Incident Command
System (ICS) of the National Incident Management System (NIMS).
A Mount Rainier worst case lahar will demand what will likely be the largest
and most complex response operations ever taken by Pierce County and
Washington State. Individual command post operations will be managed by
unified command. The scale and scope of the disaster will require the additional
area command management structure. (Refer to the Pierce County Department
of Emergency Management Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, the
National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the National Response
Framework (NRF) published separately.)
B. Policies and Authorities
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 50 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
1. The Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Response Plan is created as a
collaborative effort to meet a widely acknowledged need for coordination of
evacuation activities in the Puyallup, Carbon, Nisqually, and White River
valleys (drainages). Planning participants comprise representatives from law
enforcement, fire services, emergency management, public schools, volunteer
organizations, emergency dispatch, local military, public non-profit
organizations, and subject matter experts from U. S. Geological Survey (USGS),
Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and National Park Service
(NPS).
2. Chapter 38.52 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and Chapter 118.30
of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) directly address the structure of
governmental emergency management organizations and their responsibilities.
RCW 38.52 provides the framework for mutual aid agreements and mandates
the use of the Incident Command System / National Incident Management
System for all emergency operations. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (Public Law 93-288, as amended) addresses the
federal government’s authority in providing disaster response and recovery
assistance.
3. Support agencies and incorporated cities and towns will perform tasks and
expend resources under their own authorities, including implementation of
mutual aid agreements, in addition to resources received under the authority of
this plan.
4. All Pierce County residents, workers, and visitors have a responsibility for their
own safety and the safety of those under their care. It is expected that everyone
ensure that they are self-sufficient for at least seven (7) days.
5. Due to the multi-jurisdictional, multi-agency, and multi-disciplinary
considerations addressed in this plan, there are too many existing emergency
policies on the local level to list in this section. The aggregate of these of
policies, in some way, reflected throughout the plan.
6. Safety is paramount in the management of this incident as well as all other
emergency incidents that occur within the region.
7. Law enforcement is the lead agency in the evacuation and movement of people.
8. All emergency operations will align with NIMS / ICS.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 51 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
C. Situation
1. Disaster Conditions
Mount Rainier may send warnings of its re-awakening at any time. The
warnings may lead to an imminent lahar or they may continue indefinitely
without any acceleration in volcanic activity. It is imperative to frequently
consult with the scientists from USGS Cascades Volcano Observatory (CVO)
who monitor the mountain.
Lahars can impact one river drainage or any combination of river drainages. A
lahar impacting the Carbon and Puyallup river valleys can impact the Nisqually
drainage when certain conditions are met. Large lahars have the potential to
isolate Pierce County by making the bridges over the Puyallup and Nisqually
rivers impassable.
Based on current real estate footprints, a worst-case lahar would require up to
75,000 people to evacuate from the Puyallup Valley. The Puyallup Valley will
have the greatest impact because of the high population density and its
continued growth. Time of day will also determine the number that will be in
harm’s way. At night, while people are sleeping, it is likely that fewer will hear
the warnings and delay their evacuation. Confusion on exactly what to do may
cause some people to evacuate who were never in danger. With only limited
roads out of the valley, everyone may not survive a worst-case scenario. The
Nisqually and White River drainages have far less population density. The
Upper Nisqually has 1,200.
When faced with a worst-case lahar, everyone in harms way needs to evacuate
as quickly as possible. Everyone will be evacuating together, including public
safety providers. Public safety providers may have time to assist others as they
continue to evacuate themselves but no one can expect it. No fire fighter, police
officer, or any other public safety provider will be expected to enter or remain in
harms way to rescue others.
In order to optimize the chances for survival of a worst-case scenario, people in
the inundation zone are responsible to know the dangers associated with living,
working, or visiting the Puyallup, Carbon, Nisqually, White or any other Mount
Rainier drainage. Individuals, families and business must remain informed,
prepared, and ready to act any time of the day.
2. Planning Assumptions
a. Loss of life and property will occur with a catastrophic event.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 52 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
b. No public safety units or personnel will be committed into the hazard
zone.
c. Not all public safety personnel will be available due to being directly
impacted by the lahar, or the inability to report to work or staging
location due to inundation location.
d. Field communications will be adversely impacted, either directly or
indirectly, due to damage to the telecommunications infrastructure or the
overuse of communications systems (radio frequencies, cellular phone or
land line).
e. People will spontaneously evacuate areas when there is actual or
perceived danger.
f. People will evacuate by any means available.
g. Some people will evacuate, even when they are not in danger
h. Debris and mud will make streets and highways impassable and leave
people stranded.
i. Transportation routes will be overwhelmed with evacuees. Vehicles will
be abandoned, worsening the congestion. The grid-lock could seriously
hinder evacuation efforts.
j. Seasonal and holiday visitors to the Mount Rainier National Park will
significantly impact the evacuation efforts of the Upper Nisqually
Valley.
k. Displacement from homes due to a lahar may last days, weeks, or
months. The total destruction of many homes will cause displacement
for some people for a much longer time. Ongoing eruptive activity,
engineering problems of development on new deposits, unstable
channels on high sediment loads could make some areas uninhabitable
for years to decades.
l. A worst-case lahar will negatively impact the region’s ability for
economic recovery.
m. Unpredictable volcanic activity and associated risks will make advisory
messages and recommended safety actions difficult.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 53 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
n. Due to the large number of people evacuating out of the hazardous
area(s), all lanes of traffic will flow in the direction of safety.
3. Limitations
The information and recommendations included in this plan have been prepared
utilizing the best information and planning assumptions available at the time of
its preparation. There is no guarantee implied by this plan that in emergency or
disaster situations a perfect response will be practical or possible. This plan
should be used as a guideline with consideration given to the unique needs of
each and every situation.
D. Concept of Operations
1. General Pre-incident
Public safety agencies will maintain a state of readiness that is no different from
any other type of emergency. Apparatus will be operational, equipment and
supplies will be inventoried; personnel will be trained, and drilled. In addition
to this state of readiness, all public safety personnel should be educated to the
challenges of a worst-case lahar response.
Public safety agencies in the lahar inundation zone will assess the mission
essential status of their personnel, apparatus, and equipment. They will identify
appropriate staging locations, collection sites, ingress and egress route
identification, and additional considerations to preserve life safety.
Those fire departments directly in the path of an oncoming lahar will stage at
the following locations.
Orting Fire Department
Washington Soldiers Home and Colony
1301 Orting – Kapowsin Highway
Buttes Drive East and Orville Road
Military Road and SR 162
Orting Fire District #18
Station 18-2
19210 Patterson Road
Station 18-3
14919 Orting – Kapowsin Highway (top of Cemetery Hill)
Sumner Fire Department
Puyallup Fire Department
Riverside Fire and Rescue
Central Pierce Fire and Rescue Station 6-7
8119 Canyon Road East
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 54 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
It is recommended that the police departments also located on the valley floor
stage their equipment that is not involved in evacuating their jurisdiction or
joining unified command at these same locations.
Other pre-incident public safety actions include researching vendors, updating
relationships, reviewing mutual aid agreements, taking measures to preserve
essential records, escalating public information and outreach efforts, re-
evaluating budgets, ensuring alternate work locations, briefing elected officials,
passing special ordinances and resolutions, and considering long-term societal
and economic aspects of a disaster of this magnitude and consequence.
2. Direction and Control provides for effective management, authority, and
cooperative execution of life safety and emergency management activities.
Coordinated field command and operations implemented by incident command
structure are critical to safe and rapid evacuation of residents in the Carbon,
Puyallup, Nisqually, and White river drainages off Mount Rainier. Effective
coordination is dependent on continued communications among field command
and the WEMD Emergency Operations Center (area command).
All emergency operations will align with the Incident Command System /
National Incident Management procedures and policies. This provides for
common standards in scene management, organization, and terminology.
It provides a means for the establishment of a common set of incident objectives
and strategies during the multi-agency, multi-jurisdiction response to this worst
care scenario. Incident / unified command allows for maintaining individual
agency / jurisdiction authority, responsibility, and accountability.
3. Specific Operational Concepts
a. Due to the unique hazards associated with a worst-case scenario lahar
inundating the river valleys, the affected public safety agencies will be
evacuating along with everyone else that is in harms way. As a result, the
public safety agencies from communities in the path of the lahar do not have a
role in the incident / unified command that is initially established. These
agencies are dedicated to evacuating their cities’ residents, families, and
themselves as quickly as possible. They will join incident / unified command
when it is appropriate.
No public safety personnel will be dispatched into areas impacted by a
lahar.
b. Any warning from the mountain will allow for life saving operations, but
the duration of the warning will greatly impact the effectiveness of those
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 55 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
operations. The operations include but are not limited to: Evacuation of general
population, relocation of special needs populations, procurement and
stockpiling supplies, pre-staging personnel and equipment, and arranging for the
possibility of long-term housing.
c. Airspace restrictions will be mandated if an eruption or lahar is
imminent or upon the onset of a spontaneous lahar.
d. Mount Rainier National Park Rangers and staff will coordinate the
evacuation of the park. The increase of seasonal and holiday visitors to the park
and wilderness areas will significantly impact the evacuation effort.
e. Public safety providers who cannot reach their normal place of work are
to report to the nearest staging area or EOC, and report to the incident
commander / EOC manager.
4. Operational Guidelines
Traffic on major routes on the impacted valley(s), (Carbon, Puyallup,
Nisqually, or White) will be restricted in order to move as many people as
quickly as possible out of the hazardous area(s). After clearing all traffic,
roads into these areas will be closed to traffic attempting to re-enter the
evacuated valley(s).
Direction of travel (all lanes) on the major routes out of the impacted
valley(s) will be in one direction, away from the hazardous area(s). Due to
the large numbers of people evacuating from the hazardous areas, all lanes
of traffic will flow in the direction to safety.
There will be no designated route open for anyone attempting to enter the
hazardous area(s). All possible routes will be used to get people out of
harms’ way.
Public safety agencies and equipment outside affected areas will respond to
locations known to be evacuation routes (see evacuation route map) and assist in
the evacuation of displaced persons. Initial law enforcement actions will be to
close all access and isolate the affected and threatened areas, and prevent
incoming traffic in order for all lanes to be used for outgoing traffic.
