HomeMy WebLinkAboutres2005-023exhOM CO
Whatcorn County
Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan
Prepared by:
Whatcom County Division of Emergency Management & Summit GIS
Submitted: July, 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction..................................................................................................... ..............................1
WhatcomCounty Background ........................................................................ ..............................3
Section 1: Hazard Summaries ....................................................................... ..............................7
Earthquakes........................................................................................ ..............................8
Flooding............................................................................................. .............................13
GeologicHazards ............................................................................... .............................25
Tsunamis.......................................................................................... ............................... 34
Volcanoes.......................................................................................... .............................38
WildlandFire ...................................................................................... .............................44
Section 2: Jurisdiction Overview ................................................................... .............................51
Cityof Bellingham .............................................................................. .............................55
Cityof Blaine ...................................................................................... .............................66
Cityof Everson ................................................................................... .............................78
Cityof Ferndale .................................................................................. .............................89
Cityof Lynden .................................................... ............................... ............................102
Cityof Nooksack ................................................ ............................... ............................112
Portof Bellingham .............................................. ............................... ............................120
Cityof Sumas ..................................................... ............................... ............................124
WhatcomCounty ................................................ ............................... ............................134
PlanMaintenance .............................................. ............................... ............................146
Section 3: Appendices
Appendix A: CFR 201.6 ................................................................. ...............................
A -1
Appendix B: Plan Development Process ....................................... ...............................
B -1
Appendix C: Participating Agencies ............................................... ...............................
C -1
AppendixD: List of Acronyms ........................................................ ...............................
D -1
Appendix E: Whatcom County RAMS Assessment (Wildland -Fire Related) ................
E -1
SPECIAL THANKS & ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special thanks to:
Paula J. Cooper, P.E. — River & Flood Manager, Whatcom County Public Works
Mike Pelela — GIS Specialist II, Whatcom County Planning & Development Services
Marc Titus — Fire Prevention Coordinator, Department of Natural Resources, NW Region
Tim Walsh — Environmental Section Chief Geologist, Department of Natural Resources
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Maps:
Summit GIS developed all of the maps included in this plan, unless indicated otherwise.
Summit GIS used the best information publicly available in the creation of these maps, and
they are provided "as is." Summit GIS cannot accept any responsibility for any inaccuracies,
errors, or omissions and, therefore, there are no warranties that accompany these products
(maps).
The datasets used in the maps in this plan were from the following sources:
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) — Hydro information, Fire Hazard and History data
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) — Floodplain Boundaries
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) — Tsunami Grids
US Geological Society (USGS) — Volcano Lahar and Blast Zone Boundaries
Whatcom County Planning & Development Services — City Limits, County Boundaries,
Geologic Hazards Railroads, Roads
Funding Acknowledgements:
Whatcom County contracted with Summit GIS to develop the Whatcom County Natural
Hazards Mitigation Plan. Funding for this project was made possible through a Federal
Emergency Management Agency Grant.
THIS PLAN IS ADOPTED BY:
Enti Signer Date Adopted Ordinance
INTRODUCTION
In 2004 Whatcom County's Emergency Management Division undertook the process of writing a
multi - jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan to identify natural hazards present in the county and
protect the citizens and resources living there. This process was instigated by the Code of
Federal Regulation (CFR) 201.6 (see Appendix A), enacted in October, 2002. The purpose of
the plan is to reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters and to enable
mitigation measures to be implemented during immediate recovery from a disaster.
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hazard mitigation planning
is an important aspect of a successful mitigation program. States and communities use the
hazard mitigation planning process to set short- and long -range mitigation goals and objectives.
Hazard mitigation planning is a collaborative process in which hazards affecting the community
are identified, vulnerability to the hazards is assessed, and a consensus is reached on how to
minimize or eliminate the effects of these hazards. In recognition of the importance of planning,
States with an approved enhanced State Mitigation Plan in effect at the time of disaster
declaration will be eligible to receive funds allocated by the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMGP).
Mitigation is the cornerstone of emergency management. It's the ongoing effort to lessen the
impacts disasters can have on people's lives and property through damage prevention and flood
insurance. Through measures such as building safely within the floodplain or removing homes
altogether; engineering buildings and infrastructures to withstand earthquakes: and creating and
enforcing effective building codes to protect property from floods, hurricanes and other natural
hazards, the impact on lives and communities is lessened.
The initial step of creating this plan was to identify and analyze the natural hazards present and
hazardous to Whatcom County. Six hazards were identified in this process: earthquakes,
floods, geologic hazards, tsunamis, volcanoes, and wildland fires.
The second step was to invite and involve the major jurisdictions to participate in compiling
information for the plan. The nine recognized jurisdictions of Whatcom County assisted in the
creation of this plan:
1.
Bellingham
6.
Nooksack
2.
Blaine
7.
Port of Bellingham
3.
Everson
8.
Sumas
4.
Ferndale
9.
Whatcom County
5.
Lynden
In addition to assisting in the creation of the plan, each jurisdiction committed to consider it for
adoption upon completion. Their assistance involved compiling a list of critical facilities and
resources they consider priority facilities in the event of a natural hazard, as well as providing
information when requested. Smaller organizations — water districts, cemetery districts, diking
districts, fire departments, water districts — were also eligible to participate in the planning
process. Refer to Appendix B for a complete list of the participating agencies.
Purpose:
Each chapter of the mitigation plan provides information and resources to assist people in
understanding the county and the hazard - related issues facing citizens, businesses, and the
environment. Combined, the chapters of the plan work together to identify existing and potential
hazards and create a document that guides the mission to reduce risk and prevent loss from
future natural hazard events. The structure of the plan allows people to use a section, whether
hazard- or jurisdiction- specific, of interest to them. It also allows county government to review
and update sections when new data becomes available. Decision - makers can allocate funding
and staff resources to selected pieces in need of review, thereby avoiding a full update, which
can be costly and time - consuming. New data can be easily incorporated, resulting in a plan that
will remain current and relevant to Whatcom County.
The mitigation goals and strategies for this Whatcom County plan are:
1. Protect life during and after the occurrence of disasters from identified hazards
2. Reduce property damage
3. Increase public awareness
4. Protect natural resources and the environment
5. Preserve or restore natural mitigation values, such as flood plains
6. Support regional efforts relating to emergency preparedness, disaster response, and
hazard mitigation
Organization
The mitigation plan is organized into three sections. Section I details the six hazards present in
Whatcom County. Section II contains infrastructure and hazard information for each of the nine
jurisdictions that participated in the plan. Section III is comprised of appendices.
Section 1: Hazard - Specific Information
The first section contains chapters specific to the natural hazards present in Whatcom County.
These chapters are broken down into:
1. Hazard - Related Definitions
2. Background Information
3. History
4. Vulnerability Assessment
5. Mitigation Strategies
6. Maps
Section 2: Jurisdiction - Specific Information
The second section contains jurisdiction- specific chapters, with the following information:
1. Contact Information
2. Hazards Present to the Jurisdiction
3. Critical Facility List
4. Infrastructure
5. Urban Growth Areas (growth trends)
6. Ranked Critical Facilities
7. Mitigation Strategy & Action Plans
This section ends with a description of how the Plan will be maintained in the future.
Section 3: Appendices
A. Language of the Code of Federal Regulations 201.6
B. Plan Development Process
C. Participating Agencies
D. List of Acronyms
E. Whatcom County RAMS Assessment (wildland -fire related)
The Whatcom County Hazard Mitigation plan is an evolving document that will eventually
include additional information and discussions of additional natural hazard studies, man -made
hazards such as terrorism, and general updates as they become available.
f►a
WHATCOM COUNTY BACKGROUND
Whatcom County, the northwestern most county of Washington State, has an area of 2,120
square miles. It is bordered to the north by Canada, to the west by the Strait of Georgia, a
deep -water ship transit, and another waterway called the Rosario Strait. The eastern half of the
county is composed of the North Cascades Mountain range, which occupies roughly two - thirds
of the county. No Whatcom County roads, originating in the western half of the county, connect
to the eastern half. Towns in eastern Whatcom County can only be accessed by driving over 60
miles through the southern adjacent Skagit County. According to a 2003 Census Bureau
estimate, the population of Whatcom County was 176,571. Only 4.5% of the land area is
incorporated, while the majority is unincorporated. A unique characteristic of Whatcom County
is that not all of its populated areas are contiguous with the mainland County, including Point
Roberts and Lummi Island.
An understanding of the geography, weather, industries and income, and unique characteristics
of the county is critical to mitigate the natural hazard identified in this plan.
CLIMATE
Annual precipitation varies greatly, depending on elevation:
Lowlands: rainfall varies from 30 -40 inches
• East toward the Cascade Mountains: precipitation increases
• Mount Baker Summit: 140 inches, adding to the snow pack and glaciers, year round.
GEOGRAPHY
• Lowlands
West of Cascade Foothills: Part of the huge Fraser / Nooksack river -delta system.
This system runs north from the Chuckanut Hills to the mouth of the Fraser, where
Vancouver, British Columbia is sited. [To the south (beyond the Chuckanut Hills, in
Skagit County) is the delta of another great river, the Skagit. This river delta is
important to Whatcom County because of its related flood, earthquake, and volcano
hazards.]
• Mount Baker Foothill Communities
Scattered in the rural area along the Valley Highway (Highway 9) and up through the
foothills along the Mount Baker Highway, crossing all three forks of the Nooksack
River, are the communities of Van Zandt, Acme, Wickersham, Welcome, Maple
Falls, Glacier, and Kendall.
• Nooksack River
This river is 96 miles in length and is made up of three forks (North, Middle, and
South). Its watershed basin includes most of the county's western lands. The river
corridor links the various landscapes of Whatcom County.
• Coast and Islands
There are 134 miles of seacoast in Whatcom County: 51 % is steep, eroding sea
bluff (such as the mountain view coast at Birch Point.), 16% is rocky shoreline, which
includes parts of Lummi Island, 17% is accreting (building up or extending shoreline),
and 5% estuarine shore.
3
Lakes
There are 245 lakes In Whatcom County: 4 large reservoirs inside the Federal Lands
(Ross, Diablo, Gorge, Baker) and 2 large natural lakes in the Chuckanut region
(Lake Whatcom, Samish).
Seven lakes are over 100 acres in size:
1. Whatcom (5,000 acres)
2. Samish (825 acres)
3. Terrell (440 acres)
4. Silver (185 acres)
5. Padden (150 acres)
6. Wiser (125 acres)
7. Judson (112 acres)
The North Cascades Mountains
Roughly two - thirds of Whatcom County is federally protected land contained in the
North Cascades, which is controlled by the U. S. Forest Service and the National
Park Service. The Cascades extend from Canada's Fraser River south beyond
Oregon. They shape the climate and vegetation over much of the Pacific Northwest.
1. The Mount Baker / Snoqualmie National Forest lies east of the Foothills and
west of the "North Unit" of North Cascades National Park.
2. The North Cascades Park is located adjacent to the east portion of the Mount
Baker/ Snoqualmie National Forest.
3. East of the National Park is the Pasayten Wilderness, administered through
the Okanogan National Forest. This is a roadless area.
There are about 350,000 acres of National Forest Lands in Whatcom County. Three
roads connect western Whatcom County with the Federal lands:
1. Mount Baker Highway (Highway 542) provides access to the Mount Baker
Recreation Area.
2. Middle Fork Road (secondary, more primitive entrance) leading to hiking and
camping region on south and west sides of Mount Baker, including the Twin
Sisters area.
3. Highway 20 (through Skagit County) is the principal access to Baker Lake, as
well as to North Cascades National Park.
Two parts of the North Cascades National Park Complex are located in Whatcom
County:
1. The North Unit (Picket Range) — roadless, primitive, high country.
2. Ross Lake National Recreation area — Seattle City Light with three dams on
the Skagit River.
TRANSPORTATION
Major Roads
• Interstate 5, which connects Mexico to Canada, runs north and south through Whatcom
County.
• Highway 9 traverses north and south crossing the south and north forks of the Nooksack
River.
• Mount Baker Highway (542), from Bellingham, meets Highway 9 and winds east to Mount
Baker.
II
Marinas
• Bellingham — Squalicum Harbor is the second largest marina in Puget Sound. Over 1,800
pleasure, commercial boats, and fishing fleets are moored here.
• Blaine — Drayton Harbor: pleasure and fishing fleet.
• Point Roberts — Accessed by water from Strait of Georgia or by land through Canada.
• Private Marinas along Bellingham Bay, Lummi Island, Gooseberry Point, Birch Bay, Eliza
Island, Fairhaven.
Rail
• Amtrak: Bellingham is on routes from Seattle and Vancouver, Canada.
• Rail Corridors from Sumas to Everson to Lynden.
• From Whatcom County along Chuckanut Bay to Bellingham
• Along the 1 -5 rail corridor to Blaine and northwest to Cherry Point vicinity.
• Cherry Point to Custer and link with 1 -5 rail corridor.
Vessel Traffic Lanes
• Oil Tankers
• Ships
• Barges
• Tug Boats
• Commercial Fishing Vessels
• Recreation Boats
• Coast Guard Vessels
Ferry Crossings
• Alaska Marine Highway System Ferry departs from Bellingham to Alaska.
• The Whatcom County Ferry crosses Hales Pass from Gooseberry Point to Lummi Island.
(8- minute transit time).
• Plover Ferry crosses from Blaine to Semiahmoo Spit. This ferry is open seasonally on the
weekends from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
• Commercial sight- seeing ferries to San Juan Islands and Victoria, Canada depart from the
Bellingham Ferry Terminal.
• Canadian Ferries cross northwestern Whatcom County waterways: Tsawwassen through
Strait of Georgia, to Channel Islands, to Sidney on Vancouver Island, British Columbia.
Rivers
• Nooksack River, used by canoes, kayaks, small fishing boats, and for float trips.
AIR TRANSPORTATI
• Bellingham International Airport: Commercial jets use a 6,700 -foot runway.
• Blaine Municipal Airport: 2,100 -foot runway.
• Lynden Municipal Airport: 2,450 -foot runway.
• Vancouver International Airport, an "air hub" with worldwide nonstop flights, is 45 miles
north in Vancouver, Canada.
• Sea -Tac International Airport is 90 miles south in Seattle, Washington.
LAND TRANSPORTATION
• Whatcom Transportation Authority (WTA)
5
• Greyhound Bus
• Private Charters / Shuttles
• Taxis
• Car Rentals
SERVICES
Hospital
• Two locations: St. Joseph's Hospital and the Outpatient Center are the two hospitals in
Whatcom County, both located in Bellingham.
Local Media
• One local television station: Channel 12, Bellingham. Several companies provide
television cable services.
• Telephone Companies:
1. Qwest Communications in Bellingham
2. Whidbey Telephone Company in Point Roberts
3. Verizon Northwest in the remainder of Whatcom County
• Ten radio stations: AM / FM
• Emergency Alert System Station: KGMI (790 AM)
• One daily newspaper
• Seven weekly newspapers
• Two monthly publications
School Districts: Public Education, Kindergarten through 12th grade
• 34 Elementary Schools
• 11 Middle Schools
• 9 High Schools
• Numerous Private Schools
Colleges / Universities
• Bellingham Technical College
• City University
• Northwest Indian College
• Western Washington University
• Whatcom Community College
Utilities
• Electricity: Puget sound Energy, Public Utility District (PUD) #1, Blaine PUD, Sumas PUD,
Bonneville Power (to direct - service customers)
• Gas: Cascade Natural Gas, Williams Natural Gas Pipeline, Arco Natural Gas Pipeline,
Olympic Pipeline
• Water: Approximately 350 public water systems in Whatcom County. Bellingham,
Lynden, Blaine, Glacier, Nooksack, and Sumas have their own water districts. Some
smaller communities rely on private wells and lakes.
• Cogeneration Plants: Three cogeneration plants are located in Whatcom County: Sumas
Cogeneration Company LP in Sumas; Tenaska Cogeneration Plant in Ferndale; Encogen
Cogeneration Plant in Bellingham.
0
HAZARD SUMMARIES
Six hazards were identified to be risks to the county, specifically hazardous to the populated
western areas of Whatcom County:
1. Earthquakes
2. Floods
3.
Geologic Hazards
4.
Tsunamis
5.
Volcanoes
6.
Wildland Fires
The following section describe these six hazards and their potential threats to Whatcom County.
Much of the information collected in these hazard summaries came from local experts working
in hazard assessment or hazard mitigation for a specific hazard. The purpose of these
summaries is to describe the hazards, convey the areas at potential risk of each hazard, and
describe mitigation measures, implemented in the past or to be implemented in the future, to
control the hazards effects of natural disasters in Whatcom County.
Each hazard chapter is organized into sections:
1. Hazard - Related Definitions
2. Background Information — General description of the hazard relevant to Whatcom
County and Washington State.
3. History — Historical background on the presence of the hazard in Whatcom County.
Much of this information was obtained from agencies such as FEMA, DNR, and
USGS.
4. Vulnerability Assessment — Descriptions of specific areas within the county at risk for
each hazard, when this information was available.
5. Mitigation Strategies — Recommended mitigation strategies to lessen the dangers
posed by each hazard.
6. Maps — Areas at risk for each hazard. Whatcom County's Planning and Development
Services provided all the hazard GIS datasets, except for the Wildland Fire data,
which came from DNR's North Region. (An earthquake map is not provided
because an earthquake event puts all areas of Whatcom County at risk.)
rl
EARTHQUAKES
DEFINITIONS:
Earthquake — a term used to describe both a sudden slip on a fault, and the resulting ground
shaking and radiated seismic energy caused by the slip, or by volcanic or magmatic
activity, or other sudden stress changes in the Earth.
Crust — the outermost major layer of the Earth, ranging from about 10 -65 km in thickness
worldwide. The uppermost 15 -35 km of crust is brittle enough to produce earthquakes.
Fault — a fracture along which the blocks of crust on either side have moved relative to one
another, parallel to the fracture.
Liquefaction — the phenomenon in which loosely packed, water - logged sediments lose their
strength in response to strong shaking, causing major damage during earthquakes.
Lithosphere — the outer solid part of the earth, including the crust and uppermost mantle. The
lithosphere is about 100 km thick, although its thickness is dependent on age. The
lithosphere below the crust is brittle enough at some locations to produce earthquakes by
faulting, such as within a subducted oceanic plate.
Subduction Zone — the place where two lithospheric plates come together, one riding over the
other. The process of subduction is where the oceanic lithosphere collides with and
descends beneath the continental lithosphere.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
For hundreds of millions of years, the forces of plate tectonics have shaped the Earth as the
huge plates that form the Earth's surface slowly move over, under, and past each other.
Sometimes the movement is gradual. At other times, the plates
are locked together, unable to release the accumulating energy.
This energy can also be generated by a sudden dislocation of
segments of the crust, by a volcanic eruption, or even by man-
made explosions. When the accumulated energy grows strong
enough, the plates break free, resulting in an earthquake. If the
earthquake occurs in a populated area, it may cause deaths,
injuries and extensive property damage. Most destructive
quakes, however, are caused by natural dislocations of the crust.
The crust may first bend and then, when the stress exceeds the
strength of the rocks, break and "snap" to a new position.
Geologists have found earthquakes tend to occur along faults,
which reflect zones of weakness in the Earth's crust. Even if a
fault zone has recently experienced an earthquake, however,
there is no guarantee all stress has been relieved. Another
earthquake could still occur. Furthermore, relieving stress along
one part of the fault may increase stress in another part.
The Juan de Fuca Plate is an ocean tectonic plate that is colliding
with the North American Continental Plate near the western coast of Washington State in a
subduction zone called the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ). The CSZ extends from southern
British Columbia to northern California. One of the results of the colliding forces at the CSZ is
the Cascade Mountain Range; another, of more concern, is earthquakes.
n
Subduction zone earthquakes can be
very powerful and of long duration.
Recent geologic work along the Oregon
and Washington coasts, and tidal wave
data from Japan, indicate very large
magnitude quakes occur, on average,
every 550 years along the CSZ. The
last major subduction quake to occur on
the Washington Coast took place in
1700. Several fault zones have been
identified in Western Washington,
including the MacCaulay Creek Thrust
Fault near Deming.
(Photo Courtesy of USGS Earthquake Hazards Program)
According to the USGS, Washington f �_
ranks 5t" in the nation of states at risk of
earthquakes with a magnitude 3.5 or greater. Since 1974, earthquakes occurring in Washington
have accounted for 2.0% (424 earthquakes) of all the nation's earthquakes. According to a
FEMA study, however, Washington ranks second in the nation (after California) susceptible to
earthquake losses.
HISTORY:
Each year more than 1,000 earthquakes are recorded in Washington. Fifteen to 20 of these
cause ground shaking strong enough to be felt. According to the USGS, recent geologic
findings indicate that earthquakes generated within the CSZ pose a significant hazard to urban
areas of the Pacific Northwest. Evidence gleaned from syntheses of global subduction -zone
attributes, as well as from local tsunami deposits, suggest that major earthquakes rocked the
Pacific Northwest perhaps as recently as 300 years ago.
The last intense earthquake to cause widespread damage in Washington occurred in 1965.
Since that time the state's population has increased by nearly 50 percent. Washington
residents have largely forgotten the 1965 earthquake, and this has contributed to a general lack
of public awareness of the state's earthquake hazards. Some scientists suggest that even larger
earthquakes have occurred every several hundred or thousand years in the Pacific Northwest.
A more recent earthquake, although less severe than the one in 1965, occurred in 2001. This
quake was centered farther south than Whatcom County, yet was still felt in and caused
damage in the area. Table 1 lists the Pacific Northwest's largest earthquakes over the last 150
years.
9
Date
Depth
Magnitude
Approximate Location
December 1872
Shallow
7.3 Richter
North Cascades
October 1877
Shallow
5.3 Richter
Portland, OR
December 1880
?
Puget Sound
November 1891
?
Puget Sound
March 1893
Shallow
4.7 Richter
SE Washington
January 1896
5.7 Richter
Puget Sound
March 1904
5.3 Richter
Olympic Peninsula, Eastside
January 1909
Deep
6.0 Richter
Puget Sound
August 1915
5.6 Richter
North Cascades
December 1918
7.0 Richter
Vancouver Island
January 1920
5.5 Richter
Puget Sound
July 1932
Shallow
5.2 Richter
Central Cascades
July 1936
Shallow
6.4 Richter
SE Washington
November 1939
Deep
6.2 Richter
Puget Sound
April 1945
5.9 Richter
Central Cascades
February 1946
6.4 Richter
Puget Sound
June 1946
Deep
7.4 Richter
Vancouver Island
April 1949
54 km
7.1 Richter
Puget Sound
August 1949
8.1 Richter
Queen Charlotte, BC
August 1959
35 km
5.5 Richter
North Cascades, Eastside
November 1962
18 km
5.3 Richter
Portland, Oregon
April 1965
63 km
6.5 Richter
Puget Sound
February 1981
7 km
5.8 Richter
South Cascades
Table 1 — Largest Known Earthquakes Felt in Washington
(Information obtained from the Pacific Northwest Seismograph Network)
Most of Washington's earthquakes occur within the Puget Sound region, between Olympia and
the Canadian border, along the western side of the Cascade Mountains, and along the
Washington- Oregon border. This is not to say distant earthquakes do not affect Washington,
such as the two Vancouver Island quakes listed in Table 1 that were felt in Washington.
The damage caused by earthquakes is not limited to the obvious, such as architectural failure in
buildings due to the heavy swaying created from an earthquake. Liquefaction is another
significant hazard that sometimes results from an earthquake, resulting in ground failure.
Liquefaction and related phenomena have been responsible for tremendous amounts of
damage in earthquakes around the world.
Liquefaction occurs in saturated soils, when the spaces between individual soil particles are
completely filled with water. The shaking from an earthquake causes the water pressure within
the soil to increase to the point where the soil particles readily move with respect to each other.
Once liquefaction has begun in an area, such as under a building, it would act similar to a tub of
rocking gelatin.
10
Population -dense areas in Whatcom County could be significantly impacted by future
earthquakes and their related hazards, such as liquefaction. The nature and extent of
earthquake risk in Washington is determined by a variety of factors, such as estimating the level
of expected ground shaking and identifying sites susceptible to ground failures and tsunamis.
Combining such hazard information with information concerning the distribution of population,
types of building construction, and technological hazards in the state allows for assessing
earthquake. For this plan, all the identified critical facilities were classified as affected by
earthquakes since all of Whatcom County is at risk. Future revisions to the plan will include
each critical facility's building structure and more accurate assessments of vulnerability to
earthquake danger.
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT:
For all intents and purposes, the entire population of Whatcom County is vulnerable to the
effects and impacts of an earthquake. An earthquake event in urban areas would involve
especially high risk levels. Tall structures built on seismically- sensitive soils and fill are
particularly at risk, due to the potential of liquefaction. The earthquake risk in Bellingham is
exaggerated in areas of artificial fill where mud pumped out of Bellingham Bay has never
compacted.
Possible types of damage from an earthquake may include, but will likely not be limited to:
• Cracking and /or structural failure of foundations, chimneys, decorative cornices,
parapet walls, and cantilevered porches or roofs.
• Wall failure in older buildings of non - reinforced masonry construction.
• Damage to waterfront buildings and piers built on pilings and artificial fill.
• Structural damage or failure of bridges.
• Damage to streets and roads.
• Damage to railways and airport facilities.
• Broken water lines and natural gas lines.
• Power and communication failures due to damage of electrical and telephone
distribution systems.
Specific examples of possible earthquake effects in Whatcom County include:
Landslides could impact various locations throughout the county: Chuckanut Mountain,
Bellingham residential areas on steep slopes, Sudden Valley, upper Baker Highway, part
of Highway 9, unstable bluffs on Lummi Island, Point Roberts, Western Washington
University, and Sumas Mountain.
Highways
• Bridges are the most vulnerable component of highway systems, such as the 1 -5
overpasses.
• Bridge foundations in liquefiable soils can move, allowing spans they support to slide
off. Areas at significant risk are Roeder Avenue bridges near Georgia Pacific and
over Whatcom Creek Waterway; 1 -5 over Whatcom Creek and Nooksack River;
Mount Baker Highway and Highway 9 over the Nooksack River; Guide Meridian and
Hannegan Roads over the Nooksack River.
• Supporting columns can buckle.
Railways
• Railway bridges have performed well, but may be subject to liquefaction, such as
those along the Bellingham waterfront.
• Landslides may cover the tracks.
11
Airports
• The Bellingham Airport runway, built on the site of an old lake, may be vulnerable to
liquefaction.
Pipelines — Water, Wastewater, Liquid Fuel, Natural Gas:
• Water pipelines — Commonly fail, quickly draining the water system, making water
unavailable for fire suppression, drinking, toilet flushing, etc.
• Sewer pipelines — These are often gravity systems and change in grade can impact
system operation.
• These sewer lines relying on pumps will not work if there is no electric power.
• These pipelines are vulnerable to flotation if the ground around them liquefies.
• Liquid Fuel and natural gas pipelines — Those constructed of steel with welded joints
have performed well except in extreme conditions. The high - pressure lines are made
of welded steel or polyurethane plastic, which are flexible. Pipelines constructed of
brittle materials are most vulnerable.
o Water and older gas distribution systems contain brittle materials such as cast
iron and asbestos cement. Pipelines buried in liquefiable soils or landslide areas
may fail.
MITIGATION STRATEGIES:
Earthquakes have long been feared as one of nature's most damaging hazards. Earthquakes
continue to remind us that nature still can strike without warning and, after only a few seconds,
leave casualties and damage in their wake. Therefore, it is important that each person and
community take appropriate actions to protect lives and property.
Although earthquakes cannot be prevented, current science and engineering provide tools that
can be used to mitigate the damage. Science can now identify, with considerable accuracy,
where earthquakes are likely to occur and what forces they will generate. Modern engineering
has resulted in design and construction techniques that allow buildings and other structures to
survive the tremendous forces of earthquakes.
FEMA's National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) has four basic strategies
related to the mitigation of hazards caused by earthquake:
1. Promote understanding of earthquakes and their effects
2. Work to better identify earthquake risk
3. Improve earthquake- resistant design and construction techniques
4. Encourage the use of earthquake -safe policies and planning practices
Future study of earthquake behavior to understand the relationship between the different kinds
of earthquakes will lead to a better understanding of preparing for and dealing with earthquake
hazards.
12
FLOODING
DEFINITIONS:
Avulsion — the sudden cutting off of land by floods due to a change in the course of a river
body.
Flood — an inundation of dry land with water caused by weather phenomena and events that
deliver more precipitation to a drainage basin than can be readily absorbed or stored with
the basin. The National Flood Insurance Program defines a flood as a, "A general and
temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of two or more acres of normally dry
land area or of two or more properties."
Floodplain — the land area of a river valley that becomes inundated with water during a flood.
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) — a Federal program enabling property owners in
participating communities to purchase insurance protection against losses from flooding.
This insurance is designed to provide an insurance alternative to disaster assistance to
meet the escalating costs of repairing damage to buildings and their content caused by
floods. Participation in the NFIP is based on an agreement between local communities
and the Federal Government which states if a community will adopt and enforce a
floodplain management ordinance to reduce future flood risks to new construction in
Special Flood Hazard Areas, the Federal Government will make flood insurance available
with the community as a financial protection against flood losses.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The natural hazard of most concern to Whatcom County, primarily due to its frequency, is
flooding. Whatcom County flood events generally occur on floodplains in the Lower Nooksack
River watershed. A floodplain is the land adjoining rivers, streams, coastal waters, ditches,
wetlands, low -lying areas or lakes that are likely to flood. According to an October, 1999, report,
prepared by the Whatcom County Public Works Department, the most significant floodplains in
Whatcom County are those present in the lower Nooksack River watershed, This report, "Lower
Nooksack River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan" (CFHMP), details flooding
characteristics on the Lower Nooksack River, and served as the primary source of information
for this flooding summary.
