Lessons learned from the may 2008 to present eruption of volcan Chaitén, Chile: emergency management, evacuation, welfare and recovery.

LEONARD, GRAHAM S.; WILSON, THOMAS M.; STEWART, CAROL; JOHNSTON, DAVID; BAXTER, PETER; ROVERE, ELIZABETH I; VILLAROSA, GUSTAVO

Portland, Estados Unidos de America

Congreso; 2009 Gelogical Society of America Annual Meeting; 2009

Geological Society of America

Approximately 6000 people were evacuated in response to the May 2008 eruption of Volcan Chaitén in Chile’s Southern Volcanic Zone, primarily from Chaitén and Futaleufú townships. Most of these people remain displaced in 2009. This paper will discuss results of interviews with emergency and welfare personnel carried out during our field visit of 23 January-12 February 2009. In the Chaitén area, earthquakes increased in the days prior to 1 May, causing some local residents to self-evacuate. Early on 2 May as ashfall was noticed, residents of isolated rural areas evacuated to Chaitén township. After daybreak, pyroclastic flow concerns led to the evacuation of thousands from the town. With just two gravel road exits, all available ships amassed at Chaitén harbour; private companies organised boat logistics as government agencies coordinated strategically. Residents commented favourably on the calm, orderly, fast evacuation, largely completed by the morning of 3 May. Many residents were expecting to be away only a few days and left with few clothes or personal effects. No pets or possessions were evacuated due to space and time constraints. In Futaleufú, temporary evacuation occurred around 6 May, in response to ash thickness and health concerns and with uncertainty as to duration and intensity of continuing ashfall. Discussion of evacuation on health grounds also occurred in Esquel, farther downwind in Argentina. Provision of welfare soon became critically important as evacuees needed food, accommodation, money, work, communications, and reassurance about home, with these latter two important factors in reducing traumatic impact. Residents were distressed by images of the damage to Chaitén township and pets roaming wild, and media management became important. The wellbeing of pets and farm livestock emerged as a major psychosocial issue. Initially, Chaitén township was out of bounds to the public. Some residents strongly wished to return, and trips to collect possessions were organised. A Supreme Court ruling determined that the exclusion zone was unconstitutional, but resettlement remained officially discouraged. With increasing pyroclastic flow hazard, a site nearby was selected for the relocation of Chaitén town. Ongoing welfare of evacuees has continued to weigh heavily on emergency personnel interviewed.