The first public safety provider arriving at the incident becomes the incident
commander. Evacuation is a law enforcement activity, therefore, if necessary,
the incident commander will be re-assigned to a qualified officer or deputy.
Unified command will be organized as soon as possible.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 56 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
As response resources are depleted or unavailable and essential resources and
systems are non-functional, the emergency first responders can only make every
reasonable effort to respond based on the situation, and available information
and resources at the time the decisions are being made
Pierce County DEM will dispatch a type 3 incident management team (IMT) to
support field operations as soon as it is available. The IMT will report to
unified command unless, the impacted area(s), severity of impact, and
availability of team members dictate otherwise.
5. Agency / discipline-specific Operations
PC DEM
Maintain and test the lahar warning system.
Provide Mount Rainier and lahar hazard public education and outreach.
Lead the Mount Rainier Work Group effort.
The Pierce County DEM duty officer will be in the first notification layer.
The PC EOC will open with level 3 staffing to support field operations.
Follow respective agency policies in requesting representatives.
Send a liaison to the area command post (WEMD EOC).
Coordinate and dispatch a type 3 IMT to support field incident / unified
command.
A local proclamation of emergency will be processed immediately, followed
by requesting a governor’s proclamation of emergency. A worst-case lahar
will quickly qualify as a presidential declaration of emergency.
The Mobile Operations Command Center (MOCC) and the Tactical Area
Command (TAC-1) will be dispatched to locations determined by unified or
area command.
Fire Services (ESF 4)
A major distinguishing factor in a lahar large enough to cause consequence
is that fire services will be evacuating out of harm’s way just like everyone
else in the lahar path. For the fire services not in the lahar path, they will not
endanger themselves to assist evacuation and rescue efforts. Available fire
services will report to the closest zonal incident command location (see ???)
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 57 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
and join the command structure.
Evacuating fire services will assist in the alerting and warning of residents
as they move to higher ground. If adequate time, they will assist in the
evacuating of residents in need.
A fire zone coordinator will report to the Pierce County EOC. Regional and
state fire mobilization will be requested if indicated.
Law Enforcement (ESF 13)
In the worst-case scenario lahar, municipal police departments (Orting,
Sumner, Puyallup, and Fife) of incorporated cities in the inundation area are
responsible for the evacuation of their populations. They will be evacuating
to higher ground when it is no longer safe for them to remain in the affected
area.
The Washington State Patrol is the primary mutual aid agency for rapid
response in the affected area for traffic control and perimeter security.
A law enforcement representative will report to the Pierce County EOC.
Law enforcement mobilization will be requested if indicated.
Public Works (ESF 3)
Pierce County Department of Public Works, Transportation Division will be
notified when other public safety agencies are notified. Pierce County does
not have public works facilities in the affected areas but some of the
incorporated cities do.
A public works representative will report to the Pierce County EOC.
Public works in the affected areas are required to do additional emergency
planning that will address critical inventory and personnel, egress routes and
staging locations. Plans will address what actions will be taken as they are
moving to higher ground, e.g., placing barricades and jersey barriers
evacuation route intersections. Pierce County Public Works will control
those traffic lights under their jurisdiction to all green in the desire direction
of traffic.
Public works departments not in the inundation area will join incident
command located throughout the region.
Search and Rescue (ESF 9)
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 58 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Search and rescue operations will begin as soon as conditions are safe.
PCSD is the lead agency for search and rescue operations in the hazard area.
SAR will be coordinated at unified command.
Regional aviation assets will be deployed to conduct aerial searches will
occur as soon as possible to look for stranded individuals and damage
assessments. The regional aviation assets are coordinate by WEMD.
USAR will be requested with the presidential declaration of emergency
Washington Emergency Management Division (WEMD)
Open the WEMD EOC and function as the lead agency for area command.
Staff area command with impacted jurisdictions and agencies.
Activate necessary ESFs to adequately support field response and recovery
operations.
Coordinate and dispatch regional aviation assets as appropriate, based on the
priorities of the emergency.
Provide direction and legal counsel as appropriate and / or requested.
Process local proclamations of emergency for governor’s approval.
Coordinate operations with other counties and other appropriate agencies.
USGS / CVO
Provide scientific oversight and technical design of the lahar-detection
component of the warning system. Provide on-site consultation when
requested.
Staff area command post (WEMD EOC), when activated, with appropriate
subject matter experts
Provide Mount Rainier and lahar hazard public education and outreach.
Participate in the Mount Rainier Working Group.
Along with Pacific Northwest Seismic Network, maintain volcano-
monitoring systems and acquire, archive, and disseminate real-time
information. USGS-CVO issues alert-level notifications and volcano
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 59 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
updates.
DNR
Provide scientific oversight. Provide on-site consultation when requested.
Staff area command post (WEMD EOC), when activated, with appropriate
subject matter experts
Participate in the Mount Rainier Working Group
6. Specific Division Operations of the Carbon, Puyallup, Nisqually, and White
River Drainages
Scientists have determined that due to the geologic make-up of Mount Rainier a
lahar generated by a landslide is most likely to travel down the Puyallup River.
A worst-case scenario would likely send the lahar down the Nisqually, too. A
landslide-generated lahar is unlikely in the White; however, all valleys are
equally at risk from lahars generated by eruptions swiftly melting snow and
glacier ice. Regardless, this section includes operational considerations for all
three river valleys.
[the comments here try to reflect differences among the valleys, especially that
the onle large lahars likely to affect the White will come from eruptions, not
from landslides]
Large lahars will probably affect more than one county. The Nisqually borders
Pierce, Lewis and Thurston counties. The White borders Pierce and King
counties. The Carbon and Puyallup rivers are contained within Pierce County
but evacuees will be housed in all neighboring counties. A worst-case scenario
lahar will have huge impact on the economy of the entire region.
Due to the multi-disciplinary, multi-agency response required of an incident of
this scale and scope, an area / unified command configuration is required.
Initial response will organize as incident command but will transition into
unified and then area command as soon as possible. Unified command will be
established in each impacted county. WEMD will be area command. In Pierce
County, the impacted river valley(s) will become geographical divisions under
unified command.
a. The Carbon and Puyallup River Division is divided into six (6)
geographic zones. The zones are roughly aligned with major roads and
well-known jurisdictions. The 6 zones are Bonney Lake Police Department,
WSP Portland Ave Headquarters, Milton Police Department, Lakewood Fire
Station 1, and Auburn Fire Department.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 60 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
b. The Upper Nisqually Valley Division is approximately 19 miles in
length beginning slightly north of Alder Dam and extending eastward along
SR-706 through the communities of Alder, Elbe, and Ashford, terminating
at the Nisqually entrance to Mount Rainier National Park.
The Upper Nisqually Division is divided into two (2) geographic zones to
optimize emergency operations and communications. They are the Ashford
Zone and the Eatonville Zone. The Ashford Zone headquarters, Tahoma
Woods, is located in an area that could be impacted by a lahar. If this occurs
all operations will be coordinated at the Eatonville Zone.
c. The Upper White River Division is divided into four (4) zones to
optimize emergency operations and communications. The four zones are
Greenwater, Crystal River Ranch, Crystal Villages, and Recreational. If
vehicular traffic is restricted due to hazards, all operational zones will be
managed through the Greenwater Zone.
E. References
None
F. Attachments
Attachment 1: Recommended Unified Area Command Configuration
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 61 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Attachment 1
RECOMMENDED AREA COMMAND CONFIGURATION
WEMD EOC
AREA COMMAND
THURSTON
CO. EOC
KING CO.
EOC
PIERCE CO.
EOC / JIC
LEWIS CO.
EOC
YAKIMA CO
EOC
KITTITAS
CO. EOC
UNIFIED
COMMAND
PLANS OPERATIONS LOGISTICS FINANCE /
ADMIN
SAFETY/PIO
/LIAISONS
NISQUALLY
DIVISION
PUYALLUP
DIVISION
GREENWATER
DIVISION
USGS/CVO/
DNR/USFS
WSP/DOH/
DOT//DSHS
NPS/RED
CROSS
ELECTED
OFFICIALS
INDIAN
TRIBES
EVACUATION
AND TRAFFIC
EVACUATION
AND TRAFFIC
EVACUATION
AND TRAFFIC
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 62 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Chapter 7: COLLECTION AND SHELTERING
A. Introduction
Ensuring the safety of the thousands of people who live, work, and play in the Mount Rainier
river valleys is the purpose of this Plan. Not knowing when the mountain will reawaken
instills an urgency in making sure the valley inhabitants know what to do, are prepared to do
it, and are quick to respond when it happens.
Regardless of the degree of awareness and preparedness, evacuating the thousands of people
from the river valleys will be a tremendous challenge. The Carbon and Puyallup valleys are
estimated to have between 35,000 to 50,000 people at different times throughout the day. Due
to the large population of the Carbon and Puyallup river valleys, they will be the most
challenging. The Nisqually and White River valleys have smaller populations but are more
isolated with fewer resources. The Upper Nisqually valley has an estimated resident
population of 2,000 people, but ½ million people drive through it each year on their way to
Mount Rainier. The upper White River has a year-round residency of approximately 5,000
which significantly increases during the ski season when skiers pass through to get to Crystal
Mountain Ski Resort.
1. Purpose
a. This chapter will identify recommended actions for valley inhabitants, other
than public safety providers, to take when threatened by an oncoming lahar. It
outlines the public safety operations necessary to support those actions.
b. Resourceful thinking and problem-solving strategies on behalf of the private
facilities and local governments have resulted in evacuation plans that outline
the best-possible chances to survive a worst-case lahar with the resources
available at any given time.
2. Scope
This chapter addresses the collection, sheltering, and accountability of evacuated
persons from the Mount Rainier river valleys.
B. Policies
1. No public safety personnel will be dispatched into areas that are hazardous due to a
lahar or an approaching lahar.
2. All individuals have a responsibility for their own personal safety.
3. Residents are to plan and be prepared for seven (7) days of self-sufficiency.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 63 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
4. As response resources may be depleted or unavailable, and essential systems may be
rendered non-functional, public safety providers will make every reasonable effort to
respond based on the situation, and currently available information and resources.
5. Support agencies and incorporated cities and towns will perform tasks and expend
resources under their own authorities, including implementation of mutual aid
agreements, in addition to resources received under the authority of this Plan.