Most of the Nooksack River watershed is in the steep, mountainous Cascade foothills at the
base of the Cascade Mountain Range. The Lower Nooksack River begins at the confluence of
the north, south, and middle forks and extends down to Bellingham Bay. The watershed
encompasses approximately 825 square miles over an elevation range of 10,000 feet to sea
level. The Cascade foothills receive more rainfall than the flatter, western lowlands of the
County. This precipitation, combined with the steep slopes of the watershed in the foothills and
size of the upper watershed, contributes to the conditions that allow floodwater to quickly reach
the flat lower river reaches. The devastating and frequent flooding in 1989 and 1990 prompted
county residents and government to find solutions to perennial flood problems. Because of
severe damages occurring along the Lower Nooksack River floodplain, this area was the focus
of initial planning efforts and development of the CFHMP.
In the CFHMP, the Lower Nooksack River was reviewed by river reach as described below and
as shown in Table 2. The five reaches begin with Reach 1 at the mouth of the Nooksack and
move upstream.
13
Reach 1 includes the area from the mouth of the Nooksack River to Ferndale west to Haxton
Way, including a portion of the Lummi Indian Reservation. Reach 1 is physiographically diverse
and includes a complex delta estuary, a broad flat plain, and two large, shallow ponds, Tennant
Lake and Clay (Brennen) Pond. Both sides of the river are diked, either directly along the
existing river channel or set back a short distance from the bank. The banks are heavily rip -
rapped, especially adjacent to the levee.
Reach 2 extends from the Interstate 5 bridge at Ferndale to the Guide Meridian bridge, just
southwest of Lynden. The river channel is characterized by looped meanders, and relatively
small gravel bars. Natural topography along the river includes discontinuous natural levees
formed by sediments deposited during flooding. Constructed levees confine the river to a
narrow channel along much of Reach 2. A portion of the river upstream of Ferndale is not
leveed.
Reach 3 includes the portion of the Nooksack River between the Everson bridge and the Guide
Meridian bridge and marks the transition from the braided, unstable channel upstream to the
more stable, meandering river channel and broader floodplain that are typical downstream.
Reach 4 is the uppermost reach in the CFHMP study area. It extends from the Everson bridge
to the confluence of the middle, north, and south forks. This reach is noticeably different than
the lower reaches, primarily because of the steep slope of the active channel. Not only does the
channel split into multiple paths at many locations, forming a braided channel, but over time it
moves laterally across the floodplain.
Reach 5 is not actually a part of the Nooksack River mainstem, but is a flood overflow corridor
between the Nooksack River, near Everson, north to the U.S. / Canada border. At the City of
Everson, a low divide separates the Nooksack River basin from the Sumas River basin, where
waters flow northward to the Fraser River in British Columbia. During large floods in the
Nooksack, floodwaters cross the basin divide and flow to B.C. along the corridor of Johnson
Creek and through the city of Sumas.
Flooding Causes
Many factors combine to cause flooding along the Lower Nooksack. River gradient and weather
patterns are some of the more significant factors.
River Gradient that Affects Flooding
One of the most important characteristics of the Lower Nooksack River is the change in river
gradient from Deming to Bellingham Bay. As mentioned previously, Reach 4 is steep and
14
River Mile
River Channel
100 -Year Floodplain
Length (miles)
Gradient (ft /mile)
Area (mil)
Width (avg. miles)
Reach 1
0 to 6.0
6.0
1.8
13.8
2.8
Reach 2
6.0 to 15.3
9.3
2.3
8.3
1.1
Reach 3
15.3 to 23.6
8.3
4.9
12.0
1.9
Reach 4
23.6 to 26.6
13.0
21.3
7.5
1.3
Reach 5
- --
13.2
4.5
21.5*
22.5 **
* Drainage Area
** Average Creek Width
Table 2 — River Reach Description
Information obtained from the CFHMP
Reach 1 includes the area from the mouth of the Nooksack River to Ferndale west to Haxton
Way, including a portion of the Lummi Indian Reservation. Reach 1 is physiographically diverse
and includes a complex delta estuary, a broad flat plain, and two large, shallow ponds, Tennant
Lake and Clay (Brennen) Pond. Both sides of the river are diked, either directly along the
existing river channel or set back a short distance from the bank. The banks are heavily rip -
rapped, especially adjacent to the levee.
Reach 2 extends from the Interstate 5 bridge at Ferndale to the Guide Meridian bridge, just
southwest of Lynden. The river channel is characterized by looped meanders, and relatively
small gravel bars. Natural topography along the river includes discontinuous natural levees
formed by sediments deposited during flooding. Constructed levees confine the river to a
narrow channel along much of Reach 2. A portion of the river upstream of Ferndale is not
leveed.
Reach 3 includes the portion of the Nooksack River between the Everson bridge and the Guide
Meridian bridge and marks the transition from the braided, unstable channel upstream to the
more stable, meandering river channel and broader floodplain that are typical downstream.
Reach 4 is the uppermost reach in the CFHMP study area. It extends from the Everson bridge
to the confluence of the middle, north, and south forks. This reach is noticeably different than
the lower reaches, primarily because of the steep slope of the active channel. Not only does the
channel split into multiple paths at many locations, forming a braided channel, but over time it
moves laterally across the floodplain.
Reach 5 is not actually a part of the Nooksack River mainstem, but is a flood overflow corridor
between the Nooksack River, near Everson, north to the U.S. / Canada border. At the City of
Everson, a low divide separates the Nooksack River basin from the Sumas River basin, where
waters flow northward to the Fraser River in British Columbia. During large floods in the
Nooksack, floodwaters cross the basin divide and flow to B.C. along the corridor of Johnson
Creek and through the city of Sumas.
Flooding Causes
Many factors combine to cause flooding along the Lower Nooksack. River gradient and weather
patterns are some of the more significant factors.
River Gradient that Affects Flooding
One of the most important characteristics of the Lower Nooksack River is the change in river
gradient from Deming to Bellingham Bay. As mentioned previously, Reach 4 is steep and
14
constantly migrating with a narrow floodplain. Within Reach 4, many abandoned side channels
can accommodate floodwaters. In contrast, the lower reaches are flatter with wider floodplains.
Side channels in Reaches 1, 2, and 3 have largely been filled and replaced with agricultural
fields. Levees have been constructed along these reaches to protect fields, farmhouses, and
roadways.
Weather Patterns that Cause Flooding
Heavy fall and winter rainfall in Whatcom County results from an effect called orographic uplift.
This heavy rainfall, along with the large area feeding into the Nooksack River and extreme
slopes results in large amounts of runoff that quickly reach the flat floodplains along Reaches 1,
2 and 3. Rainfall varies across the watershed and is significantly greater in the mountains.
During the 1990 Veterans Day flood, approximately 14 inches of rain fell in the upper reaches of
the watershed over three days, with snow melt adding an extra two inches. During the same
storm, Bellingham only recorded five inches of rain.
The worst flooding tends to occur during the "pineapple express" weather patter of the fall and
winter. Pineapple express fronts bring warm, wet air into the watershed, resulting in heavy
rainfall. If snow has accumulated in the mountains when the warm rains begin, the resulting
snowmelt significantly increases runoff to the river. This resulting runoff is most severe when
preceding steady rains have saturated soils within the watershed. Together, the conditions of
heavy rain, accumulated snow, and saturated soils create the potential for severe flooding.
HISTORY:
Table 3 lists the largest recorded Nooksack River floods as recorded at Deming and Ferndale
stream gages.
Date Deming Flow *, Ferndale Flow, Overflow in Everson, causing
CFS CFS flood damage.
1/25/1935
39,600
- --
Yes
10/25/1945
38,000
41,600
Yes
11/27/1949
36,500
27,500
Yes
2/10/1951
43,200
55,000
Yes
11/03/1955
38,500
35,000
Yes
1/30/1971
- --
38,100
Yes
12/3/1975
40,300
46,700
Yes
12/15/1979
- --
36,400
No
1/4/1984
- --
41,500
Yes
11/23/1986
- --
36,000
No
11/9/1989
36,500
47,800
Yes
11/10/1990
37,900
57,000
Yes
11/24/1990
35,100
56,600
Yes
Table 3 — Largest Recorded Nooksack River Floods
* The Deming gage is subject to significant bed instability during flood events. Peak flows reported
for Deming are prone to error.
15
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT:
Understanding existing flood patterns, and the relationship between flooding and existing flood
management structures, provides a basis for predicting circumstances of future flood events.
The following summary describes historic flooding patterns and problems of the Lower
Nooksack River. Please note that right and left bank locations are designated as if you were
standing in the channel and looking downstream.
Reach 1 Flooding Patterns
Ferndale Area — The residential area on the right bank upstream of the Burlington Northern
Railroad bridge experiences flooding during major events, as do commercial properties along
Main Street on the left bank and city golf course. A portion of the levees in Ferndale, on the
right bank from the Main Street bridge to immediately north of the city's water treatment plant,
offer protection from flooding up to approximately a 60 -year event. Significant flood fighting
efforts upstream of the water treatment plant were necessary in 1990 to prevent floodwaters
from overtopping Ferndale Road.
Right Bank Downstream of Ferndale — Flooding at Marine Drive is frequent, beginning with
events of low magnitude. Levee breaks result in inundation of Haxton Way, cutting off access to
the Lummi Peninsula and Lummi Island. Other sites of right bank flooding along the reach
depend upon levee protection. Levee breaches downstream of Slater Road generally result in
flooding between the Nooksack River and Lummi (Red) River south of Slater Road.
Left Bank Downstream of Ferndale — As the river rises to the 5 -year flood level, floodwaters
overtop the left bank immediately downstream of Ferndale near Hovander Park. Floodwaters
travel through Hovander toward Tennant Lake and continue south toward and over Slater Road.
Marietta — Marietta experiences the most frequent flooding of any residential area along the
Nooksack River and is susceptible to tidal influences that contribute to flooding. A levee
surrounds Marietta, but is low and in poor condition, making it susceptible to overtopping and
breaching.
Overflow to Lummi Bay — Floodwaters flowing west toward Lummi Bay are stopped by the
seawall and accumulate despite the two sets of culverts that drain the seawall. Floodwaters can
overwhelm the capacity of the seawall, leading to seawall breaches, and allowing saltwater to
flow inland when floodwaters recede. A set of six 48" diameter culverts near the Lummi (Red)
River mouth draining the area south of the river were replaced with five 6'x4' box culverts in
1998. Tide gates in the culverts prevent saltwater from flowing inland as the tide rises. Three
5'x5' box culverts drain the area north of the river.
Reach 2 Flooding Patterns
Overflows from Reach 3 — Floodwaters enter Reach 2 from Reach 3 through the main channel
Guide Meridian bridge and two overflow bridges under Guide Meridian in the floodplain. Main
channel and left bank overflows are constricted by high ground on the left bank and levees
along River Road on the right bank. Left bank overflows encounter a short section of levee and
the natural high ground close to the river bank very shortly after passing under the south
overflow bridge. The levee and high ground push the left bank overflow waters back into the
river and toward right bank levees. Numerous historical breaches in the River Road levee are
attributed to this constriction.
Right bank overflows enter Reach 2 behind the River Road levees through the north
overflow bridge. Overflows reach levees along Fishtrap Creek, which funnel floodwaters south,
16
closer to the main river channel, and on toward Bertrand Creek. These flows are augmented by
overflows through breaches in levees along River Road.
Fishtrap Creek — Flood overflows pass from Reach 3 to Reach 2 through the north overflow
bridge under Guide Meridian. Floodwaters encounter levees along Fishtrap Creek, which
extend from just below Guide Meridian approximately 1.8 miles downstream. The levees limit
bank overflows, but do not contain floodwaters during large flood events. The levees along both
Fishtrap and Bertrand creeks are intended to protect agricultural lands from spring flood events,
but are not meant to provide protection during large flood events.
Bertrand Creek — Floodwaters that pass Fishtrap Creek reach Bertrand Creek, which is lined
with levees on both sides. The Bertrand Creek levees are approximately perpendicular to flood
flows, which causes floodwater to back up onto farmlands upstream of the creek. As a result,
high velocity flows cause overtopping and levee breaches during almost every flood event. An
overtopping section of the creek's right bank levee near the river channel helps reduce the
likelihood of a left bank levee breach during high creek flows, but is insufficient to prevent levee
breaches along Bertrand Creek.
Left Bank Overflow Corridor— Levee overtopping has historically occurred on the VanderPol
property immediately downstream of the high ground on the left bank; floodwaters follow a
natural overflow corridor along the reach. Left bank levees offer varying levels of protection,
and floodwaters historically have overtopped the levees at various locations. Approximately two
miles upstream of the 1 -5 bridge, near Lattimore Road, higher topography along the left bank
guides floodwaters back into the river channel. A short distance upstream, a levee on the Appel
property blocks flow returning to the river and has experienced repeated overtopping and
failure.
Right Bank Downstream of Bertrand Creek — Floodwaters that pass Bertrand Creek continue
along the right bank corridor to approximately the 1 -5 corridor. Levees offer sporadic protection
of the right bank for three miles downstream of Bertrand Creek, but no levees are in place for
the last three miles of the Reach. Random overtopping of levees and river banks is typical.
Ferndale Area — Upstream of the 1 -5 bridge, Reach 2 includes areas within or immediately
outside Ferndale. Residential and commercial urban development is encroaching into the 100 -
year floodplain, increasing the possibility of flood damage. A residential development, fast -food
restaurant, motel, and gas station have been built in the floodplain, and more commercial
development is planned.
Reach 3 Flooding Patterns
Levees along both banks have been built and repaired over the years by a variety of public
agencies and private property owners, with no coordination of design or maintenance, resulting
in a levee system prone to unpredictable breaches and misdirection of flows from natural
overflow corridors and floodwater storage areas. Roadway overtopping is common, and
floodwaters often remain trapped in depressional areas long after the flood peak passes. Bank
erosion has historically been a problem.
Overflows in the Upper Portion of Reach 3 — Natural overflows exist on both banks north of
Nolte Road, immediately downstream of Everson. Right bank overflows travel north toward
Mormon Ditch and Kamm Creek. During large floods, this flow continues downstream over
Hannegan Road, past the Lynden waste water treatment plant, and through the Guide Meridian
Ii VA
north overflow bridge. Left bank overflows travel south to Scott Ditch, then west, and return to
the river through Scott Ditch or through the south overflow bridge at Guide Meridian.
Hampton/Timon Road Area — The right bank near Northwood Road is a natural overflow.
Floodwaters flow north toward Mormon Ditch and Kamm Creek. Floodwaters from upstream
overflow on both banks, inundating and damaging roadways in their path, including Timon
Road, Slotemaker Road, and Hampton Road on the right bank; Noon Road, Polinder Road, and
Abbott Road on the left bank. Six residences located near the confluence of Kamm Creek along
Hampton Road are impacted by right bank overflows as well as by backflows from the
Nooksack River up Kamm Creek.
Polinder Road Area — Two farmable levees have been constructed to overtop on the left bank
above Polinder Road:
1. North of the intersection of Polinder and Theel Road on the Bedlington property.
2. The river bend just east of Hannegan Road on the Polinder property.
Floodwaters from both overflows travel southwest toward Scott Ditch and the south overflow
bridge at Guide Meridian.
Scott Ditch — Scott Ditch serves as a conduit for flows leaving the Nooksack's left bank along
most of Reach 3.
Lynden Wastewater Treatment Plant — The floodplain is constricted by natural topography as
well as structures built in the area west of Hannegan Road. Floodwaters that overtop
Hannegan Road must flow around the north side of the treatment plant and over the plant
access road. As floodwaters recede, water backed up between the treatment plant and
Hannegan Road drains back to the river by way of a ditch that begins east of the plant, is
conveyed through a box culvert under the plant access road, and in a 60" culvert through the
right bank river levee. The 60" levee culvert is not equipped with a floodgate and water can
back up through the culvert when the river rises.
BC Avenue Area — On the right bank downstream of the treatment plant, there is an
overflow on the Stremler property south of BC Avenue in Lynden. The levee at this overflow
was restored, strengthened, and raised by the USCOE to prevent future overtopping after the
1990 floods.
Bylsma Road Area — There is an overflow on the left bank between Bylsma Road and the
confluence of Scott Ditch and the river. Levees on the right bank opposite this overflow
historically overtop.
Guide Meridian Overflow Bridges — The Guide Meridian was supported on piles to let
floodwaters pass beneath, through the Nooksack River floodplain, until around 1950.
Floodwaters are now conveyed through overflow bridges that convey a significant portion of
Reach 3 overflows downstream to Reach 2. As floodwaters pass through these narrow
openings, flow velocity increases, threatening the structural integrity of the bridges.
Reach 4 Flooding Patterns
With the relatively narrow floodplain and unstable, rapidly migrating river channel in Reach 4,
the primary flood hazards are bank erosion and the threat of avulsion.
The Deming Area — At Deming, the river channel has migrated across the floodplain in the last
two decades. Aerial photos show that in 1975, the river flowed on the opposite side of the
floodplain from the community. By 1986, the river had moved 600 feet across the floodplain to
M
its present location. Recent Nooksack River flooding has threatened the Mount Baker School
District bus maintenance and sewage treatment facilities, along with the Walton properties along
Deming Road on the right bank. At -risk properties are protected by riprap armoring.
Immediately downstream of the riprap protection, erosion occurs on the left bank from deflected
flows from the right bank riprap.
Mariotta Road Area —
Right Bank — An overflow was created during 1990 floods in the vicinity of Mariotta Road by
overtopping and eroding the right bank, resulting in bypassing of the existing river bend.
Approximately one -third of the river's flow followed this new channel. Floodwaters returned to
the main channel approximately one -half mile from Mariotta Road. After the 1990 flood, 2,000
feet of bank was restored and new riprap was placed along the right bank to prevent a similar
future overflow. A bottleneck immediately downstream of the overflow creates stress on the left
bank at an area known as the "Clay Banks." By preventing right bank overflows, the new riprap
increases the force of floodwaters on the left bank downstream. The bottleneck created by
accumulated sediment on the Sande property, on the inside of the river bend in this area (right
bank), increases the force of flow on the left bank. Floodwaters that overflow the right bank
between Deming and Nugents Corner generally follow low topography and swales toward Smith
Creek.
Left Bank — The left bank across from Mariotta Road is a steep hillside of silty clay soil that has
been increasingly eroding. Slides from this hill have added silt, clay, and other sediment to the
river. As the river undercuts the slope, the land sinks and slides. Groundwater seepage along
the face of the hillside may also be destabilizing the slope. Several houses at the top of the
bluff have been moved back from the hillside, but remain threatened by the erosion.
Nugents Corner— Flood fighting efforts in 1990 directed floodwaters around the commercial
area, following a system of natural channels, but floodwaters damaged some sections of the
community's residential area.
Mount Baker Highway Bridge — The Mount Baker Highway bridge at Nugents Corner is the only
bridge over the river at Reach 4. A flood in 1989 washed out the left bank approach to this
bridge. Riprap was subsequently placed on the upstream side of the left bank bridge abutment
to protect it. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has recently
completed a bridge replacement project.
Nugents Corner to Everson — The river migrates across the floodplain between Nugents Corner
and Everson more than in any other river reach. Channel meandering has resulted in erosion.
Bank erosion is limited on the left bank, but the right bank has been heavily impacted by bank
erosion. The channel capacity and natural terrain between Nugents Corner and just upstream
of Everson is high enough that floodwaters do not overtop the right bank along most of the
section. During larger flood events, however, flood waters overtop the high ground divide,
separating the Nooksack River and Sumas River basins, to flow toward Sumas, and sometimes
into Canada.
Riverberry- Davis - Vandellen Property — The Riverberry property includes a farm located
approximately halfway between Everson and Nugents Corner. The river eroded between 30
and 40 acres of this site between 1985 and 1993, and an estimated additional 300 feet since
that time. The river has meandered eastward approximately 250 linear feet (LF), eroding
raspberry and pasture farmland. The continued erosion was diminishing the natural overbank
levee, which was the basin divide between the Nooksack and Sumas basins, increasing the
19
frequency of overland flow and potential for channel avulsion into the Everson — Sumas
Overflow Corridor.
In 1997, Whatcom County completed a pilot project to provide fish habitat and bank
stabilization on the property. The Riverberry Davis site, approximately 2,200 LF, incorporates
four rock deflectors and four dolo -rock deflectors with woody debris placed between the
structures. The Vandellen site, approximately 900 LF, incorporates large organic debris and
timber pilings to construct 19 deflector structures.
Left Bank Overflow Corridor Opposite Everson — The Nooksack River has historically
overtopped a left bank levee immediately upstream of Everson. Floodwaters follow the low
topography through agricultural areas for approximately 1 mile before flowing through a large
arch culvert under Everson - Goshen Road (SR 544) and returning to the river.
Reach 5 Flooding Patterns
Floodwaters leave the river channel and overflow through Everson at three locations:
1. South (upstream) of Massey Road
2. Along Emmerson Road between Massey Road and Everson
3. Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of the Everson Bridge
Floodwaters from the three overflow sites combine after crossing Massey and Emerson roads
and flow northward over Main Street in Everson and into the Johnson Creek basin. A railroad
embankment prevents floodwaters from entering the Sumas River until they reach the vicinity of
the City of Sumas. During small overflow events, floodwaters pass over fields and enter a
drainage ditch that empties into Johnson Creek just north of Lindsay Road. During major
events, floodwaters fill Johnson Creek's valley floor and continue to Sumas, typically flooding
the downtown area with several feet of water.
Everson — All major Nooksack River floods cause flooding in Everson. Floodwaters generally
flow into the city from the south along Washington Street and from the overflow area to the east.
Since 1990, a 1,000' levee, referred to locally as Lagerway Dike, was constructed immediately
south of Everson. The levee provides some flood protection but is not high enough to prevent
Everson from being flooded during a large overflow.
Sumas — During major floods, flows top the divide between the Nooksack and Sumas
watersheds and flow north in the floodplain along Johnson Creek, eventually reaching the city of
Sumas. Floodwaters often cross the U.S. / Canada border within hours of an overflow occurring
in Sumas.
Sumas Prairie /Abbotsford (B.C.) — After passing through Sumas, floodwaters cross the border
into District of Abbotsford and along the Sumas River, overtopping the Sumas River's left bank.
Floodwaters have historically backed up from the Whatcom Road interchange of the
TransCanada Highway and ponded in the western portion of Wet Sumas Prairie, with some
floodwater ponding in the Lower Sumas River, Saar Creek, and Arnold Slough. A dike prevents
flooding of the reclaimed Sumas Lake Bottom, a prime agricultural area.
Avulsion Potential at Everson — It is possible that an avulsion would redirect the Nooksack River
from its present path to a northward path along the Johnson Creek corridor. The Johnson
Creek corridor drops an average of six feet per mile over its 10 -mile course, a slope twice as
steep as the 3- foot - per -mile drop of the Nooksack River. This steeper slope enhances the
tendency toward an avulsion. Geologic evidence indicates the Nooksack River did flow north at
Everson into the Sumas River and Frasier River Basins.
A study commissioned by the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks
predicts the Nooksack River's right bank would have to erode 820 feet at a critical location for
an avulsion to occur, and estimates the likelihood of this is 20 percent during a 100 -year flood, a
statistical occurrence of once every 500 years.
MITIGATION STRATEGIES:
A flood hazard management plan for the lower Nooksack River must incorporate a number of
structural and nonstructural elements and activities for both the short and long term to be fully
functional. Both operational effectiveness and cost effectiveness must be periodically reviewed
and adjusted throughout the life of the plan. Accordingly, the CFHMP has recommended the
following actions to be made for flooding mitigation:
1. Hydraulic modeling and alternatives analysis
2. Engineering and design of capital improvement projects
3. Meander limit identification and adoption
4. Sediment management strategy development
5. Floodplain mapping and land use management in the floodplain
6. Land and easement acquisition program development
7. Flood preparedness and emergency response
The CFHMP also outlines recommended projects and programs to implement along the various
reaches of the Lower Nooksack River. The CFHMP recognizes that both short- and long -term
implementation of structural and nonstructural elements and activities must be put in place for
the projects to be fully functional. Below are recommended mitigation strategies for the five
reaches of the Lower Nooksack. For more details on these projects, refer to the CFHMP,
available from Whatcom County's River and Flood Division, Public Works department.
Mitigation for Reach 1
Lummi River— The recommended improvement for the Lummi River (Red River) is not to
increase flows to the river but to rehabilitate existing culverts at the diversion from the Nooksack
River, including a gate or similar flow control structure and modifying downstream structures, if
necessary.
Right Bank Between the Bridges in Ferndale — The recommended improvement is to designate
the properties for flood proofing and /or property buyouts, and maintain open space at Vander
Yacht Park at the golf course on the left bank. Implementation of this recommendation should
include defining and stabilizing the overflow path which could potentially overtop 1 -5.
Left Bank Downstream of Ferndale — The recommendation for this area is to maintain the
overflows in Hovander Park and maintain the existing natural overflow corridor along the left
bank. With this approach, agricultural levees downstream from the overflow area that are not
continuous now, could be made continuous as maintenance and reconstruction is called for.
The rebuilt levees' crest elevations should be the same as those of right bank agricultural levees
downstream of Ferndale, and they should be built to withstand overtopping. Computer
modeling of this recommendation will be required.
Slater Road Bridge Approach — The initial recommendation for this area is to maintain it at its
current elevation to allow overtopping and temporary road closures during floods. Eliminating
overtopping of Slater Road on the left bank during large floods would be of little benefit at times
when overtopping on the right bank during large floods inundates the road on the other side of
21
the river. This recommendation should be reconsidered as traffic demands change with time
and if special financing were to become available.
Marietta Area — The recommended improvement for the Marietta area is to designate all flood -
prone properties in the community for buyout, so that owners would have the option to sell and
relocate should federal purchase funds be made available after a future flood. In the interim,
property owners are encouraged to flood proof their structures.
Right Bank Downstream of Ferndale — The recommended improvement is a setback levee to
provide 100 -year flood protection and manage overflows to Lummi Bay. This improvement will
require discussions with affected property owners. Existing agricultural levees along the right
bank will remain overtoppable, but a right -bank overflow corridor will be in place, necessitating
flood easements, flood proofing, and /or property buyouts in the corridor. Haxton Way will not
have to be raised and the Lummi Seawall will not have to be rehabilitated.
Treatment Plant and Ferndale, South of the Bridges — This improvement is to provide 100 -year
flood protection along the right bank downstream of Main Street by raising the existing levee
and Ferndale Road, and to connect the Ferndale Road levee to the recommended new levee
downstream.
Marine Drive Bridge Approach — Maintain it at its current elevation to allow overtopping and
temporary road closure during floods. Lowering the roadway will not be necessary with the
recommended setback levee on the right bank to manage overflows to Lummi Bay.
Haxton Way— Implementation of the recommended right bank setback levee would minimize
the occurrence of Haxton Way inundation, making the general raising of Haxton Way
unnecessary. However, until the right bank cutoff levee recommendation is accepted and fully
implemented, levee overtopping and levee breaches will likely continue. Under these
circumstances, the raising of the lowest sections of Haxton Way as an interim action is
considered appropriate.
Lummi Bay Seawall — The right bank setback levee will minimize inundation of the Lummi Bay
seawall, so no significant capital improvements are recommended for the seawall. Continued
maintenance of the existing structure and culverts and tidegates is recommended.
Mitigation for Reach 2
Ferndale Urban Area — Analyze flood dynamics in the Ferndale urban area in detail, including
an evaluation of the relationship between urbanization, flood storage and conveyance, and the
potential for 1 -5 overtopping. Evaluation of an overflow path in the event of 1 -5 overtopping
should also be included.
River Road Area — Designate a right -bank overflow area and strengthen the remaining levee
along River Road.
Fishtrap Creek — Explore with local property owners the possibility of lowering a segment of the
levees to provide a wider flow path for overflows from the Nooksack River. This approach will
also require regular sediment removal from the creek in order to maintain channel capacity
and /or reduction of sediment inflow from the creek's upper watershed.
Bertrand Creek — Establish new levee profiles along the creek and design the levees to be
overtoppable.
PA
Guide Meridian & 1 -5 — Designate left bank overflow corridor between Guide Meridian and 1 -5.
Mitigation for Reach 3
Detailed Hydraulic Analysis — Recommendation that includes strategically linking the river
channel with the agricultural floodplain. The goal is to limit random bank /levee overtopping,
random levee failure, and sudden development of off channel flood flow paths. This would be
accomplished by distributing those flows which exceed channel capacity over the flood plain
and thereby reducing levee and bank stress. Seven overflow locations would be analyzed
under this program:
1. Right bank south of Slotemaker Road
2. Left bank near the west end of Nolte Road
3. Bend in the right bank south of Northwood Road
4. Left bank near the intersection of Polinder and Thiel roads.
5. Left bank in the bend upstream of the Polinder /Hannegan intersection
6. Right bank downstream of the Lynden treatment plant
7. Left bank northwest of Bylsma Road, upstream of where Scott Ditch enters the river
Strengthening of Roadway Sections — Along overflow corridors, as appropriate. Designating
overflow location will maintain the historical pattern of overtopping some roadways in the
floodplain. The designated roadways areas are:
1. Slotemaker Road
2. Timon Road
3. Hampton Road
4. Noon Road
5. Thiel Road
6. Polinder Road
7. Hannegan Road
Guide Meridian Overflow Bridges — This improvement, in the short term, is to provide protection
against erosion and scour through armoring. If the roadway is rebuilt in the future, opportunities
for lengthening the bridges and /or creating additional openings should be investigated at that
time.
