Volcanic Eruption of Mount Rainier: Disaster Preparedness Plan
Rachel Franklin, CHES
Concordia University of Nebraska
MPH 584: Community Health
Dr. Kimberly Brodie, MPH, CHES
April 19, 2014

Plan, Implement, and Evaluate
Mount Rainier: An Active Volcano
There are over 100 active volcanoes in the United States that have erupted over the last ten millennia. Mount Rainier, located in the Puget Sound region of Washington State, is among the 160 active volcanoes. Its last eruption was about 1,000 years ago. Although it is not a threat to eruption right now, the likelihood exists that it will erupt in the future. And this eruption could be as devastating as the eruption at Mt. St. Helens in 1980, which took the state of Washington, and even the world, by storm. It led to many public health emergencies including the safety of drinking water and the air quality of neighboring towns and states (United States Geological Survey, 2012). Since then, more efforts have been taken to establish some sort of plan in the case of another eruption, quite possibly, a more dangerous one from its neighboring Mount Rainier. In fact, preparedness is one of the newest objectives for the nations’ Healthy People 2020 Objectives. Although there is no current threat of volcanic eruption in the United States, there remains a need to continuously revisit this scenario to ensure that there is a proper plan in place in the case of an eruption.
Facts/Statistics
Mount Rainier creates a beautiful and wondrous backdrop to the towns in the Puget Sound region. There has been speculation of what kind of terrors it could produce if it does erupt in the future.
The leading experts on this scenario and any surrounding it include the United States Geological Survey
(USGS). Those at the USGS feel that volcanic activity will affect those living in its surroundings and anyone flying overhead. The USGS state that it will begin with series of earthquakes in the weeks and months leading up to the final eruption. Then the eruption will start with steam and gas emitting ash from the summit, a lava flow, avalanches of rock and gas known as a pyroclastic flow, and the possibility of lahars, or debris flows, that could reach heavily populated areas (2012). All of this could lead to other

environmental and public health concerns including infectious diseases, respiratory illnesses, and injuries, to name a few.
Plan/Implement the Intervention
Along with the efforts and assistance from the USGS, the Centers for Disease Control, has created a status report of the current nation in regards to volcanic activity. The key to any preparedness response if the cooperation among many fronts to work together for the same goal: the protection of the public’s safety and health. In the case of a volcanic eruption, this involves the partnerships among the USGS, the American Red Cross, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Centers for
Disease Control, and the local states’ health departments. In this case, that includes the Washington
State Department of Health (WSDOH) (CDC, 2012). In fact, many of these organizations have fact sheets and information available via the internet about volcanic activity and what one can do to prepare for a volcanic eruption. Right now, WSDOH is the only state-wide organization I have found that has any sort of information readily available to its citizens on the matter (2008).
The cooperation of all of the named organizations along with many others which could include military intervention from the U.S. National Guard and other non-governmental organizations, is crucial to establishing a plan and implementing the proper response in the case of a volcanic eruption. Since there is no way to prevent this from happening, the focus is on having a solid and realistic preparedness and response plan that can be implemented quickly and accurately in the case of such an emergency.
Evaluation of the Intervention
CDCynergy provides a basic planning logic model that can be used for an emergency situation.
Known as Emergency Risk Communication CDCynergy (ERC CDCynergy), it has outlined the basic steps public health efforts can take before the situation occurs, during the emergency, and after the event.
Being that this is an evidence-based process, it would make best sense to utilize this model as the