C. Hazards and Conditions
1. Situation
a. In the worst-case scenario of a large landslide initiating lahars with little or no
warning, lahars may flow down both the Puyallup and Nisqually river valleys.
If major highways are damaged or severed, relocation of evacuees into King,
Thurston, and Lewis counties may be difficult. Such lahars are unlikely in the
White River valley; rapid melting of snow and ice by eruptions is the process
by which large lahars would be generated there. Impacted river valleys may be
uninhabitable for years.
b. The restricted transportation infrastructure of the region adds to the challenge
of evacuation. Pierce County and the other metropolitan counties along the I-5
corridor are sandwiched between the Cascade Mountains and the Puget Sound.
The main eastbound routes, I-90, SR 410, and SR 12, all travel through the
Cascade Range. The Narrows Bridge spans the one westbound route (SR 16)
out of Pierce County and experiences regular gridlocks from daily commuter
traffic. Other than the Narrows Bridge, the only westward transportation
resource is the ferry system.
2. Assumptions
a. People will spontaneously evacuate areas when there is actual or perceived
danger. Some people may not evacuate regardless of danger.
b. People will evacuate by vehicle and others will evacuate on-foot. Some of
those starting out in a vehicle may wind up on-foot.
c. Individuals will evacuate even when they are not in harm’s way.
d. Transportation routes will be overwhelmed with people attempting to get to
higher ground and out of harm’s way. Vehicles will break down or run out of
gas. Gridlocks will occur, resulting in people abandoning their cars.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 64 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
e. Evacuees may be displaced for hours, days, or possibly weeks. Some areas
may remain uninhabitable for years or decades.
f. Debris may make evacuation routes impassable and leave people stranded.
g. The increase of seasonal and holiday visitors to the Mount Rainier National
Park and the Crystal Mountain Ski Resort will impact the evacuation efforts of
the upper Nisqually and White rivers.
h. Some people, especially those within the Mount Rainier National Park
boundaries will be so close to danger that they will only have time to escape
uphill with maybe as little as the clothes they are wearing.
D. Concept of Operations
1. General
a. After emergency notification and warning, collection is the next coordinated
operation associated with evacuation. It is the first phase in a three phase
evacuation process. The other two phases are sheltering and short-term
housing.
b. With notification of a large-scale event requiring evacuation of any of the
Mount Rainier river drainages, all persons located in the area will rapidly begin
to evacuate. Some events will be of such a magnitude that quick action to get
to high ground will be the only life saving action available.
DON’T HESITATE … EVACUATE
c. Public safety providers may assist in the evacuation of valley residents as they
are evacuating themselves, but that is an individual choice and not a policy of
this Plan. They will not be assigned operations that put them in harm’s way.
Therefore, in the worst-case scenario, public safety providers will not be
available to manage the evacuation of those, including special populations,
located on the valley floor. The responsibility of evacuating the residents from
these facilities falls on those charged with their safety and well-being. For any
scenario other than the worst-case, public safety assistance will be available.
d. Evacuating pedestrian traffic, or vehicular traffic having difficulty reaching
shelter locations, is to report to the pre-identified collection sites (listed below).
They are located just outside the lahar inundation zone. All other vehicle
traffic is to stop at pre-identified shelter locations (see below) regardless of the
need to remain at shelter or relocate to relatives’ homes or other destination.
Registration of evacuees will occur at collection sites or shelter, whichever one
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 65 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
the evacuee reaches first. Registration and the resulting accountability is
critical to search and rescue operations once the lahar has stabilized enough to
permit these operations.
e. When a lahar is detected and verified, regardless of river valley(s), Pierce
County DEM will initiate emergency notification and warning as will
neighboring counties impacted by the lahar. See Chapter 5 for additional
information.
f. Public safety providers identified in Chapter 6 will report to the designated
command post. Other public safety providers will ready themselves for mutual
aid response operations. Emergency management personnel, subject matter
experts, other governmental agencies, and identified stakeholders will report to
their respective EOCs and initiate operations. Area command will be located at
the WEMD EOC at Camp Murray. Mission essential personnel are to
automatically respond and not wait for telephone or other notification.
g. The key stakeholders and concerned residents from communities in the Carbon,
Puyallup, upper Nisqually, and upper White River valleys have participated in
the development of lahar emergency response plans and preparedness training.
These activities were provided and/or coordinated by respective emergency
management departments and USGS.
2. Special Populations
Special populations living in the Mount Rainier river valleys pose additional
challenges to rapid evacuation. The special populations in the Puyallup river valley
are the elderly, the infirm, and the handicapped. The following is a listing of the
populations meeting this description in the valley.
Orting:
Soldiers’ Home
Sumner:
Franklin House
Stafford Suites
Kincaid Apartments
Puyallup:
City of Puyallup is coordinating with facilities within city limits.
Riverside:
None
Edgewood:
None
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 66 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
3. Collection Sites
Collection sites are pre-identified locations along the edges of the worst-case lahar
scenario where pedestrian traffic can assemble. They are different from shelter
locations in that they are temporary and can be considered the first stage in the
evacuation process, at least for those on foot or those who started out in vehicles but
for whatever reason wound up on foot. Transit busses will travel among the collection
sites, collect the evacuees, and drive them to shelter locations.
Collection sites along the lahar inundation borders, identified by jurisdiction, are:
Unincorporated Pierce County:
Frontier Park (21718 Meridian E, Graham)
410 Mall
Carbon and Puyallup Rivers:
Orting:
Pierce County Public Works gravel pit
The Buttes housing development
Sumner:
Corliss Gravel (64th
St and 166th
Ave)
Brian Stowe (2400 block of West Valley Ave)
Puyallup:
Pierce College Puyallup
Semiconductor Plant (1500 block of 39th
)
Bradley Park (2323 – 7th
St SE, Puyallup)
Riverside:
Waller Road Elementary School (6312 Waller Rd E)
Fruitland Elementary School (1515 Fruitland Ave)
Lidford Playfield (58th
and 44th
Avenue E)
Fife:
Church at the top of 62nd
and 10th
Edgewood:
Open field at the top of 36th
Milton:
Milton Senior Center
Upper Nisqually River:
Eatonville Middle School
With notification of a large-scale event requiring evacuation during school
hours, children and personnel of the Columbia Crest Elementary School will
evacuate to the Eatonville Middle School collection site (207 Carter Street
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 67 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
East) as quickly as possible.
Upper White River / Greenwater area:
Gravel pit located at MP 5.5 of USFS 70 Road
Slippery Creek Road MP
King County Fairgrounds – registration done by Enumclaw Fire
Department and American Red Cross
Packwood Mill Facilities – registration done by Packwood Fire
Department and Lewis County EOC
4. Registration and Accountability
a. The accountability of those who did or did not safely evacuate from the Mount
Rainier river valleys is paramount. Registration will begin at either the
collection site or the shelter, whichever one the evacuee arrives at first. It will
help to organize the search and rescue operations. It also provides a method for
loved ones to locate each other.
b. All persons evacuating from the impact valley(s) are to register with a local
authority or representative of their whereabouts upon reaching safety. That
registration will begin at either the collection site or shelter, whichever the
evacuee reaches first. A toll free number will be established as soon as
possible by the WEMD for evacuees, who had not registered, to do so by
telephone as soon as possible. This toll free number will be publicized by the
media and other news sources in order to reach as many people as possible.
c. Pierce County DEM is researching an electronic, real-time network of PDAs
(personal data assistants) that will be at the pre-identified collection sites and
shelter locations. The network will be able to communicate with the WebEOC
program being used in the majority of the region’s EOCs. This network is
expensive and will require a training and maintenance program. Pierce County
DEM is exploring possible funding sources to purchase and support this
network.
Without this real-time PDA network, the registration process will be done with
forms, clipboards, and pens. Regardless of the method used, it will be
accomplished by neighborhood volunteers, living in areas outside of the
inundation zone, agreeing to fulfill the responsibilities of the role. Public
safety personnel will be unable to perform this function. They are obligated to
the evacuation of the impacted river valley(s).
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 68 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Regardless of the location and circ*mstances, evacuees must register with local
emergency management authorities. It is critical for the delivery and
coordination of prompt search and rescue, and other life-saving operations.
5. Sheltering
a. There are two different scenarios when identifying sheltering and short-term
housing. One scenario results in conditions that will allow for the evacuees to
relocate outside of the county, both north and south. The other results in such
severe conditions that relocating to King and Thurston counties would be
impossible due to the closures and possible damage to the bridges that span the
Puyallup and Nisqually rivers. Regardless of either scenario, the western
corridor out of the county over the Narrows Bridge will be a way to relocate
out of county.
b. The local Red Cross Chapters will coordinate the sheltering operations in
facilities with Red Cross agreements, regardless of scenario. In a worst case
scenario, the sheltering and short-term housing demands may be beyond the
capacity of the Red Cross Mount Rainier Chapter. In this event, mass
sheltering will occur in open areas with temporary structures such as tents and
modular structures. All appropriate locations and facilities will be made
available if necessary.
Currently identified shelters large enough to house large numbers of people are:
Pierce County
University of Puget Sound Fieldhouse – corner of N 18th
and Lawrence St, Tacoma
Pacific Lutheran University Auditorium – 12100 Park Ave S, Tacoma
Clover Park Technical College – 4500 Steilacoom Blvd SW, Lakewood
Pierce College Puyallup – 1601 – 39th
Ave SE, Puyallup
Microchip Technology facility – 1111 – 39th
Ave SE, Puyallup
Note: Fort Lewis will house all military and military dependants. The facility is not
open to military retirees and the general population.
Thurston County
St. Martin’s Pavilion
North Thurston High School
Thurston County Fairgrounds
Evergreen State College
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 69 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
King County
Weyerhauser and others as coordinated by the local Red Cross chapters
6. Family Reunion
As soon as practicable, the Pierce County Department of Emergency Management in
cooperation with the Red Cross Mount Rainier Chapter will establish a toll free
number for family and loved ones to call to check on the safety and whereabouts of
evacuees. This number will be broadcast over all media and crisis communications
channels.
A family assistance center will open and be staffed with clergy, mental health
professionals, volunteers, and others appropriate to provide assistance and evacuee
information. This family assistance center must have an open and direct information
link with the Pierce County Emergency Operations Center and the Pierce County Joint
Information Center.