Mitigation for Reach 4
Limiting of Channel Migration — These reasonable limits and the prevention of a right bank
avulsion are recommended with three levels of priority:
1. Immediate action to move the channel away from limits mapped as part of the CFHMP
2. Future action when the channel is moving toward the meander limits
3. Long -term, ongoing future action to move the channel towards the middle of the corridor
along Reach 4.
This action is called for at the following sites:
1. In Deming near the Mount Baker High School
2. Southwest of Williams Road, downstream from Deming
3. West of Mariotta Road
4. The property west of Hopewell Road
5. The property just south of Massey Road and west of Cole Road
Deming Right Bank Areas at High Risk of Avulsion — To perform three projects:
1. Add new protection downstream of Deming and shorten the existing protection at the
high school
23
2. Ensure existing bank protection south of Williams Road provides avulsion protection
3. Add new protection between the protection projects already in place on the Sande
property and west of Marietta Road
Mariotta Road — remove 300 feet from the south end of the existing riprap protection, tie the
remaining riprap into the right bank, and remove the gravel from the bar on the right bank of
Sande property. Retrofit of the remaining riprap to reduce vulnerability to scour and increase
fish habitat should be considered. Additional work on the left bank downstream of the clay
banks may be warranted.
Nugent's Corner— construct low levees on the upstream and downstream sides of the Mount
Baker Highway bridge. This improvement to Nugent's Corner should be given a lower priority
than projects to prevent avulsion elsewhere in Reach 4.
Levees near Nugent's Corner— Maintain and strengthen, if necessary, the existing overtopping
levee upstream of Everson, on the left bank.
Mitigation for Reach 5
Everson Bridge — Maintain the stand of timber at the upstream end of the overflow on the river's
right bank, approximately one mile upstream from the Everson Bridge. Plus, retrofit and
maintain an overtopping levee on the left bank in the same area.
Nooksack River & Johnson Creek Watersheds — Maintenance of the divide between the
Nooksack and Johnson Creek watershed involves structurally maintaining the divide with an
aggressive alternative, a rock trench, as well as holding discussions with property owners to
ensure local farming activities do not involve fields along the divide and changing ground
elevation. The second measure is to provide continuous hard protection along the entire length
of the overflow from the Nooksack River to the John Creek corridor.
Some of the areas other than the flood plains that have been vulnerable to floods, or isolation by
flood waters or landslides, in the past, include:
• Sudden Valley
• Smith Creek & North Shore Road
• Hillside Road
• Park Road
• Blue Canyon
• Iowa Heights
• Henderson Road
• Mount Baker Highway Communities
Citizens in Whatcom County should understand the flood potential of areas in which they
elect to live. It is important to remember that dangers associated with flooding do not end
when the rain stops. Electrocution, structural collapse, hazardous materials leaks, and fire
are secondary hazards associated with flooding and flood cleanup.
Qz1
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
DEFINITIONS:
Alluvial Fan — an outspread, gently sloping mass of alluvium (stream- deposited sediment)
located where a stream or canyon issues onto a valley floor or plain. The term alluvial fan
encompasses debris flow fans, composite fans, and fan deltas.
Landslide — a term that includes a wide range of ground movement, such as rock falls, deep
failure of slopes, and shallow debris flows.
Seismic Hazard — Areas subject to severe risk of earthquake damage, such as those areas
underlain by soils subject to liquefaction. Almost all of the lower Nooksack River floodplain
is categorized as seismically hazardous.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Due to their presence in Whatcom County, as well as data availability, four geologic hazards
were identified and analyzed as part of this plan:
1. Alluvial Fans — all alluvial fan areas were classified as hazardous.
2. Coal Mines — any areas on top of a historical coal mine were determined to be
hazardous.
3. Landslides — risk areas were determined by looking at percent slopes, specifically those
hazard areas with a percent slope greater than 15 degrees.
4. Seismic Hazards — areas comprised of seismically- sensitive soils were classified as
hazard areas. These hazardous soils are either man -made fill deposits or geologic units
subject to shaking or liquefaction during an earthquake.
Alluvial Fans
Alluvial fans form where there is a sharp change in stream gradient and sediment is deposited
where the stream velocity decreases, generally where a stream or canyon issues onto a valley
floor or plain. Mass wasting, or landsliding, functions as the primary link in the natural
transportation of soil material to streams in the Pacific Northwest, and can be expected to occur
intermittently as part of on -going erosion processes. The sediment and debris generated by
mass wasting events are deposited in stream channels and on fan surfaces, contributing to the
build -up of materials.
Alluvial fans are common along the reaches of the Nooksack River where steep side streams
encounter the Nooksack Valley floor. Many of the alluvial fans in Whatcom County are subject
to periodic debris flows. Debris flows consist of a mixture of water, sediment, and debris that
flows down the steep stream channel. They are generally triggered by landslides, mass
wasting, or stream blockages in the upper portion of the stream. When the debris flow reaches
the alluvial fan, the debris may be quickly deposited within the existing stream channel leading
to channel avulsion, the sudden changing of stream course to a new channel.
Coal Mines
According to the NW Source, William H. Prattle, one of Bellingham's earliest settlers, responded
to Native American tales of local coal outcroppings by opening a marginally successful coal
mine in the settlement called Unionville in 1853. The same year, San Francisco investors
opened the Sehome Mine, adjacent to the Whatcom settlement, and it became one of the two
largest employers in the area until the mine was flooded in 1878. Coal mining ceased until the
Bellingham Bay Company opened the largest mine in the state in the city's north end in 1918; it
operated until 1951, when decreased demand led to its closure. Refer to Figure 1 for locations
of the Bellingham area's primary historical mines.
25
Figure 1 — Locations of Major Historical Mines in and Around Bellingham
(Map courtesy of EPA, Region 10)
In a January 2003 report titled "Preliminary Assessment of Bellingham Mines," the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assessed possible environmental problems related to
eleven mines in and around Bellingham. Two other mines were inventoried, but not assessed
since their exact location was unknown. Preliminary assessment of this report showed that
hazardous substances were possibly present and could pose a threat to public health or the
environment. The final EPA assessment was not available as of July 2004.
Along with the potential of toxic contamination from these historical mines, these sites pose a
risk for ground failure and subsidence in downtown Bellingham.
Landslides
Landslides are a continuing problem along the hillsides and shorelines of Washington due to the
area's steep mountainous terrain, its complex geology, high precipitation both as rain and snow,
abundance of unconsolidated glacial sediments, and geographic position astride the Cascadia
Subduction Earthquake Zone (CSZ). Some landslide areas and the causes of sliding have
been recognized for decades, but that information has not always been widely known or used
outside the geologic community. As the population of Washington grows, increasing pressures
to develop in landslide -prone areas make knowledge about landslide hazards ever more
important.
A number of factors contribute to landslides, including geology, gravity, weather, groundwater,
wave action, and human actions. Typically, a landslide occurs when several of these factors
converge.
Many slides on Puget Sound occur in a geologic setting that places permeable sands and
gravels above impermeable layers of silt and clay, or bedrock. Water seeps downward through
the upper materials and accumulates on the top of the underlying units, forming a zone of
weakness. Gravity works more effectively on steeper slopes, such as the bluffs that surround
Puget Sound, but more gradual slopes may also be vulnerable. Most slides on Puget Sound
occur during or after heavy rains, from January through March. Groundwater may rise as a
result of heavy rains or a prolonged wet spell. As water tables rise, some slopes become
unstable. Wave action can erode the beach or the toe of a bluff, cutting into the slope, and
setting the stage for future slides. Human actions, most notably those that affect drainage or
groundwater, can trigger landslides. Clearing of vegetation, poor drainage practices, and onsite
septic systems can all add to the potential for landslides.
HISTORY:
Alluvial Fans
Within the last decade, meteorological conditions and changes in land have combined to
increase the frequency and severity of debris and flooding events associated with streams in
Whatcom County. This has resulted in an increased awareness of the hazards associated with
alluvial fans, and several measures have been taken by the county to address the problem.
These measures include a study conducted in 1983, in response to a storm in January of that
year, where a number of debris events generated from the slopes of the Stewart Mountain
caused major damage to property, roads, and bridges along the north shore of Lake Whatcom
and in the South Fork Nooksack River Valley. The resulting report summarized the causes of
these events and recommended mitigation measures, as well as designated hazards zones
surrounding Whatcom County streams.
Another report, "Alluvial Fan Hazard Areas," was created by Whatcom County's Planning &
Development Services Department in August 1992, was an inventory and compilation of all the
known alluvial fan problems.
Smith and MacCauley creeks, located within Reach 4 (refer to the Flooding Background
Information or Mitigation Strategies), contain alluvial fan areas. The Smith Creek alluvial fan
includes both alluvial and debris flow components resulting from past floods and debris flows.
Properties on the fan are at risk. The MacCauley Creek alluvial fan is subject to debris flows.
Stream avulsions have occurred during past debris flow events. Residences and farm buildings
on the alluvial fan are at risk. Two additional reports have been created in the last few years,
identifying two more creeks in the County at significant risk of alluvial fan damages: Jones
Creek and Canyon Creek.
Coal Mines
The Bellingham abandoned underground mines that stretch from State Street to Sehome Hill
and from Connecticut Street northwest to McLeod Road present significant hazards.
Landslides
The susceptibility of Whatcom County to landslides is apparent from the numerous landslides
listed in Table 4:
27
Dates
Description
Great Depression Era
Cutting trees caused a very large Sehome Hill landslide toward
Western Washington University.
Following a heavy downpour, the State Street Boulevard
October, 1975
hillside turned into wet mud and swept two cars over the 25 -foot
roads, a path around the lake, and Lake Whatcom
bank. One hundred yards of mud slid onto the Boulevard.
A debris torrent accompanied by landslides into Lake Whatcom
January, 1983
took homes, cars, people, and pets into the lake and caused
County Rd., Lake Whatcom Blvd., the private bridge to the
major floodin .
A huge boulder rolled onto railroad tracks near Larrabee State
January, 1983
Park and derailed 12 cars of a 66 -car northbound Burlington
Wildwood has a very high population density during the
Northern freight train, and tumbled the lead engine into the Bay.
1996
Landslides at Point Roberts destroyed several beachside
vacation homes.
during the rest of the year. At least 40 trailers, a general
Ground movement on Sumas Mountain resulted in the rupture
February, 1997
of a 26 -inch natural gas pipeline that subsequently ruptured and
South Blue Canyon
exploded.
Ongoing
Rock slides onto 1 -5, south of Bellingham.
?
123,000 cubic yards of dirt and rock carried from Sumas
Ongoing
Mountain each year and deposited into Swift Creek. This
existing trees and further increase the risk in this area.
debris and dirt are threatening several hundred acres of
?
farmland near Everson.
Table 4 — Major Whatcom County Landslides, 1900's
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT:
Alluvial Fans
Various detailed studies have looked at specific alluvial fans present in Whatcom County. The
report, "Alluvial Fan Hazard Areas" inventories the alluvial fans that pose a risk. Table 5 lists
these alluvial fans, as well as developments at risk.
Alluvial Fan Size Developments /Structures at Risk
Lake Whatcom Watershed
Austin Creek Fan
150 acres
Approximately 20 houses, driveways, three development
Lake Louise 2 Fan
— 5 acres
roads, a path around the lake, and Lake Whatcom
Boulevard.
Albrecht's Fan
2.5 acres
County Rd., Lake Whatcom Blvd., the private bridge to the
Albrecht residence, and the older buildings on the property.
Wildwood has a very high population density during the
Wildwood Fan
16 acres
summer months and provides trailer and boat storage
during the rest of the year. At least 40 trailers, a general
store, cabins, and Lake Whatcom Boulevard are at risk.
South Blue Canyon
The Blue Canyon Complex and approximately 11 homes.
Creek Fan
?
Future development is planned, which will eliminate
existing trees and further increase the risk in this area.
Middle Blue Canyon
?
Limited residences and a picnic area.
Creek Fan
North Blue Canyon
?
Limited residences.
ME
Creek Fan
Smith Creek Fan
107 acres
Residences and a bridge, which is located at the apex of
the fan.
Olsen Creek Fan
137 acres
30 homes.
Carpenter Creek Fan
16.5 acres
15 buildings, including the local fire hall, and 2 county
roads.
Samish River & Lake Samish Watershed
Barnes Creek Fan
?
Residences and 4 roads: Interstate 5, East Lake Samish
Rd., Old State Route 99, and Manley Rd.
Reed Lake 2
Approximately 30 homes, a clubhouse, and numerous
Reed Lake 3
620 acres
roads in the Reed Lake development.
Reed Lake 4
North
Fork, Nooksack River
Town of Glacier, the Mount Baker Rim Development, a
Glacier Creek Fan
?
U.S. Forest Service Ranger Station, multiple restaurants,
lodgings, approximately 45 houses and outbuildings, Mount
Baker Highway.
Town of Glacier, 25 houses, restaurants, lodgings, the
Gallop Creek Fan
?
Glacier post office, logging access road and bridge, and
Mount Baker Highway.
Cornell Creek Fan
90 acres
Approximately 5 houses, Mount Baker Highway, Cornell
Creek Road, a large wetland that may be salmon habitat.
Canyon Creek Fan
210 acres
Glacier Springs Development, The Logs Resort, Mount
Baker Highway.
Boulder Creek Fan
126 acres
25 buildings of the Baptist camp, three roads, a county
bridge, Mount Baker Highway.
Coal Creek Fan
?
Small community located at the mouth of Coal Creek,
Mount Baker Highway.
Racehorse Creek Fan
246 acres
Five residences, several barns, a county road, a private
access road, and a county bridge, all near Welcome, WA.
Bell Creek Fan
?
Agricultural lands, Mount Baker Highway, eight residences,
and two secondary roads.
Middle
Fork, Nooksack River
Canyon Lake Creek
312 acres
Multiple residences, Mosquito Lake Road, Canyon Lake
Fan
Road, and three private roads.
Kenney Creek Fan
188 acres
Filbert Creek Fan
49 acres
Porter Creek
95 acres
Residences, Mosquito Lake Road, the bridge at Porter
Creek, a private road.
Falls /Todd Creek
?
Multiple residences, Hillside Drive, and agricultural lands.
Terhorst Creek
94 acres
Residences, Hillside Drive, a county road, outbuildings.
Sygitowicz Creek Fan
163 acres
Residences, a county bridge, a county road.
Radonski Creek Fan
?
Two farms, residences, Hillside Drive.
Hardscrabble Creek
45 acres
Residences, several barns and outbuildings, a county road,
Fan
a count low -water bridge.
McCarty Creek Fan
162 acres
Turkington Road county bridge and agricultural land.
Jones Creek Fan
376 acres
Town of Acme, Turkington Road, State Highway 9.
Residences, True Log Homes, Smith Creek Hydro projects,
Smith Creek Fan
?
Mount Baker Vineyards, Mount Baker Highway, Burlington
Northern Railway.
M
McCauley Creek Fan ? Residences, farm buildings, and Mount Baker Highway.
Sumas River
Swift Creek
F ?
Residences, Great Western Lumber & Mill, and Mount
Baker Mushroom Farm.
Table 5 — Alluvial Fan Inventory in Whatcom County
Information obtained from "Alluvial Fan Hazard Areas ", Whatcom County PDS
Detailed reports have been published on the significantly high risks of the fans present in
Canyon, Jones, Glacier, and Gallop Creeks.
Landslides
As houses and roads are built onto steeper slopes and mountainsides, landslide hazards
become an increasingly serious threat to life and property. Residential development along
slopes such as Chuckanut Mountain, and hillsides throughout the county are subject to slides.
Forest fires, clear- cutting of trees, and clearing land for housing developments cause unstable
soil.
Land stability cannot be absolutely predicted with current technology. Due to population density
and peoples' desire to have a home with a view, an increasing number of structures are built on
top of or below slopes subject to landslides. These slides take lives, destroy homes and
businesses, undermine bridges, derail railroad cars, cover fish habitat and oyster beds, interrupt
transportation infrastructure, and damage utilities.
Examples of possible landslide areas and possible damages in Whatcom County include:
• Chuckanut Mountain, residential areas on steep slopes such as Sudden Valley, upper
Baker Highway, and parts of Highway 9.
• Unstable bluffs on Lummi Island.
• The Western Washington University bluffs.
• The Sehome Hill Arboretum has had slides in the past — the growth of some tree
trunks shows evidence of slow movement downhill above the university.
• Slopes overlooking Hale Passage, Bellingham Bay, Boundary Bay, Strait of Georgia.
• Eldridge Avenue homes overlooking Bellingham Bay.
• Mount Baker — Landslides may be caused by melting snow, or steam resulting in a
slurry or rock and water, typical of a lahar. Landslides in this area could possibly
cause floods of the Nooksack River and massive mudslides into Baker Lake which
could over -top, or break, Baker Lake Dam.
MITIGATION STRATEGIES:
For alluvial fans and landslides, additional measures recommended by studies are listed below.
In general, the following steps should be implemented to reduce risk of the four geologic
hazards — alluvial fans, coal mines, landslides, seismic hazards — affecting Whatcom County:
1. Limit, and if possible, eliminate new development in high risk hazard areas.
2. If new development is to be permitted, mitigate new construction to address the specific
geological hazard.
3. Educate existing property owners at risk to help minimize the risk of the local hazards.
4. If cost effective, buyout high risk properties.
5. As a last -case resort, consider engineering solutions to manage the specific geologic
hazard, if proven effective.
c
Alluvial Fans — To help reduce the impact of debris events, The "Alluvial Fan Hazard Areas"
report mentioned above, outlines preliminary mitigation actions when developing on or near an
active fan:
1. Leave trees standing — Stands of large trees filter debris from debris flows and dissipate
the energy of the flow.
2. Avoid road crossings that obstruct debris passage — Road crossings that have culverts
or pilings located in the stream channel invite the formation of debris dams behind them.
Water impounded behind these dams can cause a dam - break -flood or lead to channel
avulsion around the bridge.
3. Construct dike carefully — Dikes must be made from rock that is larger than the
maximum rock size the river is capable of carrying at flood stage, or lateral erosion of the
dike will be a chronic problem.
4. Locate and orient roads carefully — Road beds can act as dikes or potential avulsion
channels depending on their location and orientation, especially those roads oriented
parallel to flow. These roads parallel to the flow should only be placed on inactive fan
areas. If roads on the active fan are necessary, orient them perpendicular to the flow
and bridge across any potential avulsion routes.
5. Avoid placing structures at channel bends — Channel bends tend to be potential avulsion
sites.
6. Avoid breaching debris berms — Debris berms that flank the stream channel act as
natural dikes during a flood or debris event. A breech in these berms invites channel
avulsion at that site.
The report also details primary and secondary measures to consider in alluvial fan mitigation
strategies:
Primary Measures
1. Mapping & Avoidance — The impact zone of debris flows must first be delineated by
careful hazard mapping. In general, areas of historic or prehistoric flows, scoured
channels and headwaters, and initiation points of debris flows constitute debris flow
hazard zones. Appropriate zoning regulations or building restrictions can limit
development in these areas. Low intensity settlement land use, such as agriculture or
park lands, is appropriate.
2. Precipitation Thresholds — Precipitation thresholds are often suggested as a method to
predict debris flow occurrence. Antecedent rainfall and snow melt must be factored in to
increase the accuracy of event prediction. Although, Church and Miles (1987) state that
simple precipitation thresholds cannot be used to predict debris flow events. However,
by analyzing approaching storm events and tying this to areas of known debris flow
activity, warnings for potential debris flows may be issued. This would assist those
monitoring hazardous areas during storm events.
3. Warning Systems — Warning systems should include advance warning measures,
warnings of an event in progress or just past. Existing warning systems that have
proved valuable are those used on highways and railways to warn of coming debris
flows, as well as a trip wire and transmitter located in a debris flow path. The problem
with these is that false alarms could be frequent because these systems are easily
damaged. Whatcom County should investigate and put into place durable warning
systems for debris flow events.
Secondary Measures
1. Forest Practices — Modifying timber harvest practices in the source area is the first step.
Poor forest practices help initiate debris flows by increasing the volume of debris in the
channels, destabilizing soils on slopes from the delayed loss of root strength, and
increasing the average pore water pressure in soils. Specific recommendations are
31
leaving adequate tree and vegetation buffers to reduce soil erosion and protect water
quality, immediately replanting, removing debris from slopes, locating roads away from
stream crossings, installing culverts capable of carrying 25 -year runoff, and keeping
drainage off unstable fill. Additionally, culverts and water bars must be maintained to
keep the roads stable. Systematically retiring logging roads by removing culverts and
reestablishing drainage patterns will stabilize slopes.
2. Check Dams & Channel Linings — Check dams to control sediment movement in stream
and channel linings to reduce streambank and instream erosion. Channel linings
prevent erosion of the stream bank, which reduces the amount of material entrained in a
debris flow. Other types of linings are masonry linings of cut stone, rounded boulders
embedded in steel- reinforced concrete, and formed concrete with a silica additive.
However, channel linings can be damaged by bank failure, increased flow velocities, and
subject to extreme erosion, and require extensive maintenance.
3. Slope Modifications — Slopes in the source area can be stabilized to reduce their failure
potential. Slope height can be limited, the slope angle decreased, drainage installed,
and fill compacted. Drainage systems for the slopes must have culverts sized large
enough to carry debris and water.
4. Don't Develop on Debris Flow Areas
Landslides
Washington is one of seven states listed by FEMA as being especially vulnerable to severe land
stability problems. An increasing population and demand for "view" property, with the
concomitant removal of trees to attain the view, increases the risk of landslides in residential
areas. Buildings on steep slopes and bluffs are at risk in seasons of heavy rains or prolonged
wet spell.
Landslide, mudflow and debris flow problems are often complicated by land mismanagement.
By studying the effects of landslides in slide -prone regions, plans for the future can be made
and the public may be educated to prevent development in vulnerable areas. Applying
established ordinances where geological hazards have been identified will prevent some
landslide losses. However, Whatcom County already has many areas above or below unstable
slopes with established houses and businesses. Prevention of erosion through careful
maintenance of vegetation on slopes and engineered drainage of slopes is necessary to protect
these areas.
The primary mitigation strategy to employ in areas at danger of landslides is to limit or eliminate
development in any high risk areas. Employing buyouts of especially high risk areas on
reoccurring landslides should be considered. If new development is to occur, the Department of
Ecology has outlined the following recommendations and information for the public to equip
themselves:
1. Do research — Learn about the geology and the history of your property. Talk to local
officials, your neighbors, or visit the local library. Review geologic or slope stability maps
of your area.
2. Get advice — Talk with a qualified geologist or geological engineer before buying a
potentially unstable site or building your home. Although waterfront lots can be attractive
sites, they often have severe natural limitations. They may also be subject to strict
environmental and safety regulations.
3. Leave a safe setback — Build a prudent distance from the top or bottom of steep slopes.
Avoid sites that are too small to allow a safe setback from the slope. Allow adequate
room for drainfields and driveways. Local setback requirements should be viewed as
absolute minimums. Resist the urge to trade safety for a view.
32
4. Keep plants — Maintain existing vegetation, both above and on steep slopes. Trees,
shrubs, and groundcovers help anchor soils and absorb excess water. Get expert
advice identifying and removing weeds.
5. Maintain drainage — Collect runoff from roofs and improved areas and convey water
away from the steep slope or to the beach in a carefully designed pipe system.
Regularly inspect and maintain drainage systems.
33
TSUNAMIS
DEFINITIONS:
Tsunami — a series of traveling waves of extremely long length generated by disturbances
associated primarily with earthquakes occurring below or near the ocean floor.
Underwater volcanic eruptions and landslides can also generate tsunamis.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In the deep ocean, a tsunami's length from wave crest to wave crest may be a hundred miles or
more but with a visible wave height of only a few feet or less. They cannot be felt aboard ships
nor can they be seen from the air in the open ocean. Large Pacific Ocean tsunamis typically
have wave crest -to -crest distances of 60 miles and can travel about 600 miles per hour in the
open ocean. A tsunami can traverse the entire 12,000- 14,000 miles of the Pacific Ocean in 10-
25 hours, striking any land in its way with great force. Tsunamis can cause great destruction
and loss of life within minutes on shores near their source, and some tsunamis can cause
destruction with hours across an entire ocean basin.
On the Pacific Coast, from southern British Columbia to northern California, people and property
are at varied risks both from distantly and locally generated tsunamis. Recent studies indicate
about a dozen very large earthquakes (with magnitudes of 8 or more) have occurred in the
Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) west of Washington. Computer models indicate that
tsunamis waves generated by these local events might range from 5 to 55 feet in height and
could affect the entire coastal region.
HISTORY:
Recent research on earthquakes off the Washington, Oregon, and northern California coastlines
and resulting tsunamis (Atwater, 1992; Atwater and others, 1995) has led to concern that locally
generated tsunamis will leave little time for response. Numerous workers have found geologic
evidence of tsunami deposits attributed to the CSZ in at least 59 localities from northern
California to southern Vancouver Island (Peters and others, 2003). While most of these are on
the outer coast, inferred tsunami deposits have been identified as far east as Discovery Bay,
just west of Port Townsend (Williams and others, 2002) and on the west shore of Whidbey
Island (Williams and Hutchison, 2000). Heaton and Snavely (1985) report Makah stories may
reflect a tsunami washing through Waatch Prairie near Cape Flattery, Washington, and Ludwin
(2002) has found additional stories from native peoples up and down the coast that appear to
corroborate this and also include apparent references to associated strong ground shaking.
Additionally, correlation of the timing of the last CSZ earthquake by high - resolution
dendrochronology (Jacoby and others, 1997; Yamaguchi and others, 1997) to Japanese
historical records of a distant - sourced tsunami (Satake and others, 1996) demonstrate that it
almost certainly came from the CSZ. This tsunami may have lasted as much as 20 hours in
Japan and caused a shipwreck about 100 km north Tokyo in A.D. 1700 (Atwater and Satake,
2003). The frequency of occurrence of CSZ earthquakes ranges from a few centuries to a
millennium, averaging about 600 years (Atwater and Hemphill - Haley, 1997). It is believed the
last earthquake on the CSZ was about magnitude (Mw) 9 (Satake and others, 1996; 2003). It is
not known, however, if that is a characteristic magnitude for this fault. Evidence gleaned from
syntheses of global subduction -zone attributes, as well as from local tsunami deposits, suggest
great earthquakes have rocked the Pacific Northwest perhaps as recently as 300 years ago.
Tsunamis are a threat to life and property to anyone living near the ocean. In 1995, in response
to tsunami threat Congress directed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) to develop a plan to protect the West Coast from locally generated tsunamis. A panel
34
of representatives from NOAA, FEMA, the USGS, and the five Pacific coast states wrote the
plan and submitted it to Congress, which created the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation
Program ( NTHMP) in October 1996. The NTHMP was designed to reduce the impact of
tsunamis through warning guidance, hazard assessment, and mitigation. A key component of
the hazard assessment for tsunamis is delineation of areas subject to tsunami inundation. Since
local tsunami waves may reach nearby coastal communities within minutes of the earthquake,
there will be little or no time to issue formal warnings; evacuation areas and routes will need to
be planned well in advance.
Spatial data used to assess tsunami hazards in Whatcom County was developed by the Center
for the Tsunami Inundation Mapping Efforts (TIME) at NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental
Laboratory in Seattle. The data and maps were produced using computer models of
earthquake- generated tsunamis from nearby seismic sources, and analyzed to determine the
risks of a CSZ earthquake.
TIME's tsunami inundation is based on a computer model of waves generated by a scenario
earthquake. The earthquake scenario adopted for that study was developed by Priest and
others (1997) and designated Scenario 1A (also see Myers and others, 1999). It was one of a
number of scenarios they compared to paleoseismic data and found to be the best fit for the
A.D. 1700 event. This scenario has been the basis for tsunami inundation modeling for the
other maps produced by the NTHMP in both Oregon and Washington based on a CSZ event.
The land surface along the coast is modeled to subside during ground shaking by about 1.0 to
2.0 meters (Fig. 1), which is consistent with some paleoseismologic investigations and also
matches thermal constraints of Hyndman and Wang (1993). This earthquake is a magnitude 9.1
event, with a rupture length of 1,050 km and a rupture width of 70 km. Satake and others (2003)
have recently calculated a very similar magnitude and rupture dimension from an inversion of
tsunami wave data from the1700 event. The model used is the finite difference model of Titov
and Synolakis (1998), also known as the Method of Splitting Tsunami (MOST) model ( Titov and
Gonzalez, 1997). It uses a grid of topographic and bathymetric elevations and calculates a
wave elevation and velocity at each grid point at specified time intervals to simulate the
generation, propagation and inundation of tsunamis down the Strait of Juan de Fuca and into
the Bellingham Bay area.
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT:
TIME Results — The computed tsunami inundation model emphasized three depth ranges: 0-
0.5m, 0.5 -2m, and greater than 2m. These depth ranges were chosen because they are
approximately knee -high or less, knee -high to head -high, and more than head -high and so
approximately represent the degree of hazard for life safety. The greatest amount of tsunami
flooding is expected to occur in the valleys of the Lummi (Red) and Nooksack rivers up to their
confluence near Ferndale and then be confined to the relatively narrow valley of the Nooksack.
Sandy Point Shores is expected to be flooded to a depth of a few feet. Elsewhere, tsunami
flooding is expected only in the immediate vicinity of the shoreline where evacuation to higher
ground would be an easy matter.
The inundation data also emphasized current velocities:
1. Less than 1.5 m/s (--3 mph), which is the current speed at which it would be difficult to
stand.
2. Between 1.5 -5 m /s.
3. Greater than 5 m/s which is a modest running pace. Within zones with this designation,
computed velocities locally exceed 20 m/s ( -40 mph) in confined channels.
