Hi Michael - We have discussed RED/WATCH instead of RED/WARNING, for previous volcanic eruptions (I don't think its come up at Bogoslof). However, in the case of Bogoslof, there are significant proximal marine hazards (such as base surges), so we use WARNING. Any monitoring installed at Bogoslof would be destroyed by the next explosion. I know the field techs have been discussing options. One of my wishes is for a web cam on the north shore of Unalaska. Thanks, Cheryl -------- Michael Firth wrote: Hi, just a random curiosity: I noticed that in the Status Report for Bogoslof that was just released it mentioned that no ash fall was expected on communities. I was wondering why the RED/WATCH alert isn't used when its definition seems to match this case? Is it related to the fact that Bogoslof is not monitored on the ground? I know that particular alert has never been put into use by any of the observatories to date (and RED/WARNING has only been used by you since the "new" system was put in place), so what exactly would trigger the application of a RED/WATCH instead of RED/WARNING? I ask because it seems like it would be an impractical alert anyway, at least in most cases. On a separate note, is it practical for monitoring to ever be installed at Bogoslof, maybe even on Fire Island, or is it pointless? -- Cheryl Cameron Geologist, Alaska Volcano Observatory Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys voice: 907-451-5012 fax: 907-451-5050