7. Short-term Housing
The same two scenarios (able to leave the county and unable to leave the county) with
the same challenges apply to short-term housing. The local housing authorities with
the help of the Red Cross will coordinate the housing arrangements in cooperation
with numerous support agencies.
8. Repopulation
The geologic characteristics of a lahar complicate the repopulation of any community
buried by a lahar. Considering that lahars have the consistency of wet cement, it may
take weeks, month, or years to stabilize and solidify to the point of supporting roads,
homes, and business, everything needed to make a community. In some areas, the
landscape may remain unstable for decades.
When the scientific experts determine that the ground is ready to rebuild, an acceptable
level of public safety and utilities services, such as law enforcement, emergency
medical services, water and sanitation, must be in place before any repopulation is
permitted.
Prioritized and coordinated restoration of services must precede any re-entry.
Rebuilding communities will be dependent on science, economics, land planning, and
desire.
E. References
F. Attachments
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 70 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Chapter 8: MITIGATION
A. Introduction
Scientific studies show that Mount Rainier poses a wide array of potential hazards on its
flanks, lahar hazards in river valleys downstream from the volcano, and tephra hazards in
downwind areas. Lahars are the principal far-traveled hazard, have potentially catastrophic
consequences in terms of casualties and property losses, and as such are the focus of this Plan.
The probability of large lahars is greatest during times that the volcano is restless or erupting,
but some types of lahars can occur when the volcano is quiet. When volcanoes become
restless and move toward eruption, they typically provide days to months of warning in the
form of earthquakes, ground deformation, gas emissions, and other signs. Current monitoring
systems and planned improvements provide scientists with real-time information about the
state of the volcano, and will detect precursory activity. Onset of precursors will initiate
intensified monitoring efforts, 24/7 watches, and issuance of alert-level notifications,
forecasts, and supporting information. Precursory activity and eruptions of Mount Rainier
generate lahars in several ways. Eruptions can swiftly melt some of the voluminous mantle of
snow and glacier ice that entrains abundant rock debris to produce lahars. Increase in heat
output can melt snow and ice in the summit crater to produce a lake that can be expelled by
explosions. Movement of magma into the volcano or eruptions can trigger large landslides
from areas of weakened rock, the largest and most hazardous of which lies on the upper west
flank at the head of the Puyallup River.
The large volume of weakened rock at the head of the Puyallup River valley may also be
susceptible to landslides and lahar generation during times that the volcano is quiet. About
500 years ago a large lahar swept through the Puyallup valley at a time of no apparent eruptive
activity. A large local earthquake or some other cause might trigger another large landslide
and send a lahar down the Puyallup and perhaps the adjacent Nisqually valley with little or no
warning. Such an event constitutes a worst-case scenario and guided development of the
lahar-warning system in the populous Puyallup valley.
B. Purpose
Hazard mitigation strategy is a set of recommended actions to take to lessen or remove the
vulnerability to a hazard and attempts to remove as many people as possible from harm’s way.
This section addresses a mitigation strategy for renewed activity at Mount Rainier.
Optimally, mitigation strategies and their subsequent implementation occur before the
disaster. The next best option is to implement them immediately after the disaster. The goals
of hazard mitigation strategies are to:
Protect life and property
Ensure emergency services
Increase public preparedness
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 71 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Establish and strengthen partnerships for implementation
Preserve or restore natural resources
Promote a sustainable economy
C. Scope
This section provides an overview of the Mount Rainier mitigation strategies that are more
thoroughly addressed in the Pierce County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (published
separately). The emphasis is on Pierce County since the largest population potentially at risk,
works and resides in the Carbon and Puyallup River valleys.
D. Organization
Mitigation is one of the four phases (preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation) of
emergency management. Mitigation strategy development and implementation are not a
function conducted during the response and portions of the recovery operations from the
disaster, regardless of cause. Mitigation falls under the planning section of the incident
command system.
E. Planning Assumptions
1. Mitigation strategy development and implementation is required to lessen the
vulnerability of any lahar from Mount Rainier.
2. Stakeholders will actively participate in the development and implementation of
mitigation strategies.
3. Mitigation strategy development and implementation requires community input and
financial support.
4. Lives could be lost and property damaged will occur in a lahar of any significant size.
5. People have a responsibility for their own safety.
F. Concept of Operations
The process to achieve regional mitigation goals begins by identifying mitigation measures –
specific actions or process that help mitigate risk for the region. The planning process of data-
collection, research, and public participation leads to the development of these measures. This
process ensures that the measures speak to the risks specific to the region and that these
measures are achievable. A risk assessment is central to the process of selecting mitigation
measures from regional goals.
The outcomes of a risk assessment illustrate the hazards to which the region has the most
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 72 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
vulnerability and provides focus for the region’s mitigation measures. Once measures are
identified, they are further defined in terms of the goals they address as well as the hazards
they mitigate. The next step is to prioritize the measures.
The process for measure prioritization relies upon the region’s identified risks, and
vulnerabilities, the planning team’s local expertise, public participation, and the authority and
priority of elected officials. The process allows for emphasis on the extent to which each
measure is cost-effective. While it may be important to emphasize a positive cost / benefit
review in the prioritizing of mitigation measures, it is also important to emphasize the
influence of local political factors, community needs and values, historic properties, and
habitat and environmental issues upon the selection of specific mitigation measures.
Therefore, the prioritization process addresses the region’s unique needs in terms of ability to
be implemented and the extent to which it would mitigate one or more relevant hazards.
In order to promote implementation of the mitigation measures, they are grouped based on the
level at which they will be implemented. See Attachment1.
G. References
King, Lewis, Pierce, and Thurston Counties Comprehensive Emergency Management
Plans
WEMD Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
Pierce County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan
H. Terms and Definitions
Lahar – Indonesian word for a mudflow from a volcano; at Mount Rainier the term, lahar, is
reserved for large flows that extend beyond boundaries of Mount Rainier National Park.
Magma – Molten rock that rises to shallow levels in volcanoes and drives eruptions.
Tephra – Airborne volcanic ejecta of any size; in downwind areas it is typically sand- and
dust-size material.
I. Attachments
Attachment 1
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 73 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Attachment 1 - Mitigation Implementation Measures
Implementation
Mechanism Mitigation Measure
Lead Jurisdiction(s) /
Department(s)
Timeline
(years)
Plan Goals Addressed
Lif
e a
nd
Pro
per
ty
Em
erg
ency
Ser
vic
es
Pu
bli
c
Pre
pa
red
nes
s
Pa
rtn
ersh
ips
for
Imp
lem
enta
tio
n
Na
tura
l R
eso
urc
es
Su
sta
ina
ble
Eco
no
my
Volcanic Hazard Hazard Mitigation
Forum: Multi-
jurisdictional
implementation
mechanism
Evacuation Planning: New Roads
and Development
PC DEM; Transportation Division
(PC PWU) 1-2
Mount Rainier Closure Zones PC DEM; USGS; CVO; Mount
Rainier National Park 5
Bridge for Kids B4Ks; PC DEM; WA EMD; Orting
School District;
City of Orting
5
Dam Draw Down Agreements PC DEM; Facility Owners 5
Lahar Flow Control PC DEM 5
Hazard Mitigation
Committee:
County-wide
implementation
mechanism
176th Street East Extension PC PWU 5
Tax or Insurance Disincentives
PC PALS 5
Public Education
Public Education: Lahar PC DEM Ongoing
Public Education: Volcanic
Ashfall PC DEM 5
Public Education: Education for
Self Warning and Evacuation PC DEM 5
Public Education: Evacuation
Routes PC DEM 1-2
Public Education: Bus Driver
Evacuation Training Program PC DEM; Valley School Districts 5
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 74 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Chapter 9: EMERGENCY INFORMATION
A. Introduction
Warning the public of Mount Rainier eruptions and lahars will be challenging,
especially if the worst-case scenario of a landslide-generated lahar occurs with
little or no warning. This section addresses both possibilities; events that occur
with warning as well as those that occur without .
B. Purpose
When the mountain does re-awaken, providing timely, accurate, and thorough
information regarding hazards and the emergency actions necessary to get out of
danger is with a collaborative effort among local officials, subject matter experts
and scientists, and the media. This is coordinated through the Joint Information
Center (JIC). While individual agencies and affected parties will continue to
address their specific roles and duties, the JIC will serve as the focus of public
affairs information relating to an incident of regional magnitude.
C. Scope
The JIC is responsible for seven functional areas:
Crisis Communications
Information Coordination
Media Relations / Public Information
Community Relations
VIP Relations
Productions
Support and Staffing
D. Organization
The JIC is an extension of the National Incident Management System (NIMS) /
Incident Management System (ICS). It is managed by a lead public information
officer (PIO), affected agency public affairs leads, and enough staffing to perform
all JIC responsibilities
Depending on the severity of the volcanic disaster, the JIC will be located at the
Washington Emergency Management Division at Camp Murray or at another site.
JIC participants will likely be:
Emergency Management Authorities from Pierce, King, Lewis, and Thurston
Counties
National Park Service (NPS)
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 75 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Puyallup Tribe of Indians (PTOI)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)
Washington Emergency Management Division (WEMD)
Appropriate Elected Officials and Authorities
Others as required
E. Planning Assumptions
Mount Rainier National Park, neighboring public officials, subject matter experts,
and other affected stakeholders will disseminate emergency public information by
whatever means available during a volcanic emergency.
During extended response and recovery operations, agency PIOs may be required
to staff the JIC for extended periods. This may impact their ability to serve their
individual agencies. Alternate agency PIOs must be identified to fill the void. If
agencies are in compliance with the COOP standard of a redundancy of three for
all mission essential personnel, this should not cause hardship on the respective
agency.
F. Concept of Operations
1. Television and Radio Broadcasters
During and after a lahar emergency, the media should be considered to be
a critical asset.
Emergency Alert System (EAS) messages are broadcast via television,
radio, and cable. By Federal Communication Commission regulation, all
EAS regions have a primary and secondary radio frequency assigned for
this function. All other broadcast media participate to ensure as many
people as possible receive the warning. In the region around Mount
Rainier, the primary station is KIRO 710 AM and the secondary, KPLU
88.5 FM.
Broadcast media is the most effective way to get all other emergency
information disseminated to the largest audience possible. Positive
relationships among the media, scientists, and local authorities will begin
long before the disaster and will enhance cooperation during the disaster.