35
Tide gauge records, at five locations in the bay, show fluctuations of water surface elevation and
also the time history of the waves. The initial water disturbance is a trough of about a meter at
two hours after the earthquake followed by a crest at between two and one -half and three hours
after the earthquake. At around 4 hours after the earthquake, a deeper trough occurs and
reaches about 3 meters near the Port of Bellingham. A trough this large, if it occurred at low
tide, could cause a significant grounding hazard for ships in the harbor. This is visually
displayed in Figure 2, which shows an animation of the tsunami troughs and crests in and
around Bellingham Bay.
Figure 2 — Screen shots of animation of a tsunami arriving in Bellingham area, lasting about 3'/2 hours.
Red areas are crests, blue are troughs.
(Picture obtained from the NOAA T.I.M.E. Center)
These models do not include potential tsunamis from landslides or nearby crustal faults, which
are generally not well enough understood to be modeled. Apparently, locally generated tsunami
deposits have been found on Whidbey Island (Williams and Hutchinson, 2000; Atwater and
Moore, 1992); in Discovery Bay, southwest of Port Townsend (Williams and others, 2002); in
the Snohomish delta near Everett (Bourgeois and Johnson, 2001): and at West Point near
Seattle (Atwater and Moore, 1992). Gonzalez (2003) summarizes the evidence for tsunamis
generated within the Puget Lowland by local earthquakes and landslides and estimates their
probabilities.
When an earthquake that might generate a Pacific Coast tsunami is detected, the Alaska
Tsunami Warning Center calculates the danger to the northeast Pacific Coast and notifies the
communities at risk. Those warnings may give people a few hours to prepare and evacuate
(depending on the distance to the earthquake).
36
If the earthquake occurs off our coast, however, there may be no time to send out hazard
warnings. The first waves could arrive within minutes of the earthquake. The only tsunami
warning might be the earthquake itself.
MITIGATION STRATEGY:
In order to plan for hazards, citizens need to know what to expect. In the last few years, there
have been significant advances in understanding the earthquakes that have occurred on the
CSZ and the tsunamis that struck the Pacific Coast. This information is the foundation for
planning efforts. Because tsunami events provide little warning, one of the keys to mitigating
tsunamis to effectively educate the population at risk about the hazards they face:
1. Hold public meetings to educate the public about the hazard they face. Provide
handouts, evacuation maps, and a description of the warning system (typically the
Emergency Alert System) that will be used to warn residents.
Distribute hazard and evacuation maps to all interested parties,
such as public safety agencies, citizen groups, etc.
2. Establish evacuation plans for all affected communities to
effectively remove all people from the hazard area in the event of
a tsunami warning. This includes identifying all facilities that may s
need extra assistance in evacuating (nursing homes, day cares, F , s
etc.). The evacuation plan should also address the timeline for a
full evacuation, as well as a division of labor to identify which agencies
Awill do which actions.
3. Establish requirements that existing critical facilities must be reviewed
(TSUNOAN) for susceptibility to tsunamis. These facilities should be reviewed to
determine what kind of mitigation action should be taken for each
facility.
4. Post Tsunami signs that show the existence of the hazard area, and
the way to the nearest evacuation route.
5. New critical facilities constructed in the tsunami hazard zone must be elevated above the
hazard area, armored in place, or built outside the hazard area if at all possible.
6. Early warning systems should be evaluated to see if an automated system can be put
into place to provide automated early warning in the event a tsunami occurs.
7. Develop Tsunami Resistant Communities, according to NOAA's Strategic
Implementation Plan for Tsunami Mitigation Projects. These communities would be
outfitted with the knowledge and tools outlined above to deal with a tsunami event.
37
VOLCANOES
DEFINITIONS:
Blast Zone — the area immediately surrounding a volcano, up to several tens of kilometers, that
is destroyed by a volcano's blast.
Lava Flow — a stream of molten rock that pours or oozes from an erupting vent.
Lahar — a mudflow or debris flow that originate from the slope of a volcano; pyroclastic flows
can generate lahars by rapidly melting snow and ice.
Pyroclastic Flows — high- density mixtures of hot, dry rock fragments and hot gases that move
away from the vent that erupted them at high speeds.
Tephra — a general term for fragments of volcanic rock and lava, regardless of size, that are
blasted into the air by explosions or carried up upward by hot gases in eruption columns or
lava fountains.
Volcano — a vent in the earth's crust through which magma (molten rock), rock fragments,
associated gases, and ashes erupt, and also the cone built by effusive and explosive
eruptions.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Cascade Ran in extends more than 1 000 miles It
TOW,%
g
forms an arc - shaped band extending from Southern British
Columbia to Northern California, lying roughly parallel to
the Pacific coastline, and includes 14 major volcanic
centers. The Cascade Range is made up of a band of
thousands of very small, short -lived volcanoes that have
built a platform of lava and volcanic debris. Rising above
this volcanic platform are a few strikingly large volcanoes
that dominate the landscape. The Cascades volcanoes
define the Pacific Northwest section of the "Ring of Fire," a
fiery array of volcanoes that rim the Pacific Ocean. Many
of these volcanoes have erupted in the recent past and will
most likely be active again in the future. Given an average
rate of two eruptions per century during the past 12,000 years, these disasters are not part of
our everyday experience. Whatcom County's eastern boundary follows the crest of the
Cascade Range.
The largest of the dormant volcanoes in Washington State include Mount Baker, Glacier Peak,
Mount Rainier, Mount Saint Helens, and Mount Adams. Explosions from Mount Baker, located
in the eastern portion of Whatcom County, and Glacier Peak would severely impact Whatcom
County. Geologic evidence indicates both Mount Baker and Glacier Peak erupted in the past
and will no doubt erupt again in the foreseeable future. Due to the topography of the region and
the location of drainage basins and river systems, eruptions on Mount Baker could severely
impact portions of Whatcom County. A Mount Baker eruption would generate lahar's,
pyroclastic flows, tephra or ash fall, and lava flows which would decimate affected areas.
Glacier Peak, which is in Snohomish County, is of concern due to its geographic proximity to the
County. Ash fall from an eruption at Glacier Peak could significantly impact Whatcom County.
Mount Baker
Mount Baker (3,285 meters; 10,778 feet) is an ice -clad volcano in the North Cascades of
Washington State about 50 kilometers (31 miles) due east of the city of Bellingham. After
Mount Rainier, it is the most heavily glaciated of the Cascade volcanoes: the volume of snow
and ice on Mount Baker (about 1.8
cubic kilometers; 0.43 cubic miles) is
greater than that of all the other
Cascades volcanoes (except Rainier)
.; combined. Isolated ridges of lava and
hydrothermally altered rock,
s {� especially in the area of Sherman
Crater, are exposed between glaciers
#4 on the upper flanks of the volcano;
r s the lower flanks are steep and heavily
vegetated. The volcano rests on a
foundation of non - volcanic rocks in a
region that is largely non - volcanic in
. , origin.
Glacier Peak
Glacier Peak is the most remote of the five
active volcanoes in Washington State. It is
not prominently visible from any major
population center, and so its attractions, as
well as its hazards, tend to be overlooked.
Yet since the end of the last ice age, Glacier
Peak has produced some of the largest and
most explosive eruptions in the state. During
this time period, Glacier Peak has erupted
multiple times during at least six separate
episodes, most recently about 300 years ago.
HISTORY:
Eruptions in the Cascades have occurred at
an average rate of 1 -2 per century during the
past 4,000 years, and future eruptions are certain
erupted within the past 225 years (see Table 6).
. Seven volcanoes in the Cascades have
Volcano
Eruption Type
Eruptions in the
past 225 years
Recent Activity
Mount Baker
Ash; Lava
1?
Mid- 1800s; 1870 ?; 1975 steam emission
Glacier Peak
Ash
1 +?
Before 1800
Mount Rainier
Ash; Lava
1?
Tephra between 1830 -1854
Mount St. Helens
Ash; Lava; Dome
2 eruptive periods
1980 — present
Indian Heaven
Volcanic Field
Lava; Scoria
None
8,000 years ago?
Mount Adams
Lava; Ash
None
3,500 years ago
Mount Hood, OR
Ash, Dome
1 2 +?
1865; major eruption in the late 1700s
Table 6 — History of Major Volcanic Eruptions in the Cascade Mountain Range for the last 225 Years
(information obtained from Department of Natural Resources)
0
Four of those eruptions listed in Table 6 would have caused considerable property damage and
loss of life if they had occurred today without warning — the next eruption in the Cascades could
affect hundreds of thousands of people. The most recent volcanic eruptions within the Cascade
Range occurred at Mount Saint Helens in Washington (1980 -1986) and at Lassen Peak in
California (1914- 1917).
We know from geological evidence that Mount Baker have produced numerous volcanic events
in the past. Several of these events, if they took place today, would place Whatcom County
communities at considerable risk.
Prevailing Wind communities
hazards from Mount Baker result
rEr,u ption Cloud from a variety of different eruptive
as Eruption Column phenomena such as lahars, ash fall,
' J tephra fall, and pryroclastic flows. Figure
Tephra Landslide 3 displays a model of the inner workings
ain.
i Paraclostic and hazards associated within volcanoes.
Mount Baker's Eruption History
Geologic evidence in the Mount Baker
area reveals a flank collapse near the
summit on the west flank of the mountain
that transformed into a lahar, estimated to
have been approximately 300 feet deep in
the upper reaches of the Middle Fork of
the Nooksack River and up to 25 feet
deep 30 miles downstream. This lahar
may have reached Bellingham Bay. A
huge hydrovolcanic (water mixed with
magma) explosion occurred near the site
of present day Sherman Crater, triggering
a second collapse of the flank just east of
the Roman Wall. This collapse also
became a lahar that spilled into tributaries
Figure 3 — Effects of a Volcano Eruption of the Baker River.
(Diagram courtesy of USGS Cascade Volcano Observatory)
Finally, an eruption cloud deposited
several inches of ash as far as 20 miles downwind to the northeast. Geologic evidence shows
lahars large enough to reach Baker Lake have occurred at various times in the past. Historical
activity at Mount Baker includes several explosions during the mid -19th century, which were
witnessed from the Bellingham area.
Sherman Crater (located just south of the summit) probably originated with a large
hydrovolcanic explosion. In 1843, explorers reported a widespread layer of newly fallen rock
fragments and several rivers south of the volcano were clogged with ash. A short time later, two
collapses of the east side of Sherman Crater produced two lahars, the first and larger of which
flowed into the natural Baker Lake, raising its water level at least 10 feet.
In 1975, increased fumarolic activity in the Sherman Crater area caused concern an eruption
might be imminent. Additional monitoring equipment was installed and several geophysical
surveys were conducted to try to detect the movement of magma. The level of the present day
Baker Lake reservoir (located to the east and south of the mountain) was lowered and people
were restricted from the area due to concerns that an eruption- induced debris avalanche or
M
debris flow might enter Baker Lake and displace enough water to either cause a wave to
overtop the Upper Baker Dam or cause complete failure of the dam. However, few anomalies
other than the increased heat flow were recorded during the surveys nor were any other
precursory activities observed to indicate magma was moving up into the volcano.
This volcanic activity gradually declined over the next two years but stabilized at a higher level
than before 1975. Several small lahars formed from material ejected onto the surrounding
glaciers and acidic water was discharged into Baker Lake for many months.
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT:
Lahars are the primary threat from volcanic activity at Mount Baker. Originating from melted
snow and ice, lahars could create torrents of ash, rock, and water. Flank collapses may also
create volcanic landslides that may form into lahars. Lahars resulting from flank collapses can
also be triggered by earthquakes, gravity, or increases in hydrovolcanic activity. Debris flows
can remain hazardous for many years if the deposited material remobilizes from heavy rains.
Most cohesive debris flows will be small to moderate in volume and will originate as debris
avalanches of altered volcanic rock, most likely from the Sherman Crater, Avalanche Gorge, or
the Dorr Fumarole area. Small volume debris flows will pose little risk to most people, but
moderate volume debris flows could travel beyond the flanks of the volcano.
The probability of either Mount Baker or Glacier Peak erupting, collapsing, or causing slides is
low. However, volcanic activity from either mountain could result in massive destruction of
property and probable loss of lives in or near the floods, lahars, earthquakes, landslides, and
ash fall.
Examples of hazards and "worst -case scenarios" in Whatcom County, including adjacent
counties and Canadian Provinces:
1. Small to moderate collapse in area of Sherman Crater may produce lahars flowing into
Baker Lake:
• Raised level of Baker Lake.
• Baker Lake Dam failure.
• Flooding of the entire Skagit flood plain to Puget Sound.
2. Large flank collapses or pyroclastic flows:
• Inundation of Skagit River Valley by displacement of water in reservoirs by lahars.
• North Fork, Middle Fork and Nooksack River to Bellingham Bay could be inundated.
Enough debris flow could be deposited in the stretch of river between Lynden and
Everson to raise the riverbed enough to spill into the Sumas River or to divert the
Nooksack River into the Sumas River Basin. Such an event is considered high
consequence but low probability.
• Floodwaters could extend from Sumas into Huntingdon and Abbotsford, British
Columbia.
• Flooding all the way to Bellingham Bay.
3. Hospitals: Bellingham's Saint Joseph Hospital and the Outpatient Center would be
isolated from other communities.
4. Transportation Routes: 1 -5 flooded at Nooksack and /or Skagit Rivers; Highway 9 flooded
at Deming Sedro Woolley (Skagit County); Mount Baker Highway (SR 542) flooded.
5. Ash fall: Will depend on direction of the wind (prevailing winds are toward the East). The
ash may cause reduced visibility or darkness. Air filters and oil filters in automobiles and
emergency vehicles become clogged.
6. Airports: All local airports may be impacted by ash fall.
15111
7. Railroad tracks, power lines, radio towers, highways, campgrounds, natural gas
pipelines, and water supplies in these more remote areas may be inundated.
8. Forest fires from ash and volcanic eruption may be expected.
9. Earthquakes may occur.
10. Lightening and thunderstorms often accompany volcanic eruptions.
11. Diversion Dam to Whatcom Lake on Nooksack River at Deming possibly inundated
and /or destroyed.
12. Large numbers of farm animals, people, fish, and wildlife may be killed.
Those most vulnerable initially would be those nearest the pyroclastic, mud and lava flows, or
heavy ash and rock fall during the eruption. Those people in this recreational area of forests
and wildlife may be impossible to locate and rescue. Baker Lake and its dams are vulnerable
and, if impacted, could cause extensive loss of property and lives downstream in Skagit County.
Lahars flowing down and flooding the
Nooksack, Baker and Skagit Rivers may
provide very little warning for evacuation to
nearby populations. Earthquakes
accompanying an eruption may cause bridge
or road damage and trigger landslides. Fine
ash fall, even if only an inch thick, may make
asphalt road surfaces slippery, causing traffic
congestion on steep slopes or accidents at
corners and junctions. Even a minor eruption
or large flank collapse of Mount Baker could
impact some populations physically,
psychologically, and economically.
1. Flooding: Baker Lake and Lake Shannon — possibly dams destroyed.
• Nooksack River from origins to Bellingham Bay.
• Skagit River from Baker River junction throughout Skagit River Valley to Puget
Sound.
2. Transportation — Severe disruption
3. Water Lines, water reservoirs — contaminated or broken and depleted
4. Communication — landlines down, wireless phones overwhelmed.
5. Electric Power — some or all power lost from Mount Vernon to Lynden and possibly
further in all directions.
6. Gas and Fuel pipelines — possibly broken.
7. Toxic waste, sewer, and household chemicals in flood areas.
MITIGATION STRATEGIES:
Generally, technology and tell -tale signs of eruptions from volcanoes allow experts to predict
volcanic activity, such as the predictions of the 1980 Mount Saint Helen's eruption that saved
many lives. However, the magnitude and timing of volcanic activities cannot be precisely
predicted, giving the public little to no warning to prepare for a volcano emergency. Because of
this, the best way to mitigate against volcanoes is to educate and raise awareness of affected
citizens. According to FEMA, one of the best ways to generate awareness and preparedness of
volcanoes is to use the media to spread important information to the community. FEMA
suggests:
151K
1. In a volcano prone area, publish a special section in your local newspaper with
emergency information on volcanoes. Localize the information by including the phone
numbers of local emergency services offices, the American Red Cross, and hospitals.
2. Feature an interview with a USGS representative, talking about how he /she determines
the likelihood of a volcanic eruption.
3. Conduct a television or radio series on how to recognize the warning signals of a
possible volcanic eruption.
4. Work with local emergency services and American Red Cross officials to prepare special
reports for people with mobility impairments on what to do if an evacuation is ordered.
43
WILDLAND FIRE
DEFINITIONS:
Structure Fire — a fire of natural or human - caused origin that results in the uncontrolled
destruction of homes, businesses, and other structures in populated, urban or suburban
areas.
Wildland Fire — a fire of natural or human - caused origin that results in the uncontrolled
destruction of forests, field crops and grasslands.
Wildland Urban Interface — a fire of natural of human - caused origin that occurs in, or near,
forest or grassland areas, where isolated homes, subdivisions, and small communities are
also located.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Wildland fire is a serious and growing hazard over much of the United States, posing a great
threat to life and property, particularly when it moves from forest or rangeland into developed
areas. However, wildland fire is also a natural process, and its suppression is now recognized
LO have created a larger fire hazard, as live and dead vegetation
accumulates in areas where fire has been excluded. In addition, the
absence of fire has altered or disrupted the cycle of natural plant
succession and wildlife habitat in many areas. Consequently, U.S.
land management agencies are committed to finding ways, such as
prescribed burning to reintroduce fire into natural ecosystems, while
recognizing that fire fighting and suppression are still important.
USGS conducts fire - related research to meet the varied needs of
the fire management community and to understand the role of fire in
the landscape; this research includes fire management support,
studies of post -fire effects, and a wide range of studies on fire history and ecology.
HISTORY:
Washington State has experienced several disastrous fire seasons in recent years. In 1994, a
series of dry lightening strikes started numerous fires in the north- central portion of the state,
with major fires occurring in or near Lake Chelan, Entiat, and Leavenworth. During the fire
seasons of 2001 and 2002, lightning again caused numerous fires in Washington and Oregon.
In some cases, two or more fires merged together, overwhelming resources and creating fires
so large and complex that some were not fully extinguished until cooler, damp autumn weather
moved into the region.
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT:
Should a large wildland or wildland -urban interface fire occur in Whatcom County, the effects of
such an event would not be limited to loss of valuable timber, wildlife and habitat, or recreational
areas. The loss of large amounts of timber on steep slopes would increase the risk of landslides
and mudslides during the winter months and the depositing of large amounts of mud and debris
in streams and river channels could threaten valuable fish habitat for many years. In addition,
the loss of timber would severely impact the watershed of the Skagit River and could drastically
increase the vulnerability to flooding for many years.
The Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Northwest Region, has conducted a
region -wide wildland fire hazard assessment utilizing the following method:
1. Risk Assessment and Mitigation Strategies (RAMS) was developed for fire managers to be
an all- inclusive approach to analyzing wildland fire and related risks. It considers the
44
effects of fire on unit ecosystems by taking a coordinated approach to planning at a
landscape level. The steps involved in this process include:
A. The identification of spatial compartments for assessment purposes:
a. Whatcom County (county # 37) was subdivided into 3 risk assessment
compartments based on IFPL (Industrial Fire Precaution Level) Shutdown
Zones. Zone 653 represents the islands and tidal lowlands; Zone 656
represents the interior lowlands (roughly the Interstate 5 corridor); Zone 658
represents the uplands to the Cascade Crest (roughly 1,500 feet elevation
and above). Whatcom County risk assessment compartments are
numbered using the county number (37) combined with the shutdown zone
number. Using this scheme, the three risk assessment compartments
within Whatcom County are numbered 37653, 37656 and 37658.
B. The assessment of significant issues within each compartment, are related to:
a. Fuels Hazards — The assessment of FUEL HAZARDS which deals with
identifying areas of like fire behavior based on fuel and topography. Given a
normal fire season, how intense (as measured by flame length) would a fire
burn? Under average fire season conditions, fire intensity is largely a
product of fuel and topography.
b. Protection Capability — Determining fire PROTECTION CAPABILITY for the
purpose of this assessment involves estimating the actual response times
for initial attack forces and how complex the actual suppression action may
be once they arrive because of access, fuel profile, existence of natural or
human -made barriers to fire spread, presence of structures, and predicted
fire behavior.
a. Initial Attack Capability — actual time of first
suppression resource.
b. Suppression Complexity — access, fuel conditions,
structure density, and so forth.
C. Ignition Risk — Ignition risk evaluation will be completed for each
compartment. Ignition risks are defined as those human activities or natural
events which have the potential to result in an ignition. Wherever there are
concentrations of people or activity, the potential for a human - caused
ignition exists. After assessing the risks within an area, it is helpful to look
at historical fires to validate the risk assessment. Historical fires alone,
however, are not an accurate reflection of the risks within a given area.
The objective of this effort is to determine the degree of risk within given
areas.
Compartment Ignition Risk is based on:
a. Population Density
b. Power Lines — distribution as well as transmission
c. Industrial Operations — timber sale, construction
project, fire use, mining, and so forth
d. Recreation — dispersed, developed, OHV, hunting,
fishing
e. Flammables
f. Other —fireworks, children, shooting, incendiary,
cultural, power equipment
g. Railroads
h. Transportation Systems — state, federal, public access
45
i. Commercial Development — camps, resorts,
businesses, schools
d. Fire History ~ Fire history will be completed for each compartment to reflect:
1. Fire location
2. Cause
3. Average annual acres burned
4. Average annual number of fire by cause
e. Catastrophic Fire Potential -- An evaluation of fire history reflects the
potential for an event to occur. An example is if large damaging fires occur
every 20 years and it has been 18 years since the last occurrence, this
would reflect a priority for fire prevention management actions.
1. Evaluate large fire history
2. What are the odds of a stand replacement type fire occurrence
in that compartment?
a. Unlikely
b. Possible
c. Likely
f. Values — Values are defined as natural or developed areas where loss or
destruction by fire would be unacceptable. The value elements include:
1. Recreation — undeveloped /developed
2. Administrative sites
3. Wildlife /Fisheries — habitat existing
4. Range Use
5. Watershed
6. Timber / Woodland
7. Plantations
8. Private Property
9. Cultural Resources
10. Special Interest Areas
11. Visual Resources
12. T & E Species
13. Soils
14. Airshed
15. Other Necessary Elements
This evaluation process provides the basis for determining the Whatcom County Wildland-
Urban Interface Fire Risk Assessment Compartments map. Additional information regarding the
results of this process can be found in Appendix E, Excerpts from the Washington State
Department of Natural Resources Northwest Region R.A.M.S. Assessment.
Whatcom County Wildland -Urban
Interface Risk Assessment: Compartments
% Moderate Risk Low Risk
p L -�,
Miles
LiA
2. R.A.M.S risk assessment compartments were further broken down to identify Wildland-
Urban Interface Hazards. Using 2000 Census data, individual areas were identified in
the Wildland -Urban Interface and assessed using the N.F.P.A. (National Fire Protection
Association) 299, Wildfire Hazard Assessment. The results of this assessment are
depicted in the Whatcom County Wildland -Urban Interface: Fire Risk Assessment map.
y
v � �
T
Whatcom County Wildland -Urban
Interface Risk Assessment: Fire Risk Assessment
Low Fire Hazard High Fire Hazard
Moderate Fire Hazard Extreme Fire Hazard
----------- - - - - -- s --- - ---
AK-
i d SaP °�1
u
il 10 1
s�a�rr1�
Miles.
M
3. The NFPA 299 was further refined, to reflect Whatcom County Fire Manager's input,
producing a map that reflects Landscapes of Like Risk (Communities at Risk). Areas
that received a high to extreme risk ranking were grouped into landscapes and named.
The result is depicted in the following map. These areas of Whatcom County are at
highest risk of catastrophic loss to a Wildland fire.
Whatcom County Wildland -Urban
M1� Interface Risk Assessment: Communities at Risk
Communities at Risk
i
:! KENQALL
f..: r . - NpOKSACK �Y`
GLACIER
,T
e , y
'WLHATCOM �
MMI
LU
i
F
q CHUCKANIJT MTN... 4'
---- ------------- [_
0 5 10
ss�rr�s 1
Miles
MITIGATION STRATEGIES:
In cooperation with fire managers from Washington State's Department of Natural Resources,
NW Region, three mitigation strategies were developed to address Whatcom County's fire
hazards:
1. Inter - Agency Cooperation
2. County -wide Wildland Fire Prevention
3. WUI (Wildland /Urban Interface) Communities at Risk
Inter - Agency Cooperation
Inter - agency cooperation is the key to a successful wildland fire mitigation strategy. In the case
of Wildland fire risk mitigation, continued development and enhancement of support between
fire protection agencies will be emphasized. Participation in the NW Region Wildland Fire Local
Coordinating Group will continue and support of Local Coordination group activities will be a
..
priority. Support of those activities proclaimed by the governor's office in relation to wildland fire
prevention, such as Wildfire Awareness Week, should be made a priority.
County -Wide Wildland Fire Prevention
In the RAMS Compartments, where the wildland fire risk has been assessed at moderate, multi -
agency cooperative fire prevention activities will occur during the summer months addressing
the following:
1. Public awareness of current fire danger
2. Press releases
3. Media opportunities for fire prevention news articles
4. Radio and TV spots, as needed
5. Use of burn bans during periods of high fire danger
6. Use of Smokey Bear fire prevention programs targeting age- specific audiences during
periods of extreme fire danger, or during significant wildland fire events
7. Consideration of mobilizing Washington State Inter - agency fire prevention teams
8. Use of other fire prevention tactics and strategies, as needed, and as conditions warrant
Wildland /Urban Interface (WUI) Communities at Risk
As a result of efforts conducted by the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources,
the following list of Landscapes of Like Risk were established.
1. Lake Whatcom — Sudden Valley, in the lake Whatcom watershed, is currently
participating in the mitigation strategies set forth in this plan.
2. Nooksack
3. Glacier
4. Lummi Island — Lummi Island Scenic Estates, a community on Lummi Island, has
received national recognition for their mitigation activities under the Firewise
Communities /USA program.
5. Kendall
The Landscapes of Like Risk will undergo a more detailed Community Wildfire Protection
Planning (CWPP) process as outlined in "Preparing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan, A
Handbook for Wildland -Urban Interface Communities" (see Appendix F). The CWPP will
identify landscape level hazard reduction priorities and provide recommendations to reduce
structural ignitability.
In addition to CWPP recommendations, communities located in the Landscapes of Like Risk
should consider the following mitigation strategies:
1. Use of the Firewise Communities program ( www.firewise.org)
2. Conduct Firewise workshops
3. Increase homeowner awareness
4. Facilitate community involvement and support
5. Facilitate media involvement
6. Use the Firewise Communities /USA program (www.firewise.org /usa) to:
a. Facilitate Community involvement and support
b. Provide a course of action for community mitigation
c. Nationally recognize achievement
JURISDICTIONS
The following information details the seven jurisdictions, the Port, and the County's
infrastructure. Each chapter is organized into the following sections:
1. Contact Information — the person involved with providing information for the plan from
the jurisdiction.
2. Approving Authority — the person or persons who will approve the final version of this
Hazard Mitigation Plan.
3. Critical Facilities List — list of critical facilities for each jurisdiction's area. These
facilities were provided by each jurisdiction and include the facility name, type of
facility, and location information.
4. Geography — describes each jurisdiction's infrastructure information and hazard impacts
on the infrastructure, including 2000 Census Bureau population information and the
number of structures impacted per hazard (numbers are an estimate, as damage
made to structures not directly in the way of a hazard could not be predicted).
5. Growth Trends — areas designated as an Urban Growth Area (UGA), under
Washington State's Growth Management Act (GMA).
6. Ranked Critical Facility Assessment — each jurisdiction assessed their critical
facilities, ranked by priority, during a natural hazard event. The purpose of this
assessment was to prioritize each facility according to the amount of federal hazard
mitigation funds each should receive. Entities took into account the number of
hazards affecting each facility and the significance /function of each facility when
determining rankings.
7. Proposed Mitigation Strategies — jurisdiction- specific
mitigation strategies and potential projects put together by
each jurisdiction. This information is a detailed jurisdiction -
specific extension of the general mitigation strategies
provided in each hazard summary, as well as a description
of project prioritization. Refer to page 53 for information
on the commitments made by any of the adopting
jurisdictions.
8. Hazard Maps — maps describing the areas and critical
facilities affected by each hazard. Please note these maps
display only the city limits, so facilities outside city limits
may not be displayed. Refer to the map in the Whatcom
County section for facilities located outside of a
jurisdiction's city limits.
Due to space limitations on the map pages, the legend to
the right describes each critical facility symbol.
51
Whatcom County Critical
Facility Legend
♦
Assisted Living
EMS Station
Economic
EO
♦
Emergency Sery is es
Fire Station
Fuel
It
Government
Homeland Security
1
Law Enforcement
❑
Mail
7�C
Public Works
School Evacuation Center
Transportation
Transportation: Airport
0
Utility: Communication
Utility: Power
Utility: Sever
Utility: Water
JURISDICTION ADOPTION AGREEMENT
All the jurisdictions who adopted this Hazard Mitigation Plan agreed to the following:
1. To formally advise the Whatcom County Department of Emergency Management of its
decision to officially adopt the Plan, and submit ordinances accordingly.
Refer to the Appendices for the signed ordinances of participating jurisdictions.
2. To integrate the Plan into other jurisdiction- specific processes, such as Operational
Budgets, the Growth Management Act (GMA), Capital Budget, and so on.
