New Lava Zone Map

[MyManao]

From Insurance Newsnet @ https://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/re...-zones-map which is a repost from one of our local rags..

Headline: Resolution calls for updated lava zones map

And begins.. 

A state senator from Puna has penned a resolution urging the U.S. Geological Survey to update its lava-flow hazard map of Hawaii Island.

Senate Resolution 3, authored by Sen. Joy San Buenaventura, also requests that USGS, the parent agency of the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory, conduct topographical surveys, particularly within lava-flow hazard zones 1 and 2..

And while that sounds fun further on it says..

"Ken Hon, HVO's scientist-in-charge, said Friday he hadn't seen or heard about the resolution, but said HVO scientists are already at work updating the map and have been "for about a year.""

I just think it's cool they're gonna make a new map. Not that anything is going to change. It can't. The Zone's boundaries are dictated by physical facts that haven't changed. But still, the current map was published so long ago.. with a new one maybe local government will be encouraged to be more responsible for the management of the lands involved. But no matter, the whole process, from all the reactions to the map itself, to state and county's response, should be a riot. Any bets on whether anything will come of it.. at all?

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

The Zone's boundaries are dictated by physical facts that haven't changed. 

Recent flows have raised elevations.
Bulldozing properties have leveled ground.
Whether either are enough to change lava zone boundaries remains to be seen, but it might impact blue line maps, if they are also updated.

[kalianna]

HVO has repeatedly stressed that lava zone maps are not for risk assessment and havenʻt changed much. Itʻs the blue line maps that have changed. With 80ʻ of new lava, a fissure may decide to open somewhere else and take a different route down. Could be that Leilani Estates is one of the safer areas to be.

[terracore]

Sometimes you have to be careful for what you wish for. Imagine if their new map expanded LZ2 into parts of LZ3, and added parts of LZ2 into LZ1.

But as Kalianna already pointed out, the USGS has repeatedly denied any suggestion that their maps have anything to do with risk assessment.

[MyManao]

Sometimes you have to be careful for what you wish for..

As one who has been, for years, proposing the use of a new LZHM as a means by which local gov could be pressured into taking greater responsibility for developing an intergraded plan for managing our relationship with our active volcanoes, I'm tickled pink.. happy as pie..

Because, you see, to me the point is to prevent us from having 'disasters'

In other words, get developed property out of the way before it is inundated.. so we can have awe inspiring eruptions.. rather than the BS foisted upon us by the likes of the HPIA. Seriously, what happened in 2018 was ridiculous.. completely unavoidable..

As to Mr Edge's points..

I don’t think the recent eruption in Lower Puna changes anything. That pile of rock is impressive, but it’s still piled up in an area where eruptions can come right out of the ground. And will, for sure do it over and over again. Any one flow can created barriers for the next, but ultimately they become engulfed over and over.  

During the Puu Oo eruption there were, in secession, 8 camps built out there to shelter volcanologists while documenting the eruption. Eight camps that over time were built further and further away from the vent.. and the eighth was over 4 miles away from the first.. That vent swallowed the entire landscape..

The Lava Flow Hazards Map, at least the one currently in publication, only defines very few parameters..

LZ1 - Where, based on historical data, we can assume eruptions will occur. With some area provided for the first surge of lava from an event.
LZ2 - Where, based on historical data, we can assume lava flows from LZ1 will flow in the short term during an eruption.
LZ3 - Where, based on historical data, we can assume lava flows will flow during long eruptions

None of that has changed.

If one wanted a lot by lot rating of exposure they’d have to find it somewhere else than the USGS. Maybe at the tables in Vegas.. or a ouija board.. Or ask an insurance agent.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

I don’t think the recent eruption in Lower Puna changes anything.

Then I would ask, why update the maps?

[MyManao]

why update the maps?

Well, Edge, the way I see it..

The last time the LZHM was published (1992) nobody, officially, gave it more than a nod. Of course the real estate guys had a fit, and needed some calming down, but otherwise it was just a pamphlet and a few rules.. little laws.. were enacted but otherwise nobody paid it much attention. Also, keep in mind, back then maps weren’t intergraded, there weren’t computers as we have them now, no internet, and no common set of maps used by all divisions of government. As such, HVO’s little map wasn’t but a passing fad of sorts.

And, do keep in mind, when HVO last published the LZHM the state was more interested in covering up their complicity in creating the mess we’re in, ie they had just created HPIA, than defining how best to live with our active volcanoes.

And now, with a new edition made today with the tools available the USGS can publish the same data, refined, and provide it in an integrated format, whereby all divisions of government will have it to incorporate in their own considerations. And, as such it gives politicians a fresh opportunity to consider how they might refine their policies to be more appropriate to the hazards defined by the map.

So, even without appreciable changes to the boundaries themselves, I think a new map could have far reaching effects.. and look forward to watching this all unfold..

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

Also, keep in mind, back then maps weren’t intergraded

If the old maps are already used to define lava zones, and you say lava zones have not changed and will not be identified on a lot by lot basis (as you said earlier), what will computer integration accomplish?  Especially if the publishers of the data maps say it shouldn’t be used to identify risk?  

The ability for government and private entities to more easily access risk probabilities when they are told the maps do not define risk probabilities seems more like an easily available forbidden fruit than an advantage, an improvement, don’t you think?