Cooperation is critical to ensure consistent, accurate information without
speculation and rumor is reported. News media will seek information
regardless of source. It is best for the JIC to be pro-active and make
contact with appropriate media as early as possible after the onset of the
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 76 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
worst-case scenario lahar or any other volcanic activity.
2. NOAA All Hazards Radio
The NOAA All Hazards Radio is a reliable way to ensure receipt of
emergency notifications and warnings. Televisions and radios also receive
the EAS message but be on to received the messages.
3. The Puyallup Valley has a local emergency radio station, AM 1580,
funded for the public’s notification of a lahar coming down the valley and
how they should respond. It will also be used for rumor control in the
event there is a false alarm or a small debris flow that will not impact the
valley. This station, while initially developed for lahar warnings, is an all
hazard information station.
4. Joint Information Center
a. JIC operations is a extension of ICS and EOC operations.
b. The JIC most likely will be co-located with the area command at
WEMD EOC. The WEMD EOC is located at Camp Murray, WA.
c. The JIC participants will strive to comply with the following
precepts:
Develop and maintain a pre-crisis rapport between scientists and
public officials.
Build effective communication with non-technical, well-defined
language.
Strive for consensus among involved scientists regarding likely
hazards.
Publicly discuss hazards, uncertainties, and levels of acceptable risk.
d. The EOC manager or other appropriate individual will select a
media-savvy spokesperson to represent the local authorities, public safety
agencies, and scientists for live interviews regarding the disaster
e. The JIC, through the EOC operations section, must ensure that the
emergency first responders are informed as well as the public. Good,
reliable information will support effective field command and operations.
f. The EOC manager with the support of the public information
manager, is responsible for the entire JIC operation.
g. All disseminated information is approved by the EOC prior to
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 77 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
release. This is coordinated by the public information manager.
h. All section chiefs are responsible for continuity and timely flow of
information between sections and section members.
i. JIC operations will be managed by the public information officer.
The JIC is divided into seven functional sections. Each functional section
has specific responsibilities. Each section will have an assigned section
chief to guide and coordinate section responsibilities.
Crisis Communications
Maintain open communications with the public information
officer.
Maintain current and accurate information on the agency
websites.
Liaison with technical staff to ensure operability.
Support the interactive capacity of the website.
All information disseminated by this section will be approved
by the public information officer prior to dissemination.
Brief on-coming section chief of operational status.
Information Coordination
Maintain open communications with the public information
officer.
Collect information / situation reports regarding the status of
the emergency.
Collect, verify, and analyze information from all available
sources.
Solicit information from essential service points of contact and
other affected agencies / jurisdictions.
Develop news releases and other materials as assigned by the
public information manager.
Maintain maps and status boards.
Manage rumor control and obtain verification of all
information prior to release.
All information disseminated by this section will be approved
by the public information officer prior to dissemination.
Brief on-coming section chief of operational status.
Media Relations / PIO
Maintain open communications with the public information
officer.
Conduct on-air press conferences.
Set-up media hotline.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 78 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Maintain a running log of all information disseminated and
time of dissemination.
Coordinate interviews and coordinate transportation if
necessary.
Set-up on-scene press conferences.
Establish and post media briefing times and locations.
Monitor other media to prevent redundancy, misinformation,
and rumor.
All information disseminated by this section will be approved
by the public information officer prior to dissemination.
Brief on-coming section chief of operational status.
Community Relations
Maintain open communications with the public information
officer.
Determine informational needs of the community.
Provide information to the public concerning the status of the
disaster and how to obtain relief services.
Arrange meetings with citizens.
Establish citizens’ hotline.
Determine need to establish information centers.
Convey citizen issues and concerns to the public information
manager.
All information disseminated by this section will be approved
by the public information officer prior to dissemination.
Brief on-coming section chief of operational status.
VIP Relations
Maintain open communications with the public information
officer.
Represent JIC and respective agency.
Gather related information from local, state, and federal
agencies.
Coordinate points of contact for agency representatives
requesting expedient information from JIC.
Coordinate visits and tours for officials and / or VIPs.
All information disseminated by this section will be approved
by the public information officer prior to dissemination.
Brief on-coming section chief of operational status.
Productions
Maintain open communications with the public information
officer.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 79 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Prepare news releases, updates, fact sheets, maps and other
graphics materials based on information collected by the
information coordination section.
Prepare written and graphics material for public dissemination,
news conferences, and public meetings.
Prepare maps, status boards, and other graphics materials to
support JIC operations.
Section chief will ensure necessary templates are available to
writers.
Section chief will oversee news release production and
troubleshoot any problems or needs encountered writing staff.
All information disseminated by this section will be approved
by the public information officer prior to dissemination.
Brief on-coming section chief of operational status.
Support and staffing
Maintain open communications with the public information
officer.
Set up JIC.
Obtain necessary resources.
Answer telephones, take messages, collect and deliver faxes.
Perform clerical support such as copying, stocking information
dissemination, etc.
All information disseminated by this section will be approved
by the public information officer prior to dissemination.
Brief on-coming section chief of operational status.
G. References
Pierce County Joint Information Center Plan
Pierce County Emergency Operations Center Plan
Pierce County NIMS / NRP Implementation Plan
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 80 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Attachment 1
JOINT INFORMATION CENTER ORGANIZATION CHART
POLICY
GROUP
EOC MANAGER
PUBLIC INFORMATION
MANAGER
PLANS ADMIN/
FINANCE
LOGISTICS OPERATIONS
JIC
CRISIS
COMMUNICA-
TIONS
MAINTAIN
CURRENT AND
ACCURATE
WEBSITE
INFORMATION
COORDINA-
TION
GATHER AND
VERIFY
SPECIFIC
INFORMATION
PROVIDE
INFORMATION
TO
COMMUNICA-
TIONS
MANAGER
FOR
DISSEMIN-
ATION
MAINTAIN
MAPS AND
STATUS
BOARDS
PROVIDE
STAFFING FOR:
OPERATIONS,
PLANNING,
LOGISTICS,
AND FINANCE
SECTION
LIAISON
MEDIA
RELATIONS /
PIO
RESPOND TO
INQUIRIES
FROM MEDIA
VERBALLY OR
IN WRITING,
AS
APPROPRIATE
SET-UP MEDIA
HOTLINE
COORDINATE
INTERVIEWS/
PROVIDE
ESCORT SET-UP FOR
ON-SITE PRESS
CONFER-
ENCES
CONDUCT ON-
AIR PRESS
CONFER-
ENCES
COMMUNITY
RELATIONS
DETERMINE
INFORMATION
NEEDS OF
LOCAL
COMMUNITY
ARRANGE
MEETINGS
WITH
CITIZENS
ESTABLISH
CITIZEN
HOTLINE/DE-
TERMINE
NEED TO
ESTABLISH
INFO CENTERS
CONVEY
CITIZEN
ISSUES/
CONCERNS TO
COMMUNICA-
TIONS
MANAGER
AND SECTIONS
CHIEFS
UTILIZE
COMMUNITY
CABLE ASSESS
IF INDICATED
VIP
RELATIONS
REPRESENT
RESPECTIVE
AGENCY
LIAISON WITH
OTHER
AGENCIES,
LOCALS,
STATE AND
FEDS FOR
INFORMATION
COORDINATE
POINTS-OF-
CONTACT FOR
AGENCY REPS
REQUESTING
EXPEDIENT
INFO FROM JIC
COORDINATE
VISITS AND TOURS FOR
OFFICIALS OR
VIPs
PRODUCTION
PREPARE
NEWS
RELEASES,
UPDATES,
FACT SHEETS,
MAPS AND
OTHER
GRAPHICS
MATERIALS
PREPARE
WRITTEN AND
GRAPHICS
MATERIALS
FOR PUBLIC
DISSEMINA-
TION, NEWS
CONFER-
ENCES, PUBLIC
MEETINGS
PREPARE
MAPS, STATUS
BOARDS AND
OTHER
GRAPHICS
MATERIALS
TO SUPPORT
JIC
OPERATIONS
MONITOR WEB
AND/OR
INTERNET FOR
UPDATES
SPPORT AND
STAFFING
JIC SET-UP
ANSWER
PHONES AND
TAKE
MESSAGES
JIC SUPPORT
ACTIVITIES:
COPYING,
STOCKING,
INFORMATION
DISSEMINA-
TION
OTHER DUTIES
AS ASSIGNED
BY
COMMUNICA-
TIONS
MANAGER
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 81 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Chapter 10: Public Education/Long-term
Maintenance of Public Awareness & Preparedness
1. Introduction
The Mount Rainier public awareness team, comprising representatives from
scientific, educational, land management, and emergency management groups, has
developed a multi-pronged approach to encourage public understanding of
hazards and involvement in community, business, and personal preparations. This
message or one with similar language is used consistently in all resources
provided for the public, business interests, educators, public officials, and the
media. The team recommends that these messages be used in future resources.
A. Purpose
Anecdotal history illustrates repeatedly that the degree of preparedness of
an individual, family, business, etc. is inversely proportionate to the
impact of an emergency or disaster on that individual, family, or business.
Although not realistic, the best case scenario is a well-informed public,
well prepared public of the dangers of living in the shadow of Mount
Rainier. More likely scenarios are that people move, have no interest, are
misinformed, choose to not be informed, believe widely accepted myths,
or never find the time.
The goal of Mount Rainier and preparedness education is to change
peoples’ behavior; to become informed of the dangers of living in the
shadow of the mountain and the life-saving impact of being prepared.
B. Scope
This section addresses strategies to educate the public on the hazards of
Mount Rainier and to maintain awareness and preparedness. The methods
to educate and maintain level of awareness and preparedness are varied.
They are accomplished through public outreach campaigns such as
information dissemination at health and safety fairs, subject-specific
presentations, and programs such as PC-NET (Pierce County
Neighborhood Emergency Teams). This section deals with the importance
of informational content delivered in the campaigns.
2. Policies
Under the authority of this plan, the educators and subject matter experts qualified
to participate in these public outreach campaigns are members of public safety
departments and scientists (geologists, volcanologists, hydrologists, etc.) informed
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 82 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
about the hazards of Mount Rainier, individual and family preparedness, and
teaching methodologies.