3. To formulate a cost - benefit analysis of each individual Proposed Hazard Mitigation upon
the implementation of each strategy. Cost - benefits analyses were not calculated and
incorporated into the Plan's first edition due to unpredictable factors of future strategy
implementation, such as physical conditions, inflation, and implementation methodology.
However, a benefit cost review of all the mitigation strategies in this version of the
Hazard Mitigation Plan was conducted as part of the overall community prioritization
process. Table 7 is a consolidated list of all jurisdiction- defined projects. The table
prioritizes each mitigation strategy, taking into consideration the perceived costs and
overall benefits to the community, the complexity of each project strategy, if the
jurisdiction has identified implementation or is recommending initial studies or plan
development for the facility /strategy; risk from natural hazards affecting each facility or
entire jurisdiction (i.e. facilities and jurisdictions with three impacting hazards will have a
higher priority than those with only one hazard); and significance of the facility to the
safety of Whatcom County citizens.
52
Priority
Facility
Jurisdiction
Nature
Brief Description
1
Sumas City Hall & Police Station
Sumas
Implementation
Rebuild outside of flood plain
2
Sumas Fire Station
Sumas
Implementation
Rebuild outside of flood plain
3
Cherry Street Bridge Replacement
Sumas
Implementation
Rebuild to sustain flood events
4
Downtown Ferndale Ring Dike
Ferndale
Implementation
Reinforce current dike and extend levy
5
Lynden Waste Water Treatment Plant
Lynden
Implementation
Mitigate against 100 -year flood event or
volcanic lahar
6
Blaine Waste Water Collection &
Blaine
Implementation
Construct underground storage
Conveyance System
7
Power Generating Capacity
Blaine
Implementation
Install sufficient regenerative power
capacity for critical sites
8
Relocate Waste Water Shops & Offices
Lynden
Implementation
Mitigate in place or move out of floodplain
9
Wellfield Backup Power
Sumas
Implementation
Retrofit against earthquakes
10
Fishtrap Creek Flood Storage & Fish
Lynden
Implementation
Increase storage capacity
Enhancement
11
Blaine City Hall
Blaine
Implementation
Retrofit against earthquakes
Blaine, Everson,
Establish Community early warning
12
Natural Hazard Early Warning Systems
Ferndale, Nooksack,
Implementation
related h
systems for all related hazards, such as
Lynden, Bellingham
flooding tsunamis, lahar, and earthquake
,
when technology allows).
13
Telephone -based Early Warning System
Blaine, Everson,
Ferndale, Nooksack,
Implementation
Install computerized early warning system
Lynden, Port
in phone system.
Bellingham, Everson,
14
Tone Radio Based Early Warning System
Ferndale, Lynden,
Implementation
Install
Nooksack, Port
15
Purchase Repetitive Loss Properties
Everson, Nooksack,
Ferndale, Sumas
Implementation
16
Everson & Nooksack Waste Water
Everson & Nooksack
Plan Development
Mitigate against 100 -year flood event or
Treatment Plant
volcanic lahar
17
Everson & Nooksack City Halls /Everson
Everson & Nooksack
Plan Development
Mitigate against 100 -year flood event or
Police Department
volcanic lahar
18
Sumas Internation Cargo Terminal
Port
Plan Development
Mitigate against flooding
19
Riverside Park
Everson & Nooksack
Plan Development
Mitigate against flood events
20
Dodd Avenue Residential Area
Blaine
Plan Development
Develop contingency plans for flood event
21
Lynden City Hall
Lynden
Plan Development
Retrofit against earthquakes
53
22
Marine Drive Marina
Blaine
Plan Development
Develop contingency plans for flood event
23
Semiahmoo Marina
Blaine
Plan Development
Develop contingency plans for flood event
24
Bellingham Water & Waste Water
Systems
Bellingham
Study
Investigate strengthening structures
25
Bellingham Fire, EMS, & Law
Enforcement Stations
Bellingham
Survey
Assess risks and potential strategies
26
Ferndale City Hall
Ferndale
Survey
Retrofit against earthquakes
27
Bellingham Fire Station 5 / St. Joseph
Hospital
Bellingham
Survey
Assess risks and potential strategies
28
Bellingham Shipping Terminal
Port
Survey
Survey of alluvial fans and existing mines
29
Squalicum Harbor
Port
Survey
Survey of alluvial fans and existing mines
30
Bellingham International Airport
Port
Survey
Survey of alluvial fans and existing mines
31
Fairhaven Station
Port
Survey
Survey of alluvial fans and existing mines
32
Alluvial Fan Hazards
Ferndale
Survey
Assess risks
Table 7 — Perceived Cost Benefit Analysis of all Jurisdiction - Defined Projects
54
City of Bellingham
Contact Information: Andy Day
Assistant Fire Chief
1800 Broadway St.
Bellingham, WA 98225
(360) 676 -6831
Approving Authority: Mayor Mark Asmundson & City Council Members
210 Lottie Street
Bellingham, WA 98225
(360) 676 -6979
Presence of Hazards:
Hazard
Present?
(yes, if checked)
Earthquake
✓
Flooding
✓
Geologic Hazards
✓
Tsunami
✓
Volcano
Wild Land Fire
✓
Hazard Descriptions:
Earthquake — high potential for seismic activity and massive sliding when slopes of 15% or
greater are wet.
Flooding — multiple creeks that pass through the city are subject to flooding.
Geologic Hazards — multiple abandoned underground coal mines exist in and around
Bellingham. Mines of most significance and potential danger exist near and around the
downtown area.
Tsunami — Bellingham borders the Bellingham Bay, and the port area would be at risk of
tsunami activity.
Urban Fire — both urban multiple dwellings and commercial structures in Bellingham would
be at risk.
55
Bellingham Critical Facility List
Facility name
Facility type
Location
American Red Cross Chapter
EOC
2111 King Street
Bellingham City Hall
Government
210 Lottie St.
Bellingham Fire 1
Fire Station
1800 Broadway
Bellingham Fire 2
Fire Station
1590 Harris
Bellingham Fire 3
Fire Station
1111 Indian St
Bellingham Fire 4
Fire Station
2306 Yew St
Bellingham Fire 5
Fire Station
3314 Northwest Ave
Bellingham Fire 6
Fire Station
4060 Deemer Rd
Bellingham Police Station
Law Enforcement
505 Grand Ave
Cascade Natural Gas
Fuel
1600 Iowa
City of Bellingham Public Works
Emergency Services
2221 Pacific
Enco en Cogeneration Plant
Utilities: Power
915 Cornwall Ave
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Law Enforcement
104 W. Magnolia
Georgia- Pacific
Economic
300 W. Laurel Street
Grandview Medic
EMS Station
1886 Grandview
Prospect Fire Dispatch
ECO
1800 Broadway
Public Works Central Shop
Public Works
2221 Pacific
Salvation Army
ECO
2912 Northwest Ave
Sehome Tower
Utility: Communications
Top of Sehome hill
Schools - Dist 501
Evacuation Centers
18 Schools Total
Smith Rd Medic
EMS Station
858 E Smith Rd
St. Joseph Hospital-Main
EMS Station
2901 S ualicum Pkwy
St. Joseph Hospital -South
EMS Station
809 E. Chestnut St.
Teresen Pipelines
Utility: Gas
1006 E. Smith Road
US Border Patrol-Bellingham
Law Enforcement
2745 McLeod Rd
US Coast Guard
Law Enforcement
1101 Thomas J Glenn Dr.
Verizon
Utility: Communications
114 W. Magnolia, Suite 411
Washington State National Guard.
Law Enforcement
3928 Williamson Way
Washington State Patrol
Law Enforcement
3860 Airport Way
Waste Water Treatment Plant
Utility: Sewer
200 Mckenzie
Water Treatment Plant
Utility: Water
3201 Arbor St
Whatcom County DEM
EOC
311 Grand Avenue
Whatcom County Sheriff
Law Enforcement
311 Grand Avenue
Whatcom Transit Authority
Transportation
4111 Bakerview Spur
What -Comm Dispatch
Utility: Communications
620 Alabama
WWU Police
Law Enforcement
516 High Street
M
Geography:
Bellingham Population: 67,171 (2000 Census)
Total area, within city limits: 27.6 mil
Areas impacted. per hazard:
Hazard
# Structures
Impacted
Area Affected
miZ
Percent of
Total Area
Earthquake
40,964
27.6 mil
100%
Flooding
773
1.331 miZ
4.8%
Geologic Hazards
903
1.24 miZ
4.5%
Tsunami
Less than 100
Less than 5%
Wild Land Fire
1,739
5.558 miZ
20.1%
Growth Trends:
This map displays the Urban Growth Area for the City of Bellingham, as designated by the
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan.
� I
� 1 .
_ J 5
t
i
L.r.ft.�R "tia 1 � •
Ij � ' S..a; ' l• +mil
i
L�.ti A
S ,
}
1
� City Limits
i
- iUGA
City of Bellingham & Related UGA Areas
57
Facility name
Facility type
FL I EQ I
GH TSUN VOL WF
Total Hazards
Rank Assessment
Water Treatment Plant
Utility: Water
✓
1
1
Waste Water Treatment Plant
Law Enforcement
✓ ✓
2
2
Prospect Fire Dispatch
ECO
✓
1
3
Sehome Tower
Utility: Communications
✓
1
3
What -Comm Dispatch
Transportation
✓
✓
2
3
St. Joseph Hospital -Main
EMS Station
✓
✓
2
4
Bellingham Fire 1
Fire Station
✓
1
5
Bellingham Fire 2
Fire Station
✓
1
5
Bellingham Fire 3
Fire Station
✓
1
5
Bellingham Fire 4
Fire Station
✓
✓
2
5
Bellingham Fire 5
Fire Station
✓
✓
2
5
Bellingham Fire 6
Fire Station
✓
✓ ✓
3
5
Grandview Medic
EMS Station
✓
✓
2
5
Smith Rd Medic
Evacuation Center
✓
✓ ✓
3
5
Bellingham Police Station
Law Enforcement
✓
✓
2
6
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Law Enforcement
✓
✓
2
6
Washington State Patrol
Law Enforcement
✓
✓
2
6
Whatcom County DEM
Utility: Water
✓
✓
2
6
Whatcom County Sheriff
EOC
✓
✓
2
6
WWU Police
Utility: Communications
✓
1
6
Public Works Central Shop
Public Works
✓
✓
2
7
City of Bellingham Public Works
Emergency Services
✓
✓
2
8
Cascade Natural Gas
Fuel
✓
✓
2
9
Teresen Pipelines
EMS Station
✓
✓ ✓
3
10
Verizon
Law Enforcement
✓
✓
2
11
St. Joseph Hospital -South
EMS Station
✓
1
12
Bellingham City Hall
Government
✓
✓
2
13
Schools 18 total
Evacuation Center
14
American Red Cross Chapter
EOC
✓
✓
2
15
Salvation Army
ECO
✓
✓
2
15
US Coast Guard
Law Enforcement
✓
✓
2
16
National Guard
Utility: Communications
✓
✓
2
17
Whatcom Transit Authority
Law Enforcement
✓
1
18
Enco en Cogeneration Plant
Utilities: Power
✓
1
19
Georgia- Pacific
Economic
✓
✓
2
19
US Border Patrol- Bellingham
Utility: Gas
✓
✓
2
20
CRITICAL FACILITY RANKINGS FOR CITY OF BELLINGHAM
FL = Flooding; EQ = Earthquake; GH = Geologic Hazard; TSUN = Tsunami; VOL = Volcano; WF = Wildland Fire
The methodology used for ranking the critical facilities is described on page 57
m
City of Bellingham's Hazard Mitigation Strategies & Proiects
General Mitigation Strategies: These provide guidance on the overall hazard mitigation goals
for future planning within the City of Bellingham.
Provide for an increased level of safety to the citizens of Bellingham.
Responsible Entity: Bellingham City Council
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Current and ongoing
Provide for an increased level of protection for public infrastructure.
Responsible Entity: Bellingham City Council
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Current and ongoing
Systematically identify and assess the relative risks to critical facilities within the City of
Bellingham. Use information as a basis to develop cost effective mitigation alternatives.
Responsible Entity: Bellingham City Council
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Current and ongoing
Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects: These mitigation projects provide guidance on
suggesting specific activities that agencies, organizations, and residents in the City of
Bellingham can undertake to reduce risk and prevent loss from the at -risk hazards. Each action
item is followed by the suggested responsible entity and timeline, which can be used by local
decision makers in pursuing strategies for implementation.
Following the potential projects is a description of the City's prioritization for implementation.
EARTHQUAKE
Every one of the critical facilities located within the City of Bellingham is subject to damage or
destruction from seismic activity. Specific mitigation projects possible for the highest priority
groups of facilities include:
Water & Waste Water Systems
Study the entire Water and Waste Water Systems to assure they substantially exceed the
seismic provisions of the current building code. Possible upgrades include strengthening
columns, building containment dikes, and adding shear walls and foundation supports.
Responsible Entity: City of Bellingham Public Works Department
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
Emergency Communication System
The Whatcom County Emergency Communications and Radio Equipment Study, published in
2000, identified the entire emergency communication system does not meet the critical needs of
the users (fire, law enforcement, and public works). The study further recommends the current
radio system be replaced with an 800MHz system. Included in the overhaul would be hardening
of the dispatch centers and communication towers to resist the effects of an earthquake.
Responsible Entity: Whatcom County Council of Governments
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
59
Fire, EMS, and Law Enforcement Stations
All of these facilities need to be surveyed to assure they substantially exceed the seismic
provisions of the current building code. Possible upgrades include strengthening columns, and
adding shear walls and foundation supports.
Responsible Entity: Bellingham Fire and Police Departments, Whatcom County
Sheriff's Office, Western Washington University Police, and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
Bellingham Fire Station 5 and St. Joseph Hospital
This fire station, located on Northwest Avenue, and the hospital sit on top of an area containing
the abandoned Bellingham Bay Coal Mine. Combined with the fact that the fire station (a 1971
masonry building) has not been retrofitted to current seismic standards, this places these
facilities at increased risk for damage or destruction. A study should be completed to assess
the risks to these facilities and to recommend alternative mitigation strategies.
FLOODING & TSUNAMI
Waste Water Treatment Plant
This plant is located slightly above sea level on the Bellingham waterfront. Given its location, it
is at risk from the effects of a Tsunami. A study should be made to assess the risk from this
hazard and identify alternatives for mitigation.
Responsible Entity: Bellingham Building Department
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
Any monies that would come to Bellingham would first be spent on studies to determine the best
possible application. The City is unsure of the direction they need to go with regards to Hazard
Mitigation funds, but consider earthquakes to be a major threat. They want to use a risk
assessment process to base their decisions, form a team of decision - makers and then
determine a course of action using a rational -based process.
:f
1�M�
City of Bellingham & Critical Facilities
School
0
Encogen Cog
Bellingham Shipping
Bellingham
Waste Water Treatment PIS
St.
D
C;
C
tarvSchool /lEj
F11
r�sm
City of Bellingham: Flooding Hazard
I IT
o
539 I / / , woo, `
t
1
a
1 -5
0
I
oil
NJR
r
�� 1 i
City of Blaine
Contact Information: Mike Haslip
Police Chief
322 H Street
Blaine, WA 98230
(360) 337 -6760
Approving Authority: City Manager Gary Tomsic & City Council Members
344 H Street
Blaine, WA 98230
(360) 332 -8311
Presence of Hazards:
Hazard
Present?
(yes, if checked)
Earthquake
✓
Flooding
✓
Geologic Hazards
✓
Tsunami
Volcano
Wild Land Fire
✓
Hazard Descriptions:
Earthquake — moderate to high risk
Flooding — areas within the city limits are subject to tidal flooding. Dakota, California, and
Terrell Creeks all present flooding risks.
Geologic Hazards — seismically- sensitive soils present.
Wildland Fire — numerous mobile homes and seasonal cottages at risk.
..
Blaine Critical Facility List:
Facility name
Facility type
Location
AT &T US /Canada fiber optic vault
Utility: Communications
1715 D Street
Bay Medical Clinic
EMS
377 C Street
Blaine City Hall
Government
344 H Street
Blaine City Municipal Airport
Transportation
1311 Boblett St.
Blaine Community Center
EOC
763 G Street
Blaine Police Department
Law Enforcement
322 H Street
Blaine Public Works
Emergency Services
1200 Yew Street
Blaine Waste Water Treatment Facility
Utility: Water
9235 Semiahmoo Parkway
Cascade Natural Gas Facility
Utilities - Power
1400 blk Peace Portal Way
CPB, Pacific Highway Port of Entry
Homeland Security
9955 SR 543
CPB, Peace Arch Port of Entry
Homeland Security
9955 Interstate Five
Customs /Border Patrol Facility
Homeland Security
S of Sweet Rd, E 1 -5
Dept. of Homeland Security, Border Patrol
Homeland Security
1590 H Street
Dept. of Homeland Security, Customs
Homeland Security
1777 H Street
Dept. of Homeland Security, Investigations
Homeland Security
808 Harrison Street
Dept. of Justice
Law Enforcement
165 2nd St.
Elementary School - Dist 503
Evacuation Center
Refer to WC GIS Data Layer
Good Samaritin Rest Home
Evacuation Center
456 C Street
Lift Stations
Utility: Sewer
9 Lift Stations Total
Nextel / AT &T Wireless
Utility: Communication
8800 Blk Semiahmoo Parkway
Nextel / FARS Repeater
Utility: Communication
9800 blk Harvey Rd
Port of Bellingham
Law Enforcement
250 Marine Drive
Puget Power
Utility: Power
Sweet Road& W of Odell Rd.
Pump Station
Utility: Sewer
4 Pump Stations Total
Reservoir
Utility: Water
5 Reservoirs Total
Troon
Utility: Sewer
Refer to Map
US Customs /HLS et al
Law Enforcement
9901 Pacific Highway
Verizon Central Office
Utility: Communication
259 Martin Street
Well Head
Utility: Water
7 Well Heads Total
Whatcom county Fire District 13
Fire Station
1510 Odell Road
Whatcom County Fire District 13
Fire Station
9001 Semiahmoo Parkway
67
Geography:
Blaine Population: 3,770 (2000 Census)
Total area, within city limits: 5.5 mil
Areas impacted, Der hazard:
Hazard
# Structures
Impacted
Area Affected
Percent of
Total
Earthquake
2,701
5.5 mil
100%
Flooding
178
.247 mil
4.5%
Geologic Hazards
443
.785 mil
14.3%
Wild Land Fire
599
1.344 mil
24.4%
Growth Trends:
This map displays the Urban Growth Areas (UGA) for the City of Blaine, as designated by the
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan.
City Limits BRITISH COLUMBIA
i UGA
1i.a._.�a
1 �
i '•� i
it
City of Blaine & Related UGA Areas
::
Facility name
Facility type
FL EQ GH TSUN VOL
WF Total Hazards
Rank Assessment
Blaine City Hall
Government
✓
1
1
Blaine Community Center
EOC
✓
1
1
Blaine Police Department
Law Enforcement
✓
1
1
Blaine Public Works
Emergency Services
✓
1
1
Dept. of Homeland Security, Border Patrol
Homeland Security
✓ ✓
2
1
Dept. of Homeland Security, Customs
Homeland Security
✓ ✓
2
1
Dept. of Homeland Security, Investigations
Homeland Security
✓
1
1
Nextel / FARS Repeater
Utility: Communication
✓
1
1
Puget Power
Utility: Power
✓
1
1
Whatcom County Fire District 13
Fire Station
✓
1
1
Whatcom County Fire District 13
Fire Station
✓
✓
2
1
AT &T (US /Canada fiber optic vault )
Utility: Communications
✓ ✓
2
2
Birch Bay Water and Sewer Dist 8
Utility: Water
✓
✓
2
2
Birch Bay Water Connection
Utility: Water
✓ ✓
2
2
Blaine City Municipal Airport
Transportation
✓
1
2
Blaine Waste Water Treatment Facility
Utility: Water
✓
✓
2
2
Cascade Natural Gas Facility
Utilities - Power
✓
1
2
CPB, Pacific Highway Port of Entry
Homeland Security
✓
1
2
CPB, Peace Arch Port of Entry
Homeland Security
✓
1
2
Customs /Border Patrol Facility
Homeland Security
✓
1
2
Dept. of Justice
Law Enforcement
✓
1
2
Good Samaritin Rest Home
Evacuation Center
✓
1
2
Lift Station 9 Total
Utility: Sewer
2
Nextel / AT &T Wireless
Utility: Communication
✓
✓
2
2
Port of Bellingham
Law Enforcement
✓ ✓
2
2
Pump Station (4 Total)
Utility: Sewer
2
Reservoir 1 5 Total
Utility: Water
2
Troon
Utility: Sewer
✓
✓
2
2
US Customs /HLS et al
Law Enforcement
✓
1
2
Verizon Central Office
Utility: Communication
✓
1
2
Well Head 7 Total
Utility: Water
2
Bay Medical Clinic
EMS
✓
1
3
BP-Cherry Point Refinery
Fuel
✓ ✓
2
3
Elementary School - Dist 503
Evacuation Center
✓
1
3
CRITICAL FACILITY RANKINGS FOR CITY OF BLAINE
FL = Flooding; EQ = Earthquake; GH = Geologic Hazard; TSUN = Tsunami; VOL = Volcano; WF = Wildland Fire
The methodology used for ranking the critical facilities is described on page 57
0
City of Blaine's Hazard Mitigation Strategies & Proiects
General Mitigation Strategies: These provide guidance on the overall hazard mitigation goals
for future planning within the City of Blaine.
Provide for an increased level of safety to the citizens of Blaine.
Responsible Entity: Blaine City Council
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants and loans
Timeline: Current and ongoing
Provide for an increased level of protection for public infrastructure.
Responsible Entity: Blaine City Council
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants and loans
Timeline: Current and ongoing
Work with state and federal agencies to construct temporary wastewater storage capacity for
the wastewater collection and conveyance system to minimize bypasses, particularly during
severe storms.
Responsible Entity: Blaine City Council
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants and loans
Timeline: Current and ongoing
Partner with neighboring jurisdictions, public and private entities to ensure adequate emergency
shelter capacity and utility infrastructure during severe storms and other natural disasters
Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects: These mitigation projects provide guidance on
suggesting specific activities that agencies, organizations, and residents in the City of Blaine
can undertake to reduce risk and prevent loss from the at -risk hazards. Each action item is
followed by the suggested responsible entity and timeline, which can be used by local decision
makers in pursuing strategies for implementation.
Following the potential projects is a description of the City's prioritization for implementation
HEAVY PRECIPITATION EVENTS
Wastewater Collection and Conveyance System
Construct an underground storage and implement policies to minimize the probability of inflow
and infiltration induced wastewater bypasses.
Responsible Entity: Blaine Public Works Department
Funding Source: Sewer funds, other local sources, and state and federal grants
and loans
Timeline: In- process: construction completion estimated Spring 2005
70
EARTHQUAKE EVENTS
Blaine City Hall
Studies have repeatedly indicated that the City Hall and adjacent police service bays would
suffer significant damage and casualties in the event of an earthquake. These facilities should
be retrofitted, replaced, or relocated so that they can survive a 6.0 magnitude or greater
earthquake event.
Responsible Entity: Blaine City Council
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants and loans
Timeline: Long term (minimum of three years after funding is secured)
Acquire sufficient power - generating capacity to serve critical sites during extended power loss
There are several sewer lift stations, water well pumps stations, designated emergency shelters,
EOC and Public Works facilities which require backup power generation capacity in the event of
a severe storm or other emergency causing widespread extended disruption of power supplies.
Sufficient regenerative capacity does not currently exist, and should be purchased, installed and
maintained to provide this capacity.
Responsible Entity: Blaine Public Works and Light Department
Funding Source: Local sources, enterprise funds, and state and federal grants
and loans
Timeline: Long term (estimate one year after funding is secured)
Dodd Avenue Residential Area
The residential neighborhood bounded by Peace Portal, Bayview Avenue, Drayton Harbor and
Dakota Creek west of Peace Portal Drive, can only be accessed by one road, Hughes Avenue,
where it cross the Burlington Northern Santa Fe right of way. Closure of this access by a rail
incident, earthquake or other incident would strand or trap the resident's occupants. This site
should be provided a second roadway for ingress /egress by resident vehicles and emergency
equipment. A response plan for this neighborhood should be developed to provide prompt
notification to people in the neighborhood, and to provide alternative means for their escape
from the area if Hughes Avenue is closed. The plan should include contingency planning
should a blocked roadway prevent access by emergency vehicles.
Responsible Entity: Blaine Public Works and Public Safety Departments
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants and loans
Timeline: Moderate term (at least one year after funding is secured)
Marine Drive commercial and marina areas
The Marine Drive commercial and boating neighborhood is home to several commercial
businesses, over 400 commercial and pleasure craft, a well visited public pier, marine park and
bird sanctuary. It is served to a single point of ingress /egress across the BNSF Railway line.
Significant storm driven tidal action has in the past compromised the Marine Drive right of way
and exposed adjacent underground utilities. Storm winds and large accumulations of snow
place the marina facilities at increased risk. Railroad activity occasionally closes the roadway
for extended periods. A natural event such as earthquake, tsunami, or derailment would strand
civilians in the harbor and deny access to emergency responders. A plan needs to be
developed and provisioned to provide prompt notification to people in the harbor area, and to
provide alternative means for their escape from the area if Marine Drive is closed. The plan
should include contingency planning should a blocked roadway prevent access by emergency
vehicles.
Responsible Entity: Blaine Public Works and Public Safety Department
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants and loans
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
71
Semiahmoo Spit commercial and marina areas
The Semiahmoo Marina, Semiahmoo Inn, Beach Walker condominiums, Whatcom County Park
and Blaine WasteWater Treatment Plant constitute several tens of millions of dollars in buildings
with a daily occupancy and use rate in the hundreds, year round. It is served by a single point
of ingress /egress along the lowland Spit from Drayton Harbor Road. Significant storm driven
tidal action can and does compromise the Semiahmoo Parkway roadway on occasion. Storm
winds place the marina facilities at increased risk. A natural event such as earthquake,
Tsunami, or wind driven tidal surge could damage property and strand civilians in the spit area
and deny access to emergency responders. A plan needs to be developed and provisioned to
provide prompt notification to people along the Semiahmoo spit, and to provide alternative
means for their escape from the area if the roadway is compromised or if quick evacuation is
essential. The plan should include contingency planning should a blocked roadway prevent
access by emergency vehicles.
Responsible Entity: Blaine Public Works and Public Safety Department
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants and loans
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
TSUNAMI
Earthquake/Tsunami Warning System
Blaine has significant lowland exposures to Puget Sound shoreline, valuable properties,
infrastructure and populated areas which could be at risk in the event of a tsunami . A more
detailed analysis of Blaine's risk from events of this type is needed. If required, the US
Geological Survey and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have designed tools,
systems and protocols to detect tsunami producing events. These systems then automatically
trigger various types of early warning systems, such as sirens or telephone based warning
systems for orderly evacuation of low -lying areas.
Responsible Entity: Blaine City Council
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants and loans
Timeline: Long term (one to three years after funding is secured)
COMMUNICATIONS
Community Early Warning System
A community -wide warning system could be built to help provide broad community notice for
evacuation in the event of tsunami, large scale hazardous material spills involving rail or truck
lines or Weapon of Mass Effect incidents involving the international border. Such an early
warning system typically involve a series of sirens that are triggered in the event the City
needed to be evacuated.
Responsible Entity: Blaine City Council
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants and loans
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
Telephone -Based Early Warning System
A computerized early warning system would automatically dial every telephone number within a
specified area, and play a recorded message to whoever picked up the phone. A small version
of such a system is currently in use by the Finance Department. A larger capacity system could
be very useful for a variety of natural and man made problems.
Responsible Entity: Blaine City Council
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants and loans
Timeline: Short term (within one year after funding is secured)
If��
Earthquake Early Warning System
These systems are envisioned to warn residents of an impending earthquake. Technology
doesn't currently exist for early detection with sufficient accuracy, but will likely be available in
the future.
Responsible Entity: Blaine City Council Department
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants and loans
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
The City of Blaine's two foremost concerns are:
1. The ability to continue emergency responsiveness
2. The ability to continue government services when local infrastructure is affected
To mitigate for these concerns, hazard mitigation monies would be prioritized and steered
towards these two major projects:
First, the most comprehensive of projects is the retrofit (seismic) of city hall and the adjacent
police station, training facility and service bay. This is the nucleus of public service, government
and command and control for the city. If these important functions are to be continuously
available, the buildings must survive a seismic event.
The second major project is the acquisition /installation of power generation capacity to both
provide emergency power to police station and city hall, but also provide portable (trailer) power
to maintain both the water and sewage systems. Power is needed to operate water pumps to
pump from wells to water storage devices and to operate sewage lift stations.
73
/ AT &T
Pump Static
Station 4
ump Station 3
Facility
— Lift Station 9
m 4* Lift Station 8
-7� D
Troon
I
City of Blaine & Critical Facilities
z6l'
11,1
Arch Port of Entry I CPB, Pacific Highway Port of Entry
Of Justice
Good.Samaritin Rest Home a ♦Reservior 5
Pump Station 2 Reservior 1
Reservior 3 Nextel / FARS Repeater
community Center 0 Well Head 8
Dept.lof Homeland Security, Customs &
Elementary School
Offi
Central ce � Well Head 9
US Customs /HL•S -et-al
Municipal Airport Blaine Public Works
Nat ru al Gas Facility Whatcom County Fire District 13
Lift Station 3 Well Head 6 Well Head 3 Well Head 4
Lift'Station 5 ` O 6 0
Reservior 4
Customs & Bor \er atroI Puget Power
Lift Statio
Lift Station 1 D
Lift SI
1
4 I
I
City • Blaine: Geologic Hazards
IYI
s ..5
Vi I'
+
City of Blaine: Wildland Fire Hazard
- - - -- - - -- - ------------------
0
T
1
oo
000 00
2
T
1
Q � O
o
548
0
a
\
0
D
City of Everson
Contact Information: Erik Ramstead
Police Chief
PO Box 315
Everson, WA 98247
(360) 966 -4212
Approving Authority: Mayor Jaleen Pratt & City Council Members
111 W Main St
Everson, WA 98247
(360) 966 -3411
Presence of Hazards:
Hazard
Present?