primary one for evaluation of the proposed intervention. Ensuring that the intervention follows these basic steps and has a similar flow of process would ensure that the proposed intervention would be realistic and efficient (CDC, 2011).
ERC CDCynergy includes a basic outline that one can use or modify for their own program. The work group should probably modify it as needed to be sure it is tailored for the specific need in question and the specific needs of the community involved or affected, namely Pierce County in Washington
State. It is important to constantly be performing a process evaluation on the specific intervention and action plan, mainly because there is no telling when such an eruption could occur and because it could be years from now, it’s important that the action plan developed not be forgotten or left for too long.
This is to ensure that it is up-to-date and addresses the community’s needs as the population of Pierce
County and neighboring counties is constantly growing and changing, so the work group needs to be kept abreast of what is new within the community and ensure that they are knowledgeable. If it shows they are not, then the work group needs to act to ensure they are ready and knowledgeable, because this is no way to know when such a devastation could occur.
Along with the process evaluation involves utilizing available resources and current, future, and past disaster events to be made aware of what current processes are in place and how the action plan can learn from those processes. Along with that is identifying any gaps, barriers, and/or strengths of these responses so that public health workers and all other stakeholders know what the public and the responders need to work on and what they are doing well, so the time can be utilized properly to ensure that the specific needs be met.

VMOSA
This intervention will be community-oriented, with its sole purpose to prepare communities and individuals for the possibility of a volcanic eruption. How they can effectively evacuate their communities should it be necessary and how they can protect themselves from potential hazards including environmental threats.
Vision
The vision of this specific objective is “Prepared for the Worst.” This indicates that everyone in the community that could be affected by a volcanic eruption of Mount Rainier is prepared and prepared for the worst scenario. This is still in hopes that the worst will not happen.
Mission
The mission of this objective is to prepare all individuals and communities potentially affected by a volcanic eruption of Mount Rainier for evacuation and other precautions that may be necessary as well as educate them on the potential hazards associated with a volcanic eruption.
Objectives
The focus of this objective is community-oriented. The focus is going to be on educating and preparing the community for the potential of a volcanic eruption. One objective would be that by the year 2020, all communities in harm’s way will have an evacuation plan in place. This is first and foremost important that if there are individuals in the potential path of devastation, then they have the means and the information needed to evacuate properly and get out of harm’s way. The second most important aspect of this intervention is to make sure the public is informed of what could happen and what they need to do to protect themselves. Learning from the Mt. St. Helens eruption in 1989, “There was widespread confusion and disagreement about certain common questions that had to be answered

rapidly with valid and consistent responses (Bernstein, Baxter, Falk, Ing, Foster, & Frost, 1986).” The second objective would be that by 2020, all cities, counties, and the state of Washington have a specific plan of action including a system to notify their residents of hazards or evacuation, specific coordination of care among the government and other nongovernmental agencies, and how resources will be made available to the community in need. Thirdly, it is important that the community be notified of any potential or current threats in enough time so that they can evacuate or get to a place of safety in enough time to prevent any health risks or injuries to themselves. The third objective is that by 2020, all counties in Washington State will have a notification system to notify their residents of potential or current threats in less than an hour including setting up how that system will notify its residents. This is concurrent with Healthy People 2020’s objective that by 2020, that it take 59 minutes instead of 66 minutes to designate personnel to report for immediate duty with no advanced notice (Healthy People
2020, 2013).
Strategies and Action Plan
The nature of volcanoes is not well understood. Some lay dormant for centuries or even millennia. Others, are far more active and have eruptions or plate-shifting on a regular basis every several years or so. There is no way of knowing if a large eruption will happen within the next decade or centuries from now. This makes it difficult to ensure that citizens understand the necessity to be prepared, because if there were en eruption, there likely will not be enough time to react in order to prevent issues. This means that there needs to be education for the citizens and emergency responders and a concerted efforts among a large group of agencies, individuals and stakeholders in order to have an efficient plan in place if such a disaster occurs. Along with that, “there is a critical role for personal responsibility as well (USGS, 1999). The primary community that will be involved in these events is
Pierce County. That is the county that Mount Rainier resides and the county most likely to be affected by a potential eruption. There are already a great deal of information readily available to the public for

what they can do to prepare and how they can have a plan in place for themselves and their community.
This is available through Washington State and the Centers for Disease Control’s website.
Unfortunately, most people do not access this information readily, unless there is some concern already in place for a potential eruption. This means that public health workers need to do their job to ensure the public is knowledgeable and properly prepare for what to do should such an eruption take place. In
1999, the United States Geological Survey put in place the “Mt. Rainier Volcanic Hazards Response Plan.
Within this is education for the public and public health workers and a suggested plan for preparation and action. When the work group met to discuss this plan, it was clearly evident that public health workers and governmental and nongovernmental workers were not aware of the dangers Mount Rainier provides and what could possibly happen if an eruption occurred and who all might be affected. I suspect that if another work group met again today, this same situation would occur, perhaps not being as severe as it was in 1999, but there would still be a high need for this education today. I believe that this specific plan put out by the USGS should be visited again and perhaps revised to account for changes in behaviors population, and any new threats that might exist today that did not before (USGS,
1999).
Putting together this plan and revisiting the 1999 one would entail all stakeholders (county and state officials, USGS officials, EPA representatives, department of health and county health department workers, citizens, and emergency personnel including firefighters, paramedics, hospital workers, etc.) working together to establish a specific preparedness and response plan for all counties and residents affected. As the 1999 plan indicated, it should consist of four specific subsections: operations, public education, mitigation, and recovery (USGS). All of these aspects will work off of each other and require that each aspect be efficient and executed properly and on a regular basis. That way, everyone who could be potentially affected be ready and prepared for the worst, no matter if that occurs in the next decade or in the next millennia.

Operations includes developing a chain of command. Who will notify whom first and establishing a first response, how evacuations will be implemented, search and rescue, and any other related components such as landslide and flood response, air quality hazards, etc. This will, by far, be the most important and time consuming aspect as there are a great deal of details involved and this aspect should be revisited annually or biennially with meetings of the same individuals so that its process can regularly be evaluated and updated as necessary. This will also ensure that those stakeholders involved and any new ones that come to the table be informed and reminded of this plan and how it will be implemented in order for it to be carried out efficiently and in a timely manner.
Public education will involve ensuring that residents of all counties and cities that potentially will be affected by an eruption be aware of the dangers and the specific operational plan as well as knowing proper evacuation and how they can prepare themselves and respond responsibly and within a timely manner. When the work group first met for the 1999 plan, it was made known that there is very little knowledge within the public of Mount Rainier, its status as a volcano, and its potential for devastation and what the public can do to prepare themselves for any potential devastation. I would suggest a survey like this be done every 5 to 10 years as an ongoing “pre-test” to determine the public’s knowledge, awareness, and concerns with any potential eruptions. That way the public’s specific needs can be met through education on a regular basis, perhaps annually or biennially so that they will be prepared and knowledgeable should such a devastation take place. This education will involve working within schools and workplaces to disseminate information and have “drills” done on a regular basis, perhaps annually like earthquake drills so that if Mount Rainier suddenly does erupt, they know what to do and how to respond quickly and efficiently to ensure their own safety and the safety of their loved ones. Along with schools and workplaces, fairs, clubs, and other events are a great channel of the dissemination of information and specific presentations for the public to ensure that everyone is being informed. Also, an annual mailing that is eye-catching and informative is another great way to ensure

that all citizens are made aware of the dangers, what they can do, and the specific operational plan in place and how they can access that information should they have questions or concerns or want to be involved in the planning process (USGS, 1999). As with operations, this component should be revisited along with the operational plan on an annual and/or biennial basis so that new information is gathered and addressed as the public’s needs change and/or grow over time.
Mitigation involves limiting development in the nearby areas surrounding Mount Rainier to limit the number of workers and residents in harm’s way of a potential eruption. Many disasters that have occurred in the recent past, most notably the Oso Landslide in March of 2014, bring about concerns about development in potentially dangerous areas, such as hillsides and areas that can be prone to mudslides or flooding. Unfortunately there is a disconnect as to whose responsibility this is, so it is important to work with the state of Washington to ensure that this is a clear cut process and something that is well-understood among the community that way there is no future distrust in the government
(USGS, 1999). As with the other components, mitigation should be revisited on a regular basis to ensure that those responsible are doing their job and not neglecting this delicate and important issue.
Lastly, there is recovery. What is done after a disaster is over is just as important and critical as is preparation. There are a great deal of hazards that come with a volcanic eruption. The potential for flooding and mudslides is present, air quality can be negatively affected with ash and soot being propelled into the air, and water quality. Drinking water within communities can be soiled with ash or volcanic material like lava. All of these aspects in addition to victim recovery, search and rescue, and rebuilding of towns require a concerted effort and one that must be done with the utmost care and respect for those affected. This is a terrible time for many people as some may lose their houses, lives, loved ones, or other resources and it is important to recognize the mental, physical, and spiritual aspects of the human condition. It is important to take note of these processes in past events such as the Oso
Landslide, the Mt. St. Helens eruption, and other disasters, to ensure that gaps are addressed and

strengths are focused on so that future recovery efforts be efficient and executed properly and with the utmost of care (USGS, 1999).

Innovation
The advantage of this specific intervention is that it combines learning from past experience with new innovation such as the ERC CDCynergy logic model for preparedness and evaluation of an intervention. In addition, it utilizes best practices, existing action plans such as the 1999 plan from the
USGS, and new technology and interventions so that it does not entail a completely new initiative which is very time and resource consuming, but instead is a more laidback approach in which most of the hard work is already done. Now it is just a matter of going through what is already available and improving it or making it more relevant for today’s communities that way time and money can be spared so that nobody is having to work harder than necessary.
The biggest challenge with this type of intervention is that it is often looked at by not just public health workers but by state and county officials and even the public as being not important, because very few people suspect that Mount Rainier will even erupt anytime soon. However, lessons can be learned from situations such as the eruption of Mt. St. Helens and it is integral that we as a society learn from this experience and be sure that a plan be in place and that all stakeholders be involved in the process to establish trust and understanding and that the public be informed so that their own personal responsibility is understood and well-explained to them. This is the only way to ensure that the action plan and intervention established will be efficient and be executed in a timely manner, so that the public can be kept safe and protected and that efforts can instead be focused on rebuilding from such a disaster, rather than having to recover victims.

References
Bernstein, R.S., Baxter, P.J., Falk, H., Ing, R., Foster, L., & Frost, F. (1986). Immediate public health concerns and actions in volcanic eruptions: Lessons from the Mount St. Helens Eruptions, May
18 – October 18, 1980. American Journal of Public Health: Vol. 86 (25-38). Retrieved March 9,
2014 from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1651693/pdf/amjph00276-0032.pdf
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2011). ERC CDCynergy. Retrieved March 9, 2014, from http://www.orau.gov/cdcynergy/erc/default.htm
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2012). Key Facts about Volcanic Eruptions. Retrieved
March 9, 2014, from http://emergency.cdc.gov/disasters/volcanoes/facts.asp
Environmental Protection Agency (2013). Volcanoes. Retrieved April 20, 2014 from http://www.epa.gov/naturaldisasters/volcanoes.html
Glik, G.C. (2007). Risk Communication for Public Health Emergencies. Annual Review of Public Health.
Retrieved March 9, 2014 from http://www.asph.org/userfiles/Competencies-
Resources/37_GlikRC.pdf
Healthy People 2020 (2013). Preparedness. Retrieved April 19, 2014 from http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/objectiveslist.aspx?topicId=34
McKenzie, J.F., Pinger, R.R., & Kotecki, J. (2012). An Introduction to Community Health. Sudbury, MA:
Jones and Bartlett Learning.
United States Geological Survey (1999). Mt Rainier Volcanic Hazards Response Plan. Retrieved March 9,
2014 from http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vsc/file_mngr/file-
56/mtrainier_volcanic_hazards_response_plan.pdf

United States Geological Survey (2012). Volcano Hazards Program: Mount Rainier. Retrieved March 9,
2014 from http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/volcanoes/mount_rainier/mount_rainier_geo_hist_78.html
Washington State Department of Health (2008). Volcanoes. Retrieved March 9, 2014 from http://www.doh.wa.gov/Emergencies/EmergencyPreparednessandResponse/Factsheets/Volcan oes.aspx