The message of the outreach campaigns will be consistent to ensure that,
regardless of who provides it, the Mount Rainier information will be in
agreement with the other messages being disseminated and will be based on
historical outcomes and the latest research.
3. Situation
Ensuring an aware and prepared public is a difficult task. In spite of the amount
of available information on Mount Rainier, its volcanic history, and the current
scientific findings; and daily reminders about the need to be prepared, many
people do not participate. Even when a community becomes active, it may be
short-lived. It is difficult to change peoples’ behaviors and when those behaviors
do change, they may revert back to old habits.
Therefore, public educators and their campaigns must be taken to where people
work and play and conducted repeatedly.
4. Concept of Operations
A. Messages:
1. Principal Science and Preparedness Messages
Mount Rainier is an active volcano, with capability to erupt
during our lifetimes.
Volcanoes provide warning signs that they are going to
erupt weeks to months or more in advance, due to the ascent of
magma that causes measurable events, such as earthquakes,
ground deformation, and gas release.
Part of the immense cover of snow and ice (1 cubic mile of
perennial snow and glacier ice) can be melted during eruptions,
providing meltwater for lahars (volcanic mudflows).
Lahars are the principal hazards at Mount Rainier. Most
often they happen during eruptions, though landslides in soft
rock can generate lahars at other times.
Areas most at risk are the floors of valleys that head on
Mount Rainier.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 83 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
If you sense approaching ground tremor and rumbling, go
to high ground.
Areas affected by lahars and areas farther downstream may
be subject to shifting river channels and flooding for years to
decades.
Do not evacuate if you are on high ground and not in the
path of an encroaching lahar. You will add to the congestion
and make evacuation more difficult for those in danger.
2. General Preparedness:
Learn: Learn about volcanic hazards and how they affect
your community. Determine whether you live, work, or go to
school in a volcanic hazard zone.
Inquire: Find out what steps local officials have taken to
prepare for volcanic events. Ask public officials how they advise
you to respond.
Plan: Develop plans for your family and business so that
you are prepared for natural hazards and emergencies.
3. Science Messages:
Of some sixty (60) lahars in the past 10,000 years, almost all
occurred during eruptive periods. Eruptions give precursory
warnings of days to months, so lahars triggered by eruptions can be
anticipated.
The gigantic Osceola Mudflow was twenty times larger than any
other lahar since the Ice Age and was clearly triggered by an
eruption. A key condition that led to the Osceola, extensive
weakening of rocks in the summit and core of the volcano, no
longer exists. Such a huge lahar is improbable now.
Only the west side of the volcano remains susceptible to a lahar
caused by avalanching of weakened rocks, which means such
lahars threaten only the Puyallup and Nisqually valleys.
Only one of the large lahars caused by avalanching of weakened
rock remains uncorrelated to eruptions—the 500-year-old Electron
lahar that flowed through Orting town site. Concern about its
origin led to deployment of the Puyallup valley lahar warning
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 84 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
system.
No lahar in the past 10,000 years has entered Elliot Bay or Lake
Washington, or generated tsunamis there.
Erosion and re-deposition of eruption-generated lahars closer to the
volcano formed Rainier sand deposits along the Duwamish
Waterway. Eruption would precede such lahars. Safety
procedures could limit threat to life; but buildings and
infrastructure would be vulnerable.
Debris flows, smaller version of lahars, are common in the upper
valleys within Mount Rainier National Park during non-eruptive
times. Debris flows are caused by excessive snowmelt or intense
rainfall. Debris flows happen usually in mid-to late summer and
during the first winter storms of late fall.
B. Long-term Public Awareness Plan
During 1998, the Mount Rainier Working public awareness team
developed a plan to enhance long term public awareness of volcanic
hazards. Members work independently and in collaborations to present
consistent and up-to-date messages about Mount Rainier volcano.
C. Agency outreach efforts:
1. Washington Emergency Management Division
Annual posters commemorate May as Volcano Awareness
Month
―The Beautiful Mountain in the Sky‖ booklet for primary
school students
Assessments of volcano awareness in communities
Support for evacuation roadside signage
2. Pierce County Emergency Management
Lahar warning and notification system installed
Testing of notification system
Evacuation plan
Volcanoes included in all-hazard communication
Development and maintenance of PIO call down
Joint Information Center (JIC) plan
Media interviews
PC-NET (Pierce County Neighborhood Emergency Teams)
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 85 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
3. Thurston County Emergency Management
Volcanoes included in all-hazards education
County is preparing a volcano addendum to the Thurston
Regional Hazards Mitigation Plan
4. Mount Rainier National Park
Geohazards Awareness Plan developed and in use
Museum Exhibits developed—for visitors at Paradise and
Sunrise (to be installed within next several years)
Roadside interpretive signage (all park)
Evacuation plan and evacuation signage
Curriculum development with USGS-CVO
Hosts annual teacher workshop ―Living with a Volcano in your
Backyard‖
Media interviews
5. United States Geological Survey
Traveling exhibits ―Living With a Volcano in your Backyard‖
Prepared presentation ―Living with a Volcano in your
Backyard: Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards – a Prepared
Presentation for use by Public Officials and Educators‖
Mount Rainier fact sheet ―Mount Rainier—Learning to Live
with Volcanic Risk‖
Curriculum posting on USGS-CVO website in progress
―Living with a Volcano in your Backyard—an Educators Guide
with Emphasis on Mount Rainier‖
Scientist involvement at council and public meetings
Public presentations
Media interviews
6. Non-Government Groups:
Bridge for Kids
Raised public awareness about lahar hazards in the Puyallup
valley
7. Orting and Sumner School Districts
Emergency Radio communication and evacuation plans tested
Community education about lahars and district policies
Classroom teaching about Mount Rainier volcano
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 86 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Attachment 1 Outreach Projects and Commitments in Progress; Resources for public officials, business
interests, educators, the public and media
1. Update Website information
Description: Updated and linked websites for information about volcano history
and hazards, emergency preparations, and educational materials, and
2006 Mount Rainier Response Plan
Source: WEMD, USGS, NPS, PCDEM, County Emergency Educators
Date of Availability: ongoing
Agency Commitments: WEMD, USGS, NPS, PCDEM and perhaps others will
continue to pursue website links that improve availability of information.
2. National Park Service Interpretive Work
Description: Interpretative staff at Mount Rainier National Park maintains and
performs their ―Geohazards Awareness Plan‖ that brings
geohazards information to park interpretative activities; exhibits
reflect most recent information about volcano history and hazards
Source: National Park Service (NPS), USGS
Date of Availability: ongoing
Agency Commitments: NPS will continue maintenance and performance of the
Geohazards Plan. USGS provides current information to NPS during trainings and
informal communication.
3. Update Perilous Beauty video
Description: Video will be updated and/or replaced, and made available as DVD
Source: USGS, PCDEM
Date of Availability: 2008
Agency Commitments: USGS and partners will update or replace video within 2
years.
4. Update Mount Rainier information products— prepared
presentation, display, Mount Rainier material on USGS website
Description: Prepared presentation and display will be updated when time allows;
website presentation upgraded
Source: USGS
Date of Availability: prepared presentation and display approximately 2010; website
upgrade by 2009
Agency commitments: USGS will evaluate necessary timing for updates of prepared
presentation and exhibit. Website upgrade will be ongoing.
5. Volcano Awareness Month (VAM) Products and Services
Description: Media advisory, annual poster or other products commemorate VAM
each May; obtain official state declaration of VAM
Source: WEMD, USGS, NPS, Forest Service.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 87 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Date of Availability: 2007
Agency commitments: A product and media advisory will be developed and
announced in May of each year; VAM official declaration during 2007.
6. Bridge for Kids
Description: Public Awareness of lahar hazards, construction of bridges for
evacuation purposes
Source: Bridge for Kids, PCDEM
Date of Availability: ongoing
Agency commitments: Bridge for Kids and its partners will continue to advocate
for effective evacuation facilities in the mid-Puyallup valley.
7. Training of Public Information Officers (PIOs) about Volcanic Hazards and
Practice of PIO plan
Description: Seek and create training opportunities for PIOs in the State of
Washington regarding Mount Rainier.
Source: WEMD, County Emergency Educators, USGS
Date of Availability:
Agency commitments: Training will be done on request; team members will pursue
additional opportunities.
8. Seminars and workshops for public officials and business interests
Description: Seek and create training opportunities for businesses and officials
Source: PCDEM, USGS
Date of Availability: 2006
Agency Commitments: USGS, and county emergency management agencies will
pursue opportunities to present information about volcanic hazards and suggested
responses.
9. Educator Guide ―Living with a Volcano in your Back yard—an Educator’s
Guide with Emphasis on Mount Rainier‖
Description: This curriculum addresses Cascade volcanoes—histories and hazards,
with emphasis on Mount Rainier volcano. The educator’s guide is
being written by the NPS, USGS, and teachers in the vicinity of
Mount Rainier
Source: USGS, Mount Rainier National Park; available on USGS-CVO
website
Date of Availability: 2006
Agency Commitments: The agencies above will see the educator’s guide through to
completion, advertise its availability, and distribute to a select number of schools.
10. Workshop for Educators ―Living with a volcano in your Back Yard‖
Description: This multi-day workshop is aimed at middle school educators.
Participants perform activities in the educator guide, take field
trips, and focus attention on teaching about Mount Rainier in their
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 88 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
classroom. The class may be provided in abbreviated form on
request
Source: NPS, USGS
Date of Availability: Available in summers, once annually
Agency Commitments: NPS and USGS intend to offer the workshop annually or
more frequently as resources allow and interest exists.
11. Multiple hazards education
Description: The same areas that are at risk from volcanic hazards are also at
risk from Earthquakes, flooding, and landslides. We plan to
explore ways to better integrate volcanic hazards into multi-
hazards education and to provide a more accurate representation of
hazards for any given area
Source: USGS, WaDNR, County Emergency Educators
Date of Availability: Available now
Agency Commitments: USGS and WaDNR will continue to pursue
methods for making hazard assessments interdisciplinary.
12. Media Training and Materials Distribution
Description: Media Training about volcano hazards will be done as considered
necessary by circ*mstances; packets of materials about volcanic
hazards and suggested emergency responses for the media will be
explored.