(yes, if checked)
Earthquake
✓
Flooding
✓
Geologic Hazards
✓
Tsunami
Volcano
✓
Wild Land Fire
Hazard Descriptions:
Earthquake — Part of the city, east of Strandel Road, has known clay soil called
phixatropic. Phixatropic liquefies when moved, causing landslides and flow.
Flooding — Hazard presents a frequent and severe risk due to isolated areas. Major
flooding occurred in 1989, 1990, 1995. Flooding begins on west side of the City and
moves east and north up Highway 9 toward Sumas. A 1991 dike was extended with
money from mitigation. A dike runs parallel to the river on the west side, and ends on
Emerson Rd, which prevents water from going to Washington Street and on through to
Main Street. This dike diverts Nooksack River overflow to the floodway. The Sumas
River can flood east of the city, but does not cause severe problems.
Geologic Hazards — seismically- sensitive soils present.
Wildland Fire — Various residential homes at risk. The city has multiple 1970's apartments
and duplexes and two senior living facilities. Two mobile home parks are present with
a total of 71 units.
0
Critical Facility List:
Facility name
Facility type
Location
Bank Northwest
Economic
Kirsh & E Main St.
Elementary School - Dist 506
Evacuation Center
SR 544
Everson City Hall
Government
111 West Main
Everson Police Dept.
Law Enforcement
109 West Main
Everson Senior Center
Evacuation Center
111 West Main
Everson Water plant
Utility: Water
610 Freda St
People's Bank
Economic
Kirsh Street
Post Office
Mail
108 Blair Dr.
Public Works Building
Public Works
603 Robinson St
Pump-Station
Utility: Sewer
103 East Main
Pump-Station
Utility: Sewer
401 Lincoln St
Pump-Station
Utility: Sewer
102 Reeds Ln.
Pump-Station
Utility: Sewer
605 Robinson St.
Pump- Station
Utility: Sewer
116 Evergreen Way
Pump- Station
Utility: Sewer
506 East Main
Pump- Station
Utility: Sewer
208 Everson Rd
Verizon Communications
Utility: Communication
Washington St.
Waste Water Treatment Plant
Utility: Sewer
101 Park Dr.
Waste Water Treatment Plant
Utility: Sewer
105 Park Drive
Whatcom County Fire District 1
Fire Station
101 East Main
Geography:
Everson Population: 2,035 (2000 Census)
Everson Total area, within city limits: 1.25 mil
Areas impacted, per hazard:
Hazard
# Structures
Impacted
Area Affected
Percent of
Total
Earthquake
742
1.25 mil
100%
Flooding
295
0.586 mil
46.9%
Geologic Hazards
61
0.129 mil
10.3%
Volcano
474
0.771 mil
61.7%
79
Growth Trends:
The map to the right displays the
Urban Growth Areas (UGA) for the
City of Everson, as designated by
the Whatcom County
Comprehensive Plan. The City
experienced a noticeable growth
spurt in the late 1980's, and again
in 1995.
Nocksack
City Limits
USA
4 Everson
-• -•-
�
1 �
!
ii
ii
{
• 1
Facility name
Facility type
FL
EQ
GH
TSUN
VOL
WF
Total
Hazards
Rank
Assessment
Everson Water plant
Utility: Water
✓
✓
2
1
Verizon Communications
Utility: Communication
✓
✓
1
1
Waste Water Treatment Plant
Utility: Sewer
✓ ✓
✓
3
2
Waste Water Treatment Plant
Utility: Sewer
✓ ✓
✓
3
2
Everson City Hall
Government
✓
✓
2
3
Everson Police Dept.
Law Enforcement
✓
✓
2
3
Everson Senior Center
Evacuation Center
✓
✓
2
3
Public Works Building
Public Works
✓
1
3
Whatcom County Fire District 1
Fire Station
✓
✓
2
3
Pump- Station
Utility: Sewer
✓
✓
2
4
Pump- Station
Utility: Sewer
✓
✓
2
4
Pump- Station
Utility: Sewer
✓
✓
2
4
Pump- Station
Utility: Sewer
✓
1
4
Pump- Station
Utility: Sewer
✓ ✓ ✓
✓
4
4
Pump-Station
Utility: Sewer
✓ ✓
✓
3
4
Pump-Station
Utility: Sewer
✓ ✓
✓
3
4
Elementary School - Dist 506
Evacuation Center
✓
1
5
Bank Northwest
Economic
✓
✓
2
6
People's Bank
Economic
✓
✓
1
6
Post Office
Mail
✓ ✓
✓
3
7
CRITICAL FACILITY RANKINGS FOR CITY OF EVERSON
FL = Flooding; EQ = Earthquake; GH = Geologic Hazard; TSUN = Tsunami; VOL = Volcano; WF = Wildland Fire
The methodology used for ranking the critical facilities is described on page 57
91
City of Everson - Nooksack's Mitigation Strategies & Projects
The cities of Everson and Nooksack chose to collaborate in their mitigation strategies because
Everson provides Nooksack with police and sewer services.
General Hazard Mitigation Strategies: These provide guidance on the overall hazard
mitigation goals for future planning within the Cities of Everson and Nooksack.
Provide for an increased level of safety to the citizens of Everson - Nooksack.
Responsible Entity: Everson and Nooksack City Councils
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Current and ongoing
Provide for an increased level of protection for public infrastructure.
Responsible Entity: Everson and Nooksack City Councils
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Current and ongoing
Work with neighboring jurisdictions to add additional flow capacity to the Nooksack
River to minimize catastrophic flooding loss.
Responsible Entity: Everson and Nooksack City Councils
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Current and ongoing
Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects: These mitigation projects provide guidance on
suggesting specific activities that agencies, organizations, and residents in the Cities of Everson
and Nooksack can undertake to reduce risk and prevent loss from the at -risk hazards. Each
action item is followed by the suggested responsible entity and timeline, which can be used by
local decision makers in pursuing strategies for implementation.
Following the potential projects is a description of the Cities' prioritization for implementation.
FLOODING
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Construct a ring dike, flood wall or otherwise mitigate the wastewater treatment plant against a
100 -year flood event or volcanic lahars.
Responsible Entity: Everson Public Works Department
Funding Source: Sewer funds, other local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
Everson and Nooksack City Halls, Everson Police Department in Emergencies
The Everson City Hall and Police Department are located in the 100 -year floodplain. These
should be mitigated in place or moved out of the floodplain.
Responsible Entity: Everson City Council, Public Works Department, Nooksack City
Council
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
EM
Riverside Park
Riverside Park is located at the west city limits, and adjacent to the Nooksack River and
Everson Wastewater Treatment Plant. When flooded, this site is littered with debris from the
floodwaters. This site should be mitigated in place or materials removed and disposed of
properly.
Responsible Entity: Everson Public Works Department
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
Purchase Repetitive Loss Properties in the Floodplain
There are several properties in the floodplain that have been repeatedly damaged by past flood
events. Most of these repetitive loss properties were in Whatcom County's jurisdiction and were
purchased by the County.
Responsible Entity: Whatcom County, Everson City Council
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
EARTHQUAKE
Everson - Nooksack City Halls
Both Everson and Nooksack City Halls would suffer significant damage in the event of an
earthquake. These facilities should be retrofitted, replaced, or relocated so that they can
survive a 6.0 magnitude or greater earthquake event.
Responsible Entity: Everson and Nooksack City Councils and Building Departments
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
VOLCANO
Lahar Early Warning System
The USGS has designed a number of systems that automatically detect lahars as they descend
neighboring valleys. These systems then automatically trigger various types of early warning
systems, such as sirens or telephone -based warning systems.
Responsible Entity: Everson Fire District 1, Everson Police Department, Whatcom
Department of Emergency Management, Whatcom County
Public Works
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
COMMUNICATIONS
Community Early Warning System
The City of Everson has an outdated civil defense siren that has not been in service or activated
in several years. A new audible warning system located in Everson downtown, Strandell
neighborhood, and also the City of Nooksack needs to be constructed. Such an early warning
system would typically be a series of sirens that could be triggered in the event the Cities
needed to be evacuated, or emergency information disseminated.
Responsible Entity: Everson Fire District 1, Everson Police Department,
Everson / Nooksack Public Works
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
EM
Telephone -Based Early Warning System
A computerized early warning system would automatically dial every telephone number within a
specified area, and play a recorded message to whoever picked up the phone. Such a system
is accessed through the Whatcom County Department of Emergency Management.
Responsible Entity: Everson Police Department, Whatcom County Department of
Emergency Management
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
Tone Radio Based Early Warning System
Tone Radios turn on when triggered by a central transmitter and then information or instructions
are announced over the radio. Such a system is currently used for various types of weather
radios, for tornados and severe storms hazard areas. A similar system could be put into place
for warning of flooding, lahars, and other related natural hazards.
Responsible Entity: Whatcom County Department of Emergency Management,
NOAA Radio
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
Earthquake Early Warning System
Such a system could warn residence of an impending earthquake. Technology doesn't
currently exist for such a system, but will likely be possible in the future.
Responsible Entity: Federal, State, County, and local entities
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
In the past, both Everson and Nooksack have had community warning equipment (sirens) and
plans in place. The citizens relied on this system to protect them from harm. The system no
longer exists. The community's first priority is to re- establish a system of warning and start a
new public information campaign to reacquaint the citizens with a warning system again. Sirens
would be placed in strategic locations in both cities. This is considered the most important
hazard mitigation strategy for these two cities and will take priority over any other. The
Wastewater Treatment Plant has caused some concern in the past in a flood event. It is seen
as important for public health to protect this facility and the effluent from it. A ring dike /floodwall
around the Plant is the second priority for Everson / Nooksack.
MA
Pump Station
Pump- Station
Elementary School Starvin Sams
Pump- Station Bank Northwest Pump- Station
Waste Water Treatment P�EversonlPolice De t 544
P � Post Office
Pump' Station Peoples Bank
Pump Station
Pump- Station
544
9
Everson Water plant
Elementary School
Pump= Station
Public Works Building
City of Everson & Critical Facilities
A
�ilii�
`v
Ti
ol
0000, 0,000� % � j 00000, 10, 10000
"'000 00000 00�
loo
ol
00001
I
ol / �'
00
��"Oo
City of
NOOksack
ddmF-
TI
City of Everson: Geologic Hazards
0 0.5 13 ------------
Miles
- Alluvial Fan - Seismically- Sensitive Soils
Coal Mine Hazard Slope Steepness: 15 - 35 degrees
?S;;L,y;j�,� �,$ Fill Deposits Slope Steepness > 35 degrees
City of Ferndale
Contact Information: Dale Baker
Police Chief
5640 Third Avenue
Ferndale, WA 98248
(360) 384 -3390
Approving Authority: Mayor Jerry Landcastle & City Council Members
2095 Main Street
Ferndale, WA 98248
(360) 384 -4302
Presence of Hazards:
Hazard
Present?
(yes, if checked)
Earthquake
✓
Flooding
✓
Geologic Hazards
✓
Tsunami
✓
Volcano
✓
Wildland Fire
✓
Hazard Descriptions:
Earthquake — moderate to high risk
Flooding — the city is subject to Nooksack River floods.
Geologic Hazards — seismically- sensitive soils present.
Tsunami — the southern portion of Ferndale, outside the city limits, is subject to tsunami
risk.
Volcano — area at risk from a Mount Baker lahar.
Wildland Fire — residential homes at risk of moderate fire risk.
Ferndale Critical Facility List:
Facility name
Facility type
Location
Conoco - Phillips Refinery
Fuel
3901 Unick Road
Ferndale City Hall
Government
2095 Main Street
Ferndale City Shop
Public Works
5735 Le oe Ave.
Ferndale Police
Law Enforcement
5640 Third Ave.
Intalco Aluminum Corp.
Economic
4050 Mount View Road
PUD #1
Utility: Water
1705 Trigg Road
Schools — District 502
Evacuation Centers
9 Locations Total
Sewer Pump Station #1
Utility: Sewer
Ferndale Rd. & Maple Street
Sewer Pump Station #10
Utility: Sewer
NW Corner of Aquarius & Apollo
Sewer Pump Station #11
Utility: Sewer
6156 Unrein Dr
Sewer Pump Station #12
Utility: Sewer
5217 Northwest Dr
Sewer Pump Station #15
Utility: Sewer
Smith Rd & Bellaire
Sewer Pump Station #16
Utility: Sewer
6006 Portal Way
Sewer Pump Station #17
Utility: Sewer
1350 Slater Rd
Sewer Pump Station #18
Utility: Sewer
Nicholas Drive
Sewer Pump Station #2
Utility: Sewer
N or 1951 Main St & Nooksack
Sewer Pump Station #3
Utility: Sewer
N of 5610 Barrett Rd
Sewer Pump Station #4
Utility: Sewer
5345 LaBounty Rd.
Sewer Pump Station #5
Utility: Sewer
5280 Northwest Rd
Sewer Pump Station #6
Utility: Sewer
5336 Poplar Dr.
Sewer Pump Station #7
Utility: Sewer
2090 Main St
Storm Sewer Pump
Utility: Sewer
1920 Main St
Tenaska Cogeneration
Utility: Power
5105 Lake Terrell Road
Texaco Natural Gas
Fuel
4100 Unick Road
Waste Water Treatment
Utility: Sewer
5405 Ferndale Rd.
Water Pump Station #1
Utility: Water
5727 Church Rd
Water Pump Station #2
Utility: Water
2195 Thornton Rd
Water Pump Station #3
Utility: Water
2604 Thornton Rd.
Water Tank #1
Utility: Water
Vista Drive & Thornton Rd.
Water Tank #2
Utility: Water
2601 Thornton Rd
WCFD7 St. 1 Ferndale
Fire Station
2020 Washington St.
WCFD7 St. 2 Whitehorn
Fire Station
4047 Brown Rd.
WCFD7 St. 3 N.
Fire Station
5368 Northwest Rd.
WCFD7 St. 4 Kohen Rd
Fire Station
5491 Grandview Rd.
WCFD7 St. 5 Enterprise
Fire Station
1886 Grandview Rd.
WCFD7 St. 6 Church Rd.
Fire Station
6081 Church Rd.
yx
Geography:
Ferndale Population: 8.758(28O8Census)
Ferndale Total area, within city limits: 4^7 mmi«
Areas imDacted. Der hazard:
Hazard
# Structures
Impacted
Area Affected
Percent of
Total
Earthquake
3,432
4.7 Mi2
100%
Flooding
105
1.095 Mi2
23.3%
Geologic Hazards
2,330
3.538 Mi2
75.3%
Tsunami
Lessthan 100
Less than 5%
Volcano
642
1.875 Mi2
39.9%
Wildland Fire
359
2.271 Mi2
48.3%
Growth Trends:
This nnop displays the Urban Growth Areas (UGA) for the City of Ferndo|e, as designated by the
Whatcorn County Comprehensive Plan.
4L sc�
—.j
PJ
.1
oil V
ri
City Limits
JGA
91
Facility name
Facility type
FL
EQ I
GH TSUN VOL
WF Total Hazards Rank Assessment
Ferndale Police Department
Law Enforcement
✓
✓
✓ ✓
4
1
Ferndale City Hall
Government
✓
✓
2
2
PUD #1
Utility: Water
✓
✓
2
3
Waste Water Treatment Plant
Utility: Sewer
✓
✓
✓ ✓
4
4
Water Pump Station #1
Utility: Water
✓
✓
2
4
Water Pump Station #2
Utility: Water
✓
✓
2
4
Water Pump Station #3
Utility: Water
✓
✓
✓
3
4
Water Tank #1
Utility: Water
✓
✓
2
4
Water Tank #2
Utility: Water
✓
✓
✓
3
4
Sewer Pump Station #1
Utility: Sewer
✓
✓
✓ ✓ ✓
5
5
Sewer Pump Station #10
Utility: Sewer
✓
✓
2
5
Sewer Pump Station #11
Utility: Sewer
✓
✓
✓
3
5
Sewer Pump Station #12
Utility: Sewer
✓
✓
2
5
Sewer Pump Station #15
Utility: Sewer
✓
✓
2
5
Sewer Pump Station #16
Utility: Sewer
✓
✓
2
5
Sewer Pump Station #17
Utility: Sewer
✓
✓
2
5
Sewer Pump Station #18
Utility: Sewer
✓
✓
2
5
Sewer Pump Station #2
Utility: Sewer
✓
✓
✓ ✓
4
5
Sewer Pump Station #3
Utility: Sewer
✓
✓ ✓
3
5
Sewer Pump Station #4
Utility: Sewer
✓
✓
✓ ✓
4
5
Sewer Pump Station #5
Utility: Sewer
✓
✓
2
5
Sewer Pump Station #6
Utility: Sewer
✓
1
5
Sewer Pump Station #7
Utility: Sewer
✓
✓
2
5
Storm Sewer Pump Station #8
Utility: Sewer
✓
✓
✓ ✓ ✓
5
6
Ferndale City Shop
Public Works
✓
1
7
WCFD7 St. 1 Ferndale
Fire Station
✓
1
8
WCFD7 St. 2 Whitehorn
Fire Station
✓
✓
2
8
WCFD7 St. 3 N. Bellingham
Fire Station
✓
✓
2
8
WCFD7 St. 4 Kohen Rd
Fire Station
✓
✓
2
8
WCFD7 St. 5 Enterprise
Fire Station
✓
✓
2
8
WCFD7 St. 6 Church Rd.
Fire Station
✓
✓
✓
3
8
Schools
Evacuation Centers
9
Conoco-Phillips Refinery
Fuel
✓
1
10
Tenaska Cogeneration Plant
Utility: Power
✓
✓
2
10
Texaco Natural Gas
Fuel
✓
1
10
Intalco Aluminum Corp.
Economic
✓
1
11
CRITICAL FACILITY RANKING FOR CITY OF FERNDALE
FL = Flooding; EQ = Earthquake; GH = Geologic Hazard; TSUN = Tsunami; VOL = Volcano; WF = Wildland Fire
The methodology used for ranking the critical facilities is described on page 57
92
City of Ferndale's Hazard Mitigation Strategies & Proiects
General Mitigation Strategies: These provide guidance on the overall hazard mitigation goals
for future planning within the City of Ferndale.
Provide for an increased level of safety to the citizens of Ferndale.
Responsible Entity: Ferndale City Council
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Current and ongoing
Provide for an increased level of protection for public infrastructure.
Responsible Entity: Ferndale City Council
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Current and ongoing
Potential Mitigation Projects: These mitigation projects provide guidance on suggesting
specific activities that agencies, organizations, and residents in the City of Ferndale can
undertake to reduce risk and prevent loss from the at -risk hazards. Each action item is followed
by the suggested responsible entity and timeline, which can be used by local decision makers in
pursuing strategies for implementation.
Following the potential projects is a description of the City's prioritization for implementation.
FLOODING
Downtown Ferndale Ring Dike
A riverside dike currently exists on the eastern border of Ferndale's old downtown area. This
dike is built to the anticipated 100 -year flood elevation. To decrease the potential for severe
downtown flooding and catastrophic loss, the City would construct an addition to the existing
dike that would proceed westward from the southern end of the City's wastewater plant and
extending to the west and north, thus providing ring dike protection for the downtown area. This
area of the city houses the City's Police Department and City Hall together with a substantial
portion of the city's commercial core. The levy should also be extended north of downtown be
raising sections of Cedar Street.
Responsible Entity: Ferndale Public Works
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal funds
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
Purchase repetitive loss properties in the floodplain
There are several properties in the floodplain that have been repeatedly damaged by
past flood events. These repetitive loss properties should be purchased and converted
to open space or recreational use.
Responsible Entity: Ferndale Planning Department
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
93
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
Alluvial Fan Hazards
Alluvial Fans are known to exist in parts of Whatcom County, but there hasn't been an alluvial
fan hazard previously identified in Ferndale. A survey of possible alluvial fan hazards within the
City of Ferndale by a Professional Geologist would help clarify if these hazards exist in Ferndale
or not. Any such properties at risk could then be purchased as a mitigation measure to help
reduce future loses.
Responsible Entity: Ferndale Planning Department
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
EARTHQUAKE
Ferndale City Hall
City Hall should be studied to determine what effects earthquakes would have on it. This facility
may be retrofitted so that it can survive a 6.0 magnitude or greater earthquake event.
Responsible Entity: Ferndale Building Department
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
VOLCANO
Lahar Early Warning System
The US Geological Survey has designed a number of systems that automatically detect
lahars as they descend neighboring valleys. These systems then automatically trigger
various types of early warning systems, such as sirens or telephone based warning
systems.
Responsible Entity: Ferndale Police Department / Whatcom Fire District 7
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
COMMUNICATIONS
Community Early Warning System
A community -wide warning system could be built to help provide broad community notice for
evacuation in the event of flooding, lahars, dam failures, etc. Such an early warning system
would typically be a series of sirens that could be triggered in the event the City needed to be
evacuated.
Responsible Entity: Ferndale Police Department / Whatcom Fire District 7
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
Telephone Based Early Warning System
A computerized early warning system would automatically dial every telephone number within a
specified area, and play a recorded message to whoever picked up the phone. Such a system
could be very useful for a variety of natural and man made problems.
Responsible Entity: Ferndale Police Department / Whatcom Fire District 7
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
94
Tone Radio Based Early Warning System
Tone Radios turn on when triggered by a central transmitter, and then information or
instructions are announced over the radio. Such a system is currently used for various types of
weather radios, for tornados and severe storms hazard areas. A similar system could be put
into place for warning of flooding, lahars, and other related natural hazards.
Responsible Entity: Ferndale Police Department / Whatcom Fire District 7
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
Earthquake Early Warning System
Such a system could warn residence of an impending earthquake. Technology doesn't
currently exist for such a system, but will likely be possible in the future.
Responsible Entity: Ferndale Fire Department
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
This is to describe how the City of Ferndale will prioritize projects if and when funding becomes
available. This list assumes that all the projects listed can be funded from the same sources
that may become available.
Flooding from the Nooksack River is a frequent problem. Some years there are multiple events.
The dike improvement projects would be the top priority.
Earthquakes are a likely event. City Hall and other facilities would be evaluated for their ability
to withstand at least a 6.0 magnitude quake. The building(s) would be retrofitted if found to be
deficient.
The City needs to study what type of warning system(s) would reach the greatest number of
residents. Depending on the ability to predict different events, the system would be designed to
assist the City in warning its residents of as many of the types of the disasters as possible.
95
ID �
. D
PUD #1 �-
o
r
Sewer Pump Station #18
c�
Sewer Pzq�m p Station #13
SL er Pump Staion #11
Water ank #2 Water Tank 41
Ele i entary_School
d Water Pump Station #2
Elementary School) Middle School
Sewer Pump Station #167?
14
p High School
p Elementary School d I}
d FeF- City Shop' WCFD7 'St. 1 Ferndale
KWater Pump Station #1
U Ferntla\e City Hall
eriPu_m\Station #7 ,
S Pump - Station #6 Ferri 1 le lice pt.
Storm Sewer PS #8 Sewer Pump Station #3
ElementaryySchool Sewer Pump Station #1
Waste Water TreatmenLIRIant
Sewer Pump Station #4
Sewer Pump Station 415
0 M
D
r
City of Ferndale & Critical Facilities SewerPumpStation #17;
,,,v'
v
1 -5
d
0,
/� ol
00
.s
.�1
City of Ferndale: Geologic Hazards
Z611 ���
City of Ferndale: Volcano Hazard
_m,la
v
1
e
J
V
City of Ferndale: Wildland Fire Hazard
City of Lynden
Contact Information: Warren Gay
Fire Chief
215 0 Street
Lynden, WA 98264
(360) 354 -4400
Approving Authority: Mayor Jack Louws & City Council Members
323 Front Street
Lynden, WA 98264
(360) 354 -4270
Presence of Hazards:
Hazard
Present?
(yes, if checked)
Earthquake
✓
Flooding
✓
Geologic Hazards
✓
Tsunami
Volcano
✓
Wild Land Fire
Hazard Descriptions:
Earthquake — mild risk, but high impact to the North and South.
Flooding — Lynden is located above the flood plain. New construction has currently
encroached on the floodplain. Fishtrap Creek, which bisects the City, is subject to
seasonal flooding, which could impact sanitary services at the Wastewater Treatment
Plant.
Geologic Hazards — seismically- sensitive soils present.
Volcano — the southern portion of the city is at risk of a Mount Baker lahar. This would
impact the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
102
Critical Facility List:
Facility name
Facility type
Street address 1
Christian Health Care Center
Assisted Living
855 Aaron Drive
Lynden City Hall
Government
323 Front Street
Lynden Community Center
Assisted Living
401 Grover St.
Lynden Fire Department
Fire Station
215 Fourth Street
Lynden Manor
Assisted Living
905 Aaron Drive
Lynden Police Department
Law Enforcement
1610 Grover Street
Meadow Greens
Assisted Living
301 W. Homestead Blvd.
North Whatcom Fire & Rescue
Fire Station
307 19th Street
Northwest Washington Fair
Emergency Services
1775 Front Street
Schools — District 504
Evacuation Center
7 Schools Total
Sonli ht Church
Evacuation Center
8800 Bender Rd.
US Border Patrol-Lynden
Law Enforcement
Main /Guide Meridian
Waste Water Treatment Plant
Utility: Sewer
800 S. 6th Street
Water Treatment Plant
Utility: Water
525 Judson Street
Word of Life Outreach Center
Evacuation Center
1986 Main Street
Geography
Lynden Population: 9,020 (2000 Census)
Lynden Total area, within city limits: 6.5 mil
Areas impacted, per hazard:
Hazard
# Structures
Impacted
Area Affected
Percent of
Total
Earthquake
3,446
6.5 mil
100%
Flooding
189
0.167 mil
2.6%
Geologic Hazards
99
0.0572 mil
0.9%
Volcano
5
0.0203 mil
0.3%
Growth Trends:
This map displays the Urban Growth Areas (UGA) for the City of Lynden, as designated by the
Whatcom County
Comprehensive Plan_
'GA
r.... ._..._. -....
ii I iw
r�}
'F€
103
Facility name
Facility type
FL
EQ
GH
TSUN
VOL
WF
Total
Hazards
Rank
Assessment
L nden Fire Department
Fire Station
✓
1
1
North Whatcom Fire & Rescue
Fire Station
✓
1
1
Waste Water Treatment Plant
Utility: Sewer ✓
✓ ✓
3
1
Water Treatment Plant
Utility: Water
✓
1
1
L nden Police Department
Law Enforcement
✓
1
2
US Border Patrol -L nden
Law Enforcement
✓
1
2
L nden City Hall
Government
✓
1
3
L nden Community Center
Assisted Living
✓
1
3
Christian Health Care Center
Assisted Living
✓
1
4
L nden Manor
Assisted Living
`/
1
4
Meadow Greens
Assisted Livin g
1
4
Northwest Washington Fair
Emergency Services
✓
1
4
Schools
Evacuation Centers
4
Sonli ht Church
Evacuation Center
✓
1
4
Word of Life Outreach Center
Evacuation Center
✓
1
4
CRITICAL FACILITY RANKING FOR THE CITY OF LYNDEN
FL = Flooding; EQ = Earthquake; GH = Geologic Hazard; TSUN = Tsunami; VOL = Volcano; WF = Wildland Fire
The methodology used for ranking the critical facilities is described on page 57
104
City of Lynden's Hazard Mitigation Strategies & Proiects
General Hazard Mitigation Strategies: These provide guidance on the overall hazard
mitigation goals for future planning within the City of Lynden.
Provide for an increased level of safety to the citizens of Lynden.
Responsible Entity: Lynden City Council
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Current and ongoing
Provide for an increased level of protection for public infrastructure.
Responsible Entity: Lynden City Council
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Current and ongoing
Work with neighboring jurisdictions to add additional flow capacity to the Nooksack River in
order to minimize catastrophic flooding losses.
Responsible Entity: Lynden City Council
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Current and ongoing
Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects: These mitigation projects provide guidance on
suggesting specific activities that agencies, organizations, and residents in the City of Lynden
can undertake to reduce risk and prevent loss from the at -risk hazards. Each action item is
followed by the suggested responsible entity and timeline, which can be used by local decision
makers in pursuing strategies for implementation.
Following the potential projects is a description of the City's prioritization for implementation.
FLOODING
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Construct a ring dike, flood wall or otherwise mitigate the wastewater treatment plant against a
75 -year flood event or volcanic lahars.
Responsible Entity: Lynden Public Works Department
Funding Source: Sewer funds, other local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
Relocate Waste Water Shops and Offices
The Waste Water Treatment shops and offices are located in the floodplain. These should be
mitigated in place or moved out of the floodplain.
Responsible Entity: City of Lynden Public Works Department
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
105
Fishtrap Creek Flood Storage & Fish Enhancement
Fishtrap Creek has had a significant amount of its floodwater storage capacity eliminated due to
development. With very little storage capacity left, any discharges into the stream system
immediately surge downstream. Increasing this storage capacity would mitigate to attenuate
stream discharges.
Responsible Entity: City of Lynden Public Works Department
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
EARTHQUAKE
Lynden City Hall
City Hall has had numerous studies indicating the Lynden City Hall would suffer significant
damage in the event of an earthquake. This facility should be retrofitted, replaced, or relocated
so that it can survive a 6.0 magnitude or greater earthquake event.
Responsible Entity: Lynden Building Department
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
VOLCANO
Lahar Early Warning System
The US Geological Survey has designed a number of systems that automatically detect lahars
as they descend neighboring valleys. These systems automatically trigger various types of
early warning systems, such as sirens or telephone -based warning systems.
Responsible Entity: Lynden Fire Department
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
COMMUNICATIONS
Community Early Warning System
A community -wide warning system could be built to help provide broad community notice for
evacuation in the event of flooding, lahars, dam failures, etc. Such an early warning system
would typically be a series of sirens that could be triggered in the event the City needed to be
evacuated.
Responsible Entity: Lynden Fire Department
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
Telephone -Based Early Warning System
A computerized early warning system would automatically dial every telephone number within a
specified area, and play a recorded message to whoever picked up the phone. Such a system
would be useful for a variety of natural and man -made problems.
Responsible Entity: Lynden Fire Department
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
106
Tone Radio Based Early Warning System
Tone Radios turn on when triggered by a central transmitter, and then information or
instructions are announced over the radio. Such a system is currently used for various types of
weather radios, for tornados and severe storms hazard areas. A similar system could be put
into place for warnings of flooding, lahars, and other related natural hazards.
Responsible Entity: Lynden Fire Department
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
Earthquake Early Warning System
Such a system could warn residence of an impending earthquake. Technology doesn't
currently exist for such a system, but will likely be possible in the future.
Responsible Entity: Lynden Fire Department
Funding Source: Local sources, and state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
Priorities will be based on the 'greatest benefit for the largest number of people' with in the
jurisdiction and situational. If and when there is money available, the greatest perceived need
(by the City) at that time will get the attention.
107
- - - -- - -- --- --- -- 546
Christian Health Care Center Lynden Man.rj
Sonlig Church
Meadow Greens
539
Elementary School
High School
p High School
Elementary' School Elementary chdold
Word of Life Outreach Center Middle School
Lynden Fire .Department
P
Elementary-School
d
Lynden n y Center
Elementary School Lynden Cii Hall
We Treatment - Plant
North Whatcom Fire & Rescue Lynden Police.Department
Northwest Washington Fair Waste Water Treatment Plant
i
City of Lynden & Critical Facilities
m
7
546
LL
539
F---7
g
g
g g -
g
1
g
i�
1
-- - City of Lynden: Geologic Hazards
City of Nooksack
Contact Information: Erik Ramstead
Police Chief
PO Box 4265
Nooksack, WA 98276
(360) 966 -4212
Approving Authority: Mayor Jim Ackerman & City Council Members
PO Box 4265
Nooksack, WA 98276
(360) 966 -2531
Presence of Hazards:
Hazard
Present?
(yes, if checked)
Earthquake
✓
Flooding
✓
Geologic Hazards
✓
Tsunami
Nooksack Water Tanks
Volcano
✓
Wild Land Fire
Mail
Hazard Descriptions:
Earthquake — the city is subject to seismic activity.
Flooding — this hazard occurs frequently and can be severe, especially due the presence
of isolated areas. Major flooding occurred in 1989, 1990, 1995. Flooding begins in the
west side of the City and moves east and north up Highway 9, toward Sumas. A dike
was extended in 1991 with money from mitigation. The dike runs parallel to the
Nooksack River on the West side, ending on Emerson Road. It prevents water from
going to Washington St. and on through to Main Street. The dike diverts Nooksack
River overflow it to the floodway. The Sumas River can flood east of the City, but
doesn't cause severe problems.
Geologic Hazards — seismically- sensitive soils.
Volcano — all of the area within the city limits would be affected by a Mount Baker lahar.
Critical Facility List-
Facility name
Facility type
Location
Elementary School - Dist 506
Evacuation Center
Refer to Maps
Nooksack City Hall
Government
103 West Madison St
Nooksack Water Tanks
Utility: Water
8386 Gillies Rd.
Post Office
Mail
605 Nooksack Ave.
ism
Pump- Station
Utility: Sewer
105 Garfield St.
Pump-Station
Utility: Sewer
610 Nooksack Ave.
Pump-Station
Utility: Sewer
1216 Nooksack Ave.
Starvin' Sams
Fuel
102 Columbia St.
Geography:
Nooksack Population: 851 (2000 Census)
Nooksack Total area, within city limits: 0.66 mil
Areas impacted, per hazard:
Hazard
# Structures
Impacted
Area Affected
Percent of
Total Area
Earthquake
366
0.66 mil
100%
Flooding
101
0.32 miZ
45.5%
Geologic Hazards
313
0.597 mil
90.5%
Volcano
366
0.66 miZ
100%
Growth Trends:
This map displays the Urban Growth Areas (UGA) for the City of Nooksack, as designated by
the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. The City experienced an increase in growth and
housing in the 1990's, with many new manufactured homes.
City Limits
UGA
113
- - - • -• -•- -y
i
Nooksack 1
i
I i
Everson-----------
-
1
i
i
i
113
Facility name
Facility type
FL
EQ
GH
TSUN
VOL
WF
Total
Hazards
Rank
Assessment
Nooksack City Hall
Government
✓ ✓
✓
3
1
Nooksack Water Tanks
Utility: Water
✓ ✓
✓ ✓
4
1
Pump-Station
Utility: Sewer
✓ ✓
✓
3
2
Pump-Station
Utility: Sewer
✓ ✓
✓
3
2
Pump-Station
Utility: Sewer
✓ ✓
✓
3
2
Starvin Sams
Fuel
✓
✓
2
3
Elementary School - Dist 506
Evacuation Center ✓
✓
✓
3
4
Post Office
Mail
✓ ✓
✓
3
5
CRITICAL FACILITY RANKING FOR THE CITY OF NOOKSACK
FL = Flooding; EQ = Earthquake; GH = Geologic Hazard; TSUN = Tsunami; VOL = Volcano; WF = Wildland Fire
The methodology used for ranking the critical facilities is described on page 57
114
City of Everson - Nooksack's Mitigation Strategies & Projects
Refer to the mitigation strategies and priorities outlined for the City of Everson's section for
Nooksack's strategies. The cities of Everson and Nooksack chose to collaborate in their
mitigation strategies because Everson provides Nooksack with police and sewer services.
115
0
Elementary School
0
City of Nooksack & Critical
Station
Station
Facilities
0.0,
Il000,
OOOIA
,;o
0000 1-1
e
1100,
I
�/
City of Nooksack: Geologic Hazards
® 1�
- ;544
9
Port of Bellingham
Contact Information: Karen Callery
Engineering Specialist
1801 Roeder Avenue
Bellingham, WA 98225
(360) 676 -2500, x312
Approving Authority: Executive Director Jim Darling & Port Commission
1801 Roeder Avenue
Bellingham, WA 98225
(360) 676 -2500
Presence of Hazards:
Because the Port does not occupy a specific area, like the cities do, the hazards indicated as
present were those affecting facilities critical to the Port. Specifically, these facilities occupied
area in the Cities of Bellingham and Blaine. Refer to these Jurisdiction Overviews for the
characteristics affecting the Port.
Hazard
Present?
(yes, if checked)
Earthquake
✓
Flooding
✓
Geologic Hazards
✓
Tsunami
Bellingham Shipping Terminal #1 & #2
Volcano
✓
Wild Land Fire
Transportation
Critical Facility List:
Facility name
Facility type
Location
Bellingham Cruise Terminal
Transportation
355 Harris Ave.
Bellingham International Airport
Transportation: Airport
4255 Mitchel Way
Bellingham Shipping Terminal #1 & #2
Transportation
629 Cornwall
Blaine Harbor
Transportation
235 Marine Drive
Fairhaven Station - Multi -Modal Facility
Transportation
401 Harris Ave.
Squalicum Harbor
Transportation
722 Coho Way
Sumas International Cargo Terminal
Transportation
530 Front Street
120
Facility name
Facility type
FL
EQ
GH
TSUN
VOL
WF
Total
Hazards
Rank
Assessment
Bellingham Cruise Terminal Transportation
✓ ✓
2
1
Squalicum Harbor Transportation
✓
1
2
Bellingham International Airport Transportation: Airport
✓ ✓
2
3
Fairhaven Station - Multi -Modal Facility Transportation
✓ ✓
2
4
Bellingham Shipping Terminal #1 / #2 Transportation
✓ ✓
2
5
Blaine Harbor Transportation
✓ ✓
2
6
Sumas International Cargo Terminal Transportation
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
4
7
CRITICAL FACILITY RANKING FOR THE PORT OF BELLINGHAM
FL = Flooding; EQ = Earthquake; GH = Geologic Hazard; TSUN = Tsunami; VOL = Volcano; WF = Wildland Fire
The methodology used for ranking the critical facilities is described on page 57
Note: Refer to the Bellingham and Blaine city maps for hazards affecting the Port of Bellingham critical facilities.
121
Port of Bellingham's Hazard Mitigation Strategies & Proiects
General Hazard Mitigation Strategies: These provide guidance on the overall hazard
mitigation goals for future planning for the Port of Bellingham.
Provide an increased level of safety for residents of Sumas.
Ensure adequate protection for new structures by compliance with the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) and with the earthquake standards established in the
International Building Code (IBC).
Provide for an increased level of safety for the citizens of Whatcom County.
Provide for an increased level of protection that reduces hazard vulnerability and the potential of
damage to public infrastructure.
Identify potential hazards at Port facilities though a survey by a professional geologist.
Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects: These mitigation projects provide guidance on
suggesting specific activities the Port of Bellingham can undertake to reduce risk and prevent
loss from the at -risk hazards. Each action item is followed by the suggested responsible entity
and timeline, which can be used by local decision makers in pursuing strategies for
implementation.
Following the potential projects is a description of the Port's prioritization for implementation.
For mitigation projects the following applies to all:
Responsible Entity: Port of Bellingham, Board of Commissioners
Funding Source: Local sources, state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than five years after funding is secured)
FLOODING / VOLCANO EVENTS
Sumas International Cargo Terminal
Work with other jurisdictions to reduce the impacts of flooding from the Nooksack River.
Investigate a system to alert citizens that automatically detect lahars as they descend
neighboring valleys. The system should automatically trigger various types of early warning
systems, such as sirens or telephone based warning systems.
EARTHQUAKE / GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS
Bellingham International Airport
A survey of possible alluvial fan or abandoned coal mine shafts would be conducted by a
professional geologist. This work would help clarify if these hazards exist in the area of
Bellingham International Airport.
Bellingham Cruise Terminal
The Bellingham Cruise Terminal was constructed in 1989, and was designed to meet all existing
building codes in effect at the time. As other buildings and infrastructure are built, the design
should meet all of the current building construction codes. Investigate an early warning system
for alerting the public and businesses to potential tsunamis events.
IFA
Fairhaven Station — Multi -Modal Facility
Fairhaven Station was retrofitted in 1990 to the existing building codes in effect at the time. As
other buildings and infrastructure are built, the design should meet all of the current building
construction codes. Investigate an early warning system for alerting the public and businesses
to potential tsunamis events. A survey of possible alluvial fan or abandoned coal mine shafts
should be conducted by a professional geologist. This work would help clarify if these hazards
exist in the area of Fairhaven Station.
Bellingham Shipping Terminal
A survey of possible alluvial fan or abandoned coal mine shafts would be conducted by a
professional geologist. This work would help clarify if these hazards exist in the area of
Bellingham Shipping Terminal. Investigate an early warning system for alerting the public and
businesses to potential tsunamis events.
Squalicum Harbor & Blaine Harbor
As other buildings and infrastructure are built, the design should meet all of the current building
construction codes. Investigate an early warning system for alerting the public and businesses
to potential tsunamis events. A survey of possible alluvial fan or abandoned coal mine shafts
would be conducted by a professional geologist. This work would help clarify if these hazards
exist in the area of Squalicum Harbor.
COMMUNICATIONS
Telephone -Based Early Warning System
Investigate a computerized early warning system which would automatically dial every
telephone number within a specified area, and play a recorded message to whoever picked up
the phone. Such a system could be very useful for a variety of natural and man made
problems.
Responsible Entity: Port of Bellingham working with Whatcom County Department of
Emergency Services
Funding Source: Local sources, state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
Tone Radio Based Early Warning System
Tone Radios turn on when triggered by a central transmitter and then information or instructions
are announced over the radio. Such a system is currently used for various types of weather
radios, for tornados and severe storms hazard areas. A similar system could be put into place
for warning of flooding, lahars, tsunamis, and other related natural hazards.
Responsible Entity: Port of Bellingham working with Whatcom County Department of
Emergency Services
Funding Source: Local sources, state and federal grants
Timeline: Long term (greater than three years after funding is secured)
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
With regards to earthquake / geological hazards the Port feels they need to clearly identify, by
surveys conducted by a professional geologist, the issues at the various facilities and then
prioritize according to their recommendations. With regards to flooding and volcano event
notification, and general communications, the Port will commission a consultant that is an expert
in this area, and have a scope of work identified to include a survey of existing systems, and
then make recommendations to meet the planning goals and objectives.
In either case, the Port feels they need further study to determine where hazard mitigation funds
would be best spent.
123
City of Sumas
Contact Information: David Davidson
City Administrator
733 Cherry St.
Sumas, WA 98295
(360) 988 -5711
Approving Authority: Chamber President Tony Kelly & City Chamber Members
433 Cherry Street, Box 9
Sumas, WA 98295
(360) 988 -5711
Presence of Hazards:
Hazard
Present?
(yes, if checked)
Earthquake
✓
Flooding
✓
Geologic Hazards
✓
Tsunami
Volcano
✓
Wild Land Fire
Hazard Descriptions:
Earthquake — subject to seismic activity. Significant risk due to Sumas' highest
concentration of older homes in the county.
Flooding — during a flooding event, the entire City floods from the Nooksack River, from
west to east, in a northeasterly flow.
Geologic Hazards — seismically- sensitive soils.
Volcano — the City is at risk of a Mount Baker lahar.
lifvzl
Critical Facility List:
Facility name
Facility type
Location
American Legion Hall
Emergency Services
134 Harrison Avenue
Elementary School - Dist 506
Evacuation Center
1024 Lawson Street
High School - District 506
Evacuation Center
Refer to WC GIS Data Layer
May Road Wellfield
Utility: Water
9700 May Road
Middle School - District 506
Evacuation Center
Refer to WC GIS Data Layer
Sumas City Hall
Law Enforcement
433 Cherry Street
Sumas City Reservoir
Utility: Water
205 Washington Street
Sumas City Wellfield
Utility: Water
3670 Kneuman Road
Sumas Cogeneration Company LP
Utility: Power
601 -B W. Front Street
Sumas Fire Station
Fire station
143 Columbia Street
Sumas Police Dept.
Law Enforcement
433 Cherry
Sumas Senior Center
Evacuation Center
451 Second Street
Sumas Water & Lights
Utility: Water
433 Cherry
US Border Patrol -Sumas
Law Enforcement
109 Cherry Street
Williams Gas Pipeline
Fuel
4378 Jones Road
Geography:
Sumas Population: 960 (2000 Census)
Sumas Total area, within city limits: 1.4 mil
Areas impacted, per hazard:
Hazard
# Structures
Impacted
Area Affected
Percent of
Total Area
Earthquake
764
1.4 mil
100%
Flooding
165
0.976 mil
69.7%
Geologic Hazards
698
1.279 mil
91.4%
Volcano
554
0.993 mil
71.0%
125
Growth Trends:
This map displays the Urban Growth Areas (UGA) for the City of Sumas, as designated by the
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan.
BRITISH COLUMBIA
4 1
1 1
- .— .— . —. —.1
4
i
i
i
r
i
i
— .— .— .— .— .— .— .— .— .— .— .— .- . —. —.— r:-
1
1 1
1 1
CRy Limits
1 1
1
126
Facility name
Facility type
FL
EQ
GH
TSUN
VOL
WF
Total
Hazards
Rank
Assessment
May Road Wellfield
Utility: Water
✓
1
1
Sumas City Wellfield
Utility: Water
✓
✓
2
1
Sumas City Reservoir
Utility: Water
✓
1
2
Sumas Water & Lights
Utility: Water
✓
✓
✓
✓
4
2
Sumas City Hall
Law Enforcement
✓
✓
✓
✓
4
3
Sumas Fire Station
Fire Station
✓
`/
`/
4
3
Sumas Police Dept.
Law Enforcement
✓
✓
3
3
US Border Patrol - Sumas
Law Enforcement
✓
✓
2
3
Williams Gas Pipeline
Fuel
✓
✓
✓
✓
4
4
American Legion Hall
Emergency Services
✓
✓
✓
3
5
Elements School - Dist 506
Evacuation Center
✓
✓
✓
✓
4
5
High School - District 506
Evacuation Center
✓
✓
✓
3
5
Middle School - District 506
Evacuation Center
✓
✓
✓
3
5
Sumas Senior Center
Evacuation Center
✓
✓
✓
✓
4
5
Sumas Cogeneration Company LP
Utility: Power
✓
✓
✓
✓
4
6
CRITICAL FACILITY RANKING FOR CITY OF SUMAS
FL = Flooding; EQ = Earthquake; GH = Geologic Hazard; TSUN = Tsunami; VOL = Volcano; WF = Wildland Fire
The methodology used for ranking the critical facilities is described on page 57
127
City of Sumas' Hazard Mitigation Strategies & Proiects
General Hazard Mitigation Strategies: These provide guidance on the overall hazard
mitigation goals for future planning within the City of Sumas.
Provide an increased level of safety for residents of Sumas.
• Ensure adequate protection for new structures by compliance with the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) and with the earthquake standards established in the
International Building Code (IBC).
• Pursue programs and projects that lessen hazards to existing structures.
• Ensure that hazard warning systems are effective.
Ensure provision of essential public services and utilities throughout a natural disaster.
• Replace or rehabilitate facilities that are prone to failure in a disaster.
Lessen the potential frequency and severity of a natural disaster.
• Work with other jurisdictions to control the amount of Nooksack River overflow flooding
occurring in Everson, WA.
Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects: These mitigation projects provide guidance on
suggesting specific activities that agencies, organizations, and residents in the City of Sumas
can undertake to reduce risk and prevent loss from the at -risk hazards. Each action item is
followed by the suggested responsible entity and timeline, which can be used by local decision
makers in pursuing strategies for implementation.
Following the potential projects is a description of the City's prioritization for implementation.
EARTHQUAKE
Wellfield Backup Power
The Sumas City Wellfield is served by a diesel generator that is enclosed within a shipping
container that has no permanent foundation. Diesel fuel is stored in a free - standing double -wall
tank located next to the container. This arrangement is prone to failure in the event of an
earthquake. A permanent enclosure should be built for the generator and the fuel tank, with
adequate footings and anchoring to allow the equipment to withstand an earthquake.
Responsible entity: Sumas Public Works Department
Funding source: Local funds
Timeline: Three years
FLOODING
City Hall/ Police Station.
This building is subject to flooding and is also prone to major damage in an earthquake, given
that the building pre -dates modern building codes. A new facility should be constructed outside
the floodplain.
Responsible entity: City of Sumas
Funding source: State or federal grants
Timeline: Within ten years
128
Fire Station
This building is subject to flooding. A new facility should be constructed outside the floodplain.
Responsible entity: Whatcom County Fire District # 14
Funding source: State or federal grants
Timeline: Within ten years
Flood Corridor Residential Buy -Out
Sumas's 1997 Floodplain Management Plan identified two major corridors of flood flow through
the residential area. It proposed that the existing homes within those corridors be purchased
and demolished, and that the corridors then be lowered in grade, establishing flood conveyance
channels that would reduce the amount of flooding experienced elsewhere in town. The
corridor buy -out program should be implemented.
Responsible entity: City of Sumas
Funding source: State or federal grants
Timeline: Within thirty years
Cherry Street Bridge Replacement
In a large flood, the Cherry Street bridge over Johnson Creek is a major impediment to flow.
Water is forced out of the Johnson Creek channel, leading to worse inundation in the
commercial and residential areas to the north and northeast. The bridge should be replaced at
a higher elevation and with less supporting pilings.
Responsible entity: WA State Department of Transportation
Funding source: State or federal grants
Timeline: Within ten years
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
The City of Sumas will use the following three criteria to prioritize mitigation projects. The
criteria are listed in order of importance:
3. Health and safety of persons — Project that provide a direct benefit to the health and
safety of the greatest number of persons have priority over projects that provide
indirect benefit to persons, or that primarily protect property. As an example, the
project involving backup power at the wellfield results in a region -wide benefit of
adequate safe water supply in the event of an earthquake. Such a benefit is greater
than that associated with replacement of the Cherry Street bridge, which would reduce
property damage and would indirectly result in reduced hazard to a subset of city
residents within a certain affected area.
4. Cost — A project must be affordable and must return reasonable benefits in comparison
to the cost.
5. Severity and longevity of avoided hazard — Consideration is given to the nature of the
avoided consequence and to the span of time over which the consequence is avoided.
As an example, the replacement of the police station would result in the ability to
coordinate disaster response in all future flood events, without having to relocate
personnel and equipment to an alternate location prior to or during an event. In
contrast, it is simple to relocate the fire truck and aid car to an alternate location. The
consequence associated with flooding of the fire station is not as serious as the
consequence of flooding the police station.
129
City of Sumas & Critical Facilities
A
�li_t-
US Border Patrol -Sumas
----------------- - - - - --
- - -------- - - - - -- American Legion Hall
Sumas City Reservoir
Sumas City Wellfield
U
Sumas Police Dept.
Sumas Water & Lights Sumas City Hall
Sumas Senior Center
Sumas Fire Station
9
Elementar y School
Sumas International Cargo Terminal
547
Sumas Cogeneration Company LP
9
i
000, 00,
ol 0
loor
000�
City of Sumas: Geology Hazards
A
-�lii-
`v
h
I
--------------------
----------------------
------------------
r �
/1
U
City of Sumas: Volcano Hazard
--d i�-
U
Whatcom Countv
Contact Information: Neil Clement
Deputy Director
Whatcom County Sheriff's Office, Division of Emergency
Management
311 Grand Avenue
Bellingham, WA 98225
(360) 337 - 6760676 -6681
Approving Authority: County Executive Pete Kremen & County Council Members
311 Grand Avenue, Suite 308
Bellingham, WA 98225
(360) 676 -6717
Presence of Hazards:
Hazard
Present?
(yes, if checked
Earthquake
✓
Flooding
✓
Geologic Hazards
✓
Tsunami
✓
Volcano
✓
Wild Land Fire
✓
Hazard Descriptions:
Earthquake — the risk of earthquakes to the county is moderate to high. Lake shores are
especially subject to damage, as well as characteristics of geologic materials in the
County have caused major slides that impacted ground transportation.
Flooding — the Nooksack River is subject to flooding, and logging around Lake Whatcom
has caused severe flooding due to runoff.
Geologic Hazards — various areas around the county are at risk of landslides according to
unstable geologic characteristics.
Tsunami — portions of the county exposed to the western straits are at risk of tsunami
damage, specifically the area around Sandy Point.
Volcano — many of the populated areas are at risk in the event of a volcanic eruption from
Mount Baker.
Wildland Fire — certain Communities at Risk have been identified, as well as levels of fire
risk.
134
Geography:
Whatcom County Population: 166,814 (2
Population of Unincorporated Area:
Whatcom County Total area: 2,120 mil
Whatcom County Incorporated area:
Whatcom County Unincorporated area
)00 Census)
74,249 (2000 Census)
95.4 mil
2,024.6 mil
Areas impacted, per hazard: Accurate calculations of areas affected by hazards were
unavailable because much of the hazard data only involved the populated western half
of the county.
Critical Facility List:
Facility name
Facility type
Location
Evergreen Water & Sewer Dist
Utility: Water
Maple Falls
Lummi Law & Order
Law Enforcement
Bellingham
Nooksack Police Department.
Law Enforcement
Deming
Northwest Water Works, Inc.
Utility: Water
Bellingham
Pole Road Water Association
Utility: Water
L nden
Schools: Districts 501, 503, 505, 507
Evacuation Centers
10 Schools Total
Search & Rescue
EOC
Bellingham
Seattle City Light
Utility: Power
Newhalem
Fire Protection District — 38 Total
Fire Station
Various
Water District #2 / #7
Utility: Water
Bellingham
Water District #4 — Point Roberts
Utility: Water
Point Roberts
Water District #10 — Geneva /Sudden Valley
Utility: Water
Bellingham
Water District #12 — Lake Samish
Utility: Water
Bellin ham
Water District #13 — Maple Falls
Utility: Water
Maple Falls
Water District #14 — Glacier
Utility: Water
Bellingham
Water District #18 — Acme
Utility: Water
Acme
BP-Cherry Point Refinery
Fuel
4519 Grandview Road
Birch Bay Water and Sewer Dist 8
Utility: Water
7096 Pt. Whitehorn Rd
Birch Bay Water Connection
Utility: Water
2701 Bell Rd.
135
Growth Trends: This map displays the Urban Growth Areas (UGA) for all the jurisdictions in
Whatcom County, as designated by the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan.
=' -' -'
i
.L
r
' � 7
City Limits -
iuGA iN '1
136
Facility name
Facility type
FL
EQ
GH
TSUN
VOL
WF
Total
Hazards
Rank
Assessment
Seattle City Light-Dams
Utility: Power
✓
1
1
Evergreen Water & Sewer Dist
Utility: Water
✓
✓
2
2
Lummi Law & Order
Law Enforcement
✓ ,/ ✓ ✓
✓
5
2
Northwest Water Works, Inc.
Utility: Water
✓
1
2
Pole Road Water Association
Utility: Water
✓
1
2
Search & Rescue
EOC
✓ ✓
2
2
Fire Protection Districts 38 Total
Fire Station
2
Water District #10 — Geneva /Sudden Valley
Utility: Water
✓
1
2
Water District #12 — Lake Samish
Utility: Water
`/
✓
2
2
Water District #13 — Maple Falls
Utility: Water
✓
1
2
Water District #14 — Glacier
Utility: Water
✓
✓ ✓
3
2
Water District #18 — Acme
Utility: Water
✓ ✓
✓ ✓
4
2
Water District #2 / #7
Utility: Water
✓
1
2
Water District #4 — Point Roberts
Utility: Water
✓
1
2
Elementary School - Dist 503
Evacuation Center
✓
1
3
High School - District 505
Evacuation Center
✓
✓
2
3
Nooksack Police Department
Law Enforcement
✓
1
3
Elementary School - Dist 501
Evacuation Center
✓
1
4
Elementary School - Dist 505
Evacuation Center
✓
1
4
Elementary School - Dist 505
Evacuation Center
✓
1
4
Elementary School - Dist 505
Evacuation Center
✓
1
4
Elementary School - Dist 507
Evacuation Center
✓ ✓
✓ ✓
4
4
Elementary School - Dist 507
Evacuation Center
✓ ✓
✓
3
4
Elementary School - Dist 507
Evacuation Center
✓
✓
2
4
Elementary School - Dist 507
Evacuation Center
✓
✓
2
4
CRITICAL FACILITY RANKING FOR WHATCOM COUNTY
FL = Flooding; EQ = Earthquake; GH = Geologic Hazard; TSUN = Tsunami; VOL = Volcano; WF = Wildland Fire
The methodology used for ranking the critical facilities is described on page 57
137
Whatcom Countv's Hazard Mitiaation Strateaies & Proiects
General Hazard Mitigation Strategies: These provide guidance on the overall hazard
mitigation goals for future planning within Whatcom County.
Provide to increase the level of safety of the citizens, lessen the impact to their property,
including the public infrastructure and to protect the environment from the effects of natural and
man -made disasters within Whatcom County.
Potential Hazard Mitigation Projects: These mitigation projects provide guidance on
suggesting specific activities that agencies, organizations, and residents in Whatcom County
can undertake to reduce risk and prevent loss from the at -risk hazards. Each action item is
followed by the suggested responsible entity and timeline, which can be used by local decision
makers in pursuing strategies for implementation.
Following the potential projects is a description of the County's prioritization for implementation.
EARTHQUAKE
The County owns several buildings. Seismic studies need to be done on these buildings to
determine their survivability as a result of an earthquake. After reviewing the findings of these
studies, further planning can be accomplished and decisions made regarding mitigation plans.
FLOODING
The Mitigation strategies and recommendations for all five reaches of the Nooksack River are
explored in the Flooding section of this plan. The River and Flood Division, Whatcom County
Public Works has published a Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan (CFHMP) for
the Nooksack River which details these projects.
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
For alluvial fans and landslides, additional measures recommended by studies are listed below.
In general, the following steps should be implemented to reduce risk of the four geologic
hazards — alluvial fans, coalmines, landslides, and seismic hazards — affecting Whatcom
County:
4. Limit, and if possible, eliminate new development in high -risk hazard areas.
5. If new development is to be permitted, mitigate new construction to address the specific
geological hazard.
6. Educate existing property owners at risk to help minimize the risk of the local hazards.
7. If cost effective, buyout high -risk properties.
8. As a last -case resort, consider engineering solutions to manage the specific geologic
hazard, if proven effective.
See the Geologic Hazard section of this plan for further details.
TSUNAMIS
With new data available, Tsunamis have been identified as a greater threat to Whatcom County
and the jurisdictions within that previously thought. Education about Tsunamis and acceptance
of the threat must precede any plans. Both civic leaders and the public need to understand that
there is a threat, and further, have a clear understanding of what the threat entails. Even with
the current new data, there is not a clear understanding of the extent of a Tsunami threat. More
data needs to be obtained, specific to each community along the western border of Whatcom
County. With the increased data public education about the specific threats needs to be
138
explored. There is more Tsunami mitigation plan information contained within the Tsunami
section of this plan.
VOLCANO
Raising awareness and educating both civic leaders and the public in the areas subject to
volcano - related damage is very important. Recent statewide campaigns and the news - related
stories of volcanoes in the state have sparked interest for those living in the shadow of Mount
Baker, Whatcom County's volcano. More awareness and education needs to take place,
especially with regards to warning signals of a volcanic eruption and the types of damage that
can occur with an eruption with special attention to Lahars. There is more information about
volcano- hazard mitigation planning under the Volcano section of this plan.
WILDLAND FIRE
In cooperation with fire managers from Washington State's Department of Natural Resources,
NW Region, three mitigation strategies were developed to address Whatcom County's fire
hazards:
4. Inter - Agency Cooperation
5. County -wide Wildland Fire Prevention
6. WUI (Wildland /Urban Interface) Communities at Risk
More information and details can be found in the Wildland Fire section of this plan.
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
Whatcom County chose to prioritize its hazard mitigation strategies according to hazard, not by
specific facilities.
The County is currently very involved with flood hazard mitigation and will continue with flooding
as the primary mitigation project priority. Second priority to flooding are all earthquake - related
projects.
139
y,
L
0
a
C?
. D �
'fl °
Whatcom County Critical Facilities
v
SAN JUAN COUNTY a
� � V
0
s
�9
L
0
-_ I
��
�!.l44L
y
Elio
SKAGIT COUNTY
hool
hoot 1
W lacier Water District #S18 -Acme
-Sc 061 Elemen School 4
'Nooksack Police Dept.
•
' 9f
Inc. - o
strict #10- Geneva /Sudden ValTSamlsh
y
School,
Nate r District #12 -Lk.
SAN JUAN COUNTY
Whatcom County, Mount Baker Volcano
Hazard Areas
Bellingham
SKAGIT COUNTY
BRITISH COLUMBIA
10
0
��o
Whatcom County FEMA- Designated
Floodplains
100 -Year Flood plain ® 100 -Year Coastal Flood plain
Blaine
D
h
SAN JUAN COUNTY \ U
,4
SKAGIT COUNTY\
BRITISH COLUMBIA
L ,
oe
o.
r
e
1
0 5 10
Miles
J
0
Whatcom County Geologically- Hazardous Areas
Alluvial Fan Seismically- Sensitive Soils
Coal Mine Hazard Slope Steepness between 15 - 35 degrees
Fill Deposits Slope Steepness greater than 35 degrees
�o
SAN JUAN COUNTY
BRITISH COLUMBIA
------------------------------ - - - - -- - - - --
Sumas
IN'
Lynden�
f' 00 sack
EversonY
�� : ➢ `" '!
�j,
Ferndale _ ✓, y k •,
IF.
,�44 ,
SKAGIT COUNTY\
0
f[
��� •.rte. ' . ��_.... � 4. "t;
I lo
y..
0 5 10
Miles
I Jr'
C
n
Whatcom County Wildland -Urban
Interface Risk Assessment: Fire Risk Assessment
Low Fire Hazard High Fire Hazard
Moderate Fire Hazard Extreme Fire Hazard
D /y
II I }}lI
a
O
b
e
k
4P-
�b
6 ---- - - - - -- _--------------------------
0 5 110
1 - Miles
1
PLAN MAINTENANCE
Annual Review and Updates to the Plan
The Whatcom County Multi- jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (The Plan) will be
reviewed annually by each of the major jurisdictions that have adopted the plan. It will be
evaluated to determine the effectiveness of mitigation programs, projects, or other related
activities and changed accordingly. As new hazard threats arise, or mitigation data becomes
available, it will be incorporated into the plan. Each adopting jurisdiction is responsible for the
section of the Plan that refers to its jurisdiction and to provide written changes, if any, annually
to Whatcom County Sheriff's Office, Division of Emergency Management (DEM) prior to each
annual public meeting.
A public meeting will be announced and held annually (in November) with representatives of the
adopting jurisdictions present to answer any questions or concerns regarding their section of the
Plan. Public notices will be posted to invite public participation in the process.
A written report containing a summary of any changes based on annual reviews will be
produced by the DEM and sent to the Washington State Hazard Mitigation Officer ( WSHMO)
following each annual review. The annual reviews by each jurisdiction and the public meeting
will conclude by November 30 each year. The Division of Emergency Management will facilitate
the review process.
Major Plan Update
A major update to the Plan will be performed and published every five years. It will contain all
changes in strategy, identified hazards, project updates and will incorporate new data as it
relates to the Plan. The public will also be involved in this process through public meetings
coordinated by DEM. A copy of the updated plan will be delivered to the WSHMO for approval
and forwarding to the Federal Emergency Management, Region X. All the jurisdictions that
have adopted the plan within Whatcom County will receive a copy of the updated plan once it is
approved.
The next five -year update will be delivered to the WSHMO within 30 days following November
30, 2009
DATE
PRODUCT
November, 2004
Plan submitted for approval
November, 2005
First annual review /update
November, 2006
Second annual review /update
November, 2007
Third annual review /update
November, 2008
Fourth annual review /update
November /December, 2009
Major Plan Update and resubmission
146
APPENDIX A: Code of Federal Regulations 201.6
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 44, Volume 1]
[Revised as of October 1, 2003]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 44CFR201.6]
[Page 401 -403]
TITLE 44 -- EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND ASSISTANCE
CHAPTER I -- FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
PART 201 -- MITIGATION PLANNING - -Table of Contents
Sec. 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans.
The local mitigation plan is the representation of the
jurisdiction's commitment to reduce risks from natural
[ [ Page 402] ]
hazards, serving as a guide for decision makers as they commit resources
to reducing the effects of natural hazards. Local plans will also serve
as the basis for the State to provide technical assistance and to
prioritize project funding.
(a) Plan requirements. (1) For disasters declared after November 1,
2004, a local government must have a mitigation plan approved pursuant
to this section in order to receive HMGP project grants. Until November
1, 2004, local mitigation plans may be developed concurrent with the
implementation of the HMGP project grant.
(2) By November 1, 2003, local governments must have a mitigation
plan approved pursuant to this section in order to receive a project
grant through the Pre - Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program, authorized
under Sec. 203 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5133. PDM planning grants will continue to be
made available to all local governments after this time to enable them
to meet the requirements of this section.
(3) Regional Directors may grant an exception to the plan
requirement in extraordinary circumstances, such as in a small and
impoverished community, when justification is provided. In these cases,
a plan will be completed within 12 months of the award of the project
grant. If a plan is not provided within this timeframe, the project
grant will be terminated, and any costs incurred after notice of grant's
termination will not be reimbursed by FEMA.
(4) Multi- jurisdictional plans (e.g. watershed plans) may be
accepted, as appropriate, as long as each jurisdiction has participated
in the process and has officially adopted the plan. State -wide plans
will not be accepted as multi - jurisdictional plans.
(b) Planning process. An open public involvement process is
essential to the development of an effective plan. In order to develop a
more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural
disasters, the planning process shall include:
(1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the
drafting stage and prior to plan approval;
A -1
(2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional
agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that
have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses,
academia and other private and non - profit interests to be involved in
the planning process; and
(3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans,
studies, reports, and technical information.
(c) Plan content. The plan shall include the following:
(1) Documentation of the planning process used to develop the plan,
including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how
the public was involved.
(2) A risk assessment that provides the factual basis for activities
proposed in the strategy to reduce losses from identified hazards. Local
risk assessments must provide sufficient information to enable the
jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions
to reduce losses from identified hazards. The risk assessment shall
include:
(i) A description of the type, location, and extent of all natural
hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include
information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the
probability of future hazard events.
(ii) A description of the jurisdiction's vulnerability to the
hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This
description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its
impact on the community. The plan should describe vulnerability in terms
of.
(A) The types and numbers of existing and future buildings,
infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard
areas;
(B) An estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable
structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section and a
description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate;
(C) Providing a general description of land uses and development
trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered
in future land use decisions.
[ [ Page 403] ]
(iii) For multi - jurisdictional plans, the risk assessment section
must assess each jurisdiction's risks where they vary from the risks
facing the entire planning area.
(3) A mitigation strategy that provides the jurisdiction's blueprint
for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment,
based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its
ability to expand on and improve these existing tools. This section
shall include:
(i) A description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long -term
vulnerabilities to the identified hazards.
(ii) A section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of
specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the
effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing
buildings and infrastructure.
(iii) An action plan describing how the actions identified in paragraph
(c)(2)(ii) of this section will be prioritized, implemented,
and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include
a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized
according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their
A -2
associated costs.
(iv) For multi - jurisdictional plans, there must be identifiable
action items specific to the jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval or
credit of the plan.
(4) A plan maintenance process that includes:
(i) A section describing the method and schedule of monitoring,
evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five -year cycle.
(ii) A process by which local governments incorporate the
requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms such
as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate.
(iii) Discussion on how the community will continue public
participation in the plan maintenance process.
(5) Documentation that the plan has been formally adopted by the
governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan
(e.g., City Council, County Commissioner, Tribal Council). For multi -
jurisdictional plans, each jurisdiction requesting approval of the plan
must document that it has been formally adopted.
(d) Plan review. (1) Plans must be submitted to the State Hazard
Mitigation Officer for initial review and coordination. The State will
then send the plan to the appropriate FEMA Regional Office for formal
review and approval.
(2) The Regional review will be completed within 45 days after
receipt from the State, whenever possible.
(3) Plans must be reviewed, revised if appropriate, and resubmitted
for approval within five years in order to continue to be eligible for
HMGP project grant funding.
(4) Managing States that have been approved under the criteria
established by FEMA pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5170c(c) will be delegated
approval authority for local mitigation plans, and the review will be
based on the criteria in this part. Managing States will review the
plans within 45 days of receipt of the plans, whenever possible, and
provide a copy of the approved plans to the Regional Office.
[67 FR 8848, Feb. 26, 2002, as amended at 67 FR 61515, Oct. 1, 2002]
PARTS 202 -203 [RESERVED]
A -3
APPENDIX B: Plan Development Process
In October of 2000, the President of the United States signed into law the Disaster Mitigation
Act of 2000 to reinforce the importance of mitigation planning and emphasize planning for
disasters before they occur. To implement the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, FEMA prepared
an Interim Final Rule, published in the Federal Registry on February 26, 2002, at 44 CFR Parts
201 and 206, which establishes planning and funding criteria for state and local governments.
In response to CFR 201.6, Whatcom County's DEM contracted with Summit GIS, a consulting
firm located in Bellingham, to write the Hazard Mitigation Plan for Whatcom County. Because
the plan was intended to be a multi - jurisdictional plan, all of the jurisdictions included in the
Hazard Mitigation Plan dedicated time and effort to provide jurisdiction- specific information
contained in the plan.
Key contributors in providing jurisdiction- specific information were:
City of Bellingham — Andy Day, Assistant Fire Chief
City of Blaine — Mike Haslip, Police Chief
Cities of Everson & Nooksack — Erik Ramstead, Police Chief
City of Ferndale — Dale Baker, Police Chief
City of Lynden — Warren Gay, Fire Chief
City of Sumas — David Davidson, City Administrator
Port of Bellingham — Karen Callery, Engineering Specialist
Whatcom County — Dale Kloes, Program Specialist
Additional to the participating jurisdiction, smaller agencies throughout the County were invited
to participate in the development and adoption of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. Refer to Appendix
C for a listing of these participating agencies.
The writing and organization of the Whatcom County Hazard Mitigation Plan was performed by
Summit GIS. Summit GIS was also responsible for locating and collecting all natural hazard -
related GIS data from local and state sources.
In order to involve the public in the drafting of the Whatcom County Hazard Mitigation Plan,
Summit GIS and Whatcom County DEM advertised and conducted a total of three (3) public
meetings. These meetings were to provide an opportunity to fully participate in the plan, and
just as importantly, to solicit information and comments from the citizens of Whatcom County
and better involve them in the plan. Unfortunately, there were no attendees to any of the
meetings.
Public Meeting Schedule
Date
Time
Location
July 6, 2004
7:00 p.m.
Blaine City Hall
July 7, 2004
7:00 p.m.
Whatcom County Fire District #1
July 12, 2004
7:00 p.m.
Whatcom County Courthouse
Important dates and elements in the Hazard Mitigation Plan development:
1:151
January 2, 2004:
Contract between Whatcom County and Summit GIS, for Summit to write Whatcom County's
Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, is finalized. Summit GIS representatives, President
Adrian Mintz and GIS Analyst Tollie Bohl, and Whatcom County DEM's Program Specialist,
Dale Kloes, attended weekly meetings to discuss the plan development process and insure
project goals and timelines were met.
February 5, 2004:
Paula Cooper, River & Flood Manager for Whatcom County Public Works, attends weekly
meeting between Whatcom County and Summit GIS to discuss flooding hazards in Whatcom
County and share available information and data.
March 11, 2004:
Two representatives from the Washington Military Department Emergency Management
Division, John Ufford and Marty Best, attend the weekly meeting between Summit GIS and
Whatcom County to assist in the development of the plan.
March 16, 2004:
Dale Kloes sends out letters to Whatcom County jurisdictions to invite them to a March 25, 2004
meeting to discuss their optional participation in the Whatcom County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
The meeting scheduled for 1:00 p.m., ad the Port of Bellingham Harbor Center.
March 23, 2004:
Whatcom County DEM submits first draft of County critical facilities.
March 25, 2004:
Whatcom County Jurisdiction Representatives attend 1:00 p.m. meeting to learn about the
development of the Multi- Jurisdictional Whatcom County Hazard Mitigation Plan and receive
invitation to participate in the plan. The attendees of this meeting were:
Name Affiliation
Lloyd Kirry Economic Development Administration
Art Cidoat Port of Bellingham
Karen Callery Port of Bellingham
Dale Kloes Whatcom County DEM
Andy Day City of Bellingham
Dennis Murphy Whatcom County DEM
Michael Haslip City of Blaine
Erik Ramstead City of Everson
Matt Sullivan City of Everson
David Davidson City of Sumas
Adrian Mintz Summit GIS
Tollie Bohl Summit GIS
Mike Haslip, as the contact for the City of Blaine, agrees to participate in the plan and submits
the first draft of Blaine's critical facility list. Although Lynden contact Warren Gay was unable to
attend, he had indicated participation prior to the meeting.
April 1, 2004:
Mark Titus, Fire Prevention Coordinator with DNR's NW Region, attends weekly meeting
between Whatcom County and Summit GIS to discuss the wildland fire hazard in Whatcom
County and share available information and data.
B -2
April 5, 2004:
Cities of Everson and Nooksack agree to participate in the plan. Erik Ramstead chosen as the
contact and he submits critical facility list.
City of Sumas agrees to participate in the plan. David Davidson chosen as the contact and he
submits critical facility list.
The Port of Bellingham agrees to participate in the plan. Karen Callery chosen as the contact
and she submits critical facility list.
April 8, 2004:
Dale Kloes sends an invitation to Whatcom County's smaller agencies and districts to an April
20, 2004 meeting, at Fire District #4. The purpose of the informational meeting is to discuss
their optional participation in the Whatcom County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
April 9, 2004:
City of Bellingham agrees to participate in the plan. Andy Day chosen as the contact and he
submits critical facility list.
April 20, 2004:
Informational meeting held with smaller county agencies and district. The attendees of this
meeting were:
Name
Mike Anderson
Steve Hovde
Jim Kenoyer
Dave Johnson
Mary Miller
Tom Jones
Patrick Bouma
Floyd Bouma
Roger Anderson
Doug Channel
Gordon Neevel
Gordon Travis
Don Drommond
Ron Cowan
Jan Eskola
James Evangelista
Chip Anderson
Dennis Carlson
Dave Crossen
Terry Klimpel
Richard Gay
Michelle Starrs
Jim Trowbridge
Barb Burke
Neil Good
Candy Roberts
Tom Gooch
Affiliation
Bellingham School District
Birch Bay Water & Sewer
Blaine School District
Cemetery District 7
Cemetery District 8
Cemetery District 9
DID #1
DID #1
DID #15
Diking District 1
Diking District 3
Evergreen Water & Sewer District 19
Evergreen Water & Sewer District 19
Ferndale School District
Glacier Fire & Rescue
Glacier Water District
Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District
Lynden School District (504)
North Whatcom Fire & Rescue
Samish Water District
Water District 18, Acme
Water District 4
Water District 7
Whatcom FD 1
Whatcom FD 10
Whatcom FD 16
Whatcom FD 4
B -3
Candy Roberts Cemetery District 1
Michael Foster Water District 12, Samish
Barbara Curry Whatcom WCFPD 9
All sub - districts interested in inclusion of the Whatcom County Hazard Mitigation Plan were
instructed to email Tollie Bohl, of Summit GIS, with their interest.
April 22, 2004:
Follow -up meeting held at 1:00 p.m. at the Nelson Harbor Building, with the jurisdiction
representatives. The purpose of the meeting is to review the Summit GIS' mapped locations of
their critical facility and discuss next steps of the plan. Attendees of this meeting were: Dale
Kloes, Tollie Bohl, Warren Gay, Any Day, David Davidson, and Karen Callery.
Critical facility locations reviewed with non - attending jurisdiction representatives via email
communication.
June 1, 2004:
Summit GIS staff begins writing the Whatcom County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
June 16, 2004:
City of Ferndale formally agrees to participate in the plan. Dale Baker chosen as the contact
and Ferndale's critical facility list is submitted.
June 21, 2004:
Summit GIS contacts each jurisdiction to rank each of the critical facilities according to
importance to the community. All nine jurisdiction representatives submit their rank assessment
within one week.
July 1, 2004:
Summit GIS staff completes the first draft of the Whatcom County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
July 6, 2004:
First meeting open to the public for the Whatcom County Hazard Mitigation Plan held at Blaine's
City Hall at 7:00 p.m. The purpose of this meeting was to make the draft available to the public
for their review and comment. No attendees.
July 7, 2004:
Second meeting open to the public for the Whatcom County Hazard Mitigation Plan held at
Whatcom County's Fire District #1 in Nugents Corner at 7:00 p.m. The purpose of this meeting
was to make the draft available to the public for their review and comment. No attendees.
July 12, 2004:
Third meeting open to the public for the Whatcom County Hazard Mitigation Plan held at the
Whatcom County Courthouse's Council Chambers in Bellingham at 7:00 p.m. The purpose of
this meeting was to make the draft available to the public for their review and comment. No
attendees.
August 6, 2004:
Two (2) copies of the Whatcom County Hazard Mitigation Plan submitted to Marty Best and
John Ufford of the Washington Military Department's Emergency Management Division for the
state's review.
I:Zl
September 9, 2004:
State's review of the Whatcom County Hazard Mitigation Plan is received from Marty Best. This
review detailed satisfactory and unsatisfactory areas of the plan that met or didn't meet the
state's criteria.
September 22, 2004:
Summit GIS meets with Dale Kloes to discuss the comments submitted by the state about the
Whatcom County Hazard Mitigation Plan. The state identified the jurisdiction's hazard
mitigation strategies and actions as the most significant area of the plan requiring changes to
meet criteria.
October 6, 2004:
Tollie Bohl of Summit GIS sends an email to the nine jurisdiction representatives asking for
each jurisdiction's hazard mitigation strategies and actions.
October 11, 2004 — November 22, 2004
Dale Kloes meets with various jurisdictions and resolves their hazard mitigation strategies.
November 23, 2004
Summit GIS receives the revised mitigation strategies and incorporates them into the Hazard
Mitigation Plan. Plan is sent back to the state for review.
B -5
APPENDIX C: Participating Agencies
Bellingham School District
Birch Bay Water & Sewer
Blaine School District
Cemetery District 1
Cemetery District 6
Cemetery District 7
Cemetery District 8
Cemetery District 9
City of Bellingham
City of Blaine
City of Everson
City of Ferndale
City of Lynden
City of Nooksack
City of Sumas
DID #1
DID #15
Diking District 1
Diking District 3
Diking District 4
Drainage District 2
Evergreen Water & Sewer District 19
Ferndale School District
Glacier Fire & Rescue
Glacier Water District
Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District
Lummi Island Cemetery
Lynden School District (504)
Meridian School District
Nooksack Indian Tribe
North Whatcom Fire & Rescue
Port of Bellingham
Pt. Roberts Park District #1
Samish Water District
Water District 12, Samish
Water District 18, Acme
Water District 2
Water District 4
Water District 7
Whatcom County
WCFPD 1
WCFPD 4
WCFPD 5
WCFPD 9
WCFPD 10
WCFPD 16
Note: Lummi Island's Fire & Protection District (District 11) and the Lummi Nation
completed a Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan independent of Whatcom County's Plan.
C -1
APPENDIX D: List of Acronyms
CFHMP — Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan
CFR — Code of Federal Regulations
CSZ — Cascadia Subduction Zone
CWPP — Community Wildfire Protection Plan
DNR — Department of Natural Resources
EPA — Environmental Protection Agency
FEMA — Federal Emergency Management Agency
GIS — Geographic Information Systems
GMA — Growth Management Act
HMGP — Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
IBC — International Building Code
LF — Linear Feet
NEHRP — National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program
NFIP — National Flood Insurance Program
NFPA — National Fire Protection Association
NOAA — National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association
NTHMP — National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program
RAMS — Risk Assessment & Mitigation Strategy
TIME —Tsunami Inundation Mapping Effort
UGA — Urban Growth Area
USGS — US Geological Society
WSDOT — Washington State Department of Transportation
WUI — Wildland /Urban Interface
D -1
APPENDIX E: Whatcom County Risk Assessment & Mitigation
Strategies for Wildland Fire
This Assessment has been prepared for the Whatcom County using the Risk Assessment and
Mitigation Strategies (RAMS) planning process. RAMS was developed for fire managers to be a
holistic approach to analyzing wildland FUELS, HAZARD, RISK, VALUE, and
SUPPRESSION CAPABILITY. It considers the effects of fire on unit ecosystems by taking a
coordinated approach to planning at a landscape level, and allows users to develop fire
prevention and/or fuels treatments programs.
The steps involved in this process included:
1. Identification of spatial Compartments for study
2. Fire Management Zone 37 = Whatcom County
3. Assessment of significant issues within each Compartment
Compartment 13: 37653
Part I
Compartment 13 contains 295,228 acres in Fire Management Zone 37. The Compartment
experiences 4.00 fires per year, totaling 5 acres. The characteristics of the compartment indicate
that: Catastrophic Fire Likely.
Fuels Hazard characteristics are rated:
Fuels (flame length produced): 8 + Feet (High)
Crowning Potential: 0 - 2 (Low)
Slope Percent: 0 - 20 (Low)
Aspect: North (Low)
Elevation: 0 - 3500 (High)
Protection Capability ratings are:
InitialAttack: 21 - 30 minutes (Moderate)
Suppression Complexity: Average (Moderate)
Ignition Risk factors include:
Population Density - Wildland Urban Interface
1001+ Dwellings /structures
Power Lines In Unit
Sub - station
Distribution Lines
Transmission Lines
Industrial Operations
Active timber sale
Maintenance /service contracts
Mining
Debris /slash burning
Construction project
Recreation
E -1
Dispersed camping areas, party areas, hunters, waterbased, hiking
Off highway vehicle use
Developed camping areas
Flammables Present
Other
Powder magazine
Gas pumps or storage
Gas or oil wells /transmission
Woodcutting area, power equipment
Dump
Fireworks, children with matches
Electronic installations
Shooting /target
Government operations
Cultural Activities
Incendiary
Railroads
Railroads are present
Transportation System
Public Access Road(s)
County road(s)
State/Federal highway(s)
Commercial Development
Camps, resorts, stables
Schools
Business, agricultural /ranching
Compartment 13: 37653
Part II
Compartment Values are characterized:
Recreation: Developed recreation site within or adjacent to area (High)
Administrative: High value or numerous administrative sites (High)
Wildlife/Fisheries: Highly significant habitat. (High)
Range Use: Range allotment within area, normal /average use (Moderate)
Watershed: Stream Class PI, I. Important water use /riparian area. Domestic water use. (High)
Forest/Woodland: Standing timber /woodland on 26 - 50% of area (Moderate)
Plantations: 15% or less of area in or programmed for plantations (Low)
Private Property: High loss and threat potential due to numbers and placement (High)
Cultural Resources: Archaeological/historical findings of high significance (High)
Special Interest Areas: Area is adjacent to a Special Interest area (Moderate)
Visual Resources: Maximum modification dominates. (Low)
T &E Species: Species present. (High)
Soils (Erosion): Low significance (EHR < 4). (Low)
Airshed: High receptor sensitivity (High)
Vegetation: Potential for sensitive plants. (Moderate)
E -2
Compartment 14: 37656
Part I
Compartment 14 contains 360,471 acres in Fire Management Zone 37. The Compartment
experiences 8.00 fires per year, totaling 98 acres. The characteristics of the compartment indicate
that: Catastrophic Fire Likely.
Fuels Hazard characteristics are rated:
Fuels (flame length produced): 8 + Feet (High)
Crowning Potential: 6 + (High)
Slope Percent: 21 - 35 (Moderate)
Aspect: North (Low)
Elevation: 0 - 3500 (High)
Protection Capability ratings are:
InitialAttack: 31+ minutes (High)
Suppression Complexity: Complex (High)
Ignition Risk factors include:
Population Density - Wildland Urban Interface
1001+ Dwellings /structures
Power Lines In Unit
Transmission Lines
Distribution Lines
Sub - station
Industrial Operations
Active timber sale
Construction project
Debris /slash burning
Mining
Maintenance /service contracts
Recreation
Dispersed camping areas, party areas, hunters, waterbased, hiking
Developed camping areas
Off highway vehicle use
Flammables Present
Other
Powder magazine
Gas or oil wells /transmission
Gas pumps or storage
Fireworks, children with matches
Electronic installations
Woodcutting area, power equipment
Shooting /target
Government operations
Incendiary
E -3
Cultural Activities
Dump
Railroads
Railroads are present
Transportation System
State/Federal highway(s)
County road(s)
Public Access Road(s)
Commercial Development
Schools
Camps, resorts, stables
Business, agricultural /ranching
Compartment 14: 37656
Part II
Compartment Values are characterized:
Recreation: Developed recreation site within or adjacent to area (High)
Administrative: High value or numerous administrative sites (High)
Wildlife/Fisheries: Highly significant habitat. (High)
Range Use: Range allotment within area, normal /average use (Moderate)
Watershed: Stream Class PI, I. Important water use /riparian area. Domestic water use. (High)
Forest/Woodland: Standing timber /woodland on 51 +% of area (High)
Plantations: 31 +% or less of area in or programmed for plantations (High)
Private Property: High loss and threat potential due to numbers and placement (High)
Cultural Resources: Archaeological/historical findings of high significance (High)
Special Interest Areas: Area is adjacent to a Special Interest area (Moderate)
Visual Resources: Partially retain existing character. (Moderate)
T &E Species: Species present. (High)
Soils (Erosion): Moderately erodable (EHR 4 -12). (Moderate)
Airshed: High receptor sensitivity (High)
Vegetation: Potential for sensitive plants. (Moderate)
E -4
Compartment 15: 37658
Part I
Compartment 15 contains 948,133 acres in Fire Management Zone 37. The Compartment
experiences 1.00 fires per year, totaling 6 acres. The characteristics of the compartment indicate
that: Catastrophic Fire Possible.
Fuels Hazard characteristics are rated:
Fuels (flame length produced): 8 + Feet (High)
Crowning Potential: 3 - 5 (Moderate)
Slope Percent: 36 + (High)
Aspect: South (High)
Elevation: 5001 + (Low)
Protection Capability ratings are:
InitialAttack: 31+ minutes (High)
Suppression Complexity: Simple (Low)
Ignition Risk factors include:
Population Density - Wildland Urban Interface
501 -1000 Dwellings /structures
Power Lines In Unit
Transmission Lines
Sub - station
Distribution Lines
Industrial Operations
Debris /slash burning
Mining
Construction project
Active timber sale
Maintenance /service contracts
Recreation
Dispersed camping areas, parry areas, hunters, waterbased, hiking
Developed camping areas
Off highway vehicle use
Flammables Present
Other
Powder magazine
Gas or oil wells /transmission
Gas pumps or storage
Electronic installations
Fireworks, children with matches
Woodcutting area, power equipment
Shooting /target
Government operations
Incendiary
E -5
Cultural Activities
Dump
Railroads
Railroads are present
Transportation System
State/Federal highway(s)
Public Access Road(s)
County road(s)
Commercial Development
Schools
Camps, resorts, stables
Business, agricultural /ranching
Compartment 15: 37658
Part II
Compartment Values are characterized:
Recreation: Developed recreation site within or adjacent to area (High)
Administrative: Few or no administrative sites (Low)
Wildlife/Fisheries: Highly significant habitat. (High)
Range Use: Little or no range use (Low)
Watershed: Stream Class PI, I. Important water use /riparian area. Domestic water use. (High)
Forest/Woodland: Standing timber /woodland on 51 +% of area (High)
Plantations: 16 - 30% or less of area in or programmed for plantations (Moderate)
Private Property: Little or no threat or loss potential (Low)
Cultural Resources: Minimal archaeological /historical findings, potential for Native American
use. (Moderate)
Special Interest Areas: Area is adjacent to a Special Interest area (Moderate)
Visual Resources: Preserve and retain existing character. (High)
T &E Species: Species present. (High)
Soils (Erosion): Moderately erodable (EHR 4 -12). (Moderate)
Airshed: Low receptor sensitivity (Low)
Vegetation: Potential for sensitive plants. (Moderate)
E -6