Source: WEMD, USGS, WaDNR, County Emergency Educators
Date of Availability: as needed.
13. Poster: ―Eruptions in the Cascade Range During the Past 4,000 years‖
General Information Product 63 (GIP63)
Description: Educational poster showing the known volcanic eruptions in the
Cascades for the last 4000 years.
Source: USGS
Date of Availability: Available now.
14. Poster: ―Geologic Hazards at Volcanoes‖
General Information Product 64 (GIP64)
Description: Educational poster showing the various hazards that exist in relation
to volcanoes.
Source: USGS
Date of Availability: Available now
Agency Commitments: The above agencies will pursue a recommendation on the necessity
of press packets.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 89 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Attachment 2
Time-line for Completion of Products and Services
Available
/Ongoing 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Unknown
General Public
WEMD—Strengthen all hazards
preparedness messages; Improve links to
science websites, Official designation for
Volcano Awareness Month)
**
PC DEM and WEMD—―Volcano
Evacuation Routes‖ signs installed *
NPS—personal interpretation, product
distribution *
NPS—exhibits and signage, Geohazards
Awareness Plan * **
USGS—Update Perilous Beauty video *
USGS—Update Rainier Fact Sheet * **
USGS—Upgrade Rainier web pages *
Emergency Managers, USGS, NPS—
Volcano Awareness Month products
Bridge for Kids—Ongoing Awareness
Campaign; eventual bridge completion *
Public Officials
USGS Upgrade prepared talk as a CD *
Emergency managers, NPS and
USGS—PIO training and annual
practice of PIO plan * ** **
Emergency Manager, USGS—
Seminars for businesses and officials **
Educators
USGS, NPS—Living with a volcano…‖
curriculum posted on website * **
NPS, USGS—Workshops for Educators * ** ** **
Educators, Emergency managers,
NPS—Multi-hazards education * ** ** **
Media
NPS, USGS—Periodic Media training
* Indicates present availability but update or completion required
** Indicates completion as of September 2008
Indicates target date for completion
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 90 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Attachment 3
Information Contacts
Emergency Preparedness Information Contacts
American Red Cross (ARC) (702) 531-0227 (Emergency Only)
http://www.redcross.org
ARC Lewis County Chapter (360) 748-4607 http://www.rainier-redcross.org/
ARC Tacoma/Pierce County Chapter
(253) 474-0400 http://www.rainier-redcross.org/
ARC Thurston/Mason County Chapter
(360) 352-8575 http://www.rainier-redcross.org/
ARC Yakima Valley Chapter (509) 457-1690 http://www.yakimaredcross.org/
Disaster Educators of Preparedness Puget Sound/WSU Co-op Extension/King County for preparedness tapes
(206) 296-3425 (800) 325-6165 or ext. 63425
8:30 - 4:30 M-F Preparedness tapes available 24 hours http://www.metrokc.gov/wsu-ce/
FEMA Region 10 (WA, OR, ID, AK)
(425) 487-4600 http://www.fema.gov/reg-x/
King County Office of Emergency Management
(206) 296-3830 http://www.metrokc.gov/prepare/
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 91 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Lewis County Dept. Of Public Services-Emergency Management Division
(360) 740-1151 http://www.co.lewis.wa.us
Pierce County Dept. Of Emergency Management
(253) 798-6595 http://www.co.pierce.wa.us
Thurston County Emergency Management
(360) 754-3360 http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/em/
State of WA Military Department - Emergency Management Division
(253) 512-7000 (800) 258-5990
http://emd.wa.gov
Mount Rainier Geologic Hazards and Emergency Preparedness
Information Contacts
(DNR-DGER) Library 1111 Washington St. SE Olympia, WA
(360) 902-1473
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/geology/ Hours: 8 - 4:30 M-F
King County Office of Emergency Management
(206) 296-3830 http://www.metrokc.gov/prepare/
Lewis County Dept. Of Public Services-Emergency Management Division
(360) 740-1151 http://www.co.lewis.wa.us
Natural Hazard Center at University of Colorado, Boulder
(303) 492-6818 http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 92 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Information Center for Disasters
Pierce County Dept. Of Emergency Management
(253) 798-6595 http://www.co.pierce.wa.us
Thurston County Emergency Management
(360) 754-3360 http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/em/
USGS Volcano Hazards Program
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Science Information Center
(888) 275-8747 http://www.usgs.gov
Washington State Dept of Natural Resources (Geology & Earth Resources)
(360) 902-1440 http://www.dnr.wa.gov/geology/
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 93 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Attachment 4
Resources
Mount Rainier Hazards and Histories--General Reading:
Driedger, C., and Scott, W., 2008, Mount Rainier—Living Safely with a volcano in
Your Backyard: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2008-3062, 4 p.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3062/fs2008-3062.pdf
Dzurisin, D., Stauffer, P.H., and Hendley II, J.W., 1997, Living with volcanic risk in the
Cascades: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 165-97 (revised 2008), 2 p.
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Cascades/Publications/FS165-97/
Harris, Stephen L., 2005, Fire Mountains of the West—The Cascade and Mono Lake
volcanoes: Missoula, Mont., Mountain Press Publishing Company, 454 p
Hoblitt, R. P., Walder, J.S., Driedger, C.L., Scott, K. M., Pringle, P.T., Vallance, J. W.,
1998, Volcano Hazards from Mount Rainier, Washington, Revised 1998: U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-428, 11 p., 1 pl.
Myers, Bobbie, Brantley, Steven R., Stauffer, Peter H., and Hendley II, James W., 1998,
What are Volcano Hazards?: (revised 2008): U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet
002-97, 2 p. http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Hazards/Publications/FS002-97/
USGS—Cascades Volcano Observatory, 1994, Preparing for the Next Eruption in the
Cascades: USGS Open-File Report 94-585, 4p.
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Cascades/Publications/OFR94-585/
Walder, J.S., and Driedger, C.L., 1993, Glacier-generated debris flows at Mount Rainier,
U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet, Open-File Report 93-124 2 p.
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Rainier/Publications/OFR93-124/
Volcanic Ashfall:
USGS-Volcano Hazards Program website, Volcanic Ash—What it can do and how to
prevent damage: (a summary of material from many publication resources)
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/ash/
Casadevall, Thomas J., editor, 1994, Volcanic Ash And Aviation Safety: Proceedings of
the First International Symposium on Volcanic Ash and Aviation Safety. (Held in
Seattle, WA during 07/91) U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2047, 450 p
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 94 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region X, 1984, Bentley, Forrest G., Chief
Researcher, The Mitigation of Ash Fall Damage to Public Facilities: Lessons
Learned from the 1980 Eruption of Mount St. Helens, Washington. 70 p
Kennedi, C.A., Brantley, S.R., Hendley II, J.W., Stauffer, P.H., 2000, Volcanic ash
fall—A ―Hard Rain‖ of abrasive particles: U.S. Geological Survey Fact-Sheet 027-
00 (revised April 2002), 2 p. http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Hazards/Publications/FS027-
00/
Novak, Terry and Zais, Richard, 1981, How to Manage Your Ash, Public Management,
January/February 1981, p.12-15.
Warwick, Richard A., 1981; Four Communities Under Ash After Mount St. Helens:
Program on Technology, environment and man, monograph no. 34, Institute of
Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, 146 p
Washington Military Department Emergency Management Division and U.S. Geological Survey,
Cascades Volcano Observatory, 1999, Volcanic ashfall--How to be prepared for an
ashfall: Washington Emergency Management Division and U.S. Geological Survey, 3-page
tri-fold. [online version: http://emd.wa.gov/5-prog/prgms/eq-tsunami/vol-ash-english.pdf ,
accessed October 25, 2005]
Educational Products:
Dent-Cleveland, Laurie, 1003, The beautiful mountain in the sky—How to be safe if a
lahar flows down the mountain: Washington Military Department—Emergency
Management Division, Elementary Edition K-6 Booklet: 24 p. [online version:
http://emd.wa.gov/5-prog/prgms/pubed/04-campaign/EMD%20Lahar%20K-6.pdf ,
accessed October 25, 2005]
Driedger, C.L., Faust, L., Lane, L. Smith, M., Smith R., 1998, Mount Rainier—the volcano
in your backyard, poster and activity guide for educators: U.S. Geological Survey
miscellaneous publication, 2p
Driedger, C.L., Faust, L., Living with a volcano in your backyard: (Mount Rainier
Traveling Community Exhibit‖—tabletop exhibit for loan)
Driedger, C.L., Wolfe, E.W., Scott, K.M., 1998, Living with a volcano in your
backyard: Mount Rainier volcanic hazards — a prepared presentation for use
by public officials and educators: U.S. Geological Survey open-file report 98-519,
38 slides, 16 p
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 95 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Driedger, C., Doherty, A., and Dixon, C. (Project Coordinators), 2005, Living with a
Volcano in your Backyard -- An Educator's Guide with Emphasis on Mount
Rainier: U.S. Geological Survey and National Park Service, General Interest
Publication 19, web-published. http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Outreach/
Johnston, D., Paton, D., Driedger, C., Houghton, B., Ronan, K., 2001, Student
Perceptions of Hazards at Four Schools Near Mount Rainier, Washington, USA:
Journal of the American Society of Professional Emergency Planners, Volume VIII –
2001, p. 41-51.
Federal Emergency Management Agency and American Red Cross, 1993, Helping
children cope with disaster: FEMA L-196, ARC 4499, 4 p. [online version:
http://www.ohsep.louisiana.gov/factsheets/helpkidswdisasters.pdf , accessed October
25, 2005]
Volcano Monitoring:
LaHusen, Richard, 2005, Acoustic flow monitor system—User Manual: U.S.
Geological Survey, Open-File Report 02-429, 16 p. [online at:
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Projects/AFM/Publications/OFR02-429/OFR02-429.pdf]
USGS Website about Mount Rainier Lahar Detection System:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Products/Warn/warn.html
Scarpa, Roberto, and Tilling, R.I., 1996, eds., Monitoring and mitigation of volcano
hazards: New York, Springer-Verlag Walter de Gruyter & Co., 841 p
Videos:
IAVCEI, 1997, Reducing volcanic risk: International Association of Volcanology and
Chemistry of Earth’s Interior and United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural
Organization, video 24 minutes.
IAVCEI, 1997, Understanding volcanic hazards: produced by Maurice Kraft for
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization and International
Association of Volcanology and Chemistry of Earth’s Interior, video 26 minutes.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1996, Perilous Beauty — The Hidden Dangers of Mount
Rainier: 29-minute video.
Additional Video Information at:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Products/sproducts.html#video
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 96 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Chapter 11: RECOVERY
A. Introduction
Following any disaster, restoring the community, while mitigating future impacts,
is always a difficult process. This issue is even more important due to the
potential widespread damage that the volcano could unleash and to hazardous
events continuing for years to decades. There are some within the emergency
management community that feel that this is the single most important issue in
dealing with a disaster. The Mount Rainier Work Group will continue to study
and address this recovery issue into the future.
This chapter provides a brief overview of the initial actions required of the
recovery process.
B. Situation
Lahars and ash fall invoke a multitude of recovery issues ranging from the short-
term to the long-term. Short-term concerns will include comprehensive damage
assessment, FEMA registration, debris clean-up and removal, temporary housing,
sheltering, mental and physical health, etc. Longer term concerns include property
rights and claims, land use decisions, rebuilding rights and locations, decision-
making authorities, economic sustainability, and future mitigation measures,
among others. In the event of a lahar and other volcanic incidents, the work group
will provide a crucial role in recommending recovery actions and priorities.
C. Concept of Operations
1. While the response phase is underway, the recovery phase begins.
Recovery begins with conducting rapid damage assessments; also called
windshield surveys (see Attachment). These assessments are called
―windshield surveys‖ because they can be done while public safety
responders are enroute to a destination. Due to buried roads, ―drive
through‖ assessments will be impossible, but other critical information can
still be obtained. This information can be called into a 9-1-1 dispatch
center or the jurisdictional emergency operations center (EOC).
Windshield surveys not only visually survey damages; they identify
situations still requiring response operations. Dollar-loss estimates are not
determined at this level of damage assessment. Dollar-loss estimates are
determined in the following, more formal assessments.
2. Individual damage assessments (IDA) provide rough estimates of the type,
extent, and probable costs of damages to life and property. These
assessments begin in the response phase. The lead jurisdictional EOC (for
Pierce County, it is the Pierce County EOC) will be requesting IDA
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 97 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
information from political jurisdictions and special purpose districts within
the first few hours of the onset of the emergency. It provides the initial
dollar-loss estimates. Collecting and compiling these initial estimates
begin the process of proclaiming a local state of emergency. The local
state of emergency is proclaimed by the highest elected official from the
respective impacted jurisdiction. This proclamation is required in order to
proceed to requesting a governor’s proclamation of an emergency. In a
worst-case scenario lahar, which this Plan addresses the approved
governor’s proclamation of emergency will proceed to requesting a
presidential declaration of emergency.
3. Another damage assessment titled the preliminary damage assessment
(PDA). The PDAs are conducted by organized teams comprised of
representatives from local, state, and federal agencies. The PDA verifies
that the impacted communities have indeed suffered a disaster and qualify
the extent of damages. The federal government may require PDAs prior to
declaring a presidential state of emergency.
4. Due to the catastrophic damages expected from a worst-case scenario lahar
a presidential declaration of emergency may be approved without these
verifying damage assessments and qualifying proclamations of emergency.
A presidential declaration of emergency qualifies presidential approval for
use of federal resources, and physical and economic injury loans intended
for the recovery from a disaster.
5. As the response phase begins to wind down and recovery becomes the
priority, Pierce County and other impacted counties will form a recovery
and restoration task force that will address issues and make
recommendations that will aid the regional authorities in making
comprehensive decisions and maximizing post-disaster state and federal
resources. Comprised of experts regarding the volcanic hazard, the Mount
Rainier Work Group will be relied upon to provide guidance and expertise
during the recovery phase. It will provide a forum for more detailed
discussion and idea sharing following an incident.
D. Re-entry / Repopulation / Relocation
1. A worst-case scenario lahar will bury land and structures in areas that have
been built on previous lahars. Land and structures on the perimeter of the
inundation zone may be damaged. Transportation corridors may be
impassable. Utilities may be inoperable. Some schools will be closed. In
general, the impacted area will be uninhabitable for weeks, months, even
decades.
2. Re-entry will occur after appropriate officials, authorities, and subject
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 98 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
matter experts determine the impacted areas to be safe. Destruction may
be to such an extent that repair and rebuilding may be impossible until the
ground and rivers stabilize. Relocation of communities, schools, and
businesses may be the best option considering since repopulation may not
occur for decades.
3. The challenges, variables, and complexities associated in determining re-
entry, repopulation, and relocation issues, additional planning is needed to
identify these and other recovery issues in detail.
E. References
Referenced documents are found on the WEMD website (www.emd.wa/gov)
F. Attachment
―Windshield Survey‖ Form
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 99 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST OR "WINDSHIELD SURVEY" FORM
FACILITY 1. Ensure safety and check situation of personnel
SURVEY 2. Move apparatus to a safe location
3. Make a site survey of facilities, apparatus and equipment
4. Secure station utilities as necessary
5. Report information to headquarters station
6. Headquarters Station - Collect information and relay to Zone Coordinators
7. Zone Coordinators report information to DEM duty officer or Pierce
County EOC (253.798.7470)
AREA 1. As best as possible perform "Windshield Survey" of the jurisdiction
SURVEY 2. Only respond to immediate life threatening emergencies when indicated
3. Report information to headquarters station as soon as possible
4. Headquarters Station - Collect information ad relay to Zone Coordinator
5. Zone Coordinators report information to DEM duty officer or Pierce County
EOC (253.798.7470)
DAMAGE Category 1 - Felt
RATING Category 2 - Windows Broken
FOR Category 3 - Walls damaged or down
EARTH- Category 4 - Building Off Foundation
QUAKES Category 5 - Total Collapse
DAMAGE Category 1 - No Fire
RATING Category 2 - Exterior Damage Only (Habitable)
FOR Category 3 - Exterior / Interior Damage (Habitable)
FIRE Category 4 - Exterior / Interior Damage (Uninhabitable)
Category 5 - Total Loss / Burned to Ground
INFO 1. Status of high life-hazard occupancies and other life hazards
NEEDED 2. Status of major transportation routes
3. Rough tally of damage to structures using Damage Rating scale
4. Other significant information and resource needs
5. Keep good records (ICS 214 Unit Log recommended)
SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS ON-SCENE OR IN BUILDINGS
1. Check for Safe Atmosphere 4. Identify Safety Officers
2. Ensure an Escape Route 5. Establish Check-In
3. Identify Incident Commanders 6. Do Accountability (Passport)
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 100 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
BUILDING MARKINGS
Safe Safe w/ Shoring Unsafe To Entrance HazMat
PRIORITIES - Full Resources
1. Protect Life
2. Protect Property
3. Protect Environment
PRIORITIES - Limited Resources
1. Life Safety
2. Exposure Protection
CIVILIAN CONVERGENT VOLUNTEERS
1. To register for DEM, document name, address, phone and social security
number.
2. Document actual time volunteer was committed to operations.
3. Maintain constant supervision of volunteers.
4. Minimum age is 16.
5. Ensure they are properly equipped for work assignment. Arrange for
equipment if necessary.
6. Organize into groups of 4 - 5 and assign a crew leader. Crew leaders must be
supervised by local fire services, law enforcement or other county personnel.
7. Arrange for feeding if indicated.
8. Document instructions and actions.
COMMUNICATIONS
The High Incident Response Load plan (HIRL) will be activated when incoming 9-1-1 call traffic is
greater than dispatch resources. FireComm and other dispatch centers will triage incoming calls into
"Priority" and "Pending" and forward them on the operational frequency to the individual department
of district command.
Damage assessment information and requests for assistance are sent by individual departments
through the respective Zone Coordinator or directly to the Fire Coordinator in the EOC, if the Zone is
not activated.
Basic Concept for Coordinated Management - Field Command to Department, Department to Zone,
Zone to Pierce County EOC. Fire Coordinator coordinates with Dispatch Centers.
HM
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 101 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
EOC
Dispatch Center
Zone
Zone
Zone
Department
Department
Department
Department
Department
Department
Department
Department
Department
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 102 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Appendices
Appendix A: GLOSSARY
Debris Flow: - A flowing mixture of water and solid debris that moves down a river channel. At
Mount Rainier the USGS uses the term solely for small non-eruptive events related to slope failure,
rainfall or glacier outbursts.
Detection Chute – The area along a river valley where the sequence of sensors is located to detect a
lahar and send a signal to dispatch centers informing them of it.
Freeboard – distance between the water line and the top of the dam.
Target Notification – a ―reverse 9-1-1 system‖
Lahar – Indonesian word for a mudflow from a volcano. At Mount Rainier, the term, lahar, refers to
large flows that extend beyond the boundaries of Mount Rainier National Park.
Lava flow – Mass of hot, partially molten rock that emerges from a vent and moves downslope.
Pyroclastic Flow – Avalanches of hot ash, rock fragments, and gas that move at high speeds down
the sides of a volcano during explosive eruptions or when the edge of a thick, viscous lava flow or
dome breaks apart or collapses.
Tephra – Airborne volcanic ejecta of any size.
Viscosity - a measure of a fluid's resistance to flow. It describes the internal friction of a moving
fluid. A fluid with high viscosity resists flowing while a fluid with low viscosity flows easily.
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 103 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Appendix B: Acronyms
CEMP – Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
CVO – Cascades Volcano Observatory
FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency
GPS – Global Positioning System
ICS – Incident Command System
LESA (Law Enforcement Support Agency) – the primary public safety answering point (9-1-1
dispatch center) for Pierce County.
MOU – Memorandum of Understanding
NIMS – National Incident Management System
PC DEM – Pierce County Department of Emergency Management
TPU – Tacoma Public Utilities
USFS – United States Forest Service
USGS – United States Geological Survey
WEMD – Washington Emergency Management Division
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 104 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Appendix C: 2008 Fact Sheet
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 105 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 106 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 107 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 108 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Appendix D: Volcanic Ash Fall – A ―Hard Rain‖
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 109 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 110 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
Appendix E: Volcanic Ashfall: State Trifold
WORKING DRAFT October 2008
Page 111 of 111
Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan