Whatcom County - WhatcomReady.org

Transcription

Whatcom County
Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan
A MULTI-HAZARD, MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL PLAN DEVELOPED FOR
THE BENEFIT OF ALL CITIZENS AND GOVERNMENTAL
JURISDICTIONS WITHIN WHATCOM COUNTY Prepared by:
Whatcom County Division of Emergency Management
and Anchor QEA, LLC
Approved: August 23, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 1 WHATCOM COUNTY BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 2 SECTION 1. ‐ PLAN PROCESS AND DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................ 8 FEDERAL REGULATIONS ................................................................................................................................................... 9 PLAN OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................................................... 10 NATURAL HAZARDS MITIGATION PLANNING ...................................................................................................................... 13 2010 PLAN UPDATE TIMELINE ....................................................................................................................................... 16 SECTION 2. ‐ HAZARD SUMMARIES .................................................................................................................... 20 EARTHQUAKES ............................................................................................................................................................. 21 FLOODING .................................................................................................................................................................. 28 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ..................................................................................................................................................... 51 SEVERE STORMS .......................................................................................................................................................... 68 TSUNAMIS .................................................................................................................................................................. 72 VOLCANOES ................................................................................................................................................................ 77 WILDLAND FIRES .......................................................................................................................................................... 85 SECTION 3. JURISDICTION OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................... 92 CITY OF BELLINGHAM .................................................................................................................................................... 98 PORT OF BELLINGHAM ................................................................................................................................................ 111 CITY OF BLAINE .......................................................................................................................................................... 116 CITY OF EVERSON ....................................................................................................................................................... 126 CITY OF FERNDALE ...................................................................................................................................................... 135 FIRE DISTRICT #11 (COMMUNITY OF LUMMI ISLAND) ....................................................................................................... 149 CITY OF LYNDEN ......................................................................................................................................................... 158 MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT ........................................................................................................................................ 167 CITY OF NOOKSACK ..................................................................................................................................................... 170 CITY OF SUMAS .......................................................................................................................................................... 178 WHATCOM COUNTY ................................................................................................................................................... 187 WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT ...................................................................................................... 196 LAKE WHATCOM WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT ............................................................................................................... 202 SECTION 4. PLAN MAINTENANCE .................................................................................................................... 207 APPENDIX A ‐ CAPABILITIES IDENTIFICATION ....................................................................................................... 1 APPENDIX B ‐ LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................... 1 APPENDIX C ‐ WHATCOM COUNTY HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS .............................. 1 APPENDIX D ‐ WHATCOM COUNTY RISK ASSESSMENT & MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR WILDLAND FIRE ............. 1 APPENDIX E ‐ 2004 PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS .............................................................................................. 1 APPENDIX F ‐ NFIP ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Special Thanks and Acknowledgments
Special thanks to:
Doug Dahl
Deputy Director, Whatcom County Department of Emergency
Management
Ken Richardson
Program Specialist, Whatcom County Department of Emergency
Management
Paula Cooper
Manager, Whatcom County Public Works River and Flood Division
Andy Day
Manager, City of Bellingham Office of Emergency Management
Geographic Information Systems Maps:
Summit GIS developed all of the maps for the July 2004 version of the Whatcom County
Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, which were updated for the 2010 version by Whatcom
County Planning and Development Services Geographical Information Systems (GIS)
services, unless indicated otherwise.
The datasets used in the maps in this Plan were from the following sources:





Washington Department of Natural Resources – Hydro information, Fire Hazard and
History data
Federal Emergency Management Agency – Floodplain Boundaries
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – Tsunami Grids
U.S. Geological Society – Volcano Lahar and Blast Zone Boundaries
Whatcom County Planning and Development Services – City Limits, County
Boundaries, Geologic Hazards Railroads, Roads
Funding Acknowledgements:
Whatcom County contracted with Anchor QEA, LLC, to develop the 2010 Whatcom County
Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan. Funding for this project was made possible through a
Federal Grant.
Note of Recognition:
We would like to include a special thanks to the late Joe Bates, Communications and
Information Coordinator of Whatcom County, for his involvement in the development of this
Plan and his dedication and service to the residents of Whatcom County.
This Plan Is Adopted By:
Entity
Approving Authority
Date Adopted
Ordinance
City of Bellingham
Dan Pike
09/12/2011
2011 - 19
Port of Bellingham
Charlie Sheldon
10/18/2011
1302
City of Blaine
Gary Tomsic
10/10/2011
1591 - 11
City of Everson
John Perry
09/13/2011
507 - 11
City of Ferndale
Gary Jensen
09/06//2011
11 – 09 – 06 - C
Meridian School District
Dr. Timothy Yeomans
09/26/2011
28 - 11
Whatcom County Fire District #11
(Community of Lummi Island)
Duncan McLane
09/13/2011
2011 - 208
City of Lynden
Scott Korthuis
09/19/2011
850
City of Nooksack
Jim Ackerman
12/06/2010
276
City of Sumas
Robert Bromley
09/12/2011
270
Whatcom County
Pete Kremen
09/27/2011
2011 - 030
Whatcom County Flood Control
Zone District
Pete Kremen
09/27/2011
2011 - 031
Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer
District
Patrick Sorensen
09/26/2011
776
Introduction
In 2004, Whatcom County’s Division of Emergency Management (DEM) undertook the process
of writing a multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan to identify natural hazards present in the
County and to protect the citizens and resources living there. This version of the Whatcom
County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (cited herein as “Plan”) is the second edition of the
Plan, revised in 2010. The natural hazards mitigation process was instigated by the Code of
Federal Regulation (CFR) 201.6 (see Appendix A), enacted in October 2002 and amended in
September 2004. The purpose of the Plan is to facilitate a net reduction in 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 is an integral part of the ongoing
effort to lessen the impacts disasters can have on people's lives and property through damage
prevention and flood insurance. The impact on human lives and communities is lessened
through measures such as building safely within the floodplain or removing homes from the
floodplain altogether; engineering buildings and infrastructures to withstand earthquakes; and
creating and enforcing effective building codes to protect properties from floods, hurricanes, and
other natural hazards.
The following sections include a narrative of Whatcom County Background, the Plan Process
and Development (Section 1), Hazard Summaries (Section 2), and a Jurisdiction Overview
(Section 3). Appendix B contains a list of acronyms and abbreviations used throughout the
Plan. In August 2010, the Whatcom County DEM revised the Whatcom County Hazard
Identification and Vulnerability Analysis (HIVA), which will be used to develop future strategies
in emergency management and risk reduction and is included as Appendix C of this Plan. The
remaining appendices are related to particular elements of the Plan and are cited as necessary.
The planning process was updated with the current steps taken during plan development,
including documents/studies reviewed, how the risk assessment was updated/revised, etc.
Plan Maintenance Section – During development of this plan, the planning partners determined
the method which will be followed during the next five year cycle of the plan. It was determined
that the planning team will remain in place, and that the team will continue to work on updating
the risk assessment portion of the plan to include additional hazards, gather additional
information with respect to critical facilities and enhance its risk assessment through the use of
GIS and HAZUS modeling. The intent is to ultimately have the mitigation plan’s risk
assessment take the place of the County’s HIVA.
1 Whatcom County Background Whatcom County, the northwestern most county of Washington State, comprises an area of
2,120 square miles. It is bordered to the north by Canada and to the west by the Strait of
Georgia, a deep-water ship transit, and another waterway called the Rosario Strait. The eastern
half of Whatcom County is composed of the North Cascades Mountain range, which occupies
roughly two-thirds of the entire County. No Whatcom County roads that originate in the western
half of the County connect to the eastern half; towns in eastern Whatcom County can only be
accessed by driving more than 60 miles through Skagit County to the south. The 2009 U.S.
Census Bureau estimated the population of Whatcom County at 200,434 residents. Only 4.5%
of the land area is incorporated, while the majority is unincorporated. An unusual characteristic
of Whatcom County is that not all of its populated areas are contiguous with the mainland part of
the County; these areas include Point Roberts and Lummi Island.
An understanding of the geography, weather, industries, income, and characteristics of
Whatcom County is critical to an ability to mitigate the natural hazards identified in this Plan.
Some of these characteristics are discussed below.
CLIMATE
Annual precipitation varies greatly, depending on elevation, as follows:
 Lowlands: rainfall varies from 30 to 40 inches
 East toward the Cascade Mountains: precipitation increases
 Near Mount Baker (elevation 10,778 feet): 140 inches, snow is possible year round
GEOGRAPHY
Major geographic features of Whatcom County are grouped as follows:

Lowlands (West of Cascade Foothills):
These lowlands are part of the
Fraser/Nooksack river-deltas system. This system runs north from the Chuckanut
Mountains to the mouth of the Fraser River, where Vancouver, British Columbia (B.C.) is
sited. To the south (beyond the Chuckanut Mountains, in Skagit County) is the delta of
another great river, the Skagit River. These river deltas are important to Whatcom
County because of their related flood, earthquake, and volcano hazards.

Mount Baker Foothill Communities: Scattered through the rural area along the Valley
Highway (Highway 9) and up through the foothills along the Mount Baker Highway (State
Route [SR] 542), crossing all three forks of the Nooksack River, are the Mount Baker
Foothill communities of Van Zandt, Acme, Wickersham, Welcome, Kendall, Maple Falls,
and Glacier.

Nooksack River: There are more than 1,325 miles of stream in the Nooksack River, its
tributaries, and associated independent streams. The river originates in the mountains
as three forks (North, Middle, and South) that converge near Deming. Its watershed
basin comprises most of the County’s eastern 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% is estuarine shore.
2 
Lakes: There are 245 lakes In Whatcom County: four large reservoirs inside the
Federal Lands (Ross, Diablo, Gorge, and Baker Lakes) and two large natural lakes in
the Chuckanut region (Lake Whatcom and Lake Samish). Seven lakes are more than
100 acres in size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Whatcom (5,000 acres)
Samish (825 acres)
Terrell (440 acres)
Silver (185 acres)
Padden (150 acres)
Wiser (125 acres)
Judson (112 acres)
The North Cascades Mountains: Roughly two-thirds of eastern Whatcom County is
federally managed land contained in the North Cascades Mountains, 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 within Whatcom County. Three roads
connect western Whatcom County with the federal lands:
1. The Mount Baker Highway (SR 542) provides access to the Mount Baker
Recreation Area.
2. The Middle Fork Road (a secondary, more primitive entrance) leads to the hiking
and camping region on the 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
3 TRANSPORTATION
Major Roads

Interstate 5 (I-5), which connects Mexico to Canada, runs north and south through
Whatcom County.

SR 9 traverses north and south, crossing the South and North Forks of the Nooksack
River.

Mount Baker Highway (SR 542), from Bellingham, intersects SR 9 and winds east to
Mount Baker.
Marinas
 In Bellingham, Squalicum Harbor is the second largest marina in Puget Sound. More
than 1,800 pleasure craft, commercial boats, and fishing vessels are moored here.

In Blaine, Drayton Harbor includes pleasure craft and a fishing fleet.

Point Roberts is accessed by water from the Strait of Georgia or by land through
Canada.

Semiahmoo Marina contains approximately 300 slips and is located near the Canadian
border.

Private marinas are located along Bellingham Bay (including Fairhaven), Lummi Island,
Gooseberry Point, Sandy Point, Birch Bay, and Eliza Island.
Rail

Bellingham is on Amtrak routes from Seattle and Vancouver, B.C.

Rail freight corridors along SR 9 and the Puget Sound shoreline (i.e., along Chuckanut
Bay to Bellingham) connect freight from the south into Canada, with additional sidings
that connect these two routes.

There is rail along the I-5 corridor to Blaine and northwest to the Cherry Point vicinity.

Rail from Cherry Point to Custer links with the I-5 rail corridor.
Vessel Traffic Lanes
 Oil tankers
 Ships
 Barges
 Tug boats
 Commercial fishing vessels
 Recreation boats
 U.S. Coast Guard vessels
 Vessels accessing dry docks in Fairhaven
4 Ferry Crossings
 The Alaska Marine Highway System Ferry departs from Bellingham to Alaska.

The Whatcom County Ferry crosses Hales Pass from Gooseberry Point to Lummi Island
(an approximately 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 the 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, and to Sidney on Vancouver Island, B.C.
Rivers
 The Nooksack River and many tributaries and independent streams are used by canoes,
kayaks, small fishing boats, and for rafting float trips.
AIR TRANSPORTATION
 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 B.C.
 Sea-Tac International Airport is 90 miles south in Seattle, Washington
LAND TRANSPORTATION
 Whatcom Transportation Authority (WTA)
 Greyhound bus
 Private charters/shuttles
 Taxis
 Car rentals
SERVICES
Hospital
 Peace Health St. Joseph Medical Center and the Outpatient Center are the two hospitals
in Whatcom County, both located in Bellingham.
5 Local Media
 Two local television stations: KVOS TV on Channel 12 and KBCB International
Programming for Northwest Washington State on Channel 24
 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
 35 elementary schools
 11 middle schools
 Nine high schools
 Numerous private schools
Colleges/Universities
 Bellingham Technical College
 City University
 Northwest Indian College
 Western Washington University
 Whatcom Community College
 Washington State University Cooperative Extension – Whatcom County
Utilities
 Electricity: Puget Sound Energy, Public Utility District (PUD) #1, Blaine PUD, Sumas PUD,
and Bonneville Power (to direct-service customers)

Gas: Cascade Natural Gas, Williams Natural Gas Pipeline, Arco Natural Gas Pipeline,
and Olympic Pipeline

Water: approximately 350 public water systems in Whatcom County; Bellingham, Lynden,
Blaine, Glacier, Nooksack, and Sumas have their own water districts; and some smaller
communities rely on private wells and lakes

Cogeneration plants: three natural gas-fired cogeneration plants are located in Whatcom
County: Sumas Cogeneration Company LP in Sumas; Tenaska Cogeneration Plant in
Ferndale; and Encogen Cogeneration Plant in Bellingham
6 Whatcom County Major Disaster Declarations 2001 - 2009
Year
Level of
Community Impact
(Estimated)
Date
Disaster Types
Federal Disaster #
2009
M
2-Mar
Severe Winter Storm and
Record and Near Record Snow
1825
2009
H
30-Jan
Severe Winter Storm, Landslides,
Mudslides, and Flooding
1817
NOTE: THE LEVEL OF IMPACT ESTIMATES, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW ARE USED IN LIEU OF
READILY AVAILABE MONETARY VALUES. IN FUTURE PLANS WE HOPE MORE DETAIL
WILL BE INCLUDED.
7 Section 1. Plan Process and Development The purpose of this Plan is to assist people in understanding the County and the hazard-related
issues facing citizens, businesses, and the environment. Combined, the chapters of the Plan
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 for people to
reference 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 Plan include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Protecting life during and after the occurrence of disasters from identified hazards
Reducing property damage
Increasing public awareness
Protecting natural resources and the environment
Preserving or restoring natural mitigation values, such as floodplains
Supporting regional efforts relating to emergency preparedness, disaster response, and
hazard mitigation
The initial Whatcom County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan was developed in 2004 and
implemented a multi-jurisdictional approach to hazard mitigation planning for the various
communities located within the County. The 2010 Plan update is intended to build on the initial
process and development of the Plan and address federal requirements by incorporating up-todate hazard information and developments, updated jurisdictional information, and public
involvement. In August 2010, the Whatcom County DEM revised the Whatcom County HIVA,
which is used to develop strategies in emergency management and risk reduction and is
included as Appendix C of this Plan.
The following sections provide information detailing the Plan process and development including
federal regulations, a Plan overview, natural hazard mitigation planning, and Plan revisions.
8 Federal Regulations Federal regulations regarding the planning process and updating of multi-jurisdictional hazard
mitigation plans can be found in 44 CFR 201.6. The “Planning Process” subsection (b) of 44
CFR 201.6 requires an open public involvement process to be developed and documented as
part of the Plan. According to this section, the public involvement process shall include:
1. An opportunity for the public to comment on the Plan during the drafting stage and prior
to Plan approval.
2. An opportunity for neighboring communities; local and regional agencies involved in
hazard mitigation activities; agencies that have the authority to regulate development;
and businesses, academia, and other private and non-profit interests to be involved in
the planning process.
3. Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical
information.
The “Plan Content” subsection (c) of 44 CFR 201.6 requires the Plan to include documentation
of the planning process including how it was prepared, who was involved, and how the public
was involved. The “Plan Review” subsection (d)(3) of 44 CFR 201.6 states that jurisdictions
with adopted plans are required to review, revise if appropriate, and resubmit plans for approval
within 5 years to continue to be eligible for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funding.
Basic documents reviewed for this plan update were the Nooksack River Floodplain
Management plans, the 2004 Hazard Mitigation Plan, and the recently completed HIVA.
9 Plan Overview This section provides details regarding the steps taken in developing and updating the Plan and
includes a breakdown of each individual section.
PLANNING PROCESS
The 2010 update process for the Plan was initiated by the Whatcom County DEM and is
outlined in the following paragraphs.
The first step was to invite and involve the various jurisdictions within Whatcom County to
Whatcom County assisted in the development of this Plan:
Bellingham
Lynden
Blaine
Everson
Nooksack
Ferndale
Port of Bellingham
Fire District #1
Sumas
Fire District #11 (Community of Lummi
Island)
Lake Whatcom Water District
Whatcom County
Whatcom
District
County
Flood
Control
Zone
The next step in creating the Plan was to identify and analyze the natural hazards present and
hazardous to Whatcom County. Seven hazards were identified in this process: earthquakes,
floods, geologic hazards, severe storms, tsunamis, volcanoes, and wildland fires. The severe
storms section is a new addition by the Whatcom County DEM since the 2004 Plan.
In addition to assisting in the development of the Plan, each jurisdiction committed to consider it
for adoption upon completion. Their assistance involved compiling or updating 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 (i.e., water districts, cemetery
districts, diking districts, and fire departments) were also eligible and contacted to participate in
the planning process. Refer to the following section titled “Natural Hazards Mitigation Planning”
for a complete list of the participating agencies.
The third step was to invite the public (e.g., neighboring communities, agencies, businesses,
academia, non-profit organizations, and other interested parties) to participate in the planning
process. This process entailed holding public meetings and posting the draft Plan on the
Whatcom County website for review (see Appendix E).
10 During the planning process, the planning team kept track of any significant changes to the Plan
that may have occurred over the last 5-year cycle. These changes were identified as each
section was thoroughly reviewed by the planning team and the participating jurisdictions. Once
all comments were received, the planning team assembled them and revised the Plan, as
needed. Significant changes to the Plan over the last 5-year cycle are as follows:

Section 1: Plan Process and Development was added to the body of the Plan, instead
of as an appendix. This decision was made to include the planning process as an active
element of the Plan.

The Flooding chapter of the Hazard Summaries was significantly increased from the
2004 Plan to include more information regarding background information, vulnerability to
the jurisdictions in Whatcom County, and mitigation strategies. Updates include National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) information regarding participating jurisdictions and
mitigation strategies related to compliance with the NFIP.
ELEMENTS NEW TO THE 2010 PLAN
 A Severe Storms chapter was developed for the Hazard Summaries section because the
entirety of Whatcom County is exposed to this natural hazard. This chapter was
developed according to input from the planning team, participating jurisdictions, and the
public. Severe storm hazard information was also updated for each participating
jurisdiction in Section 3: Jurisdiction Overview.

Meridian School District was added to the list of adopting jurisdictions.

Fire District #11 (Community of Lummi Island) was added to the list of adopting
jurisdictions.

Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District was added to the list of adopting
jurisdictions.

Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District was added to the list of adopting jurisdictions.

The Whatcom County HIVA was updated in 2010 and was added to the Plan as an
appendix (Appendix C).
ORGANIZATION
This Plan is organized into three sections. This section (Section 1) details the Plan
development process. Section 2 details the seven hazards present in Whatcom County.
Section 3 contains infrastructure and hazard information for each of the jurisdictions that
participated in the Plan. Additionally, this Plan contains several appendices, which are cited
throughout the document.
Section 1: Plan Process and Development
The first section contains information pertaining to the Plan development process, including:
1. Natural Hazards Mitigation Planning
a. Federal Regulations
b. Plan Update Participants
c. Public Involvement
2. Plan Revisions
11 Section 2: Hazard-Summaries
The second section contains chapters specific to the natural hazards present in Whatcom
County. This section is broken down into:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Hazard-Related Definitions
Background Information
History
Vulnerability Assessment
Mitigation Strategies
Maps
Section 3: Jurisdiction-Overview
The third section contains jurisdiction-specific chapters, with the following information:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Contact Information
Approving Authority
Hazards Present in the Jurisdiction
Critical Facilities List
Geography
Growth Trends
Ranked Critical Facility Assessment
Proposed Mitigation Strategies
Hazard Maps
This section ends with a description of how the Plan will be maintained in the future.
Appendices
A. Capabilities Listing (documents, processes, and resources reviewed and added by the
team)
B. List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
C. Whatcom County HIVA (August 2010)
D. Whatcom County RAMS Assessment (wildland-fire related)
E. 2004 Plan Development Process
F. NFIP Status
The 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. 12 Natural Hazards Mitigation Planning The Whatcom County DEM began the process of updating the Plan in April 2010 in coordination
with the Washington Military Department’s Emergency Management Division (Washington State
EMD). Development of the Plan was originally anticipated to be completed by summer 2010.
However, County-wide budget cuts due to the recent economic recession resulted in staff
turnover at the DEM and other integral County departments and services. Due to a lack of
resources and funding, the DEM was unable to fully develop the Plan or maintain the
anticipated schedule. Over the next 5-year cycle, the DEM will meet yearly with the jurisdictions
to review and incorporate needed Plan updates. This will aid in streamlining the next update
process and will provide sufficient time for additional updates to the template and other features
of the Plan.
PLAN UPDATE PARTICIPANTS
In addition to the Whatcom County DEM and Washington State EMD, Anchor QEA, LLC, a
private consulting firm, was contracted to support the 2010 Plan update.
The 2004 Plan was represented by nine jurisdictions including the Cities of Bellingham, Blaine,
Everson, Ferndale, Lynden Nooksack, and Sumas; the Port of Bellingham; and Whatcom
County. For the 2010 update, all of the previous jurisdictions responded; five additional
jurisdictions also responded, including the Meridian School District, Fire District #11 (Community
of Lummi Island), Lake Whatcom Water District, Fire District #1, and the Whatcom County Flood
Control Zone District (FCZD), totaling 14 respondents. A comprehensive list of agencies that
were invited to participate in the 2010 Planning Process is as follows:
List of Recognized Agencies
Bellingham School District 501
Nooksack Indian Tribe
Birch Bay Water and Sewer District 8
North Whatcom Fire and Rescue
Blaine School District 503
Port of Bellingham
Cemetery District 1 – Acme
Pt. Roberts Park District 1
Cemetery District 9 – Everson/Nooksack
Samish Water District
City of Blaine
Water District 10 – Geneva/Sudden Valley
Cemetery District 6 – Ferndale
Water District 4 – Point Roberts
City of Bellingham
Water District 7 – Bellingham
City of Everson
Water District 12 – Samish
Cemetery District 7 – Ferndale
Water District 13 – Maple Falls
Glacier Water District
Water District 14 - Glacier
Ferndale School District 502
Water District 18 – Acme
Cemetery District 8 – Point Roberts
Water District 2 – Bellingham
City of Nooksack
Whatcom County
City of Ferndale
Whatcom County Consolidated Drainage
Improvement District (DID) 1
Glacier Fire and Rescue
City of Lynden
Whatcom County DID 15
Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District
Whatcom County DID 2
Lummi Island Cemetery
Whatcom County Diking District 1
Lummi Island Fire and Protection District 11
Whatcom County Diking District 3
Note: The Lummi Nation completed a Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan independent of Whatcom
County’s Plan.
13 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Despite the high level of effort it takes to develop and implement mitigation strategies, it is
ultimately up to the people that comprise each community and jurisdiction to determine the
success of the Plan in the event of a natural hazard. Therefore, public involvement is essential
in each step of the planning process. Whatcom County uses a variety of methods to provide
public outreach and involvement during and following Plan development including public
meetings and web-based outreach.
Public Meetings
The Whatcom County DEM facilitated its first public meeting on April 14, 2010, at the Whatcom
County Olympic Coordination Center. There were twelve jurisdictional representatives in
attendance. A second meeting was held on May 4, 2010, at the Whatcom County Council
Chambers in Bellingham. This meeting only contained six jurisdictional representatives. The
County used the local radio, public meeting announcements, and personal letters to
jurisdictional representatives (i.e., Cities, Dike Districts and School Districts) to advertise the
meetings. The purposes of the meetings were to review the 2004 Plan, advise the public
regarding the update process, and receive public feedback. Each representative in attendance
was provided a checklist to complete that included specific jurisdictional and natural hazard
information to be updated for the 2010 Plan. The same checklists were delivered to
representatives not in attendance to ensure that similar updates were completed.
Every October, the DEM hosts an annual flood meeting to bring all of the agencies involved in
responding to flood events together to review response procedures. Agencies involved in
emergency response include:














U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
National Weather Service
Red Cross
Whatcom County Sheriff's Office
Police departments within cities impacted by flooding
Fire departments within cities impacted by flooding
Fire departments within unincorporated Whatcom County impacted by flooding
Whatcom County Maintenance and Operations Division
British Columbia Ministry of Environment
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)
Local media
Water Districts
Tribal Jurisdictions
Parks Management
Additional annual meetings facilitated by the DEM include a winter storm meeting, a Local
Emergency Planning Committee meeting, and an Emergency Planning Council meeting. The
Local Emergency Planning Committee is composed of various representatives from around the
County and the annual meeting is open to the public. The Emergency Planning Council is
composed of elected officials and holds annual private meetings.
14 Web-based Outreach
The Whatcom County DEM boasts an extensive website that is frequently updated with the
most recent hazard preparation materials, hazard updates, and emergency event press
releases. Hazard preparation materials published on the website include disaster planning
documents, a disaster preparedness handbook,1 and other hazard-specific information (e.g.,
earthquakes, fires, floods, and winter storms). Hazard updates on the site include the latest
weather and road conditions and emergency road closures and restrictions. Emergency event
press releases are also published on the website that follows incidents in progress or weather
events of alert level concern. The website also includes links to the Washington State EMD, the
City of Bellingham Office of Emergency Management, the American Red Cross Mount Baker
Chapter, and the FEMA websites.
Storm Ready Community
In May 2003, Whatcom County was declared a “Storm Ready Community” by the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Weather Service, one of only
three other counties in Washington State. This program is aimed at preparing cities, counties,
and towns across the United States with the communication and safety tools necessary to save
lives and property. To participate in the program, the jurisdiction must follow these guidelines:

Establish a 24-hour warning point and emergency operations center

Have more than one method of receiving severe weather forecasts and warnings and
alerting the public

Create a system that monitors local weather conditions

Promote the significance of public readiness through community seminars

Develop a formal hazardous weather plan, which includes training severe weather
spotters and holding exercises
1
Available on the Whatcom County DEM website at:
http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/dem/pdf/emergency_resources_guide.pdf
15 2010 Plan Update Timeline In January 2010, Whatcom County DEM contracted with Anchor QEA, a consulting firm located
in Bellingham, to update the 2004 Plan (see Appendix E for a timeline of the 2004 Plan
Development Process). The Plan is intended to be multi-jurisdictional; therefore, all of the
jurisdictions included in the Plan dedicated time and effort to provide jurisdiction-specific
information contained throughout the 2010 Plan update.
KEY CONTRIBUTORS THAT PROVIDED JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC INFORMATION
City of Bellingham
City of Blaine
Cities of Everson and Nooksack
City of Ferndale
City of Lynden
City of Sumas
Fire District 11-Lummi Island
Lake Whatcom Water District
Port of Bellingham
Whatcom County FCZD
Andy Day, Assistant Fire Chief
Mike Haslip, Police Chief
Erik Ramstead, Police Chief
Michael Knapp, Police Chief
Gary Baar, Fire Chief
Chris Haugen, Police Chief
Duncan McLane, Fire Chief
Patrick Sorensen, General Manager
Dr. Timothy Yeomans, Superintendent
Neil Clement
Paula Cooper, River and Flood Manager
In addition to the participating jurisdictions mentioned above, smaller agencies throughout the
County were invited to participate in the development and adoption of the Hazard Mitigation
Plan. Please refer to the previous section titled “Natural Hazards Mitigation Planning” for a
listing of these participating agencies.
The 2010 Plan update composition and reorganization was performed by Anchor QEA. The
Whatcom County GIS Department was responsible for locating and collecting all natural hazardrelated GIS data updates from local and state sources.
In order to involve the public in the 2010 Plan update, Whatcom County DEM advertised and
conducted two public meetings. These meetings provided opportunities for participation in the
2010 Plan update and, just as importantly, provided opportunities to solicit information and
comments from the citizens of Whatcom County and to better involve them in the Plan.
Date
April 14, 2010
Public Meeting Schedule
Time
Location
1:00 p.m.
Olympic Coordination Center, Bellingham
May 4, 2010
7:00 p.m.
Whatcom County Courthouse, Bellingham
IMPORTANT DATES AND ELEMENTS IN THE 2010 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE
DEVELOPMENT
January 26, 2010: A contract was issued between Whatcom County and Anchor QEA, for
Anchor QEA to update the 2004 Plan. Anchor QEA representatives, Derek Koellmann, Senior
Planner, and Josh Jensen, Planner, were introduced to the Plan and the development process.
16 April 8, 2010: Joe Bates, Whatcom County Communications and Information Coordinator, sent
an e-mail to jurisdictional representatives that included a checklist to assist in determining needs
for the 2010 Plan update. This e-mail also included an announcement for the April 14, 2010
meeting.
April 14, 2010: Doug Dahl, Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office Emergency Management
Coordinator, and Joe Bates facilitated a 1:00 p.m. public meeting at the Olympic Coordination
Center in Bellingham. The attendees of this meeting are listed in the following table.
Name
Andy Day
Bill Hunter
Dave Olson
Doug Dahl
Erik Ramstead
Gary Baar
James Lee
Jim Neher
Joe Bates
Lisa Moeller
Rick Holt
Tammi Lynch
Affiliation
City of Bellingham
Whatcom County Water District #1
Whatcom County DEM
City of Everson
Lynden Fire Department
Whatcom County Public Works – River and Flood
Whatcom County
Blaine Police Department
Everson Public Works
April 30, 2010: A public meeting invitation was posted on the Whatcom County News webpage
for a Whatcom County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Update Meeting scheduled to occur on
May 4, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. This posting included a hyperlink for access to a copy of the 2004
Plan for public review.
May 4, 2010: Doug Dahl and Joe Bates facilitated a 7:00 p.m. public meeting at the Whatcom
County Council Chambers in Bellingham. The attendees of this meeting are listed in the
following table:
Name
John Thompson
Chris Hatch
David Haggith
Lloyd Zimmerman
Sherm Polinder
Perry Rice
Affiliation
Whatcom County
Whatcom County
City of Everson
City of Ferndale
Independent
Whatcom County
June 9, 2010: Doug Dahl and Joe Bates facilitated a private meeting at the Whatcom County
Courthouse in Bellingham to provide an overview of the Plan update process and receive input
from the Washington State EMD. Attendees included Bev O’Dea and Heather Kowalski from
the Washington State EMD and Derek Koellmann and Josh Jensen from Anchor QEA.
17 July 21, 2010: Kenneth Richardson, the new Whatcom County DEM project manager, and Joe
Bates facilitated a private meeting at the Olympic Coordination Center regarding the Plan
update process and the Whatcom County DEM project manager transition. Attendees included
Derek Koellmann and Josh Jensen from Anchor QEA.
August 25, 2010: The first draft copy of the 2010 Plan was submitted to the Whatcom County
DEM for review.
September 17, 2010: A meeting was held between the Whatcom County DEM and Anchor
QEA to discuss additional revisions needed prior to submitting the plan for public comment.
Comments were received from the Whatcom County DEM and implemented in the Draft Plan.
October 22, 2010: An electronic jurisdictional meeting occurred in which a draft copy of the
Plan was distributed to all participating jurisdictions for review and comment.
November 3, 2010: The final comment period for the participating jurisdictions and the public
commenced. The Bellingham Herald published an advertisement in the local newspaper for the
public meeting on November 17, 2010.
November 17, 2010: Kenneth Richardson, Doug Dahl, and Josh Jensen facilitated a 7:00 p.m.
public meeting at the Whatcom County Council Chambers in Bellingham. All public comments
were noted and compiled at the end of the meeting, concluding the public comment period. The
attendees of this meeting are listed in the following table.
Name
Ken Richardson
Doug Dahl
Josh Jensen
Samantha Taylor
Keifer Gonzalez
Kelsey Brubaker
Scott Miles
Jayne Uerling
Evan White
Amy Harvey
Kayla Grayson
Christina Gonzales
Kerri Love
Andrea Campbell
Walter Haas
Kirsten Miller
Cameron Zaputh
Anna Kochanski
Kayla Barbar
Andrew Bohannan
Perry Rice
Brenden McClain
Affiliation
Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office (WCSO) – DEM
WCSO – DEM
Anchor QEA, LLC
Western Washington University (WWU)
WWU
WWU
WWU
Nooksack Indian Tribe
WWU
WWU
WCSO-DEM/WWU
WWU
WWU
WWU
WWU
WWU
WWU
WWU
WWU
WWU
Whatcom County
WWU
18 November 24, 2010: Two copies of the Plan were submitted to Bev O’Dea of the Washington
State EMD for the state’s review.
December 14, 2010: Conference call with Bev O’Dea at DEM resulted in the need for
additional work on the plan.
January 24, 2011: Richardson and O’Dea met in Bellingham.
required in the submission of the plan.
Reviewed more changes
March 15, 2011: Two copies of the revised Plan were submitted to Heather Kowalski at State
DEM for the state’s review.
April 27, 2011: Comments received from Kowalski for review by Whatcom County.
June 15, 2011: Copies of the reviewed/revised plan submitted to Mark Stewart, WA EMD for
the state’s review and forwarding to FEMA.
July 20, 2011: Combined comments and questions from EMD (Jamie Mooney) and FEMA
Region X (Kristen Meyers) received.
July 25, 2011: Meeting in Lynnwood with Richardson, Meyers, and Mooney to review, and
finalize issues.
August 8, 2011: Plan re-submitted to EMD and FEMA Region X.
19 Section 2. Hazard Summaries
The following seven natural hazards were identified to be risks to the county, and specifically
hazardous to the populated western areas of Whatcom County:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Earthquakes
Flooding
Geologic Hazards
Severe Storms
Tsunamis
Volcanoes
Wildland Fires
The updated HIVA was received late in the plan update process and will be the basis for the
next version of the all hazards plan.
The following sections describe these seven natural 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
summaries describe the hazards, convey the areas at potential risk from each hazard, and
describe mitigation measures as implemented in the past or to be implemented in the future to
manage the effects of natural disasters in Whatcom County.
Each hazard description is organized into the following parts:
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, the Washington
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), and the U.S. Geological Society (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
Whatcom County’s Planning and Development Services provided the entire hazard GIS
datasets, except for the Wildland Fire data, which came from WDNR’s North Region.
20 Earthquakes Definitions
Earthquake is a term used to describe sudden motion or trembling in the earth. This can be
caused by the abrupt release of accumulated energy on a fault or by volcanic or magmatic
activity.
Crust is the outermost major layer of the Earth, ranging from about 10 to 65 km in thickness
worldwide. The uppermost 15 to 35 km of crust is brittle enough to produce earthquakes.
Fault is a fracture along which the blocks of crust on either side have moved relative to one
another, parallel to the fracture.
Liquefaction is the phenomenon in which loosely packed, water-logged sediments lose their
strength in response to strong shaking, causing major damage during earthquakes.
Lithosphere is 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 is 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.
For hundreds of millions of years, the forces of plate tectonics have shaped the Earth as the
plates that form the Earth's surface slowly move over, under, and past one another. The speed
of these plates is variable: sometimes they move gradually and 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 Earth’s crust,
by a volcanic eruption, or even by anthropogenic-caused
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 result
in injury or death, and extensive property damage. The
most destructive earthquakes are caused by natural
dislocations of the crust. The crust first bends, and when
the stress exceeds the strength of the rocks, breaks and
"snaps" into a new position.
USGS: San Andreas Fault,
Central California
Geologists have discovered that 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, and another
earthquake could still occur. Relieving stress along one
part of a fault may also increase stress in another part,
increasing the probability that an earthquake could occur
nearby.
21 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 B.C. to northern California.
One of the results of the colliding forces at the CSZ is the uplift that is occurring and is forming
the Cascade Mountain Range. The convergence of the plates also creates a more immediate
concern: earthquakes.
Subduction zone earthquakes can be
powerful and sustained for greater
lengths of time than other types of
earthquakes.
Recent geologic work
along the Oregon and Washington
coasts, and Puget Sound and tsunami
(commonly called a 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
along the Washington Coast occurred in
1700.
(Figure Courtesy of USGS Earthquake Hazards Program)
Earthquakes can also be produced by
movement along faults within the North
American plate (known as “intraslab” earthquakes). Recent geologic investigations have
revealed a number of fault zones in the Puget Sound region of Western Washington, including
several recently active faults in Whatcom County. These faults record a number of Holocene (a
geologic epoch beginning 10,000 years ago) earthquakes that not only produced substantial
ground movement, but also resulted in the rupturing of ground surface. The close proximity of
population centers to these fault zones and the potential for surface rupture should be
considered when seismic hazard assessments and engineering designs are prepared. Local
faults that have been mapped include the McCauley Creek Thrust Fault near Deming and the
Boulder Creek Fault and associated Kendall Fault Scarp in the North Fork Nooksack River
Valley. The Kendall Fault moved as recently as 900 years ago with an earthquake magnitude
potentially larger than the magnitude 6.8 Nisqually earthquake of 2001. The Nisqually
earthquake, an intraslab earthquake that occurred under Anderson Island, 11 miles northeast of
Olympia, was felt in Bellingham, which lies 120 miles to the north. There is also evidence that a
large Holocene fault may run from the Cherry Point area in a northeasterly direction toward
Vedder Mountain. Preliminary evidence of the latter has been presented by research
geologists, but more conclusive evidence was in preparation for publication and unavailable at
the time of this update.
According to the USGS, Washington ranks fifth in the United States of states at risk of
earthquakes with a magnitude 3.5 or greater. Since 1974, the 424 earthquakes occurring in
Washington have accounted for 2.0% of the earthquakes in the United States. Additionally,
according to a FEMA study, Washington ranks second in the nation (after California) of states
that are susceptible to earthquake losses.
22 History
Each year, more than 1,000 earthquakes are recorded in Washington. Of these, 15 to 20 cause
ground movements 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, suggests that major earthquakes occurred in the Pacific
Northwest perhaps as recently as 300 years ago.
The most recent 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. The Nisqually earthquake, although less severe than the one in 1965, occurred in
2001. This quake was centered 120 miles to the south of Whatcom County, yet was still felt in
and caused damage in the area. The April 1990 Deming earthquake swarm included a
magnitude 5.0 event that is one of the largest earthquakes recorded in northern Puget Sound
between 1920 and 1990. Table 1 lists the Pacific Northwest’s largest earthquakes over the last
150 years.
Table 1
Recent Pacific Northwest Earthquakes 4.5 Magnitude or Greater
Date
Depth
Magnitude
Approximate Location
December 1872
October 1877
December 1880
November 1891
March 1893
January 1896
March 1904
January 1909
August 1915
December 1918
January 1920
July 1932
July 1936
November 1939
April 1945
February 1946
June 1946
April 1949
August 1949
August 1959
November 1962
April 1965
February 1981
April 1990
Shallow
Shallow
Shallow
Deep
Shallow
Shallow
Deep
Deep
54 km
35 km
18 km
63 km
7 km
12.6 km
7.3
5.3
?
?
4.7
5.7
5.3
6.0
5.6
7.0
5.5
5.2
6.4
6.2
5.9
6.4
7.4
7.1
8.1
5.5
5.3
6.5
5.8
5.0
23 North Cascades
Portland, Oregon
Puget Sound
Puget Sound
SE Washington
Puget Sound
Olympic Peninsula, Eastside
Puget Sound
North Cascades
Vancouver Island
Puget Sound
Central Cascades
SE Washington
Puget Sound
Central Cascades
Puget Sound
Vancouver Island
Puget Sound
Queen Charlotte, B.C.
North Cascades, Eastside
Portland, Oregon
Puget Sound
South Cascades
Deming
Date
March 1993
September 1993
January 1995
May 1996
February 2001
June 2001
April 2003
July 2004
August 18, 2004
January 2009
Depth
Magnitude
Varies
16 km
7 km
52 km
40.7 km
50 km
29 km
28 km
58 km
5.6
6.0
5.0
5.3
6.8
5.0
4.8
4.9
4.7
4.5
Approximate Location
Scotts Mills, Oregon
Klamath Falls, Oregon
Robinson Point
Duvall
Nisqually – Anderson Island
Satsop
Olympic Peninsula, Eastside
Newport, Oregon
Newport, Oregon
Poulsbo
Note: Information obtained from the Pacific Northwest Seismograph Network
(http://www.pnsn.org)
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. Distant earthquakes also affect Washington, such as the two
Vancouver Island, B.C., quakes listed in Table 1 that were felt in Washington.
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. Many deaths worldwide are
the result of materials falling from buildings to sidewalks and streets below. Ground rupture
along an active fault can also cause serious structural damage and disrupt transportation
routes. Landslides can also be triggered by earthquakes. A potential hazard that is unique to
Bellingham Bay is the potential for an earthquake-induced landslide on the face of the Nooksack
River Delta. Such a landslide could send waves across Bellingham Bay and impact the Lummi
Peninsula and Bellingham.
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 and the soil loses its ability to support
structures. Once liquefaction has begun in an area, such as under a building, structural support
to the foundation would be lost and the building would likely fail. Liquefaction is also a geologic
hazard and is described in more detail in the “Geologic Hazards” section of this Plan.
Population-dense areas in Whatcom County could be significantly impacted by future
earthquakes and their related hazards. The nature and extent of earthquake risk in Washington
is determined by a variety of factors, such as estimating the level of predicted ground movement
and identifying sites susceptible to ground rupture, differential failure from liquefaction, 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 damage. For this Plan, all the identified critical facilities are 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. Existing County seismic hazard area maps should be updated in the
near future based on emerging data related to Holocene faulting such as the Kendall scarp.
24 Vulnerability Assessment
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
for liquefaction. The earthquake risk in Bellingham is exaggerated in areas of artificial fill where
mud pumped out from Bellingham Bay is not compacted and where municipal garbage or wood
waste was used as fill over tide flats.
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 piles 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

Failure of ‘dry-stacked’ retaining walls on steep slopes in areas of residential
development
Examples of potential earthquake impacts to Whatcom County are provided in the five sections
below.
Landslides
Landslides can be triggered by earthquakes or by a combination of geologic and climatic
factors. The latter are discussed in more detail under Geologic Hazards. Landslides can directly
damage a structure built on the landslide or in an area where landslide debris runs out and is
deposited (including the base of a hill or an alluvial fan).
Earthquake-induced landslides could impact various locations throughout the County. A lahar
(a mud flow originating from a volcano) from Mount Baker could also be triggered during an
earthquake. Depending on the specific area of initial failure, the lahar could flow into Baker
Lake and cause damage in the Skagit River system or could flow down either the North or
Middle Forks of the Nooksack River reaching as far as Sumas and Bellingham Bay. For details
regarding lahars, see the “Volcanic Hazards” section of this Plan.
25 Examples of other locations that may experience earthquake-related landslide include: the
Chuckanut Mountains and Chuckanut Drive residential areas built on steep slopes in
Bellingham and Sudden Valley; development and roads on or below steep slopes, or within the
run-out zone (including alluvial fans) for landslides (such as Nelson Road on the west side of
the Van Zandt Dike and Slide Mountain near Kendall); the Mount Baker Highway east of
Deming; State Route 9 south of Acme; unstable coastal bluffs on Lummi Island, the Lummi
Peninsula, Point Roberts, Cherry Point, Point Whitehorn, Semiahmoo, and Drayton Harbor;
Sehome Hill and the Western Washington University campus; and Sumas Mountain.
Landslides could also occur on the steep face of the Nooksack River delta in Bellingham Bay,
displacing water and sending waves across the bay. This list is intended to illustrate the range
of locations where landslides could happen and is not an inclusive list of all possible locations.
Transportation Impacts
Bridges are the most vulnerable component of highway systems, such as the I-5 overpasses.
Bridge foundations in liquefiable soils can move, allowing the spans they support to slide off.
Areas at significant risk are Roeder Avenue bridges near Georgia Pacific and over Whatcom
Creek Waterway; I-5 over Whatcom Creek; the Mount Baker Highway at Cedarville and
Everson; Highway 9; and Guide Meridian and Hannegan bridges over the Nooksack River. An
additional impact is that supporting columns can buckle.
Railways
Railway bridges have performed well in earthquakes, but may be subject to liquefaction, such
as those along the Bellingham waterfront. Additionally, landslides may cover the tracks.
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 in earthquakes, quickly draining the water system, making water
unavailable for fire suppression, drinking, toilet flushing, etc. Sewer pipelines are often gravity
systems and a change in grade can impact system operation. The sewer lines relying on
pumps will not work if there is no electric power. These sewer pipelines are vulnerable to
flotation if the ground around them liquefies. Liquid fuel and natural gas pipelines that are
constructed of steel with welded joints have performed well in earthquakes, 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 the most vulnerable. Water and older gas
distribution systems contain brittle materials, such as cast iron and asbestos cement.
Additionally, pipelines buried in liquefiable soils or landslide areas may fail. For example,
landslide movement was a likely factor in the rupture, explosion, and fire in 1997 of a natural
gas pipeline on Sumas Mountain.
Earthquakes have long been feared as one of nature's most damaging hazards. Earthquakes
occur without warning and, after only a few seconds, leave casualties and damage. 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. Scientists can now identify, with considerable accuracy,
where earthquakes are likely to occur and what forces they might generate. Modern
engineering has resulted in design and construction techniques that allow buildings and other
structures to survive the tremendous forces of earthquakes.
26 FEMA’s National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) has four basic strategies
related to the mitigation of hazards caused by earthquakes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Promote understanding of earthquakes and their effects
Work to better identify earthquake risk
Improve earthquake-resistant design and construction techniques
Encourage the use of earthquake-safe policies and planning practices
Further study of earthquake behavior and understanding of the relationship between the
different kinds of earthquakes will lead to improved preparation and response to earthquakes.
27 Flooding Definitions
Avulsion is the sudden cutting off of land by floods due to a change in the course of a river
body.
Flood is 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 within the
basin. The NFIP defines a flood as “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 is the land area of a river valley that becomes inundated with water during a flood.
National Flood Insurance Program is a federal program enabling property owners in
participating communities to purchase insurance protection against losses from flooding. The
NFIP is designed to provide insurance as an alternative to disaster assistance to meet the
escalating costs of repairing damage to buildings and their content caused by floods. When a
community chooses to participate in the NFIP, they agree to adopt and enforce a floodplain
management ordinance to reduce future flood risks to new construction in Special Flood Hazard
Areas. In exchange, the federal government agrees to make flood insurance available within
the community as a financial protection against flood losses.
The natural hazard of most concern to Whatcom County, primarily due to its frequency, is
flooding. Several types of flood hazards affect Whatcom County including:
 Overbank flooding and erosion on the Lower Nooksack River downstream of Deming
 Overbank flooding and erosion on the three main forks of the Nooksack River upstream of
Deming (North, Middle, and South Forks)
 Debris flows and debris floods on alluvial fans throughout the County (see the “Geologic
Hazards” section for more information)
 Coastal flooding
 Tsunamis or tidal flooding associated with earthquakes (see the “Tsunamis” section for
more information)
The communities located within Whatcom County that are currently participating in the NFIP
include:









City of Bellingham (#530199)
City of Blaine (#530273)
City of Everson (#530200)
City of Ferndale (#530201)
City of Lynden (#530202)
City of Nooksack (#530203)
City of Sumas (#530204)
Lummi Indian Reservation (#530331)
Whatcom County (#530198)
28 Whatcom County contains 63.6 square miles of floodplain area, which equals 3 percent of the
entire land area.2 Whatcom County currently holds 2,248 flood insurance policies and has filed
595 claims through January 31, 2010.3 FEMA maintains information on repetitive flood loss
properties (RFLs) within each community participating in the NFIP. RFLs are properties for
which two or more NFIP losses of at least $1,000 each have been paid within any 10-year
period since 1978. There are currently 36 RFLs within Whatcom County.4
Whatcom County also participates in the NFIP Community Rating System (CRS), implemented
in 1990 as a voluntary program that recognizes and encourages community floodplain
management activities that exceed the minimum NFIP standards. The CRS entry date for
Whatcom County was October 1, 1996; since that time, Whatcom County has received enough
points to be qualified as a credit class 6 (out of 10), meaning property owners in the floodplain
receive a 20 percent discount on flood insurance premiums.5
Lower Nooksack River
The primary flooding source affecting Whatcom County residents is the Lower Nooksack River,
from Deming to Bellingham Bay. In 1999, the Whatcom County FCZD adopted the Lower
Nooksack River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan (CFHMP), which serves as
the primary source of information for this flooding summary.
The Nooksack River watershed is primarily located within the 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, contribute to the conditions that allow floodwater to quickly reach
the flat lower river reaches. The devastating and frequent flooding in 1989 and 1990 prompted
Whatcom 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.
The Lower Nooksack River is divided by river reach in the CFHMP 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 to Reach 5.
2
Washington Emergency Department Emergency Management Division, 2010. Washington State Enhanced
Hazard Mitigation Plan. Olympia, Washington. October 1, 2010.
3
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology), 2010. National Flood Insurance Report. Generated by:
Chuck Steele, Ecology. March 25, 2010.
4
5
29 Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Table 2
River Reach Descriptions
River Channel
100-Year Floodplain
River Mile Length (miles) Gradient (ft/mile) Area (mi2) Width (avg. miles)
0 to 6.0
6.0
1.8
13.8
2.8
6.0 to 15.3
9.3
2.3
8.3
1.1
15.3 to 23.6
8.3
4.9
12.0
1.9
23.6 to 26.6
13.0
21.3
7.5
1.3
--13.2
4.5
21.5*
22.5**
Notes: * Drainage Area
** Average Creek Width
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 (Brennan) 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
riprapped, especially adjacent to the levee.
Reach 2 extends from the I-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 in and upstream of Ferndale is not diked.
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 at Deming. 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 United States/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 B.C. During large floods in the Nooksack,
floodwaters flow along the corridor of Johnson Creek through the City of Sumas and over the
international border into Abbottsford, B.C.
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 constantly migrating within 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.
30 Weather Patterns that Cause Flooding - Heavy fall and winter rainfall in Whatcom County
results from an effect called orographic lift. 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 3 days, with snow melt adding an
extra 2 inches. During the same storm, Bellingham only recorded 5 inches of rain.
The worst flooding tends to occur during the “Pineapple Express” weather pattern 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.
Upper Forks of Nooksack River
The North, Middle, and South Forks of the Nooksack River comprise the upper watershed for
the Lower Nooksack River. The headwaters of the North and Middle Forks originate on the
flanks of Mount Baker while the South Fork drains the Twin Sisters range resulting in steep
mountainous terrain in their upper basins. The lower portions of the forks include flatter valleys
as the rivers drain off the Cascade Foothills and enter into broader valleys shaped in part by
past glacial activity.
The North Fork of the Nooksack River generally experiences higher snowfall amounts, which
can act to absorb some runoff associated with heavy rainfall and attenuate flood peaks. The
South Fork has much of its upper basin at lower elevations than the North Fork and generally
responds more quickly to a storm event. During weather patterns like the “Pineapple Express,”
all three forks can experience significant flooding.
Due to the mountainous terrain in their upper watersheds, all three forks have significant
sediment sources. As the sediment is routed through the systems, significant channel migration
can occur, putting public infrastructure and private property at risk.
Coastal Flooding
High winds off the coast combined with high tides and low atmospheric pressures can result in
coastal flooding along the western edge of Whatcom County. The main coastal communities
impacted by coastal flooding are Sandy Point, Birch Bay, Point Roberts, and Lummi Peninsula.
Damages can include structural damage to residences and seawalls as large debris is carried
by waves hitting the shoreline, inundation damage to structures, and debris accumulation and
flooding of roadways. In some areas where the shoreline is a bluff, coastal erosion and/or
improper drainage can threaten the structural integrity of residential structures and the stability
of the bluff itself.
31 History
Table 3 lists the largest recorded Lower Nooksack River floods as recorded at the
Deming/Cedarville and Ferndale stream gages.
Date
1/25/1935
Table 3
Largest Recorded Nooksack River Flood Events
Deming Flow*
Ferndale Flow
Overflow in Everson
(cfs)
(CFS)
causing Flood Damage
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
10/17/2003
50,800
39,900
No
11/24/2004
53,200
42,300
No
11/6/2006
56,300 (Cedarville)
38,100
Yes
1/9/2009
50,700 (Cedarville)**
51,700**
Yes
* The Deming gage is subject to significant bed instability during flood events. Peak flows
reported for Deming are prone to error. In 2005, the Deming gage was replaced with the
Cedarville gage, located 5.2 miles downstream.
** USGS flow data for the January 2009 flood event is provisional.
32 Upper Forks of Nooksack River
Generally, the same weather patterns that cause flooding on the lower Nooksack River also
result in flooding conditions on one or more of the three upper forks. These same weather
patterns can cause landslides that can form temporary landslide dams when they enter
tributaries to the forks. Floods much larger than might be expected for a stream of that size can
result when the dams breach. These tributary floods may not be easily detected at a gauging
station in the fork itself or downstream due to the relatively larger capacity of the fork floodplain.
Coastal Flooding
Recent significant coastal flooding events are summarized as follows:

October 12, 1962 (Columbus Day) – The inclusion of the infamous “Columbus Day
Storm” is primarily due to it being the wind storm for which virtually all other Pacific
Northwest wind storms are compared. Although actual tidal information is not available,
extreme low pressure and south/southeasterly winds of nearly 100 miles per hour likely
created significantly higher than predicted sea levels and waves large enough to result in
some coastal flooding. However, reports of the timing of the strongest winds during the
storm indicate that they coincided closely with a low tide in the area. Further, any
coastal flooding would have been moderated by the fact that the predicted high tides
were at least 1 foot lower than high tides generally predicted during mid-winter months.
The largely undeveloped state of southerly and southeasterly shores of Sandy Point,
Birch Bay Village area, Point Roberts, Lummi Island, Lummi Peninsula, Eliza Island, etc.
would have also minimized any property damage due to coastal flooding. Newspaper
articles about the storm largely focused on damage and problems on land and water due
to the wind with no mention of coastal flooding.

March 30, 1975 (Easter Sunday) – Extremely strong northwesterly wind coincided with a
predicted 6:21 a.m. high tide of 8.98 feet mean lower low water (MLLW), causing coastal
flooding, especially along the west shore of Sandy Point. The northwesterly/westerly
facing shoreline of Birch Bay was also likely impacted. Many homes and property along
Sucia Drive suffered damage of varying degrees.

December 16, 1982 – Strong westerly and southwesterly wind coincided with low
pressure to create a record high tide of 12.93 feet MLLW (Cherry Point) that was 2.90
feet above the predicted level of 10.03 feet MLLW. Significant coastal flooding and
damage, including low-lying inland areas, occurred in the Birch Bay, Sandy Point, and
Gooseberry Point areas. Legoe Bay Road on Lummi Island and roads and property
along the south shore of Point Roberts were also flooded.

December 4, 1993 – Strong westerly wind of 45 to 50 miles per hour (mph) with gusts to
68 mph reportedly coincided with high tide and low pressure to create coastal flooding
along the westerly facing shorelines of Sandy Point and Birch Bay. Newspaper
accounts reported minor damage to homes as well as water and debris on Sucia Drive
and Birch Bay Drive. Actual tidal levels are not available, but at Cherry Point high tide
was predicted at 9:36 a.m. to be 9.97 feet MLLW; the actual height was likely
significantly higher.
33 
December 15, 2000 – Reported 70 mph northwesterly winds caused coastal flooding
along the westerly shores of Sandy Point and Birch Bay as a rising tide approached a
predicted 9:21 a.m. high tide (Cherry Point) of 10.64 feet MLLW. Several dozen homes
and property along Sucia Drive were especially hard hit, suffering damage of varying
degrees. Most of the damage occurred as much as two or more hours prior to the
predicted high tide when the winds were strongest out of the northwest and the tide level
was rising between the 8 to 10 foot MLLW range. The wind had eased and shifted to
northeast (off-shore) by the time of high tide.

December 14, 2001 – Almost exactly one year after the December 15, 2000 event, very
similar coastal flooding and damage occurred at Sandy Point and Birch Bay. Strong
northwesterly winds closely coincided with an observed 6:12 a.m. Cherry Point high tide
of 10.58 feet MLLW. The observed tidal levels were 0.5 to 1 foot higher than predicted
during the period of strongest winds due to low pressure. Damages were less extensive
than the previous year because the County’s Division of Emergency Management
contacted homeowners prior to the event to warn them of the upcoming potential for
coastal flooding. Property owners were able to take protective measures to reduce
property damage.

February 4, 2006 – Strong southeasterly wind coincided with extreme low pressure to
create a 9:06 a.m. high tide of 12.34 feet MLLW that was 2.44 feet higher than the
predicted 9.90 feet. Significant coastal flooding occurred in virtually all vulnerable
coastal areas, including Sandy Point, Gooseberry Point, along the northerly shore of
Birch Bay, the southeasterly shore of the Lummi Peninsula (Lummi Shore Road area),
and the southerly shore and the Maple Beach/Bay View Drive areas of Point Roberts.
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 facing
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 a former golf course. A portion of the levee 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.
34 Left Bank Downstream of Ferndale – Floodwaters overtop the left bank between Slater Road
and Marine Drive annually; if overtopping is of a long enough duration, both roadways can be
flooded. At slightly higher flows, as the river rises to the approximate 5-year flood level,
floodwaters also overtop high ground and levees immediately downstream of Ferndale in
Hovander Park. Floodwaters travel through Hovander Park 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. In both 1990 and 2009, Marietta residences sustained significant flood damage and
residents were evacuated.
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–inch-diameter culverts near the Lummi
(Red) River mouth draining the area south of the river were replaced with five 6-foot by 4-foot
box culverts in 1998. Tide gates in the culverts prevent saltwater from flowing inland as the tide
rises. Three 5-foot by 5-foot box culverts drain the area north of the river.
Overflows from Reach 3 – Floodwaters enter Reach 2 from Reach 3 under the Guide Meridian
through the main channel bridge and overflow bridges north and south of the river 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, closer to
the main river channel, and on toward Bertrand Creek. These flows can be 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. In
2006, the levees along Bertrand Creek were lowered and set back to reduce the frequency of
levee failures and to lower upstream flood levels.
35 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 I-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 I-5 corridor. Levees offer sporadic protection
along 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 I-5 bridge, Reach 2 includes areas within or immediately
outside Ferndale. Residential and commercial urban development is encroaching into the 100year 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. Recently significant development has occurred downstream of Main
Street including a new condominium, a triplex, and a Boys & Girls Club constructed since 2004.
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 and sometimes limited
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
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; and 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 Thiel Road on the Bedlington property
2. The river bend just east of Hannegan Road on the Polinder property
36 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 either back into the river upstream of the treatment plant or 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-inch culvert through the right bank river levee. The 60-inch 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 was an overflow
on the Stremler property south of BC Avenue in Lynden. The levee at this overflow was
restored, strengthened, and raised by the USACE 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, potentially threatening the structural integrity of the bridges.
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
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.
37 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 0.5 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 Nugent’s 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. As the bluff fails, material
accumulates at the base of the slope and this material acts to stabilize the slope for a period of
typically 5 to 7 years. During this period, the river erodes through the accumulated material at
the base of the bluff and causes the bank to become oversteepened and significant bluff failures
resume. In 2006, significant bluff failures occurred, causing owners of two houses at the top of
the bluff to abandon them when bank failures encroached too close to the structures.
Nugent’s 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 Nugent’s Corner is the only
bridge over the river in 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. WSDOT replaced the bridge in approximately 2000.
Nugent’s Corner to Everson – The river migrates across the floodplain between Nugent’s
Corner and Everson more than in any other river reach. Channel migration has resulted in
erosion and loss of private property, primarily agricultural lands. 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 Nugent’s 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 Properties – The Riverberry property includes a farm located
approximately halfway between Everson and Nugent’s Corner on the right bank. 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 high ground, which was the basin divide between the Nooksack and Sumas
basins, increasing the frequency of overland flow and potential for channel avulsion into the
Everson–Sumas Overflow Corridor.
38 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.
Everson Overflow Area – The high ground along the right bank south of Everson Road near
Massey Road and upstream to the Vandellen property is the area where much of the overflow to
Everson originates. The elevation of the riverbank is the first hydraulic control affecting the
amount of flow that leaves the Nooksack basin. Emmerson Road serves as a secondary control
as some of the flow overtops the road and flows north while the rest of the flow is channeled
back to the river by the levee constructed to protect Everson after the 1990 flood. In 2006, the
revetment protecting the high ground divide east of Emmerson Road was reconstructed to
prevent erosion of the high ground control.
Left Bank Overflow Corridor Opposite Everson – The river has historically overtopped a left
bank levee immediately upstream of Everson. Floodwaters follow the low topography through
agricultural areas for approximately 1 mile prior to flowing through a large arch culvert under
Everson-Goshen Road (SR 544) and returning to the river.
Floodwaters leave the river channel and overflow through Everson at three locations:
1. South (upstream) of Massey Road
2. Along Emerson 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 Everson from the south along Washington Street and from the overflow area to the
east. After the 1990 flood, a 1,000-foot 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 United States/Canada border within hours of an overflow
occurring in Sumas.
Sumas Prairie/Abbotsford (B.C.) – After passing through Sumas, floodwaters cross the border
into the 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.
39 Avulsion Potential at Everson – It is possible that an avulsion would redirect all or a portion of
the Nooksack River from its present path to a northward path along the Johnson Creek corridor.
The Johnson Creek corridor drops an average of 6 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 previously
flowed north at Everson into the Sumas River and Frasier River Basins.
A study commissioned by the B.C. 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.
Upper Forks of Nooksack River
North Fork – The Mount Baker Highway (SR 542) runs parallel to the North Fork Nooksack
River for much of its length. Channel erosion threatens the highway at several locations;
WSDOT has constructed several projects to protect the highway, and is considering options to
relocate the highway at several other locations with chronic bank erosion or flooding problems.
The Mount Baker Highway crosses the North Fork at two locations. Portions of the highway are
also subject to inundation during significant flood events, primarily near Maple Falls.
County roads that have the potential to be threatened by the North Fork include Truck Road,
Rutsatz Road, and North Fork Road. Bridges cross the river along Mosquito Lake Road and
SR 9, just upstream of its confluence with the South Fork. Channel erosion and overbank
flooding also affect rural residential and agricultural properties along the river.
Several tributaries to the North Fork also have the potential to flood SR 542 including Glacier,
Gallup, Cornell, Canyon, Boulder, and Maple Creeks. Flooding at Boulder Creek in the mid1980s closed the highway for days, stranding hundreds of residents and skiers east of the road
closure.
Middle Fork – While the Middle Fork generally runs parallel to Mosquito Lake Road, it is far
enough away along most of its length that it does not pose a threat to the roadway. In 2004, the
river eroded close enough to the road at one location upstream of Porter Creek that the
roadway was undermined. Whatcom County relocated a section of roadway away from the
failing slope so that access could be maintained. The County also took measures to stabilize
the bridge at Mosquito Lake Road where it crosses the Middle Fork.
The City of Bellingham’s diversion dam for diverting water from the Middle Fork into Lake
Whatcom is also located on the Middle Fork approximately 2.5 miles upstream from the
Mosquito Lake Road Bridge. Other infrastructure and property impacted by flooding and
erosion on the Middle Fork is primarily private developments associated with rural residential
and agricultural properties.
Porter and Canyon Lake Creeks, tributaries to the Middle Fork, have also flooded Mosquito
Lake Road where it crosses the lower portion of their alluvial fans. The flooding blocked local
access and caused damage to the road and to the county bridges.
South Fork – Similar to the other two forks, the South Fork flows through rural residential and
agricultural properties for most of its length. The river flows through the town of Acme where
overbank flow can damage residential and commercial properties. The water tank for the town’s
water district is located in the floodplain in Acme. A project to reduce the potential for channel
erosion just upstream of Acme is currently being implemented to improve fish habitat and limit
channel migration.
40 SR 9 crosses the South Fork in Acme and is inundated by floodwaters both north and south of
the bridge, severely limiting access to the South Fork valley during moderate to large flood
events. SR 9 also is flooded by the South Fork further downstream south of VanZandt.
Mosquito Lake Road is also flooded by the South Fork at several locations near Acme during
relatively frequent flood events. In 2007, the river channel eroded to within 20 feet of the
roadway, and Whatcom County in conjunction with the FCZD extended an existing revetment to
protect the roadway. Other County roads impacted by the South Fork are Strand Road and
Potter Roads; both roadways become impassable during significant flood events. Whatcom
County is currently working to replace the Potter Road Bridge over the South Fork due to
structural deficiencies; however, raising the roadway to reduce the frequency of access being
cut off is not possible due to funding limitations.
Coastal Areas
Sandy Point – Virtually the entire Sandy Point area, including the shoreline in the Neptune
Beach area, is subject to coastal flooding, primarily due to a combination of high tidal levels and
wind-driven waves from east through northwest. Homes and property along the shoreline are
especially vulnerable to damage from wind-driven water and large debris. Homes and property
on the interior of the peninsula are generally only subject to water damage due to flooding from
high tide levels and wash over the shoreline properties. Virtually all roads within the peninsula,
including the main access roads of Sucia Drive and Saltspring Drive, are subject to flooding.
The Sandy Point Fire Hall on the east side of Sucia Drive south of Thetis Way is also subject to
flooding.
Birch Bay – Virtually the entire non-bluff shoreline area of Birch Bay is subject to extensive
coastal flooding, primarily due to a combination of high tidal levels and wind-driven waves from
southwest through northwest. Homes and other residential structures, businesses, and
properties in low areas along and near the shoreline are especially vulnerable to damage from
wind-driven water and large debris. For the most part, residential structures and properties in
low areas landward of shoreline properties in the Birch Bay Village development and along and
including Birch Bay Drive and Birch Point Road are only subject to water damage due to
flooding from high tide levels and wash over the shoreline roads and properties. Flood waters
between Alderson Road and the low area of the Sea Links development can extend almost 1mile inland to Blaine Road. High tidal levels, waves, and storm surge can also restrict the
outflow of Terrell Creek, resulting in flooding of residential structures, properties, and roads in
low areas adjacent to or in the vicinity of Terrell Creek, such as the Birch Bay Park and Leisure
Park development areas. Land and structures along the shoreline and in the low areas of Birch
Bay State Park along Terrell Creek are also subject to coastal flooding. Most of the bluff areas
along the shoreline are subject to slope instability due to erosion from high tidal levels and winddriven waves.
41 Point Roberts – The entire shoreline area of Point Roberts is subject to coastal flooding,
especially in the non-bluff areas, primarily due to a combination of high tidal levels and winddriven waves from the northwest through northeast. Residential and business structures and
properties along low-lying shoreline areas along the westerly, southerly, and easterly shore are
especially vulnerable to damage from wind-driven water and large debris. Generally, residential
structures, properties, and roads in low areas landward of shoreline properties along Marine
Drive and Edwards Drive are not prone to significant flooding due to the Point Roberts Dike
(Point Roberts Diking District is non-active) and detention of upland drainage in the canal in the
vicinity of and around the Point Roberts Marina. However, residential structures, businesses,
and properties adjacent to and along Bay View Drive in the Maple Beach area are vulnerable to
damage from wind-driven waves, splash, and debris over the seawall. Structures and
properties in low areas landward of the properties fronting Bay View Drive are generally only
subject to water damage from coastal flooding. A portion of Whatcom County’s Lighthouse
Marine Park is subject to coastal flooding. Most of the bluff areas along the shoreline are
subject to slope instability due to erosion from high tidal levels and wind-driven waves.
Lummi Peninsula – The entire shoreline area of the Lummi Peninsula is subject to coastal
flooding, especially in the non-bluff areas, primarily due to a combination of high tidal levels and
wind-driven waves from the northwest through southeast. Low-lying residential and business
structures and properties along the shoreline in the Gooseberry Point area are especially
vulnerable to damage from wind-driven water and large debris. For the most part, residential
structures, properties, and roads in low areas landward of shoreline properties in the
Gooseberry Point and Hermosa Beach areas, including Haxton Way, Lummi View Drive, and
Lummi Shore Road, are only subject to water damage due to flooding from high tide levels and
wash over the shoreline roads and properties. Most of the bluff areas along the shoreline are
subject to slope instability due to erosion from high tidal levels and wind-driven waves.
Lummi Island – The two low areas on Lummi Island that are particularly vulnerable to damage
from coastal flooding are Lummi Point and the Legoe Bay Road area immediately east of
Village Point. Virtually the entire low area of Lummi Point has many residential structures and
properties that are subject to flooding and damage from a combination of high tidal levels and
waves from a southerly or northerly direction. The Legoe Bay Road area has residential and
other structures and properties that are subject to flooding due to high tidal levels in combination
with wind-driven waves from a southerly direction. The portion of Legoe Bay Road close to the
shoreline in the low area is vulnerable to debris deposition and damage from erosion. Most of
the non-rocky bluff areas along the westerly and easterly shorelines of Lummi Island shoreline
are subject to slope instability due to erosion from high tidal levels and wind-driven waves.
42 Mitigation Strategies
The Lower Nooksack River CFHMP recognizes that both the short and long term
implementation of structural and nonstructural elements and activities must be implemented for
the recommended plan 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 recommends the following actions as part of the overall approach for
flood hazard management:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Hydraulic modeling and alternatives analysis
Engineering and design of capital improvement projects
Meander limit identification and adoption
Sediment management strategy development
Floodplain mapping and land use management in the floodplain
Land and easement acquisition program development
Flood preparedness and emergency response
Since adoption of the CFHMP, significant work has been completed in all of these program
areas. These efforts are summarized below; for additional information, contact Whatcom
County Public Works, River and Flood Division.
Hydraulic Modeling and Alternatives Analysis - A detailed hydraulic model has been developed
and calibrated, and initial alternatives analysis of many of the specific projects identified in the
CFHMP has been completed. The model has recently been updated to include 2006
bathymetric and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data and the updated model is currently
being calibrated to the 2004, 2006, and 2009 floods. Once this work is complete, alternatives
analysis of projects will resume.
Engineering and Design of Capital Improvement Projects - The hydraulic model was already
used to design new levee profiles for the CFHMP recommendation to lower the Bertrand Creek
levees (see below). Preliminary hydraulic analysis and design has been completed for many of
the other projects identified in the CFHMP as described below. The final alternatives analysis
will result in hydraulic design parameters which can then be used to complete the detailed
design work required for construction.
Meander Limit Identification and Adoption - Mapping of historic channel locations, erosion
hazard zones, and avulsion hazards has been completed for the entire Lower Nooksack River.
Identification of meander limits must be completed in conjunction with design of the flood control
system through the hydraulic modeling and alternatives analysis.
Sediment Management Strategy Development - A proposed approach for development of a
sediment management strategy was developed and distributed to the agencies involved in
permitting gravel removal from the river. Feedback from the agencies indicated that existing
data was insufficient to support an analysis that would have a small enough error to allow them
to support a gravel removal request. In 2006, a detailed bathymetric survey of the river was
performed to provide baseline data for future comparisons to estimate the amount of
aggradation that may be occurring throughout the river. A preliminary sediment budget using
available data suggests aggradation rates that would enable measurement and quantification in
a period of 10 to 20 years.
43 Floodplain Mapping and Land Use Management in the Floodplain - A project is currently
underway through FEMA’s Cooperating Technical Partners (CTP) program to develop new
County-wide Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Detailed mapping using new hydraulic models is
being performed for the Lower Nooksack River as well as the South Fork. Other smaller
streams throughout the County are also being updated using the 2006 LiDAR data and
approximate methods.
Land and Easement Acquisition Program Development - An overall program for land acquisition
as a component of flood hazard management was adopted by the FCZD Board of Supervisors
in 2000. Some acquisitions have been completed under this program as hazard mitigation or
other funding becomes available and opportunities with willing land owners arise.
Flood Preparedness and Emergency Response - Annual flood preparedness activities continue
to be performed by the various agencies involved in emergency response with overall
coordination by Whatcom County DEM. These activities include annual flood meetings, training
of sector observers, sandbag training, and sandbag pre-deployment throughout the County.
The CFHMP also outlines recommended projects and programs to implement along the various
reaches of the Lower Nooksack River. Below are recommended mitigation strategies for the
five reaches of the Lower Nooksack. These recommendations have been developed to a
conceptual level and more detailed hydraulic analysis and design are needed before they can
be fully implemented. 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 I-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.
Since the adoption of the CFHMP, the properties in the left overbank floodplain between Slater
Road and Marine Drive have been acquired by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW). The levee on the WDFW property is continuous and its crest is at a lower elevation
than the right bank levee, but it does provide some flood protection to Slater Road, Marine
Drive, and Marietta during smaller, more frequent flood events. Damage to the crest and
backslope of the levee was repaired in 2009 to maintain this level of protection as an interim
measure until other recommended mitigation measures can be implemented for these areas.
44 Slater Road Bridge Approach
The initial CFHMP 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 the river. This
recommendation should be reconsidered as traffic demands change with time and if special
financing were to become available.
Since the adoption of the CFHMP, the Lummi Nation has pursued mitigation grant funding to
raise the left approach to the Slater Road bridge to provide access during a 100-year event.
Whatcom County and Lummi Nation initiated a project using Pre-Disaster Mitigation grant
funding, but the project has been delayed due to increased costs for construction.
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.
Since the CFHMP was adopted, the Whatcom County FCZD has acquired several properties
within Marietta using a combination of local, state, and federal funds. The 2009 flood event
caused extensive damage to residential properties, and a number of these acquisitions were
completed after that flood event. An additional property is currently being pursued through the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
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
The bridge approach will be maintained 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.
45 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.
Ferndale Urban Area
Flood dynamics in the Ferndale urban area should be analyzed in detail, including an evaluation
of the relationship between urbanization, flood storage and conveyance, and the potential for I-5
overtopping. Evaluation of an overflow path in the event of I-5 overtopping should also be
included.
River Road Area
A right-bank overflow area should be designated and the remaining levee along River Road
should be strengthened.
Fishtrap Creek
The possibility of lowering a segment of the levees to provide a wider flow path for overflows
from the Nooksack River should be explored with local property owners. 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
New levee profiles should be established along the creek and the levees should be designed to
be overtoppable. Since adoption of the CFHMP, the levees along Bertand Creek were lowered
and set back from the creek along most of the length within the Nooksack River floodplain.
Flood and conservation easements were acquired over the lands between the old and new
levee alignments. While these levees typically failed during every significant flood, during the
January 2009 flood event, the levees overtopped for a long duration with only minimal damage
to the levee system.
Guide Meridian & I-5
A left bank overflow corridor should be designated between Guide Meridian and I-5.
Detailed Hydraulic Analysis
A program is recommended 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 that exceed channel capacity over the floodplain, thereby reducing levee
and bank stress. Seven overflow locations would be analyzed under this program, as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Right bank south of Slotemaker Road
Left bank near the west end of Nolte Road
Bend in the right bank south of Northwood Road
Left bank near the intersection of Polinder and Thiel Roads
Left bank in the bend upstream of the Polinder/Hannegan intersection
Right bank downstream of the Lynden treatment plant
Left bank northwest of Bylsma Road, upstream of where Scott Ditch enters the river
46 Since adoption of the CFHMP, initial hydraulic modeling and alternatives analysis has been
performed. This work suggests that creating an overflow at the last site near Blysma Road may
not be necessary, because it may reduce the effectiveness of the other overflows and
redistribute flows between the overflow corridors. Additional analysis will be conducted with the
updated hydraulic model to optimize the overflow locations, lengths, and elevations.
Strengthening of Roadway Sections
Strengthening of roadway sections should be performed along overflow corridors, as
appropriate. Designating overflow locations will maintain the historical pattern of overtopping
some roadways in the floodplain. The designated roadway areas are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Slotemaker Road
Timon Road
Hampton Road
Noon Road
Thiel Road
Polinder Road
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.
WSDOT recently completed a widening project for the Guide Meridian that included the
segment that crosses the Nooksack River floodplain. Whatcom County staff worked with
WSDOT to refine the design of the overflow corridor openings to ensure no rise in flood
elevations and provide additional capacity to accommodate overflows identified in the CFHMP.
As a result, the newly constructed overflow bridges are of greater capacity and box culverts
were added in each overflow corridor.
Limiting of Channel Migration
Reasonable limits for channel migration 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 toward the middle of the corridor
along Reach 4
This action is called for at the following sites:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
In Deming near the Mount Baker High School
Southwest of Williams Road, downstream from Deming
West of Mariotta Road
The property west of Hopewell Road
The property just south of Massey Road and west of Cole Road
47 Deming Right Bank Areas at High Risk of Avulsion
Three projects should be performed, as follows:
1. New protection should be added downstream of Deming and the existing protection at
the high school should be shortened
2. Existing bank protection south of Williams Road should be ensured to provide avulsion
protection
3. New protection should be added between the protection projects already in place on the
Sande property and west of Marietta Road
Mariotta Road
At Mariotta Road, 300 feet should be removed from the south end of the existing riprap
protection, the remaining riprap should be tied into the right bank, and gravel should be
removed from the bar on the right bank of Sande property. The remaining riprap should be
retrofitted to reduce vulnerability to scour and increased fish habitat should be considered.
Additional work on the left bank downstream of the clay banks may be warranted.
Nugent’s Corner
Low levees should be constructed 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
The existing overtopping levee upstream of Everson (on the left bank) should be maintained
and strengthened, if necessary.
Everson Bridge
The stand of timber at the upstream end of the overflow on the river’s right bank, approximately
1 mile upstream from the Everson Bridge, should be maintained. Additionally, an overtopping
levee on the left bank in the same area should be retrofitted and maintained.
Nooksack River and 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
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 Johnson Creek
corridor.
Since the CFHMP was adopted, 1,200 feet of the revetment along the riverbank at the Everson
overflow near Massey Road was reconstructed. Prior to this project, the high ground divide was
being eroded by the river. Emergency projects were constructed in 2003, 2005, and 2006 to
curb this erosion until a more extensive project could be constructed in the summer of 2006.
48 Upper Forks of Nooksack River
Comprehensive flood hazard management plans have not been developed for any of the three
upper forks. Some studies to support development of comprehensive flood plans have been
performed including the following:

Mapping of historic channel locations, erosion hazard zones, and avulsion hazards for all
three forks

Development of a detailed hydraulic model for the South Fork Nooksack River

Detailed floodplain studies to develop new floodplain mapping for the South Fork
Nooksack River

Updated approximate floodplain mapping for the North and Middle Forks using updated
topographic data and historic channel migration mapping
Until resources are available to develop CFHMPs for these basins, ongoing mitigation efforts
will primarily consist of repair of existing flood control structures to protect existing infrastructure
and implementation of the County’s emergency preparedness, NFIP, and early flood warning
programs.
Coastal Areas
In recent years, the level of development activity in areas prone to coastal flooding increased
significantly. Whatcom County initiated a study to develop new floodplain mapping for several
coastal areas in 2000. In 2004, new mapping developed by the County with assistance from
FEMA’s CTP program was finalized for Sandy Point and Birch Bay. Detailed mapping of other
flood-prone coastal areas including Point Roberts and Lummi Peninsula should be completed in
the future, as the existing mapping is very approximate. Other mitigation options for coastal
areas could include working with homeowners to elevate and/or flood-proof structures or
voluntary acquisition if these approaches are cost-effective and funding becomes available.
Other Areas
Areas other than Nooksack River floodplains have been vulnerable to floods or isolation by flood
waters in the past. This often relates to the presence of alluvial fans or smaller streams that can
cause localized flooding, including in urban areas. Examples include the following areas:










Austin Creek and Sudden Valley
Smith Creek and North Shore Road
Hillside Road
Blue Canyon
Iowa Heights
Henderson Road
Mount Baker Highway Communities, as discussed above
Whatcom Creek and Iowa Street
Squalicum Creek and Meridian Street
Double Ditch Creek and Double Ditch Road at Lynden
49 Residents of 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.
50 Geologic Hazards Definitions
Alluvial fan is an outspread, fan-shaped, gently sloping mass of alluvium (stream-deposited
sediment) located where a stream or canyon issues onto a broader valley floor, plain, or lake.
The term alluvial fan encompasses debris flow fans, composite fans, and fan deltas.
Landslide is a term that includes a wide range of ground movement, such as rock falls, deepseated failure of slopes, and shallow debris avalanches and flows.
Liquefaction is the loss of strength in sediments that are loosely-packed and water-logged, in
response to strong shaking, typically caused by earthquakes.
Seismic hazard refers to 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, as are areas with peat soils (see the
“Earthquakes” section for more information regarding seismic hazards).
Due to their presence in Whatcom County, as well as data availability, three 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 slope greater than 15 degrees. Site specific assessments should
consider other factors along with hillslope.
Alluvial Fans
Alluvial fans form where there is a sharp change in stream gradient and confinement and
sediment is deposited where the stream velocity decreases, generally where a stream or
canyon issues onto a valley floor, plain, or lake. Mass wasting, or landslide, functions as the
primary link in the natural introduction of bedrock, soil material, and trees to streams in the
Pacific Northwest, and can be expected to occur episodically as part of ongoing erosion
processes. The sediment and debris generated by mass wasting events are introduced to
stream channels and then routed, either en mass or incrementally, to fan surfaces, contributing
to the build-up of materials that form the fan.
51 Not all alluvial fans have been mapped in Whatcom County, but all share common
characteristics that can be used to delineate fan landforms using a combination of available
remote sensing data and field verification by a qualified professional. Alluvial fans can be
expected to be present wherever a stream exits a steeper hillside or mountain and enters a
broader valley floor such as the Nooksack River valley or a body of water such as Lake
Whatcom or Cain Lake. The alluvial fans in Whatcom County are formed both by ongoing
transport of sediment and organic debris by normal stream flow as well as periodic sedimentladen floods and debris flows. Both of these are generally triggered by landslides that enter the
channel from the adjoining hillside. The landslide deposits then either continue moving down
the channel, bulking with water to create the debris flow, or form a temporary landslide dam. A
landslide dam can block stream flow and then fail catastrophically, releasing stored sediment
and water. Both sediment-laden floods and debris flows consist of a mixture of water, sediment,
and debris that is routed through the steep stream channel during an event. Debris flows
contain a higher proportion of sediment relative to water and can be particularly damaging due
to the ability to scour and grow in sized as sediment and organic debris stored in the channel is
incorporated. This can produce a sediment volume at the fan that is three to four orders of
magnitude larger than the initial landslide that triggered the event. When a debris flow reaches
the alluvial fan, the debris may be quickly deposited within the existing stream channel leading
to a channel avulsion, the sudden changing of stream course to a new channel. Both sediment
laden flood and debris flow material may run-out some distance from the head of the alluvial fan
before depositing and may not follow a defined channel when doing so. Examples of this are
the debris flows that initiated on the west face of the Van Zandt Dike during the January 2009
flood event that ran out more than 600 feet from the base of the hillside, crossing private land
and a county road before entering the South Fork floodplain. The potential run-out is not
mapped on the county geological hazards maps and should be assessed by a qualified
professional.
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.
52 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
11 mines in and around Bellingham. Two other mines were inventoried, but not assessed,
because their exact location was unknown. This report showed that hazardous substances
were potentially present and could pose a threat to public health or the environment.
Along with the potential for toxic contamination from these historical mines, these sites pose a
risk for ground failure and subsidence in downtown Bellingham and in the Birchwood
neighborhood.
53 Landslides
Landslides occur along the hillsides and shorelines of Washington due to the area’s steep
mountainous terrain, miles of coastal bluffs, complex geology, high precipitation both as rain
and snow, abundance of unconsolidated glacial sediments, and tectonically active setting
astride the CSZ. Unstable landforms and landslide failure mechanisms 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 or areas where landslide materials will deposit make basic knowledge
about landslide hazards on the part of the general public more important.
A number of factors control landslide type and initiation. These include underlying geology,
soils, weather patterns and individual storms, groundwater, wave action, and human actions
including rerouting of drainage with roads, homes, and businesses. Typically, a landslide
occurs when several of these factors converge and the forces allowing the hill to stay put are
overcome by those influencing a move downhill with gravity.
A simplistic view of landslides divides them into two categories: shallow landslides where the
depth of failure corresponds roughly to the rooting depth of mature forest vegetation; and deepseated landslides where the failure plane may be 10s to 100s of feet deep. For shallow
landslides, the presence of a healthy root network can effectively increase the forces holding the
slope in place, while root strength is not an important factor for deep-seated landslides. Many
slides on Puget Sound occur in a geologic setting that places permeable sand and gravel above
less permeable 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 in northwest Washington occur
during or after heavy rains or prolonged wet periods from January through March. This may
correspond to an elevation of the water table. 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
patterns or groundwater, can trigger landslides. Clearing 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 use 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 risks associated with
alluvial fans, and several measures have been taken by the County to address the problem.
Several studies have been prepared that examine the risks associated with a number of alluvial
fans. These studies focus on fans with recent damage or with significant development and
provide documentation of the history of many alluvial fans in Whatcom County and the
associated risks to human life and property. However, they do not provide an inclusive
examination of all fans that are present on the landscape. Such an inventory is challenging
because the fans can range from hundreds of acres in size to less than one acre. Many of
those small fans have a single home on them so while the relative risk may be less, it is no less
consequential to the current or future owners.
54 A study was conducted in 1983 in response to a storm in January of that year, where a number
of debris flow events generated from failed forest roads and concave hillsides on the slopes of
Stewart Mountain caused major damage to property, roads, and bridges on alluvial fans along
the north shore of Lake Whatcom and in the South Fork Nooksack River Valley.6 The resulting
report summarized the causes of these events, recommended mitigation measures, and
designated hazards zones surrounding the streams that were examined.
Another report, Alluvial Fan Hazard Areas, which was created by Whatcom County’s Planning
and Development Services Department in August 1992, was an inventory and compilation of the
major alluvial fan problems recognized at that time. Although this was an extensive study, many
smaller alluvial fan features were not assessed.
In January 2009, significant rainfall amounts combined with frozen ground conditions and
snowmelt resulted in debris flows and landslides in several alluvial fan areas including Stewart
Mountain into Lake Whatcom and South Fork Valley, the Van Zandt Dike, Sumas Mountain,
Slide Mountain, Red Mountain, and Lake Samish Mountains. This debris flow impacted homes,
farms, and public roadways. No injuries were reported, but some homes were rendered
uninhabitable. Early reports indicated that more than 100 landslides were triggered by this
landslide event in Whatcom County alone, with many more landslides slides likely to be found
pending further investigation and coordinated reporting.
Smith and McCauley Creeks, located within Reach 4 of the Nooksack River floodplain (refer to
the “Flooding” section Background Information or Mitigation Strategies), contain alluvial fan
areas. The Smith and McCauley Creek alluvial fans include both alluvial and debris flow
components. This is typical of alluvial fans in Whatcom County. Stream avulsions have
occurred during past events and are a fundamental mechanism responsible for creating the
alluvial fan landform. Residences and farm buildings on the alluvial fan are at risk. The
McCauley Creek Flood Control District has constructed sediment traps on both these systems
to try to reduce the risk to downstream properties.
The Whatcom County Flood Control District has performed detailed studies on three additional
fans; a brief history of flooding on these fans follows.
Canyon Creek – A large debris flow event occurred on Canyon Creek in November 1989,
destroying one residence. Two smaller debris flow events in November 1990 destroyed three
additional residences and several hundred feet of Canyon View Drive, a County road within the
Glacier Springs development. A levee and flow deflection structures were constructed using
FEMA funding in 1994; in November 1995, a predominantly clearwater flood damaged some
components of the recently-constructed project. Since 2000, acquisition of some of the highest
risk properties on the fan has proceeded to reduce the risk to life and property (see the
“Mitigation” section)
6
Weden and Associates, 1983. Alluvial Fans and Deltas Flood Hazard Areas. Report prepared for
Whatcom County, 98 pages.
55 Jones Creek – Significant debris flows occurred on the Jones Creek fan during January 1983
and January 2009. The 1983 debris flow destroyed a private log bridge at Galbraith Road and
flattened approximately 4 acres of mature trees. The Turkington Road Bridge is a constriction
that gets blocked by debris and sediment on top of the bridge deck and in the channel
upstream. Debris depositing in the channel between Galbraith and Turkington Roads reduces
channel capacity and results in water and sediment overflowing the right bank (looking
downstream) and flowing down slope towards the town of Acme. This occurred during the
1983, 1990, and 2009 events. A small debris flow also occurred in 2004, but the event was not
big enough to fill in the channel and cause overland flow.
Swift Creek – A significant debris flow event occurred in 1971 on Swift Creek. A large volume
(estimated at 100,000 to 150,000 cubic yards) of sediment was delivered to the fan causing
significant aggradation of the channel. Swift Creek flowed out of its bank to the north across
South Pass Road towards Breckinridge Creek. Since then, Swift Creek has experienced
extensive ongoing sedimentation of the stream channel resulting in the streambed being
perched above adjacent properties in some locations.
This brief history only provides examples of recent alluvial fan activity and is not meant to be
exhaustive.
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, mostly
related to mine subsidence and collapse. Subsidence refers to a relatively slow settling of the
overlying ground. Collapse of a mine roof can cause a sinkhole to form, creating a hazard. The
Sehome mine workings under downtown Bellingham are relatively shallow and are thought to
pose a greater sinkhole hazard than the Birchwood mine farther to the northwest, although a
small sinkhole formed in the Birchwood neighborhood in the late 1980’s or early 1990’s.
56 Landslides
The susceptibility of Whatcom County to landslides is apparent from the examples provided by
the numerous landslides listed in Table 4.
Dates
Great Depression
Era
October 1975
January 1983
January 1983
1996
February 1997
January 2009
January 2009
Ongoing
Ongoing
Table 4
Major Whatcom County Landslides Since the 1900s
Description
Cutting trees caused a very large Sehome Hill landslide toward Western
Washington University.
Following a heavy downpour, the State Street Boulevard hillside turned
into wet mud and swept two cars over the 25-foot bank. 100 yards of
mud slid onto the boulevard.
A debris flood accompanied by landslides into Lake Whatcom took
homes, cars, people, and pets into the lake and caused major flooding.
A huge boulder rolled onto railroad tracks near Larrabee State Park,
derailed 12 cars of a 66-car northbound Burlington Northern freight train,
and tumbled the lead engine into the Bay.
Landslides at Point Roberts destroyed several beachside vacation
homes.
Ground movement on Sumas Mountain resulted in the rupture of a 26inch natural gas pipeline that subsequently exploded.
In the storm-related Racehorse Creek Slide, a large rock avalanche in
Chuckanut Formation moved approximately 650,000 cubic yards down
Slide Mountain into Racehorse Creek.
More than 100 storm-related landslides, primarily shallow, were
characterized by a rain-on-snow event on top of potentially frozen ground
and snowpack.
Rock slides occur onto I-5, south of Bellingham.
123,000 cubic yards of dirt and rock is carried from Sumas Mountain
each year and deposited into Swift Creek. This debris and dirt are
threatening several hundred acres of farmland near Everson.
Hundreds of landslides have also been mapped in the forested upper watershed during
watershed analysis and watershed restoration planning. Many of these landslides originated in
forest land, but routed to and deposited on lands where development or agriculture occur.
Seismic Hazards
A history of seismic hazards is described in further detail in the “Earthquakes” section of this
Plan.
Alluvial Fans
Various detailed studies have looked at specific alluvial fans present in Whatcom County. The
1992 report Alluvial Fan Hazard Areas inventoried many of the alluvial fans that pose a risk to
human life or property. It should be noted that the characteristics of alluvial fan hazards that are
identified in this report apply to all alluvial fans in Whatcom County whether or not the fan is
mapped. The specific degree of risk depends on the specifics of an individual fan. An individual
risk assessment should be performed by a qualified professional in the absence of specific
information that has been prepared, to current risk assessment standards. Table 5 lists alluvial
fans identified in the 1992 report (table also updated in 2010), as well as developments at risk.
57 Table 5
Alluvial Fan Inventory in Whatcom County
Alluvial Fan
Size
Developments/Structures at Risk
Lake Whatcom Watershed
Austin Creek Fan
150 acres
Sudden Valley golf course, homes, private and County
roads
Lake Louise 2 Fan
approximately Approximately 20 houses, driveways, three development
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 Fan
16 acres
Wildwood has a very high population density during the
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
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 two County
roads
Samish River and Lake Samish Watershed
Barnes Creek Fan
?
Residences and four roads: Interstate 5, East Lake
Samish Rd., Old State Route 99, and Manley Rd.
Kinney Creek Fan
~74 acres
Multiple residences on north shore of Lake Samish; fan
impacted by January 2009 storm event, which damaged
and closed North Lake Samish Drive
Reed Lake 2
620 acres
Approximately 30 homes, a clubhouse, and numerous
Reed Lake 3
roads in the Reed Lake development
Reed Lake 4
North Fork, Nooksack River
Glacier Creek Fan
?
Town of Glacier, the Mount Baker Rim Development, a
U.S. Forest Service Ranger Station, multiple restaurants,
lodgings, approximately 45 houses and outbuildings, and
Mount Baker Highway
Gallop Creek Fan
?
Town of Glacier, 25 houses, restaurants, lodgings, the
Glacier post office, county road/logging access road and
bridge, and Mount Baker Highway; note that WSDOT has
removed a lodge and cabins as part of a risk reduction
project at Gallop Creek bridge
Cornell Creek Fan
90 acres
Approximately five houses, Mount Baker Highway,
Cornell Creek Road, and a large wetland that may be
salmon habitat
58 Alluvial Fan
Canyon Creek Fan
Boulder Creek Fan
Size
210 acres
126 acres
Coal Creek Fan
?
Racehorse Creek Fan
246 acres
Bell Creek Fan
?
Middle Fork, Nooksack River
Canyon Lake Creek
312 acres
Fan
Kenney Creek Fan
188 acres
Filbert Creek Fan
Porter Creek
49 acres
95 acres
Developments/Structures at Risk
Glacier Springs Development and Mount Baker Highway
25 buildings of the Baptist camp, three roads, and Mount
Baker Highway
Small community located at the mouth of Coal Creek and
Mount Baker Highway
Five residences, several barns, a county road, a private
access road, and a county bridge, all near Welcome,
Washington
Agricultural lands, Mount Baker Highway, eight
residences, and two secondary roads
Multiple residences, Mosquito Lake Road, Canyon Lake
Road, and three private roads; note that Kenney Creek
fan is largely in the North Fork Nooksack River but there
is overflow from Canyon Lake to Kenney during floods
Residences, Mosquito Lake Road, the bridge at Porter
Creek, and a private road
South Fork Nooksack River
Falls/Todd Creek
?
Terhorst Creek
94 acres
Sygitowicz Creek Fan 163 acres
Radonski Creek Fan
?
Hardscrabble Creek
45 acres
Fan
Multiple residences, Hillside Drive, and agricultural lands
Residences, Hillside Drive, a county road, outbuildings
Residences, a county bridge, and a county road
Two farms, residences, and Hillside Drive
Residences, several barns and outbuildings, a County
road, and a County bridge (New bridge placed fall 2009
and repaired in winter 2009/2010)
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,
elementary school, fire hall, and church
Middle Nooksack River (Flood Reach 4)
Smith Creek Fan
?
Residences, True Log Homes, Smith Creek Hydro
projects, Mount Baker Vineyards, Mount Baker Highway,
and Burlington Northern Railway
McCauley Creek Fan
?
Residences, farm buildings, and Mount Baker Highway
Sumas River
Swift Creek
?
Residences, Great Western Lumber & Mill, and Mount
Baker Mushroom Farm
Note: Information obtained from “Alluvial Fan Hazard Areas”, Whatcom County PDS
Coal Mines
Infrastructure that is constructed over abandoned underground coal mines is highly susceptible
to collapse, particularly during seismic events. These mines stretch from State Street to
Sehome Hill and from Connecticut Street northwest to McLeod Road. Ground failure and
subsidence in downtown Bellingham could result in damage to infrastructure and possibly injury
and death.
59 Landslides
As houses and roads are built onto steeper slopes and mountainsides to obtain marketable
views, landslide hazards become an increasingly serious threat to life and property. Residential
development along slopes such as Chuckanut Mountain, Stewart Mountain, Lookout Mountain,
and hillsides throughout the County are subject to slides. Forest fires, clear-cutting of trees,
land clearing for housing developments, rearrangement of drainage patterns by roadside
ditches and cross drains, lack of proper cross drain sizing, construction, maintenance, and nonroad related stormwater runoff can all contribute to or trigger landslides.
Landslides cannot be absolutely predicted with current technology. However, slope stability
assessment methodologies are well established and can accurately assess landslide potential.
This informs land-use decisions, directs project siting, and establishes design criteria for
structural designs to mitigate landslide risk. Due to population density and people’s desire to
have a home with a view, an increasing number of structures are built on top of or below slopes
subject to landslides and landslide run-out. 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 the
following:
 Chuckanut Mountain and Chuckanut Drive; residential areas on steep slopes such as
Sudden Valley; and along the foot of Steward, Sumas, and Red Mountains and the Van
Zandt Dike; near Lake Samish and Cain and Reed Lakes; eastern Mount Baker
Highway; and parts of Highway 9
 Unstable bluffs on Lummi Island, Lummi Peninsula, and Point Roberts
 Western Washington University below Sehome Hill
 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, and Strait of Georgia
 Eldridge Avenue homes overlooking Bellingham Bay
 Mount Baker – Landslides may be caused by melting snow, or steam resulting in a lahar
(mudflow off a volcano); a lahar could possibly cause floods of the Nooksack River and
massive mudslides into Baker Lake which could over-top, or break, Baker Lake Dam
(see previous discussion in the “Earthquake” Section)
 Sumas Mountain and the Swift Creek landslide the deposits, which imperil County roads
and private property and which increase flooding and distribution of asbestos-containing
sediment
For alluvial fans and landslides, mitigation measures recommended by various 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, and seismic hazards—affecting Whatcom
County:
1. Limit, and if possible, eliminate new development in high risk areas.
2. If new development is to be permitted, a qualified professional should assess the risks
and recommend how to 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.
Alluvial Fans
To help reduce the impact of debris events, the Alluvial Fan Hazard Areas report mentioned
above, outlines preliminary mitigation actions to be considered when developing on or near an
active fan. Specific mitigations should be developed by a qualified professional.
1. Leave trees standing – Stands of large trees, especially conifers, 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 piles 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 levees carefully – Levees 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
levee will be a chronic problem. Note that a debris flow or dam-break flood can mobilize
material many times the size move by clearwater floods.
4. Locate and orient roads carefully – Road beds can act as levees or potential avulsion
channels depending on their location and orientation, especially those roads oriented
parallel to flow. 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 levees during a flood or debris event. A breech in these berms invites channel
avulsion at that site.
61 The report also details primary and secondary measures to consider in alluvial fan mitigation
strategies:
Primary Measures
1. Mapping and avoidance – The impact zone of debris flows and sediment laden floods
must first be delineated by careful hazard mapping. In general, areas of historic or
prehistoric flows, scoured channels and headwaters, and initiation points of landslides or
debris flows constitute debris flow hazard zones. Appropriate zoning regulations or
building restrictions can limit development in these areas. Low intensity development
land use, such as agriculture or park lands, may be 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. 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. The Washington Geological Survey has a
landslide precipitation threshold model in development that may be available for testing
and use sometime after the 2010 update of this Plan.
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 landslides by destabilizing soils on slopes from the
delayed loss of root strength, by road placement that destabilize a slope, and by
increasing the average porewater pressure in soils through changes in slope hydrology
cased by roads, cross drains, landings, and skid trails. Specific recommendations
include leaving adequate tree and vegetation buffers to retain root strength on unstable
landforms subject to shallow landslides, reduce soil erosion to protect water quality,
immediately replanting, locating roads away from stream crossings, installing culverts
capable of carrying 25-year runoff or to meet current State of Washington Forest
Practice standards whichever is greater, and keeping drainage off 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
reduce the potential to de-stabilize slopes.
2. Slope modifications – Slopes in the sediment 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.
62 3. Do not develop on areas subject to clearwater, sediment laden flood, or debris flow
routing or runout.
Specific mitigation measures were identified for the three fans studied in detail, as described
below.
Canyon Creek – The following measures were recommended to reduce the risk associated with
the Canyon Creek fan:

Advise property owners and residents on the fan of the hazard and the study results

Distribute the alluvial fan risk assessment study to other agencies involved in natural
resources management

Proceed with acquisition of highest risk properties on the fan

Implement site-specific land use regulations using the detailed risk mapping included in
the report

Consider removing the lower two-thirds of the levee constructed in 1994 (which would
route any overflow behind the levee away from the creek) and using the riprap to
reinforce the right bank adjacent to Canyon View Drive

Consider other mitigation options identified in the report with referral to appropriate
agencies; these options include regulation of future logging, event warning system,
regional advance warning system, and monitoring of the landslides in the upper basin
and the Canyon Creek channel
Since completion of the study, the following progress has been made in implementing some of
these recommendations:

Several community meetings have been held to increase public awareness of the hazard
and to involve the community in the development of mitigation measures. In addition, the
report was provided to the Glacier Springs Community Association, who has it available
for download on their website.

The report was distributed to the other agencies involved in resource management.
Extensive coordination has occurred with WSDOT as it relates to protection of Mt. Baker
Highway.

Three residences and 22 undeveloped lots along the active fan margin, and The Logs
Resort were acquired through an integrated hazard mitigation and salmon recovery
project by the FCZD and the Whatcom Land Trust.

The detailed mapping in the report is now being used for administering the County’s
critical areas ordinance related to new development on the fan.
63 
A portion of the lower levee was removed and the ground surface in the fan was regraded to direct any overflow that might get behind the levee back towards Canyon
Creek rather than towards Mount Baker Highway. The riprap removed from the levee
face was stockpiled in an area near the highway to enable future use by WSDOT to
construct a revetment along the edge of the highway.

Some coordination with the National Weather Service and WDNR has occurred
regarding development of a regional hydroclimatic threshold for an advance warning
system for the Puget Sound Region.
Jones Creek – The following measures were recommended to reduce the risk associated with
the Jones Creek fan:

Advise property owners and residents on the fan of the hazard and the study results

Distribute the debris flow study to other agencies involved in natural resources
management

Consider acquisition of all properties within Zone 1, the highest risk area, and possibly
within Zone 2, the next at-risk area

Consider constructing a deflection berm extending from the fan apex to below
Turkington Road

In conjunction with the deflection berm, consider a channel realignment that diverts the
creek to the north

Consider implementation of other measures identified in the report with referral to
appropriate agencies; these measures include:
–
–
–
–
–
Improved regulation of land use and logging activities
Landslide monitoring
Creek channel inspections
Removal of the berm along the creek downstream of Turkington Road
Abandonment of the Turkington Road bridge and upgrade of the Hudson Road and
railway; an alternative to road relocation is to increase the capacity of the Turkington
Road bridge at its current location
Since completion of the study, the following progress has been made in implementing some of

Significant public outreach has occurred in the Acme community. The small debris flow
in 2004 prompted the County to host several community meetings to inform residents on
the fan of the hazard and they types of conditions that could trigger an event. Additional
meetings have been hosted by the Acme/Van Zandt Fire District (#16) since fall 2008.

The report was distributed to natural resource agencies as well as to the Acme Fire
District. The Fire District initiated development of a detailed emergency response plan
to address debris flows on Jones Creek late in 2008. They were able to implement
portions of the draft plan in January 2009. Since then they have conducted additional
planning and drills to improve their response.
64 
Two residential properties near in hazard Zone 1 near Turkington Road have been
acquired by the FCZD.

Preliminary design work to evaluate alternative alignments and a planning-level cost
estimate for a deflection berm has been completed.

The detailed mapping in the report is now being used for administering the County’s
critical areas ordinance related to new development on the fan.

The local community members and Fire District representatives have been informally
monitoring the landslide and the creek since the January 2009 event.
Swift Creek – In addition to the types of hazards most often associated with alluvial fans, the
sediment within Swift Creek contains elevated levels of naturally occurring asbestos. This has
added additional health and safety issues and added to the complexity of dealing with
sedimentation problems along Swift Creek. The following measures were recommended to
reduce the risk associated with the Swift Creek fan:

Disseminate the report to pertinent government agencies and local interests

Develop site-specific land use regulations for the Swift Creek fan and adjacent areas

Consider a land acquisition program to acquire the creek corridor and provide lands for
future construction of setback dikes, sediment stockpiling, or sediment basin structure;
this would result in some form of public land ownership

Pursue adequate funding resources to address information gaps and conduct a detailed
alternatives analysis on sediment management strategies and flood control; as part of
this work, consider forming a multiple-agency partnership with appropriate agencies

Evaluate the landslide risk information presented in the report; if comfortable with the
estimated risk, consider landslide monitoring measure at the Swift Creek landslide
(directly or indirectly); if not comfortable with the risk, consider more detailed
geotechnical investigations

Consider discussing surface drainage improvements at the Swift Creek landslide with
affected property owners and government agencies

Work with other agencies to ensure appropriate watershed activities, particularly related
to logging; such activities should be precluded from the South Fork of Swift Creek and
carefully regulated in the North Fork

Periodically evaluate channel conditions in Swift Creek
65 Since completion of the study, the following progress has been made in implementing some of

There has been significant public outreach in the form of public meetings in an attempt
to educate the community regarding the safety and health risks associated with Swift
Creek naturally occurring asbestos.

Outside funding sources are being utilized to gather information that will help to develop
a long-term management approach for Swift Creek. This work includes soil borings and
installation of monitoring wells upstream of Goodwin Road. In addition, measuring
devices will be installed in the summer of 2010 on the stringer bridge upstream of
Goodwin Road to help measure suspended bedload in Swift Creek.

A conceptual level management plan, which includes a large sediment basin and
setback levees upstream of Goodwin Road, is being developed.

Monitoring of the Swift Creek channel is ongoing. Repair and maintenance activities are
planned for the summer of 2010 and will likely continue in the near future as bank
erosion and channel aggradation dictate.
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 management
decisions. 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 landslides is best achieved
through careful identification and avoidance of unstable landforms. For areas where
development may occur near unstable slopes, 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 or landslide runout 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
Washington State Department of Ecology has outlined the following recommendations and
information public preparedness. This information was developed for coastal bluffs, but provides
good guidance for many situations where the stability of a slope may be an issue.
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.
66 2. Get advice – Talk with a licensed 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. Consider how far landslide material may run out once it reaches the
bottom of the hill or the alluvial fan. Resist the urge to trade safety for a view.
4. Keep plants – Maintain existing mature vegetation, above, on, and below steep slopes.
Trees, especially native conifers, 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.
67 Severe Storms Definitions
Blizzard indicates sustained wind speeds greater than 35 miles per hour and temperatures
below 20 degrees Fahrenheit.
Freezing rain occurs when rainfall passes through a cooler layer of the atmosphere and
freezes upon contact with cold surfaces.
Funnel cloud is a term for a funnel-shaped cloud associated with a rotating column of wind
extending from a thunderstorm cloud base but not reaching the ground or water surface.
High wind (or gale) is sustained wind or gusts reaching speeds 40 miles per hour or greater or
gusts of 58 miles per hour or greater, not caused by thunderstorms.
Severe storm is a term for a storm containing a tornado, surface hail of 3/4 inch in diameter or
larger, high wind, or any combination of the three.
Storm surge is an offshore rise in water level caused by onshore wind and low pressure forces.
Surface flooding is localized flooding typically occurring in urban areas where existing
stormwater systems are unable to accommodate heavy amounts of rainfall and/or snowmelt and
thereby cause flooding in low-lying urban areas.
Thunderstorm is a local storm resulting from strong rising air currents usually with gusty winds,
heavy rain or hail and accompanied by thunder and lightning.
Tornado is a localized and violent funnel-shaped cloud characterized by a rotating column of air
attached to a thunderstorm that is in contact with the ground.
Waterspout is a localized and violent funnel-shaped cloud characterized by a rotating column
of air attached to a thunderstorm that is in contact with a body of water.
Severe storm weather comes in many forms, the most common for Whatcom County being
heavy rain and wind during the winter months. Whatcom County experiences blizzards
periodically, though not as commonly as unfrozen or partially frozen precipitation. Two types of
winds primarily affect Western Washington: westerlies and easterlies. Westerly wind storms
originate from the Pacific Ocean and are caused by pressure differences between deep oceanic
storms and adjacent upland areas. This wind pattern is typical for fall and winter.
68 Westerly winds in Washington figure
courtesy of http://www.islandnet.com
Easterly winds are caused by high pressure systems in eastern Washington, causing strong
winds to form west of the Cascade mountain range that occur in late summer and early fall.
Easterly winds in Washington figure
courtesy of http://www.pep-c.org
69 History
Recent severe storm events in Whatcom County include the following:

December 2008 – Heavy rainfall over most of Western Washington, causing record
levels and flooding for five major rivers including the Nooksack.

December 2000 – The Sandy Point storm that caused severe damage to Sandy Point
beachfront homes ($750,000) was a combination of gale force northwest winds, extreme
high tides, and low pressure.

Winter 1998-1999 – Record snowfall, up to 1,140 inches of snow fell on Mount Baker Ski
Area, the most ever recorded in the United States.

Winter 1996-1997 – Up to 3 feet of snow dropped by a holiday storm. Wind, snow,
flooding, and freezing resulted in landslides, avalanches, road closures, and power
outages throughout Whatcom County.

Winter 1990-1991 – Six major storms (two floods, two Arctic windstorms, and two heavy
snowstorms, along with bouts of freezing rain and silver thaw) across Whatcom County
resulted in power losses to nearly 100,000 residents. The Lummi Island ferry service
was cut off. Damages to Whatcom County were up to $30 million, not including private
property damage and economic losses.

November 1989 – Severe storm resulting in a wind-chill factor estimated at between 50
and 70 degrees below zero with wind gusts up to 104 miles per hour. Up to 16,000
residents lost power, resulting in school closure, damaged crops, and frozen milk in
pumping equipment at local dairies.

January 1969 – Severe storm froze stretches of the Nooksack River. Snow blocked
portions of the Guide Meridian with a snowdrift on Pangborn Road measuring up to 25
feet high and 300 feet wide.

October 12, 1962 – The famous Columbus Day storm brought winds up to 98 miles per
hour.

March 1951 – Severe storm dumped 23 inches of snow over 4 days. Temperatures
plunged down to 10 degrees.

January 1950 – Repeated snow storms hit Whatcom County for more than 1 month
beginning on New Year’s Day. Temperatures hit zero with winds of up to 75 miles per
hour. Winds destroyed five planes and damaged 29 others at Bellingham International
Airport.

February 1916 – Seventeen inches of snow fell in Bellingham for the first week, followed
by 42 inches of rain over a 2-week stretch. Snowdrifts up to 30 feet in height were found
throughout the County.

February 1893 – A blizzard consisting of snow and hail hit Whatcom County with up to
80 mile per hour winds and temperatures hitting 13 degrees below zero.
Whatcom County is highly vulnerable to severe storms. According to the Washington State
Emergency Management Department, Whatcom County lies within an area of Washington that
is most vulnerable to high winds.7 The Washington State Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies
Western Washington to be most susceptible to inclement weather during the following time
periods8:
 Primary flood season – November through February
 Windstorm season – October through March
 Snow season – November through mid-March
Severe storms can result in costly hazards, due primarily to their frequent occurrence and ability
to disrupt lifelines such as arteries of transportation and above-ground electric lines. Because
the worst storms typically occur during winter, loss of power/heating can be dangerous,
especially for homes with children or elderly residents. Severe weather also poses additional
risks resulting from tree fall to both structures and humans.
Whatcom County’s location and geography leave it susceptible to heavy storm activity. Coastal
systems move in relatively easily and release most of their moisture, being blocked by the
Cascade Mountain Range. Multiple marinas along the shoreline of Whatcom County are
vulnerable to storm action, and represent a high loss potential for the area. The County’s
limited routes of transportation mean that inclement or severe weather can slow both intrastate
and interstate commerce.
Due to technological advances in meteorology, storm events can be more readily predicted.
Unlike most other hazards, severe storms can typically be predicted days in advance. This
gives the opportunity to notify potentially affected Whatcom County residents prior to the event.
However, jurisdictions are still vulnerable to storm events that occur in Whatcom County.
The Whatcom County DEM website contains real-time data for severe storm events and other
hazards and can be accessed at http://www.whatcomcounty.us/dem/. The website also
contains educational tools to inform residents of potential hazards, such as severe storms, and
how to prepare for them.
7
Accessed on July 9, 2010 on the Emergency Management Department website at:
http://www.emd.wa.gov/plans/documents/SevereStormNov2007Tab5.7.pdf
8
Washington Military Department Emergency Management Division, 2008. Washington State Hazard
Mitigation Plan. Approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency Region 10 Office on January
29, 2008.
71 Tsunamis Definitions
Tsunami is a series of traveling waves of extremely long length generated by earthquakes
occurring below or near the ocean floor. Underwater volcanic eruptions and landslides can also
generate tsunamis.
Sudden movement of the Earth’s crust during an earthquake displaces water and generates an
energy wave called a tsunami. In the deep ocean, a tsunami’s length from wave crest to wave
crest may be 100 miles or more but with a visible wave height of only a few feet or less. They
may not 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 to 14,000 miles
of the Pacific Ocean in 10 to 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 within 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 CSZ
west of Washington. Computer models indicate that tsunami waves generated by these local
events might range from 5 to 55 feet in height and could affect the entire coastal region. There
is a growing body of evidence documenting tsunamis that were generated within Puget Sound
by displacement on local faults. This must be accounted for in hazard planning, in addition to
CSZ earthquakes.
History
Recent research on subduction zone earthquakes off the Washington, Oregon, and northern
California coastlines and resulting tsunamis (Atwater 1992; Atwater et al. 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 et al. 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 et al. 2002) 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 et al. 1997; Yamaguchi et al. 1997) to Japanese historical records of
a distant-sourced tsunami (Satake et al. 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 (M) 9 (Satake et al. 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 and local tsunami deposits suggests that great earthquakes have occurred in the
Pacific Northwest perhaps as recently as 300 years ago.
72 Tsunamis may also be generated by movement on faults located within Puget Sound. This is
discussed in further detail under the Vulnerability Assessment portion of this section.
Tsunamis are a threat to life and property and to anyone living near the ocean. In 1995, in
response to tsunami threat, Congress directed NOAA to develop a plan to protect the West
Coast from locally generated tsunamis. A panel 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 maps are based on a computer model of waves generated by a
scenario earthquake. The earthquake scenario adopted for that study was developed by Priest
et al. (1997) and designated Scenario 1A (also see Myers et al. 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 et al. (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
González 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.
TIME Results – The computed tsunami inundation model emphasized three depth ranges: 0 to
0.5 m, 0.5 to 2 m, and greater than 2 m. 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 floodplain of the Lummi (Red) and Nooksack Rivers up to
their confluence near Ferndale and then be confined to the relatively narrow floodplain 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 if sufficient warning is given.
73 The inundation data also emphasized current velocities:
1. Less than 1.5 m/s (approximately 3 mph), which is the current speed at which it would
be difficult to stand
2. Between 1.5 and 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 (approximately 40 mph) in confined channels
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 1 meter at 2
hours after the earthquake followed by a crest at between 2.5 and 3 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 3½ hours. Red areas are crests, blue are troughs.
(Picture obtained from the NOAA T.I.M.E. Center)
74 These models do not include potential tsunamis from landslides, including failure of the
Nooksack River delta front, 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 et al. 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).
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.
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 need extra
assistance in evacuating (nursing homes, day cares, etc.). The evacuation plan should
also address the timeline for a full evacuation, as well as a division of labor to identify
which agencies will do which actions.
3. Establish requirements that existing critical facilities must be reviewed 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.
75 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.
Some of these specific measures have been implemented in accordance with the Whatcom
County DEM StormReady program. Evacuation routes have been identified and signage
installed for the Sandy Point and Gooseberry Point areas. Emergency warning sirens have also
been installed at both locations. Tsunami preparedness information is available and has been
made available to the potentially affected communities. The Whatcom County DEM website
includes additional information regarding tsunami awareness.
76 Volcanoes Definitions
Blast zone is the area immediately surrounding a volcano, up to several tens of kilometers, that
is destroyed by a volcano’s blast.
Lava flow is a stream of molten rock that pours or oozes from an erupting vent.
Lahar is a mudflow or debris flow that originates from the slope of a volcano; pyroclastic flows
can generate lahars by rapidly melting snow and ice.
Pyroclastic flows are high-density mixtures of hot, dry rock fragments and hot gases that move
away from the vent that erupted them at high speeds.
Tephra is a general term for fragments of volcanic material, 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 is 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.
The Cascade Range (Cascades) extends more than 1,000 miles, forming an arc-shaped band
extending from Southern B.C. to Northern California. The Cascades roughly parallels the
Pacific coastline, and at least 17 major volcanic centers. Whatcom County’s eastern boundary
follows the crest of the Cascade Range.
The central and southern
Cascades are made up of a
band of thousands of much
older,
smaller,
short-lived
volcanoes that have built a
platform of lava and volcanic
debris.
Rising above this
volcanic platform are a few large
younger
volcanoes
that
dominate the landscape. The
North
Cascades,
including
Whatcom
County,
present
younger (Quaternary) volcanoes
overlying
much
older
metamorphosed basement rock.
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.
77 The largest of the volcanoes in Washington State are Mount Baker, Glacier Peak, Mount
Rainier, Mount Saint Helens, and Mount Adams. Eruptions from Mount Baker, located in the
central portion of Whatcom County, and Glacier Peak, in Snohomish County, would severely
impact Whatcom County. Mount Baker and Glacier Peak have erupted in the historic past and
will likely 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
large portions of Whatcom County. A Mount Baker eruption would generate lahars, pyroclastic
flows, tephra or ash fall, and lava flows that 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
Cascades 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, especially in the area of Sherman Crater, are exposed between glaciers on the
upper flanks of the volcano; 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 largest 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
250 years ago.
78 History
Eruptions in the Cascades have occurred at an average rate of 1 to 2 per century during the
past 4,000 years, and future eruptions are certain. Seven volcanoes in the Cascades have
erupted within the past 225 years (see Table 6).
Table 6
History of Major Volcanic Eruptions in the Cascade Mountain Range in the
Past 225 Years
Eruption
Eruptions in the
Volcano
Type
Past 225 Years
Recent Activity
1792, 1843 to 1865,
Mount Baker
Ash, lava
1?
1870?, 1880, and 1975
steam emission
Ash
1+?
Ash, lava
1?
Before 1800 (1750?)
Glacier Peak
Tephra between 1830 and
Mount Rainier
1854
Ash, lava,
Mount St. Helens
2 eruptive periods
1980 to present
Lava, scoria
None
8,000 years ago?
Lava, ash
None
3,500 years ago
Ash, dome
2+?
dome
Indian Heaven Volcanic Field
Mount Adams
1865, major eruption in the
Mount Hood, Oregon
late 1700s
Note: Information obtained from WDNR
Four of the eruptions listed in Table 6 would have caused considerable property damage and
loss of life if they had occurred post-development of Whatcom County without warning and 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 to 1986; 2004 to 2008) and at Lassen Peak in California (1914 to 1917).
79 We know from geological evidence that Mount Baker has produced numerous volcanic events
in the past that, were they to occur today, would place Whatcom County communities at
considerable risk. Volcanic hazards from Mount Baker result from a variety of different eruptive
phenomena such as lahars, ash fall, tephra fall, and pyroclastic flows. Figure 3 displays a
model of the inner workings and hazards associated with volcanoes.
Figure 3 – Effects of a Volcano Eruption
(Diagram courtesy of USGS Cascade Volcano Observatory)
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 hydrovolcanic
(water coming into contact 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 of the Baker River.
80 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
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 2 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.
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, as follows:
1. Small to moderate collapse in the area of Sherman Crater may produce lahars flowing
into Baker Lake and result in the following:



Raised level of Baker Lake
Baker Lake Dam failure
Flooding of the entire Skagit floodplain to Puget Sound
81 2. Large flank collapses or pyroclastic flows could result in the following:




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,
and 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, B.C.
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: I-5 flooded at Nooksack and/or Skagit Rivers; Highway 9 flooded
at Deming and 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
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. Lightning and thunderstorms often accompany volcanic eruptions
11. City of Bellingham’s Middle Fork water supply diversion dam, tunnel, and pipeline to
Lake Whatcom possibly buried 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, lahar, 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.
82 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.
ahar Flow,
bi
1985
Potential Volcanic Hazards
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
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:
1. In a volcano prone area, publish a special section in the 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.
5. Obtain 72-hour kits that include contacts and information during natural hazards.
6. Develop Community Emergency Response Teams.
7. Distribute neighborhood maps.
84 Wildland Fires Definitions
Structure fire is 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 is a fire of natural or human-caused origin that results in the uncontrolled
destruction of forests, field crops and grasslands.
Wildland urban interface is 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.
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 to
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, United States land management
agencies are committed to finding ways, such as
prescribed burning, to reintroduce fire into natural
ecosystems, while recognizing that firefighting 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,
DNR PHOTO
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 lightning 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.
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.
WDNR, 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
effects of fire on unit ecosystems by taking a coordinated approach to planning at a
landscape level. The steps involved in this process include the following:
A.
Identification of spatial compartments for assessment purposes:
i. Whatcom County (county # 37) was subdivided into three risk
assessment compartments based on Industrial Fire Precaution Level
(IFPL) Shutdown Zones. Zone 653 represents the islands and tidal
lowlands; Zone 656 represents the interior lowlands (roughly the
Interstate 5 corridor); and 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.
Assessment of significant issues within each compartment, which are related
to:
i. Fuels Hazards – The assessment of fuel hazards 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.
ii. 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
86 iii. 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.
a. Compartment Ignition Risk is based on:
Population Density
Power Lines – distribution as well as transmission
Industrial Operations – timber sale, construction
project, fire use, mining, and so forth
Recreation – dispersed, developed, OHV, hunting,
fishing
Flammables
Other – fireworks, children, shooting, incendiary,
cultural, power equipment
Railroads
Transportation Systems – state, federal, public access
Commercial
Development
–
camps,
resorts,
businesses, schools
iv. Fire History – Fire history will be completed for each compartment to
reflect:
a. Fire location
b. Cause
c. Average annual acres burned
d. Average annual number of fire by cause
v. 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.
a. Evaluate large fire history
b. What are the odds of a stand replacement type fire occurrence
in that compartment?
Unlikely
Possible
Likely
vi. Values – Values are defined as natural or developed areas where loss
or destruction by fire would be unacceptable. The value elements
include:
a. Recreation – undeveloped/developed
b. Administrative sites
c. Wildlife/Fisheries – habitat existing
d. Range Use
e. Watershed
f. Timber/Woodland
g. Plantations
h. Private Property
87 i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
n.
o.
Cultural Resources
Special Interest Areas
Visual Resources
Threatened and Endangered Species
Soils
Airshed
Other Necessary Elements
This evaluation process provides the basis for determining the Whatcom County WildlandUrban Interface Fire Risk Assessment Compartments map. Additional information regarding the
results of this process can be found in Appendix D, which contains excerpts from the RAMS
Assessment.
88 RAMS risk assessment compartments were further broken down to identify Wildland-Urban
Interface Hazards. Using 2000 Census data, individual areas were identified in the WildlandUrban Interface and assessed using the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 299,
Wildfire Hazard Assessment. The results of this assessment are depicted in the Whatcom
County Wildland-Urban Interface: Fire Risk Assessment map.
89 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.
In cooperation with fire managers from WDNR, 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.
90 County-Wide Wildland Fire Prevention
In the RAMS Compartments, where the wildland fire risk has been assessed at moderate, multiagency cooperative fire prevention activities will occur during the summer months addressing
the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Public awareness of current fire danger
Press releases
Media opportunities for fire prevention news articles
Radio and TV spots, as needed
Use of burn bans during periods of high fire danger
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 WDNR, 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
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
91 Section 3. Jurisdiction Overview The following chapters detail the infrastructure for the participating jurisdictions in the Plan.
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 the
Plan.
3. Presence of Hazards and Hazard Descriptions – provides a checklist of hazards with
potential to impact the jurisdiction and provides a brief description of each hazard.
4. 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.
5. 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).
6. Growth Trends – areas designated as an Urban Growth Area (UGA), under
Washington State’s Growth Management Act (GMA).
7. 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.
8. 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. A cost-benefit review
was conducted internally by each jurisdiction to determine priority for the mitigation
strategies and maximize anticipated benefits.
9. Hazard Maps – maps describing the areas and critical facilities affected by each hazard.
Please note the hazard maps display only those facilities within municipality limits, so
facilities outside these limits may not be displayed. Refer to the map in the Whatcom
County section for facilities located outside of a jurisdiction’s city limits. Also note that
the 2004 floodplain maps are used for each jurisdiction. This is because FEMA has
updated the maps in Whatcom County, but has not officially adopted them. Once FEMA
officially adopts the revised floodplain maps, they will be provided for each jurisdiction in
the 2015 Plan update.
92 Due to space limitations on the map pages, the legend to the right describes each critical
facility symbol.
The 2004 Hazard Maps are used for the
individual as a visual representation of each
hazard profile, unless indicated otherwise.
If updates have occurred since that time,
either new maps were provided by the
jurisdiction or the text within the appropriate
section has been revised to reflect those
changes. Due to several factors resulting
from the recent economic recession (as
detailed in Section 1: Plan Process and
Development), the Whatcom County DEM
was unable to make revisions to the hazard
profile maps for each jurisdiction. Over the
next 5-year cycle, the Whatcom County
DEM will work on enhancing the Hazard
Maps as updates are made available.
Although budgetary restrictions have
resulted in slower than anticipated
movement on many of the items identified in
the previous plan, mitigation work under the
declared emergencies in 2008 and 2009
resulted in about $280,000 worth of project
related mitigation being completed.
In
addition another $684,000 of HMGP funds
were expended along with over $100,000 in
local funds on the acquisition of four (4)
properties in the County.
93 Jurisdiction Adoption Agreement
All the jurisdictions who adopted this Plan agreed to the following:

To formally advise the Whatcom County DEM of its decision to officially adopt the Plan,
and submit appropriate documentation. Refer to the Appendices for the signed
ordinances of participating jurisdictions.

To integrate the Plan into other jurisdiction-specific processes, such as Operational
Budgets, the GMA, Capital Budget, and so on.

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 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.
The Planning Team partners reviewed all of the strategies previously developed; however, due
to budget issues and constraints throughout the County, none of the previously developed
projects were completed. Because the Planning Team and the Jurisdiction felt the projects
continue to be viable, the decision was made to continue these projects into the Plan update. As
such the Planning Team elected not to develop any new strategies in this Plan update. The
strategies have been reviewed and the priorities remain unchanged.
94 Priority
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Table 7
Perceived Cost Benefit Analysis of all Jurisdiction-Defined Projects
Facility
Jurisdiction
Nature
Brief Description
Sumas City Hall & Police Station
Sumas
Implementation
Rebuild outside of floodplain
Sumas Fire Station
Sumas
Implementation
Rebuild outside of floodplain
Cherry Street Bridge Replacement
Sumas
Implementation
Rebuild to sustain flood events
Downtown Ferndale Ring Dike
Ferndale
Implementation
Reinforce current dike and extend levy
Lynden Waste Water Treatment Plant
Lynden
Implementation
Mitigate against 100-year flood event or
volcanic lahar
Blaine Waste Water Collection &
Conveyance System
Power Generating Capacity
Relocate Waste Water Shops &
Offices
Wellfield Backup Power
Fishtrap Creek Flood Storage & Fish
Enhancement
Blaine City Hall
Natural Hazard Early Warning Systems
Telephone-based Early Warning
System
Blaine
Implementation
Construct underground storage
Blaine
Implementation
Lynden
Implementation
Install sufficient regenerative power capacity
for critical sites
Mitigate in place or move out of floodplain
Sumas
Lynden
Implementation
Implementation
Retrofit against earthquakes
Increase storage capacity
Blaine
Blaine, Everson,
Ferndale, Nooksack,
Lynden, Bellingham
Implementation
Implementation
Establish community early warning systems
for all related hazards, such as flooding,
tsunamis, lahar, and earthquake (when
technology allows)
Blaine, Everson,
Ferndale, Nooksack,
Lynden, Port of
Bellingham
Implementation
Install computerized early warning system in
phone system
95 14
Tone Radio Based Early Warning
System
15
Purchase Repetitive Loss Properties
16
18
Everson & Nooksack Waste Water
Treatment Plant
Everson & Nooksack City
Halls/Everson Police Department
Sumas International Cargo Terminal
Port of Bellingham
19
Riverside Park
Everson & Nooksack
20
Dodd Avenue Residential Area
Blaine
21
Lynden City Hall
Lynden
22
Marine Drive Marina
Blaine
23
Semiahmoo Marina
Blaine
24
Bellingham Water & Waste Water
Systems
Bellingham Fire, EMS, & Law
Enforcement Stations
Ferndale City Hall
Bellingham Fire Station 5/St. Joseph
Hospital
Bellingham Shipping Terminal
Squalicum Harbor
Bellingham International Airport
17
25
26
27
28
29
30
Bellingham, Everson,
Ferndale, Lynden,
Nooksack
Everson, Nooksack,
Ferndale, Sumas
Everson & Nooksack
Implementation
Install
Implementation
Bellingham
Plan
Development
Plan
Development
Plan
Development
Plan
Development
Plan
Development
Plan
Development
Plan
Development
Plan
Development
Study
Investigate strengthening structures
Bellingham
Survey
Assess risks and potential strategies
Ferndale
Bellingham
Survey
Survey
Assess risks and potential strategies
Port of Bellingham
Port of Bellingham
Port of Bellingham
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey of alluvial fans and existing mines
Everson & Nooksack
96 Mitigate against 100-year flood event or
volcanic lahar
Mitigate against 100-year flood event or
volcanic lahar
Mitigate against flooding
Mitigate against flood events
Develop contingency plans for flood event
31
32
Fairhaven Station
Alluvial Fan Hazards
Port of Bellingham
Ferndale
Survey
Survey
97 Survey of alluvial fans and existing mines
Assess risks
City of Bellingham Contact Information:
Andy Day
Assistant Fire Chief
1800 Broadway
Bellingham, WA 98225
(360) 778-8442
Approving Authority:
Mayor Dan Pike & City Council Members
210 Lottie Street
(360) 778-8000
Presence of Hazards
Present?
Hazard
Earthquake
(yes, if checked)
Flooding

Geologic Hazards

Severe Storm

Tsunami

Volcano

Wild Land Fire


Hazard Descriptions
Earthquake – high potential for seismic activity and massive sliding when slopes of 15 percent
or greater are wet.
Flooding – multiple creeks (Whatcom, Baker, Squalicum, and Padden) that pass through the
city are subject to flooding. In heavy rains these creeks can exceed their banks.
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.
Severe Storms – Bellingham is exposed to severe storms year-round.
98 Tsunami – the city of Bellingham borders Bellingham Bay, and the port area would be at risk of
tsunami activity.
Volcano – the Middle Fork Nooksack River would be affected by Mount Baker if an eruption
were to occur.
Urban Fire – both urban multiple dwellings and commercial structures in Bellingham would be at
risk.
99 City of Bellingham Critical Facility List
Facility
Type
EF
Location
210 Lottie Street
Dollar Value
$13,373,385
Police Headquarters
EF
505 Grand Avenue
$3,651,714
What-Comm Dispatch
EF
620 Alabama Street
$1,014,366
& Fire Dispatch)
EF
1800 Broadway
$2,255,018
Fire Station 2
EF
1590 Harris Avenue
$1,631,988
Fire Station 3
EF
1111 Indian Street
$1,767,893
Fire Station 4
EF
2306 Yew Street
$1,398,546
Facility Name
Bellingham City Hall
Fire Station 1 (Headquarters
3314 Northwest
Fire Station 5
EF
Avenue
$1,069,000
Fire Station 6
EF
4060 Deemer Road
$1,800,000
1886 Grandview
Grandview Medic Station
EF
Road, Ferndale
$103,520
Smith Road Medic Station
EF
858 E. Smith Road
$262,255
Municipal Court Building
EF
2014 C Street
$9,113,343
LUS
Sehome Hill
$200,000
Sehome Communication
Tower
200 McKenzie
Waste Water Treatment Plant
HMF
Avenue
$6,254,284
EF
2221 Pacific Street
$8,258,777
South Fork Diversion Dam
HPL
South Lake Whatcom
Unavailable
Lake Whatcom Dam
HPL
Whatcom Falls Park
Unavailable
Water Treatment Plant
HMF
3201 Arbor Court
Unavailable
Public Works Central Shop
Facility
EF = Essential Facility; HMF = Hazardous Materials Facility; HPL = High Potential Loss;
LUS = Lifeline Utility System
100 Geography
Bellingham Population – 67,171 (2000 Census)
Total area, within city limits – 27.6 mi2
Hazard
Earthquake
Areas Impacted, per Hazard
# Structures
Area Affected
(mi2)
Impacted
40,964
27.6 mi2
Percent of
Total Area
100%
Flooding
773
1.331 mi2
4.8%
Geologic Hazards
903
1.24 mi2
4.5%
40,964
27.6 mi2
100%
Less than 100
1.38 mi2
Less than 5%
1,739
5.558 mi2
20.1%
Severe Storm
Tsunami
Wild Land Fire
101 Growth Trends
This map displays the UGA for the City of Bellingham, as designated by the Whatcom County
Comprehensive Plan.
102 Facility Name
Critical Facility Rankings for the City of Bellingham
Facility
Type
FL
EQ GH
SS
TSUN VOL


HMF
Fire Station 1 (Headquarters & Fire Dispatch)
Sehome Communication Tower
What-Comm Dispatch
WF
Total
Hazards
2
Rank
Assessment
1
EF


2
2
LUS


2
2
EF


3
2


3
3
HMF


Fire Station 2
EF


2
4
Fire Station 3
EF


2
4
Fire Station 4
EF



3
4
Fire Station 5
EF



3
4
Fire Station 6
EF




4
4
Grandview Medic Station
EF



3
4
Smith Road Medic Station
EF




4
4
Police Headquarters
EF



3
4
Public Works Central Shop Facility
EF



3
4
South Fork Diversion Dam
HPL




4
5
Lake Whatcom Dam
HPL




4
5
Bellingham City Hall
EF



3
6
Municipal Court Building
EF


2
6
Notes:
FL = Flooding; EQ = Earthquake; GH = Geologic Hazard; SS = Severe Storm; TSUN = Tsunami; VOL = Volcano; WF = Wildland Fire
(The methodology used for ranking the critical facilities is described in the “Jurisdiction Overview” section)
103 CITY OF BELLINGHAM’S HAZARD MITIGATION STRATEGIES AND PROJECTS
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:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Bellingham City Council
Local sources, and state and federal grants
Current and ongoing
Provide for an increased level of protection for public infrastructure.
Responsible Entity:
Funding Source:
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:
Funding Source:
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 and 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:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
City of Bellingham Public Works Department
Long term (greater than 3 years after funding is secured)
104 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 800 MHz system.
Included in the overhaul would be hardening of the dispatch centers and communication towers
to resist the effects of an earthquake.
Responsible Entity:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Whatcom County Council of Governments
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:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Bellingham Fire and Police Departments, Whatcom County
Sheriff’s Office, Western Washington University Police, and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
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 and 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:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
City of Bellingham Building Department
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.
105 Natural Hazard Figures
The following figures depict the natural hazards present within the jurisdiction and show the
approximate location of each critical facility relative to each hazard. It is assumed that the
figures used in this version of the Plan contain the most recent hazard information and any
updates will be reflected in the figures provided by the participating jurisdiction or in the
following text:

Since the 2004 Plan, the City of Bellingham has revised the list of critical facilities to
contain only public facilities that would be eligible for hazard mitigation funding. The
revised list of facilities can be found in the table at the beginning of this section and has
not been updated in the following figures.
106 (
107 108 109 110 Port of Bellingham Contact Information:
Neil Clement
Emergency Management and Security Officer
1801 Roeder Avenue
(360) 676-2500
Executive Director Charlie Sheldon & Port Commission
1801 Roeder Avenue
(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. Some facilities occupy areas in other
jurisdictions. Refer to these Jurisdiction Overviews for the characteristics affecting the Port.
Present?
Hazard
Earthquake
(yes, if checked)

Flooding

Geologic Hazards

Severe Storm

Tsunami

Volcano

Wild Land Fire

111 Port of Bellingham Critical Facility List
Facility Name
Facility Type
Bellingham Cruise Terminal
Transportation
Location
355 Harris Ave.
Transportation: Airport
4255 Mitchell Way
Bellingham Shipping Terminal #1 & #2
Transportation
629 Cornwall
Blaine Harbor
Transportation
235 Marine Drive
Fairhaven Station - Multi-Modal Facility
Transportation
401 Harris Ave.
Harbor Center Building
Administrative
1801 Roeder Ave.
Squalicum Harbor
Transportation
722 Coho Way
Transportation
530 Front Street
Note: Refer to the City of Bellingham and City of Blaine maps for hazards affecting the Port of
Bellingham critical facilities.
112 Critical Facility Rankings for the Port of Bellingham
Facility Name
Bellingham Cruise Terminal
Facility Type
Transportation
Squalicum Harbor
Transportation
Harbor Center Building
FL
GH

VOL
WF
Rank
Assessment
1
SS

TSUN



3
1
Transportation



3
1
Transportation:
Airport



4
3
Fairhaven Station - Multi-Modal
Facility
Transportation



3
4
Bellingham Shipping Terminal #1/#2
Transportation



3
5
Blaine Harbor
Transportation



4
5
Transportation



5
7

EQ

Total
Hazards
3



Notes: FL = Flooding; EQ = Earthquake; GH = Geologic Hazard; SS = Severe Storm; TSUN = Tsunami; VOL = Volcano; WF = Wildland Fire
113 PORT OF BELLINGHAM’S HAZARD MITIGATION STRATEGIES AND PROJECTS
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 Port of Bellingham facilities. Ensure adequate
protection for new structures by compliance with the NFIP and with the earthquake standards
established in the 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:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Port of Bellingham, Board of Commissioners
Local sources, state and federal grants
Flooding Events
Sumas International Cargo Terminal - Work with other jurisdictions to reduce the impacts of
flooding from the Nooksack River.
Earthquake/Geological Hazards
Bellingham International Airport - A survey of possible 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.
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.
114 Bellingham Shipping Terminal - A survey of possible earthquake and liquefaction zones 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.
Harbor Center Building, Squalicum Harbor and 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 earthquake and liquefaction zones 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 manmade problems.
Responsible Entity:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Port of Bellingham working with Whatcom County DEM
Local sources, state and federal grants
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.
115 City of Blaine Contact Information:
Mike Haslip
Police Chief
322 H Street
Blaine, WA 98230
(360) 337-6769
City Manager Gary Tomsic & City Council Members
344 H Street
Blaine, WA 98230
(360) 332-8311
Presence of Hazards
Present?
Hazard
(yes, if checked)
Earthquake

Flooding

Geologic Hazards

Severe Storm

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.
Severe Storm – all areas within the city limits are subject to impacts from high wind, rain, and
snow events.
Wildland Fire – outlying homes in the East Blaine and Semiahmoo neighborhoods are in
wooded areas, which can be at risk to seasonal wildland fire danger
116 City of Blaine Critical Facility List
Facility Name
AT&T (US/Canada fiber optic vault)
Facility Type
Utility: Communications
Location
1715 D Street
EMS
377 C Street
Government
344 H Street
Transportation
1311 Boblett Street
Blaine Community Center
EOC
763 G Street
Law Enforcement
322 H Street
Emergency Services
1200 Yew Street
Utility: Water
9235 Semiahmoo Parkway
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 Road, E I-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 Street
Elementary School - Dist. 503
Evacuation Center
Refer to WC GIS Data Layer
Good Samaritan Rest Home
Evacuation Center
456 C Street
Utility: Sewer
9 Lift Stations Total
Nextel/AT&T Wireless
Utility: Communication
8800 Blk Semiahmoo Parkway
Nextel/FARS Repeater
9800 blk Harvey Road
Law Enforcement
250 Marine Drive
Puget Power
Utility: Power
Sweet Road & W. of Odell Road
Pump Station
Utility: Sewer
4 Pump Stations Total
Reservoir Tanks
Utility: Water
5 Reservoirs Total
Troon
Utility: Sewer
Refer to Map
Law Enforcement
9901 Pacific Highway
259 Martin Street
Well Head
Utility: Water
7 Well Heads Total
Whatcom County Fire District 13
Fire Station
1510 Odell Road
Fire Station
9001 Semiahmoo Parkway
Bay Medical Clinic
Blaine City Hall
Blaine City Municipal Airport
Blaine Public Works
Blaine Waste Water Treatment Facility
Cascade Natural Gas Facility
Lift Stations
Port of Bellingham
U.S. Customs/HLS et al
Verizon Central Office
117 Geography
Blaine Population – 4,740 (2009 Census G.A. estimate)
Total area, within city limits – 5.5 mi2
# Structures
Hazard
Impacted
Area Affected
Earthquake
2,701
5.5 mi2
Percent of
Total
100%
Flooding
178
.247 mi2
4.5%
Geologic Hazards
443
.785 mi2
14.3%
2
Severe Storm
2,701
5.5 mi
Wild Land Fire
599
1.344 mi2
100%
24.4%
Growth Trends
This map displays the UGA for the City of Blaine, as designated by the Whatcom County
Comprehensive Plan.
City of Blaine and Related UGA
118 Critical Facility Rankings for the City of Blaine
Facility Name
Blaine City Hall
Blaine Community Center
Blaine Public Works
Dept. of Homeland Security, Border Patrol
Dept. of Homeland Security, Customs
Dept. of Homeland Security, Investigations
Nextel/FARS Repeater
Puget Power
AT&T (US/Canada fiber optic vault)
Birch Bay Water and Sewer (Dist. 8)
Birch Bay Water Connection
Blaine City Municipal Airport
Blaine Waste Water Treatment Facility
Cascade Natural Gas Facility
CPB, Pacific Highway Port of Entry
CPB, Peace Arch Port of Entry
Customs/Border Patrol Facility
Dept. of Justice
Good Samaritan Rest Home
Lift Station (9 Total)
Nextel/AT&T Wireless
Port of Bellingham
Pump Station (4 Total)
Reservoir Tanks (5 Total)
Troon
US Customs/HLS et al
Verizon Central Office
Well Head (7 Total)
Bay Medical Clinic
BP-Cherry Point Refinery
Facility Type
FL
EQ






















Government
EOC
Law Enforcement
Emergency Services
Homeland Security
Homeland Security
Homeland Security
Utility: Power
Fire Station
Fire Station
Utility: Communications
Utility: Water
Utility: Water
Transportation
Utility: Water
Utilities - Power
Homeland Security
Homeland Security
Homeland Security
Law Enforcement
Evacuation Center
Utility: Sewer
Law Enforcement
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Water
Utility: Sewer
Law Enforcement
Utility: Water
EMS
Fuel
Evacuation Center


GH
TSUN
VOL
WF








Total
Hazards
Rank
Assessment
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3

2
2

2
1
1







SS
1
2
1
NOTES: FL = Flooding; EQ = Earthquake; GH = Geologic Hazard; SS = Severe Storm; TSUN = Tsunami; VOL = Volcano; WF = Wildland Fire
119 CITY OF BLAINE’S HAZARD MITIGATION STRATEGIES AND PROJECTS
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:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Blaine City Council
Local sources, and state and federal grants and loans
Current and ongoing
Responsible Entity:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Blaine City Council
Current and ongoing
Partner with neighboring jurisdictions and 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 each potential project is a
description of the City’s prioritization for implementation.
Severe Storm Events
Community-wide Education and Preparation - Blaine has a unique location, straddling a major
interstate freeway corridor and rail line, bounded by Puget Sound and the foreign country of
Canada, with two of the largest northern border crossings in its jurisdiction. Its location on
Puget Sound at the edge of the Fraser River escapement provides unique atmospheric events
as well, with high winds and significant rain and snowfall events. Both the residents and the
government need to prepare for significant storms. Past snowfall events have closed all
roadways in to Blaine, stranding the community on occasion. Severe wind events can knock
out power for periods for several hours, closing stores, schools, food banks, and fuel stations.
These events affect residents, businesses, and the many people traveling through Blaine who
can become stranded by the weather.
Blaine has made significant improvements to its electrical grid, including construction of a
second major feed line to Blaine via Semiahmoo, providing a redundant path for power. A plan
should be developed to work with community faith-based, educational, and public services to
educate the residents of Blaine about the weather related events that place them at risk, and
provide planning tools that they can use to mitigate those risks in their homes and businesses.
A similar planning and preparation procedure should be adopted within the departments of city
government.
Responsible Entity:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Blaine City Council
Current and ongoing
120 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:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Blaine City Council
Long term (minimum of 3 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 that 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:
Moderate term (estimate 1 to 3 years after funding)
Marine Drive Commercial and Marina Areas - The Marine Drive commercial and boating
neighborhood is home to several commercial businesses, more than 400 commercial and
pleasure craft, a well visited public pier, marine park and bird sanctuary, and the city’s new
wastewater treatment facility. By land, this area is served by a single point of ingress/egress
along Marine Drive, 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:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Blaine Public Works and Public Safety Department
Moderate term (1 to 3 years after funding is secured)
121 Semiahmoo Spit Commercial and Marina Areas - The Semiahmoo Marina, Inn at Semiahmoo,
several condominium developments, a Whatcom County Park, and Blaine’s former wastewater
treatment plant site 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 northward from Drayton Harbor Road. Significant storm
driven tidal action can, and does, compromise the Semiahmoo Parkway roadway along this spit
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 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:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Blaine Public Works and Public Safety Department
Moderate term (1 to 3 years after funding is secured)
Tsunami
Earthquake/Tsunami Warning System - Blaine has more than 10 miles of shoreline, and
significant lowland exposures to Puget Sound coastline. Valuable properties, infrastructure, and
populated areas 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, and is hampered in part by a lack of detailed
bathyspheric mapping of the northern Whatcom County shoreline.
Installation of an
appropriately sited All Hazards Alert Broadcast tower and siren/speaker system needs to be
provisioned, along with systems to automatically trigger other various types of early warning
systems such as telephone based warning systems for orderly evacuation of low-lying areas.
Responsible Entity:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Blaine City Council
Moderate Term (1 to 3 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 needs to be evacuated.
Responsible Entity:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Blaine City Council
Moderate Term (1 to 3 years after funding is secured)
122 Telephone-Based Early Warning System - A computerized early warning system can
automatically dial each telephone number within a specified area, and play a recorded message
when the phone is answered. A limited version of such a system is in use by the city’s Finance
Department. A larger capacity system could be very useful for a variety of natural and
manmade problems.
Responsible Entity:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Blaine City Council
Short term (within 1 year after funding is secured)
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:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Blaine City Council
The City of Blaine’s two foremost concerns are:
1.
2.
The ability to maintain emergency responsiveness
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
provide emergency power to the police station, city hall, and the local government radio
repeater site on Harvey Road, and also provide portable (trailer mounted) power to
service 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.
Natural Hazard Figures
following text:

Since the 2004 Plan, the City of Blaine has revised the list of critical facilities. The
123 124 125 City of Everson Contact Information:
Erik Ramstead
Police Chief
P.O. Box 315
Everson, WA 98247
(360) 966-4212
Mayor John Perry & City Council Members
P.O. Box 315
Everson, WA 98247
(360) 966-3411
Presence of Hazards
Present?
Hazard
Earthquake
(yes, if checked)
Flooding
Geologic Hazards
Severe Storm




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, and 1995. Flooding begins on the 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 Road, 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.
Severe Storm – Everson is subject to frequent NE winds in the fall from the Fraser Valley, and
W and SW winds from storm fronts from the Pacific Ocean. Wind causes frequent power
outages.
Wildland Fire – Various residential homes at risk. The city has multiple 1970s apartments and
duplexes and two senior living facilities. Two mobile home parks are present with a total of 71
units.
126 Volcano – All of the downtown area, adjacent to the Nooksack River, and north and east to the
City Limits are vulnerable to a Mount Baker lahar.
Facility Name
City of Everson Critical Facility List
Facility Type
Everson City Hall
Everson Police Dept.
Everson Senior Center
Everson Water Production Facility
People's Bank
Post Office
Public Works Strandell Shop
Pump Station #11
Pump-Station - Evergreen
Pump-Station #10
Pump-Station #4 (Interceptor)
Pump-Station #5
Pump-Station #6
Pump-Station #7
Pump-Station #8
Verizon Communications
Whatcom Educational Credit Union
Evacuation Center
Government
Law Enforcement
Evacuation Center
Utility: Water
Economic
Mail
Public Works
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Sewer
Fire Station
Economic
Location
SR 544
111 W. Main Street
109 W. Main Street
111 W. Main Street
610 Freda Street
Kirsch Street
108 Blair Drive
603 Robinson Street
716 Red Maple Loop
116 Evergreen Way
605 Robinson Street
506 E. Main Street
103 E. Main Street
208 Everson Road
401 Lincoln Street
102 Reeds Lane
Washington Street
101 Park Drive
101 E. Main Street
Kirsch and E. Main Streets
Geography
Everson Population – 2,285 (Office of Financial Management 04/01/2009)
Everson Total area, within city limits – 1.39 mi2
Hazard
Earthquake
Flooding
# Structures
Impacted
Area Affected
746
1.25 mi2
295
0.586 mi2
42.1%
2
0.09%
Geologic Hazards
61
0.129 mi
Severe Storm
746
1.25 mi2
Volcano
474
0.771 mi
127 Percent of
Total
100%
2
100%
55.4%
Growth Trends
The map below displays the UGA for the City of Everson, as designated by the Whatcom
County Comprehensive Plan. The City experienced a noticeable growth spurt in the late 1980s,
again in 1995, and between 2005 and 2010.
128 Critical Facility Rankings for the City of Everson
Facility Name
Everson Water Production Facility
Verizon Communications
Everson Police Department
Pump-Station #4 (Interceptor)
Pump-Station #6
Pump-Station #7
Everson City Hall
Everson Senior Center
Public Works Building
Pump-Station #5
Pump-Station #8
Pump-Station #10
Pump-Station #11
Pump Station – Evergreen
Elementary School - District 506
Whatcom Educational Credit Union
People's Bank
Post Office
Facility Type
Utility: Water
Utility:
Communication
Utility: Sewer
Law Enforcement
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Sewer
Government
Evacuation Center
Public Works
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Sewer
Fire Station
Evacuation Center
Economic
Economic
Mail
FL











EQ
GH
SS
TSUN
VOL
WF
Total
Hazards
Rank
Assessment



3
1



2
1











































4
4
5
5
5
5
5
2
5
5
2
3
5
4
2
4
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
5
6
6
7



















Notes:
129 CITY OF EVERSON-NOOKSACK’S MITIGATION STRATEGIES AND 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:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Everson and Nooksack City Councils
Current and ongoing
Responsible Entity:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Current and ongoing
Work with neighboring jurisdictions to add additional flow capacity to the Nooksack River to
minimize catastrophic flooding loss.
Responsible Entity:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Current and ongoing
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:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Everson Public Works Department
Sewer funds, other local sources, and state and federal grants
Everson and Nooksack City Halls, Everson Police Department in emergencies - The Everson
City Hall, Police Department and Whatcom County Fire District 1's station are located in the
100-year floodplain. These should be mitigated in place or moved out of the floodplain.
Responsible Entity: Everson and Nooksack City Councils, Whatcom County Public Works
Department, Whatcom County Fire District 1 Commissioners
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Long term (greater than 3 years after funding is secured) or sooner if
grant funding allows.
130 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:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Everson Public Works Department
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:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Whatcom County, Everson City Council
Earthquake
Everson and Nooksack City Halls - Both Everson and Nooksack City Halls and Whatcom
County Fire District 1's station 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:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Everson and Nooksack City Councils, Whatcom County Building
Department, Whatcom County Fire District 1 Commissioners
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: Whatcom County Fire District 1, Everson Police Department, Whatcom
County Department of Emergency Management, Whatcom County
Public Works
Funding Source:
Timeline:
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:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Whatcom County Fire District 1, Everson Police Department,
Everson/Nooksack Public Works
131 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:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Everson Police Department, Whatcom County Department of
Emergency Management
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:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Whatcom County Department of Emergency Management,
NOAA Radio
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:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Federal, State, County, and local entities
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.
following text:

Since the 2004 Plan, the City of Everson has revised the list of critical facilities. The
132 133 134 City of Ferndale Contact Information:
Michael Knapp
Police Chief
5640 Third Avenue
Ferndale, WA 98248
(360) 384-3390
Mayor Gary Jensen & City Council Members
2095 Main Street
Ferndale, WA 98248
(360) 384-4302
Presence of Hazards
Present?
Hazard
(yes, if checked)







Earthquake
Flooding
Geologic
H
d
Severe Storm
Tsunami
Volcano
Wildland Fire
Hazard Descriptions
Earthquake – moderate to high risk
Flooding – the city is subject to Nooksack River floods.
Severe Storm – Ferndale is subject to severe storms year-round.
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.
135 City of Ferndale Critical Facility List
Facility Name
Facility Type
Location
Conoco-Phillips Refinery
Ferndale City Hall
Fuel
Government
3901 Unick Road
2095 Main Street
Ferndale City Shop
Ferndale Police Department
Intalco Aluminum Corporation
PUD #1 Water Plant #2
PUD #2 Water Plant #1
Schools – District 502
Sewer Pump Station #21
Storm Sewer Pump Station #8
Sewer Pump Station # 19
Sewer Pump Station # 9
Tenaska Cogeneration Plant
Texaco Natural Gas
Water Pump Station #1
Water Tank #1
Water Tank #2
WCFD 7 St. 1 Ferndale
WCFD7 St. 2 Whitehorn
WCFD7 St. 3 N. Bellingham
WCFD7 St. 4 Kohen Road
WCFD7 St. 5 Enterprise
WCFD7 St. 6 Church Road.
Public Works
Law
5735 Legoe Avenue
5640 Third Avenue
4050 Mount View Road
1705 Trigg Road
5431 Ferndale Road
9 Locations Total
(Ariel Court)
Ferndale Rd. & Maple Street
NW Corner of Aquarius & Apollo Drive
6156 Unrein Drive
5217 Northwest Drive
Smith Road & Bellaire
6006 Portal Way
1350 Slater Road
Nicholas Drive
N. of 1951 Main Street & Nooksack River
N. of 5610 Barrett Road
5345 LaBounty Road
5280 Northwest Road
5336 Poplar Drive
2090 Main Street
1920 Main Street
5419 Nimbus Place
1820-1821 McKinley Court
6400 Portal Way
5105 Lake Terrell Road
4100 Unick Road
5405 Ferndale Road
2195 Thornton Road
2601 Thornton Road
5727 Church Road
Vista Drive & Thornton Road
2601 Thornton Road
2020 Washington Street
4047 Brown Road
5368 Northwest Road.
5491 Grandview Road
1886 Grandview Road
6081 Church Road
Economic
Utility: Water
Utility: Water
EOC
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Power
Fuel
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Water
Utility: Water
Utility: Water
Utility: Water
Utility: Water
Fire Station
Fire Station
Fire Station
Fire Station
Fire Station
Fire Station
136 Geography
Ferndale Population – 11,084
Ferndale Total area, within city limits – 4.7 mi2
Hazard
Earthquake
Flooding
Geologic Hazards
Severe Storm
Tsunami
Volcano
Wildland Fire
# Structures
Impacted
Area Affected
3,432
4.7 mi2
105
1.095 mi2
2,330
3.538 mi2
3,432
4.7 mi2
Less than 100
642
1.875 mi2
359
2.271 mi2
Percent of
Total
100%
23.3%
75.3%
100%
Less than 5%
39.9%
48.3%
Growth Trends
This map displays the UGA for the City of Ferndale, as designated by the Whatcom County
Comprehensive Plan.
137 Critical Facility Rankings for the City of Ferndale
Facility Name
Ferndale Police Department
Facility Type
Law Enforcement
Ferndale City Hall
Government
PUD #1
Utility: Water
Utility: Sewer
FL EQ




GH

SS





TSUN
VOL

WF

Rank
Assessment
1
3
2
3
3
5
4



Utility: Water



3
4
Utility: Water



3
4
Utility: Water



4
4
Water Tank #1
Utility: Water



3
4
Water Tank #2
Utility: Water



4
4
Utility: Sewer



6
5
Utility: Sewer



3
5
Utility: Sewer




4
5
Utility: Sewer



3
5
Utility: Sewer



3
5
Utility: Sewer



3
5
Utility: Sewer



3
5
Utility: Sewer



3
5
Utility: Sewer




5
5
Utility: Sewer




4
5
Utility: Sewer




5
5
Utility: Sewer


3
5
Utility: Sewer


2
5



138 
Total
Hazards
5





Total
Hazards
3
Rank
Assessment
5
6
6

2
7


2
8
Fire Station



3
8
WCFD7 St. 3 N. Bellingham
Fire Station



3
8
WCFD7 St. 4 Kohen Road
Fire Station

3
8
WCFD7 St. 5 Enterprise
Fire Station

WCFD7 St. 6 Church Road
Fire Station

Facility Name
Facility Type
Utility: Sewer
FL EQ


Storm Sewer Pump Station #8
Utility: Sewer

Ferndale City Shop
Public Works

WCFD7 St. 1 Ferndale
Fire Station
WCFD7 St. 2 Whitehorn
Schools
Conoco-Phillips Refinery
Tenaska Cogeneration Plant
Texaco Natural Gas
Intalco Aluminum Corp.

GH
SS

TSUN
VOL






WF



3
8


4
8
Evacuation Centers
9
Fuel


Utility: Power


Fuel

Economic

2
10
3
10

2
10

2
11

Notes:
139 CITY OF FERNDALE’S HAZARD MITIGATION STRATEGIES AND PROJECTS
for future planning within the City of Ferndale.
Provide for an increased level of safety to the citizens of Ferndale.
Responsible Entity:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Ferndale City Council
Current and ongoing
Responsible Entity:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Ferndale City Council
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.
Flooding
Annex Addition - The City of Ferndale is centrally located, inland from the communities of
Lummi Nation, Sandy Point, and Birch Bay; making it a strategic location for a large FEMA
approved emergency evacuation shelter. Ferndale’s proximity to the I-5 corridor, Slater and
Mountain View roads make the area very accessible. Land is available in the floodplain and
could be raised and flood proofed for this large emergency facility capable of sheltering 10,000
people against Tsunami, Floods, and Severe Storms.
Responsible Entity:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
TBD
Local sources, and state and federal funds
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:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Ferndale Public Works
Local sources, and state and federal funds
140 Extension of Riverside Dike Reinforcement - The Ferndale Riverwalk dike reinforcement project
should be extended downstream from its current terminus approximately 1,000 feet to meet the
Whatcom County PUD Water Intake Facility so as to provide additional structural reinforcement
to the existing dike. Note from prior plan, The Ferndale Riverwalk Dike reinforcement project;
the Riverwalk was not extended although we did take on and complete a reinforcement project
south to PUD intake with USACOE. The next phase is to extend the levee reinforcement to its
south termini at 5405 Ferndale Road.
Responsible Entity:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Ferndale Planning Department
Local sources and State and Federal grants
Long-term (greater than 3 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:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
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:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
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:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Ferndale Building Department
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:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Ferndale Police Department/Whatcom Fire District 7
141 Communications
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:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Telephone Based Early Warning System - A computerized early warning system would
message to whoever picked up the phone. Such a system could be very useful for a variety of
natural and manmade problems.
Responsible Entity:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
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:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
the future.
Responsible Entity:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Ferndale Fire Department
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.
142 Natural Hazard Figures
following text:

Since the 2004 Plan, the City of Ferndale has revised the list of critical facilities. The
143 144 145 146 147 148 Fire District #11 (Community of Lummi Island) Contact Information:
Duncan McLane
Fire Chief
3809 Legoe Bay Road / P.O. Box 130
Lummi Island, WA 98262-0130
(360) 758-2411
Whatcom County Fire District #11 Board of Commissioners
3809 Legoe Bay Road / P.O. Box 130
Lummi Island, WA 98262-0130
(360) 758-2411
Presence of Hazards
Present?
Hazard
Earthquake
(yes, if checked)

Flooding
Geologic Hazards
Severe Storm
Tsunami
Volcano
Wild Land Fire





Hazard Descriptions
Earthquake – subject to seismic activity.
Geologic Hazards – seismically-sensitive soils.
Severe Storms – very sensitive to weather-related activities.
Tsunami – Lummi Island is subject to tsunami risk.
Volcano – Lummi Island is at risk of a Mount Baker lahar.
Wildland Fire – community at risk has been identified, as well as level of fire risk.
149 Fire District 11 (Community of Lummi Island) Critical Facility List
Facility Name
Ace Rock Quarry
Facility Type
Transportation
Location
1033 Beach Avenue
Baker Mountain Construction
Public Works
3595 S. Nugent Road
School Evacuation Center
3786 Centerview Road
Fairhaven Alaskan Ferry Dock
Transportation
Harris Avenue
Gooseberry Point Dock
Transportation
Lummi View Drive
Hilltop Water Owners Association
Utility: Water
2040 Granger Way
Isle Aire Beach Association
Utility: Water
P.O. Box 211
LISECC
Utility: Water
1211 Island Drive
Lummi Island Construction
Public Works
W. Shore Drive
Lummi Island Dock
Transportation
N Nugent Road
Lummi Island Fire Hall
Emergency Services
3809 Legoe Bay Road
Lummi Island Grange
Evacuation Center
2210 N. Nugent Road
Mail
2211 N Nugent Road
Lummi Point Water
Utility: Water
3766 Blizard
Nielsen Construction
Public Works
Granger Way
Owners Association Beach Club Condos
Utility: Water
2174 Granger Way
Puget Sound Energy Switch
Utility: Power
Gooseberry Point
Transportation
West Shore Drive
Sunset Water and Maintenance Association
Utility: Water
2040 Granger Way
Swope Construction
Public Works
N. Nugent Road
Economic
2130 S. Nugent Road
Fuel
Lynden
Public Works
Tuttle Lane
Fuel
Lynden
Beach School Elementary
Lummi Island Post Office
Seawall
The Islander
Vander Yacht Propane
Wertz Construction
Whatcom Farmers Co-op
150 Lummi Island Community Critical Facilities:
LUMMI ISLAND
21
20
23
22
24
25
DRI
VE
Coastview
16
12
Cedar
Pl.
Island View
15
ith
Lane Spit
ced
Ma
t
18
20
Blizzard
T
23
5 24
2
8
17
BAY
Orcas View
Lovers
Bluff
SOUTH
LEGOE
9
GRANGER
Harmoney
Kildonan
LEGOE BAY
1
Antoinettes
ST
Joan's Lane
Constitution
RE
AC
SE
U
13
6
CENTERVIEW
ROAD
Village
Point
Sunnyhill
Maple
NUGENT
WEST
10
H
RT
NO
Blizzard
Way
TUTTLE LANE
SH
OR
E
Ta f
NT
GE
NU
S
RO
AD
Point Migley
SUNRISE RD
V
SEA
11
CRE
S
T
3 Not on
4 Lummi
7 Island
W
Scenic
Estates
N
19
22
21
Quarry
14
Inita
Bay
Lummi Rocks
Reil
Harbor
X
Y
1 Mile
Carter
Point
151 Geography
Lummi Island Population – 816 (2000 Census)
Lummi Island Total Area – 16 mi2
Hazard
Earthquake
# Structures
Impacted
Area Affected
1498
16 mi2
Geologic Hazards
Severe Storm
Tsunami
Wildland Fire
Volcano
8 mi2
749
1498
1124
1498
1498
Growth Trends
Lummi Island is not part of the UGA.
152 Percent of
Total Area
100%
50%
16 mi
2
100%
12 mi
2
60%
16 mi
2
100%
16 mi
2
100%
Critical Facility Rankings for the Community of Lummi Island
Facility Name
Ace Rock Quarry
Beach School Elementary
Gooseberry Point Dock
Hilltop Water Owners Association
Isle Aire Beach Association
LISECC
Lummi Island Dock
Lummi Island Fire Hall
Lummi Island Grange
Lummi Point Water
Puget Sound Energy Switch
Seawall
Sunset Water and Maintenance Assoc.
Vander Yacht Propane
Whatcom Farmers Co-op
Baker Mountain Construction
Fairhaven Alaskan Ferry Dock
Lummi Island Construction
Lummi Island Post Office
Nielsen Construction
Owners Association Beach Club Condos
Swope Construction
The Islander
Wertz Construction
Facility Type
Transportation
School Evacuation Center
Transportation
Utility: Water
Utility: Water
Utility: Water
Transportation
Emergency Services
Evacuation Center
Utility: Water
Utility: Power
Transportation
Utility: Water
Fuel
Fuel
Public Works
Transportation
Public Works
Mail
Public Works
Utility: Water
Public Works
Economic
Public Works
FL











EQ
























GH









SS
























TSUN











VOL











WF


























Notes:
153 Total
Hazards
6
3
6
6
4
6
6
4
4
6
5
4
4
6
6
5
6
4
3
4
4
5
4
5
Rank
Assessment
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
COMMUNITY OF LUMMI ISLAND’S HAZARD MITIGATION STRATEGIES AND PROJECTS
mitigation goals for future planning of the Whatcom County Fire District #11 for the Community
of Lummi Island.
Provide an increased level of safety for residents of Lummi Island:


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 educate the public on what to expect in a natural
disaster.
suggesting specific activities that agencies, organizations, and residents in the Community of
Lummi Island 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 District’s prioritization for implementation.
Multi-hazard
Legoe Bay Fire Hall Replacement - The most effective mitigation measure is the replacement of
the Lummi Island Fire Station. Since Whatcom County subscribes to the Universal Building
Codes, the Lummi Island Fire Station will be built to code. Two major hazards that affect Lummi
Island both have Whatcom County regulatory restrictions and put Lummi Island in a position that
makes this simple retrofit/replacement/relocation more difficult.
In the event of a major earthquake, Whatcom County Emergency Services would be
overwhelmed. Lummi Island’s remote location and its accessibility only by sea and air would
render us on our own for a significant length of time. The rest of the County would be
preoccupied with responding within its own communities/jurisdictions. Given that scenario, if
this occurred during a late summer week day it is likely that we would have only four to eight
responders because our volunteers would be on the mainland at their work places. A seismic
upgrade of the Legoe Bay facility would ensure the availability of local medical and fire
suppression response. Our ability to respond is critical. There is no fuel station on the Island.
Therefore, many residents have installed 150 to 250 gallon aboveground fuel storage tanks.
Less than 5% of these have been installed using the permit process. It is highly probable that
we would also have no available local response to these hazardous material spills. Structural
collapse would be imminent throughout the district, which would cause ruptured propane lines
that would self-ignite because they are mostly installed with steel. Houses would start burning,
igniting spilled fuel from the fuel tanks. Without this project, it is highly probable that we would
have no wildland fire response. The dry environmental conditions found on the Island in late
summer combined with no suppression response would increase the likelihood of the start of a
wildland fire.
154 Unmitigated, these fires would burn uncontrollably, spreading from one end of the Island to the
other. In the event of a major wildland fire the priority for the fire department responders would
be to evacuate the people that could be evacuated, after they have secured their own homes
and families. In the event of a major earthquake, the evacuation process would be greatly
hampered by the conditions of the roads in the fire district due to the fact that a majority of the
roads are built on the edge of the island where landslides would be imminent. There is a high
probability that the ferry dock and/or its ramp would be destroyed and access to the Island by
the ferry or other foot passenger boat would be impossible. Without this project to ensure our
ability to respond, people trapped in their collapsed homes would have no means of escape, nor
hope of rescue. The wildland fire would eventually claim all of the property and lives that have
not been rescued, evacuated, or sheltered. In such a scenario, shelter itself, on the Island,
would be a challenge.
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:
 Limit, and if possible, eliminate new development in high-risk hazard areas.
 If new development is to be permitted, mitigate new construction to address the specific
geological hazard.
 Educate existing property owners at risk to help minimize the risk of the local hazards.
 If cost effective, buyout high-risk properties.
 As a last-case resort, consider engineering solutions to manage the specific geologic
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 than 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
explored. There is more Tsunami mitigation plan information contained within the Tsunami
section of this Plan.
155 Responsible entity:
Funding source:
Timeline:
Cost:
Bonds and/or Grants – The only potential funding source is a
federal or state mitigation grant
Long-term
$1,500,000 to $2,000,000
Legoe Bay Road Breakwater Construction - This measure would allow for Lummi Island to
develop a more detailed plan for placement of a breakwater near the Legoe Bay Road to create
a barrier stopping the consistent erosion caused by severe windstorms. Build on current
relationship with Whatcom County Public Works to complete this mitigation action.
Whatcom County Public Works replaced the seawall in 2002, but the west side is already
showing signs of erosion, as it is not long enough. The road washes out on a regular basis
during a combination of high tides and severe windstorms. This is a main thoroughfare for
Lummi Island and this road is critical for response.
Responsible entity:
Funding source:
Timeline:
Cost:
Whatcom County Public Works
County funds
Long-term
Unknown
Update all Natural Hazard Emergency Response Standard Operating Guidelines
The measure would involve updating Lummi Island Fire Department’s Natural Hazard
Emergency Response Standard Operating Guidelines. The purpose of these guidelines is to
formalize operating practices for all the irregular hazards identified in this Plan.
Responsible entity:
Funding source:
Timeline:
Cost:
Local funds
Long-term
$2,000 one-time cost
Earthquake
Seismic Mitigation of Privately Owned Fuel Storage Tanks - The measure would educate the
public of the dangers created from unsecured storage tanks in a seismic event, significantly
reducing the additional complication of large flammable liquid spills. Coordinate efforts with
Whatcom County Planning and Development.
Responsible entity:
Funding source:
Timeline:
Cost:
Whatcom County Fire District #11 and Whatcom County Planning
and Development
Local funds
Long-term
$2,000
Wildland Fire
Fuel Reduction on Lummi Island - The measure would allow Lummi Island Fire Department to
reduce the fire hazard by fuel reduction. This will create a defensible fire break, and make
homes more survivable in the event of a wildland-urban interface fire.
Responsible entity:
Funding source:
Timeline:
Cost:
WDNR
State or federal grants
Long-term
Unknown
156 Tsunami
Tsunami Warning System - Lummi Island has significant exposure to the Puget Sound, with
valuable properties, infrastructure, and populated areas which could be at risk in the event of a
tsunami. A more detailed analysis of Lummi Island’s risk from events of this type is needed. If
required, the U.S. 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:
Funding source:
Timeline:
Cost:
Whatcom County Fire District #11 and/or Whatcom County
Council
Long-term
Unknown
Whatcom County Fire District #11 will use the following three criteria to prioritize mitigation
projects. The criteria are listed in order of importance:
1. Health and safety of persons – Projects 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.
2. Cost – A project must be affordable and must return reasonable benefits in comparison
to the cost.
3. 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.
157 City of Lynden Contact Information:
Gary Baar
Fire Chief
215 4th Street
Lynden, WA 98264
(360) 354-4400
Mayor Scott Korthuis & City Council Members
300 Fourth Street
Lynden, WA 98264
(360) 354-5026
Presence of Hazards
Present?
Hazard
(yes, if checked)
Earthquake
Flooding
Geologic Hazards
Severe Storm




Tsunami

Volcano
Wild Land Fire
Hazard Descriptions
Earthquake – mild risk, but high impact to the North and South.
Flooding – Lynden is located above the floodplain. 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, as well as transportation at
crossing.
Severe Storm – Lynden is subject to severe storms year-round.
Volcano – the southern portion of the city is at risk of a Mount Baker lahar. This would impact
the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
158 City of Lynden Critical Facility List
Facility Name
Facility Type
Christian Health Care Center
Assisted Living
Location
855 Aaron Drive
Lynden City Hall
Government
300 Fourth Street
Lynden City Hall Annex
Government
205 Fourth Street
Assisted Living
401 Grover Street
Fire Station
215 Fourth Street
Assisted Living
905 Aaron Drive
Law Enforcement
203 – 19th Street
Assisted Living
301 W. Homestead Blvd.
Fire Station
307 19th Street
Emergency Services
1775 Front Street
Schools – District 504
Evacuation Center
7 Schools Total
Sonlight Church
Evacuation Center
8800 Bender Road
US Border Patrol-Lynden
Law Enforcement
Main/Guide Meridian
Utility: Sewer
800 S. 6th Street
Utility: Water
525 Judson Street
Evacuation Center
1986 Main Street
Lynden Community Center
Lynden Manor
Lynden Police Department
Meadow Greens
North Whatcom Fire & Rescue
Northwest Washington Fair
Word of Life Outreach Center
Geography
Lynden Population – 11,690
Lynden Total area, within city limits – 6.5 mi2
Hazard
Earthquake
# Structures
Impacted
Area Affected
6.5 mi2
3,446
100%
2
Flooding
189
0.167 mi
Geologic Hazards
99
0.0572 mi2
Severe Storm
Volcano
2
3,446
6.5 mi
5
0.0203 mi2
159 Percent of
Total
2.6%
0.9%
100%
0.3%
Growth Trends
This map displays the UGA for the City of Lynden, as designated by the Whatcom County
Comprehensive Plan.
160 Critical Facility Rankings for the City of Lynden
Total
Hazards
2
Rank
Assessment
1

2
1

2
1

4
1


2
1
Law Enforcement


2
2
Law Enforcement


2
2
Government


2
3
Lynden Community Center
Assisted Living


2
3
Christian Health Care Center
Assisted Living


2
4
Lynden Manor
Assisted Living


2
4
Meadow Greens
Assisted Living


2
4
Northwest Washington Fair
Emergency Services


2
4
Schools
Evacuation Centers
Sonlight Church
Evacuation Center


2
4
Word of Life Outreach Center
Evacuation Center


2
4
Facility Name
Lynden City Hall Annex
Facility Type
Government
Fire Station

Fire Station

Utility: Sewer
Utility: Water
Lynden Police Department
US Border Patrol-Lynden
Lynden City Hall
FL

EQ


GH

SS

TSUN
VOL
WF
4
Notes:
161 CITY OF LYNDEN’S HAZARD MITIGATION STRATEGIES AND PROJECTS
mitigation goals for future planning within the City of Lynden.
Provide for an increased level of safety to the citizens of Lynden.
Responsible Entity:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Lynden City Council
Current and ongoing
Responsible Entity:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Lynden City Council
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:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Lynden City Council
Current and ongoing
suggesting specific activities that agencies, organizations, and residents in the City of Lynden
makers in pursuing strategies for implementation.
Earthquake
Lynden City Hall - Since the 2004 Plan, a new City Hall has been built in 2009 at 300 Fourth
Street.
Responsible Entity:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Lynden Building Department
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:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Lynden Public Works Department
Sewer funds, other local sources, and state and federal grants
162 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:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
City of Lynden Public Works Department
Fishtrap Creek Flood Storage and 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:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
City of Lynden Public Works Department
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:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Communications
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:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Telephone-Based Early Warning System - A computerized early warning system would
message to whoever picked up the phone. Such a system would be useful for a variety of
natural and man-made problems.
Responsible Entity:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
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.
163 Responsible Entity:
Funding Source:
the future.
Responsible Entity:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
Priorities will be based on the 'greatest benefit for the largest number of people' within 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.
following text:

Since the 2004 Plan, the City of Lynden has revised the list of critical facilities. The
164 165 166 Meridian School District
Contact Information:
Dr. Timothy S. Yeomans
Superintendent
214 W Laurel Road
(360) 319-4262
Dr. Timothy S. Yeomans
Superintendent
214 W Laurel Road
(360) 319-4262
Presence of Hazards
Present?
Hazard
Earthquake
(yes, if checked)

Flooding
Geologic Hazards

Severe Storm
Tsunami
Volcano
Wildland Fire
Hazard Descriptions
Earthquake – The Meridian School District is prone to earthquake impacts.
Severe Storm – The Meridian School District is subject to severe storms year-round.
Meridian School District Critical Facility List
Facility Name
Facility Type
Location
Middle School Gym
School
861 Ten Mile Rd, Lynden, WA
High School Gym
School
194 W Laurel Rd, Bellingham, WA
High School Performing Arts Center
School
194 W Laurel Rd, Bellingham, WA
Geography
Meridian School District Population – 10,000
Meridian School District area – 38 mi2
Hazard
Earthquake
Severe Storm
# Structures
Impacted
Area Affected
4
38 mi2
38 mi2
4
Percent of
Total
100
100
Growth Trends
Growth trends for the Meridian School District remain under review at this time.
167 Critical Facility Rankings for the Meridian School District
Facility Name
Facility
Type
Meridian High School
School

Meridian Middle School
School
Meridian High School
Performing Arts Center
School
FL
Total
Hazards
Rank
Assessment

2
1


2
1


2
2
EQ
GH
SS
TSUN
VOL
WF
Notes:
168 MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT’S HAZARD MITIGATION STRATEGIES AND PROJECTS
for future planning within the Meridian School District.
The Meridian School District currently implements a Strategic Plan which includes Emergency
Response Procedures outlined in the Crisis Response Guide which is frequently updated for
each school within the District.

The Meridian School District is currently in the process of updating the 2008 Emergency
Preparedness Plan for the District.
The Meridian School District is currently constructing a new high school which will include
upgraded facilities to protect against potential natural hazards.
Severe Storm
In December 2008 the Meridian School District High School sustained wind damages and was
repaired.
169 City of Nooksack Contact Information:
Erik Ramstead
Police Chief
P.O. Box 4265
Nooksack, WA 98276
(360) 966-4212
Mayor Jim Ackerman & City Council Members
P.O. Box 4265
Nooksack, WA 98276
(360) 966-2531
Presence of Hazards
Present?
Hazard
Earthquake
(yes, if checked)
Flooding
Geologic Hazards
Severe Storm




Tsunami

Volcano
Wild Land Fire
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, and 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 does not cause severe problems.
Severe Storm – Nooksack is subject to severe storms year-round.
Volcano – all of the area within the city limits would be affected by a Mount Baker lahar.
170 City of Nooksack Critical Facility List
Facility Name
Facility Type
Evacuation Center
Location
Refer to Maps
Nooksack City Hall
Government
103 West Madison St
Nooksack Water Tanks
Utility: Water
8386 Gillies Rd.
Mail
605 Nooksack Ave.
Pump-Station #1
Utility: Sewer
105 Garfield St.
Pump-Station #2
Utility: Sewer
610 Nooksack Ave.
Pump-Station #3
Utility: Sewer
1216 Nooksack Ave.
Fuel
102 Columbia St.
Pump Station #12
Utility: Sewer
305A West Third St.
Water Booster Pump
Utility: Water
1014 Gillies Rd.
Fuel
204 Nooksack Ave.
Fuel Propane Depot
508 Madison Ave.
Utility: Water
503 E. Madison St.
Post Office
Starvin’ Sams
Pacific Pride
Whatcom Farmers Co-op Energy
Water Pump Station
Geography
Nooksack Population – 1004
Nooksack Total area, within city limits – 0.66 mi2
Hazard
Earthquake
Flooding
Geologic Hazards
Severe Storm
Volcano
# Structures
Impacted
Area Affected
Percent of
Total Area
366
0.66 mi2
100%
101
2
45.5%
0.32 mi
2
313
0.597 mi
366
0.66 mi
2
100%
0.66 mi
2
100%
366
171 90.5%
Growth Trends
This map displays the 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 1990s,
with many new manufactured homes.
172 Critical Facility Rankings for the City of Nooksack
Facility Name
Facility Type
FL
EQ
GH
SS
TSUN
VOL
WF
Total
Hazards
Rank
Assessment
4
1
5
1
Nooksack City Hall
Government




Nooksack Water Tanks
Utility: Water




Pump Station #12
Utility: Sewer




5
1
Water Booster Pump
Utility: Water




4
1
Water Pump Station
Utility: Water




5
1
Pump-Station #1
Utility: Sewer




4
2
Pump-Station #2
Utility: Sewer




4
2
Pump-Station #3
Utility: Sewer




4
2
Fuel Propane Depot




4
2
Starvin Sams
Fuel



3
3
Pacific Pride
Fuel



4
3


4
4


4
5
Whatcom Farmers Co-op Energy
Post Office
Evacuation Center
Mail








Notes:
173 CITY OF EVERSON-NOOKSACK’S MITIGATION STRATEGIES AND PROJECTS
Please 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.
following text:

Since the 2004 Plan, the City of Nooksack has revised the list of critical facilities. The
174 175 176 177 City of Sumas Contact Information:
Chris Haugen
Chief of Police
433 Cherry Street / P.O. Box 9
Sumas, WA 98295
(360) 988-5711
Chamber President Ron Fadden & City Chamber Members
433 Cherry Street / P.O. Box 9
Sumas, WA 98295
(360) 988-5711
Presence of Hazards
Present?
Hazard
Earthquake
(yes, if checked)
Flooding
Geologic Hazards
Severe Storm




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.
Severe
Volcano – the City is at risk of a Mount Baker lahar.
178 Facility Name
American Legion Hall
Critical Facility List
Facility Type
Emergency Services
Location
134 Harrison Avenue
Evacuation Center
1024 Lawson Street
High School - District 506
Evacuation Center
Utility: Water
9700 May Road
Middle School - District 506
Evacuation Center
Sumas City Hall
Law Enforcement
433 Cherry Street
Sumas City Reservoir
Utility: Water
205 Washington Street
Sumas City Wellfield
Utility: Water
3670 Kneuman Road
Puget Sound Energy
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
Law Enforcement
109 Cherry Street
Fuel
4378 Jones Road
Law Enforcement
9648 Garrison Road
May Road Wellfield
Sumas – CBP
Williams Gas Pipeline
U.S. Border Patrol
Geography
Sumas Population – 1,348 (2009 Census)
Sumas Total area, within city limits – 1.84 mi2
Hazard
Earthquake
# Structures
Impacted
Area Affected
764
1.84 mi2
Percent of
Total Area
100%
165
0.976 mi2
69.7%
Geologic Hazards
698
1.279 mi
2
91.4%
Severe Storm
764
1.84 mi2
Flooding
Volcano
554
0.993 mi
179 2
100%
71.0%
Growth Trends
This map displays the UGA for the City of Sumas, as designated by the Whatcom County
Comprehensive Plan.
180 Critical Facility Rankings for the City of Sumas
Facility Name
May Road Wellfield
Facility Type
Utility: Water
Sumas City Wellfield
Total
Hazards
2
Rank
Assessment
1

3
1

2
2

5
2


5
3



5
3

4
3
3
3
5
4
4
5
EQ

GH
SS

Utility: Water


Sumas City Reservoir
Utility: Water

Sumas Water & Lights
Utility: Water




Law Enforcement



Fire Station


Sumas City Hall
Sumas Fire Station
FL
Sumas Police Department
Law Enforcement



Sumas – CBP
Law Enforcement



TSUN
VOL
WF
Williams Gas Pipeline
Fuel




American Legion Hall
Emergency Services




Evacuation Center





5
5
Evacuation Center




4
5
Middle School - District 506
Evacuation Center




4
5
Sumas Senior Center
Evacuation Center





5
5
Puget Sound Energy
Utility: Power





5
6
Law Enforcement




4
6
U.S. Border Patrol

Notes:
181 CITY OF SUMAS’ HAZARD MITIGATION STRATEGIES AND PROJECTS
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.
suggesting specific activities that agencies, organizations, and residents in the City of Sumas
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:
Funding source:
Timeline:
Sumas Public Works Department
Local funds
3 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:
Funding source:
Timeline:
City of Sumas
Within 10 years
182 Fire Station - This building is subject to flooding. A new facility should be constructed outside
the floodplain.
Responsible entity:
Funding source:
Timeline:
Whatcom County Fire District # 14
Within 10 years
Flood Corridor Residential Buy-Out - Sumas’ 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:
Funding source:
Timeline:
City of Sumas
Within 30 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:
Funding source:
Timeline:
WA State Department of Transportation
Within 10 years
Sumas Avenue Replacement - In a large flood, Sumas Avenue is a major impediment to water
flow. Sumas Avenue runs north/south and flood waters need to cross it to escape from the City
of Sumas. Sumas Avenue currently can act as a barrier to water flow as it sits higher than the
surrounding property. The street should be torn out and lowered so as to allow water to flow
more freely.
Responsible entity:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
City of Sumas
State or Federal Grants
Within ten (10) years.
The City of Sumas will use the following three criteria to prioritize mitigation projects. The
criteria are listed in order of importance:
1.
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.
183 2.
Cost – A project must be affordable and must return reasonable benefits in comparison
to the cost.
3.
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.
following text:

Since the 2004 Plan, the City of Sumas has revised the list of critical facilities. The
184 185 186 Whatcom County Contact Information:
Doug Dahl
Deputy Director
Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office, Division of Emergency
Management
311 Grand Avenue
(360) 337-6760676-6681
County Executive Pete Kremen & County Council Members
311 Grand Avenue, Suite 308
(360) 676-6717
Presence of Hazards
Present?
Hazard
Earthquake
(yes, if checked)
Flooding
Geologic Hazards
Severe Storm
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 land clearing operations around Lake
Whatcom have caused severe flooding due to runoff.
Geologic Hazards – multiple areas around the county are at risk of landslides due to unstable
geologic conditions.
Severe Storm – Whatcom County is subject to severe storms year-round.
Tsunami – portions of the county exposed to the western straits are at risk of tsunami damage,
specifically the area around Sandy Point, Lummi Peninsula, and the Nooksack and Lummi River
deltas and floodplain upstream to Ferndale.
Volcano – many of the populated areas are at risk in the event of a volcanic eruption from
Mount Baker and associated lahars.
Wildland Fire – certain Communities at Risk have been identified, as well as levels of fire risk.
187 Whatcom County Critical Facility List
Facility Name
Facility Type
Evergreen Water & Sewer District
Utility: Water
Location
Maple Falls
Lummi Law & Order
Law Enforcement
Lummi Reservation
Nooksack Police Department.
Law Enforcement
Deming
Northwest Water Works, Inc.
Utility: Water
Bellingham
Pole Road Water Association
Utility: Water
Lynden
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 – Bellingham
Utility: Water
Bellingham
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
Bellingham
Water District #13 – Maple Falls
Utility: Water
Maple Falls
Water District #14 – Glacier
Utility: Water
Bellingham
Water District #18 – Acme
Utility: Water
Acme
Fuel
4519 Grandview Road
Birch Bay Water and Sewer (District 8)
Utility: Water
7096 Pt. Whitehorn Road
Utility: Water
2701 Bell Road
Olympic Coordination Center
3888 Sound Way
Schools: Districts 501, 503, 505, 507
Geography
Whatcom County Population – 200,434 (2009 Census)
Population of Unincorporated Area – 83,911 (Estimate 4/1/2008)
Whatcom County Total area – 2,120 mi2
Whatcom County Incorporated area – 95.4 mi2
Whatcom County Unincorporated area – 2,024.6 mi2
Accurate calculations of areas affected by hazards were unavailable because much of the
hazard data only involved the populated western half of the county.
188 Growth Trends
This map displays the UGA for all the jurisdictions in Whatcom County, as designated by the
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan.
189 Critical Facility Rankings for Whatcom County
Facility Name
Seattle City Light-Dams
Facility Type
Utility: Power
Utility: Water
Lummi Law & Order
Law Enforcement
FL
EQ

GH



SS

TSUN
VOL




WF
Total
Hazards
2
Rank
Assessment
1

3
2
6
2

Utility: Water


2
2
Utility: Water


2
2
EOC


3
2
Search & Rescue

Fire Protection Districts (38 Total)
Fire Station
2
Utility: Water


Utility: Water


Utility: Water


Utility: Water



Utility: Water



Utility: Water


Utility: Water
Utility: Water

Evacuation Center
2
2
3
2
2
2

4
2

5
2
2
2
5
2

2
2


2
3
Evacuation Center


3
3
Nooksack Police Department
Law Enforcement


2
3
Evacuation Center


2
4
Evacuation Center


2
4
Evacuation Center


5
4
EOC


3
5
Olympic Coordination Center












Notes:
190 WHATCOM COUNTY’S HAZARD MITIGATION STRATEGIES AND PROJECTS
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.
suggesting specific activities that agencies, organizations, and residents in Whatcom County
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
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
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:
geological hazard.
191 Tsunamis
and the jurisdictions within than 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
explored. There is more Tsunami mitigation plan information contained within the Tsunami
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
developed to address Whatcom County’s fire hazards:



Inter-Agency Cooperation
County-wide Wildland Fire Prevention
Wildland/Urban Interface Communities at Risk
More information and details can be found in the Wildland Fire section of this Plan.
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 in priority to flooding are all earthquakerelated projects.
following text:

Since the 2004 Plan, Whatcom County has revised the list of critical facilities. The
192 193 194 195 Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Contact Information:
Paula Cooper
River and Flood Manager
Whatcom County Public Works
322 N Commercial Street, Suite 120
(360) 676-6876
County Executive Pete Kremen & Whatcom County Council
Members, acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone
District Board of Supervisors
311 Grand Avenue, Suite 308
(360) 676-6717
Presence of Hazards
Present?
Hazard
Earthquake
(yes, if checked)
Flooding
Geologic Hazards
Severe Storms
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
having caused major slides that impacted ground transportation.
Flooding – the Nooksack River, its upstream forks and coastal areas are subject to flooding.
Geologic Hazards – various areas around the county are at risk of landslides and numerous
alluvial fans are subject to debris flows and associated flooding.
Severe Storm – The Whatcom County FCZD is subject to severe storms year-round.
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.
196 Wildland Fire – certain Communities at Risk have been identified, as well as levels of fire risk.
Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Critical Facility List
Facility Name
Facility Type
Utility: Water
Location
Maple Falls
Lummi Law & Order
Law Enforcement
Bellingham
Law Enforcement
Deming
Utility: Water
Bellingham
Utility: Water
Lynden
Evacuation Centers
10 Schools Total
Search & Rescue
EOC
Bellingham
Seattle City Light
Utility: Power
Newhalem
Fire Protection District – 38 Total
Fire Station
Various
Utility: Water
Bellingham
Utility: Water
Bellingham
Utility: Water
Point Roberts
Utility: Water
Bellingham
Utility: Water
Bellingham
Utility: Water
Maple Falls
Utility: Water
Bellingham
Utility: Water
Acme
Fuel
4519 Grandview Road
Birch Bay Water and Sewer (District 8)
Utility: Water
7096 Pt. Whitehorn Road
Utility: Water
2701 Bell Road
Geography
Whatcom County Population – 200,434 (2009 Census)
Population of Unincorporated Area – 83,911 (Estimate 4/1/2008)
Whatcom County Total area – 2,120 mi2
Whatcom County Incorporated area – 95.4 mi2
Whatcom County Unincorporated area – 2,024.6 mi2
Accurate calculations of areas affected by hazards were unavailable because much of the
hazard data only involved the populated western half of the county.
197 Growth Trends
This map displays the UGA for all the jurisdictions within the Whatcom County FCZD, as
designated by the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan.
198 Critical Facility Rankings for Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District
Facility Name
Seattle City Light Dams
Facility Type
Utility: Power
Birch Bay Water & Sewer District 8 (District 8)
Utility: Water

Utility: Water

Utility: Water

Fire Protection District–38 Total
Fire Station
Lummi Law & Order
Law Enforcement
FL
EQ

GH
SS

TSUN
VOL
WF
Total
Hazards
2
Rank
Assessment
1

2
2
2
2
3
2



2






6
2
Utility: Water


2
2
Utility: Water


2
2
EOC


3
2
Water District #10–Geneva/Sudden Valley
Utility: Water


2
2
Water District #12–Lake Samish
Utility: Water


3
2
Water District #13–Maple Falls
Utility: Water


2
2
Water District #14–Glacier
Utility: Water




4
2
Water District #18–Acme
Utility: Water




5
2
Water District #2-Bellingham
Utility: Water


2
2
Water District #7-Bellingham
Utility: Water
5
2
Water District #4–Point Roberts
Utility: Water

2
2
Fuel

2
3
Law Enforcement

2
3
Search & Rescue











Evacuation Centers
4
Notes:
199 WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT’S HAZARD MITIGATION
STRATEGIES AND PROJECTS
mitigation goals for future planning within the Whatcom County FCZD. The FCZD works
collaboratively with Whatcom County government in implementing the mitigation strategies and
projects.
Hazard mitigation strategies are provided to increase the level of safety of the citizens of
Whatcom County, lessen the impacts to their property, including public infrastructure and to
protect the environment from the effects of natural and man-made disasters within the Whatcom
County FCZD.
suggesting specific activities that agencies, organizations, and residents in Whatcom County
makers in pursuing strategies for implementation. Additional details are included in the
Mitigation Section of this Plan.
Following the potential projects is a description of the District’s prioritization for implementation.
Earthquake
The FCZD will support Whatcom County in responding to any flood-related impacts that could
result from an earthquake.
Flooding
The Mitigation strategies and recommendations for all five reaches of the Nooksack River and
other areas prone to flooding are explored in the Flooding section of this Plan. The River and
Flood Division, Whatcom County Public Works has published a CFHMP for the Lower Nooksack
River which details these projects. This plan was prepared for the Whatcom County FCZD and
was adopted by the District’s Board of Supervisors.
Geologic Hazards
In general, the following steps should be implemented in conjunction with Whatcom County to
reduce risk of the four geologic hazards – alluvial fans, coalmines, landslides, and seismic
hazards – affecting the Whatcom County FCZD:
geological hazard.
200 Tsunamis
FCZD and the jurisdictions within than 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 FCZD. With the increased data public education about the specific
threats needs to be 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, the volcano that lies within the Whatcom County FCZD. 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
developed to address fire hazards within the District:
1. Inter-Agency Cooperation
2. County-wide Wildland Fire Prevention
3. WUI (Wildland/Urban Interface) Communities at Risk
The FCZD will coordinate with Whatcom County and the State to address flood-related impacts
associated with wildland fires. More information and details can be found in the Wildland Fire
Whatcom County FCZD chose to prioritize its hazard mitigation strategies according to hazard,
not by specific facilities.
The District is currently very involved with flood hazard mitigation and will continue with flooding
as the primary mitigation project priority. Flood-related mitigation related to geological hazards
is also a District priority.
201 Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District Contact Information:
Rich Munson
Engineering Technician / Safety Officer
1220 Lakeway Drive
(360) 296-4590
Patrick Sorensen
General Manager
1220 Lakeway Drive
(360) 734-9224
Presence of Hazards
Present?
Hazard Present?
(yes, if checked)
Earthquake

Flooding

Geologic Hazards

Severe Storm

Tsunami
Volcano
Wildland Fire

Hazard Descriptions
Earthquake – Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District is prone to earthquake impacts on mains
and reservoirs
Severe Storm – Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District is subject to severe storms yearround.
Flooding – areas within the district are subject to flooding from various creeks and lake levels.
Wildland Fire –homes in the Sudden Valley, Geneva and Northshore neighborhoods are in
wooded areas, which can be at risk to seasonal wildland fire danger.
202 Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District Critical Facility List
Facility Name
Facility Type
Location
Reservoir Tanks
Utility: Water
7 Reservoirs Total
Pump Station
Utility: Water
Lift Station
Utility: Sewer
Utility: Water
2 Treatment Plant Total
Maintenance Shop
EOC
Geneva
Well Heads
Utility: Water
3 Well Heads Total
Geography
Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District Population – 10,000
Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District area – 18 sq. mi.
Hazard
Earthquake
# Structures
Impacted
Area Affected
54
18 sq. mi.
Percent of Total
100 %
Flooding
54
18 sq. mi.
100 %
Severe Storm
54
18 sq. mi.
100 %
Wildland Fire
54
18 sq. mi.
100 %
203 Growth Trends
This map displays the UGA for the City of Bellingham, as designated by the LWWSD
Comprehensive Plan
204 Critical Facility Rankings for the Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District
Facility Name
Facility
Type
EF
FL
EQ
X
Maintenance Shop & EOC
EF
X
Water Reservoirs
EF
X
Sewer Lift Station
EF
Water Pump Station
EF
X
GH
X
X
X
X
X
WF
X
Total
Hazards
4
Rank
Assessment
1
X
X
3
1
X
X
4
2
X
X
4
3
X
X
4
4
SS
X
TSUN
VOL
Notes:
205 LAKE WHATCOM WATER AND SEWER DISTRICTHAZARD MITIGATION STRATEGIES
AND PROJECTS
for future planning within Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District.
Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District is currently in the process of updating the 2008
Emergency Preparedness Plan.
Responsible Entity:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
LWWSD Board of Commission
Current and ongoing
Responsible Entity:
Funding Source:
Timeline:
LWWSD Board of Commission
Current and ongoing
Earthquake
The District owns several buildings. Seismic studies need to be done on these buildings to
Currently the District’s Maintenance Office is being remodeled for seismic activity.
206 Section 4. Plan Maintenance
Annual Review and Updates to the 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 DEM prior to each annual public meeting.
By adopting the Plan, jurisdictions will notify the Whatcom County DEM of status updates
regarding assets, mitigation planning, or general updates that occur during the 5-year cycle for
the subsequent Plan update. If necessary, a public meeting will be held 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 WSHMO following each annual review. The annual
reviews by each jurisdiction and the public meeting will conclude by November 30 each year.
The DEM will facilitate the review process.
Major Plan Update and Plan Reviews
A major update to the Plan will be performed and published every 5 years. It will contain all
changes in strategy, identified hazards, and 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 the DEM. A copy of the updated Plan will be delivered to the WSHMO for
approval and forwarding to FEMA, 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.
As changes are made to other plans, the plan will be used to review them for consistency, and
changes will be incorporated into other plans as necessitated by review and up date of this plan.
The next 5-year update will be delivered to the WSHMO within 30 days following December 31,
2015.
November 2010
Date
Product
Plan submitted for approval
March 2011
Plan Resubmitted to DEM with Changes
August 2011
Plan Approved by FEMA Region X
August 2012
First annual review/update
August 2013
Second annual review/update
August 2014
Third annual review/update
August 2015
Fourth annual review/update
January thru December 2015
Major Plan Update and resubmission
207 Appendix A Capabilities Identification Legal & Regulatory Tools
Yes/No
Jurisdictional Capabilities
Comprehensive Plan
Yes
Capital Facilities Element
Yes
Community Plans Element
Yes
Economic Development Element
Yes
Environmental & Critical Areas Element
Yes
Housing Element
Yes
Land Use Element
Yes
Rural Element
Yes
Siting Essential Facilities Element
Yes
Transportation Element
Yes
Utilities Element
Yes
County Code
Yes
Building/Fire Code
Yes
Critical Areas
Yes
Design Standards
Yes
Road/Bridge Design Standards
Yes
Shoreline Regulations
Yes
Site Development
Yes
Storm Water Regulations
Yes
Subdivision/Platting
Yes
Zoning
Yes
Critical Areas Regulations
Yes
Flood Hazards
Yes
Geologic Hazards
Yes
Landslide Hazards
Yes
Seismic Hazards
Yes
Sever Storm Hazards
Yes
Tsunami Hazards
Yes
Volcanic hazards
Yes
Wildland/Urban Fire Hazards
Yes
1 Comments
County Acquisition Authority
Yes
Real Estate Disclosure
Yes
Administrative Tools
County Executive (elected official)
Yes
County Council (elected officials)
Yes
Sheriff (elected official)
Yes
Auditor (elected official)
Yes
Treasurer (elected official)
Yes
Assessor (elected official)
Yes
Community Services
Yes
Cooperative Extension
Yes
Housing Programs
Yes
Prevention Services
Yes
Yes
Emergency Manager
Yes
Emergency Medical Services
Yes
Fire Prevention Services
Yes
Radio Communications
Yes
911 System
Yes
Facilities Management
Yes
Building Improvement Projects
Yes
Real Estate Excise Tax
Yes
Property Management
Yes
Information Services
Yes
Geographical Information Services
Yes
Internet Services
Yes
Web Based Notification Systems
Yes
Informational Web Sites
Yes
Web EOC Utilization
Yes
Government TV Access
Yes
Safety Fairs
Yes
Risk Management
Yes
Worker’s Compensation
Yes
Worker Safety
Yes
2 Planning & Land Services
Yes
Planning
Yes
Building Official
Yes
Planning Commission
Board of Adjustment/Hearing Examiner
Chamber of Commerce
County Web Site
Commercial Fire Safety/Code Inspection
Economic Development Board
Engineers
Surveyors
Public Works
Regional Capabilities
Hazard Mitigation Planning Team
Local Business Districts
Local Emergency Management
Local Fire Agencies
Mutual Aid With Others
Local Law Enforcement
Mutual Aid With Others
Federal Agencies (DHS)
Local Hospital
Neighborhood Associations
Local Emergency Training (CERT)
Local Newspaper
Local Utilities
Adjacent Counties
Animal Rescue
American Red Cross
Port of Bellingham
Cross-Border Coordination
Technical Capabilities
Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
Hazardous Materials Plan
National Flood Insurance Program
Pandemic Flu Plan
Baker/Glacier Peak Plan
Emergency Operations Center
Emergency Operations Plans
Fiscal Capabilities
Ability to Levy Taxes
Authority to Issue Bonds
Fees For Services
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
3 General Funds
Impact Fees
Yes
Yes
4 Appendix B List of Acronyms and Abbreviations B.C.
British Columbia
Cascades
The Cascade Range
CFHMP
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CRS
Community Rating System
CSZ
Cascadia Subduction Zone
CTP
Cooperating Technical Partners
CWPP
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
DEM
Division of Emergency Management
EMD
Emergency Management Division
EOC
Emergency Operations Center
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
FCZD
Flood Control Zone District
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FR
Federal Regulation
GIS
Geographic Information Systems
GMA
Growth Management Act
HIVA
Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis
HMGP
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
I-5
Interstate 5
IBC
International Building Code
IFPL
Industrial Fire Precaution Level
LF
Linear Feet
LiDAR
Light Detection and Ranging
MLLW
Mean Lower Low Water
MOST
Method of Splitting Tsunami
mph
miles per hour
NEHRP
National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program
NFIP
National Flood Insurance Program
NFPA
National Fire Protection Association
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association
1 NTHMP
National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program
NW
Northwest
PDM
Pre-Disaster Mitigation
Plan
Whatcom County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan
PUD
Public Utility District
RAMS
Risk Assessment and Mitigation Strategy
RFL
Repetitive Flood Loss Property
SR
State Route
TIME
Tsunami Inundation Mapping Effort
UGA
Urban Growth Area
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S.C.
U.S. Code
USGS
U.S. Geological Society
WDFW
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WDNR
Washington Department of Natural Resources
WSDOT
Washington State Department of Transportation
WTA
Whatcom Transportation Authority
WSHMO
Washington State Hazard Mitigation Officer
WUI
Wildland/Urban Interface
2 Appendix C Whatcom County Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis Whatcom County Hazard
Identification and
Vulnerability Analysis
August 2010 1 History of Review
Date
June 2009
August 2010
Changes Made
Name
Major revisions proposed to
content and format.
Whatcom Unified EM review and
revision. Plan posted.
WWU review team: Casey Proctor, Sam
Ripley, and James White
Andy Day
Introduction
The processes of Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis (HIVA) serve as a
foundation for the development of strategies in emergency management and risk reduction.
Using a HIVA can also stand as a means for allocating resources, and for helping set priorities and
standards in ensuring the safety of the public. Hazard identification is the systematic use of all
available information to determine what types of natural or technological/man-made hazards may
affect a jurisdiction, and how often these events can occur/have occurred in the past.
Vulnerability analysis is the process used to determine the impact these events and their
secondary effects may have on people, the environment, and economy.
Purpose
The purpose of this Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis is to provide information
concerning natural and technological hazards that have the potential to disrupt large areas or
populations within Whatcom County. It serves as a basis for county-level emergency management
plans, and programs focused on local hazards. The HIVA is the foundation for the
emergency/disaster management process: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery.
The information presented in the following pages has been developed from many sources. This
document is presented as a general overview of the topics addressed and is not intended as an indepth study of any particular hazard. It should be further understood that the hazards presented
are not the only potential threats to Whatcom County. The natural and technological frameworks
that produce these hazards are dynamic. Conditions will change, requiring future modifications to
this Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis. Individual sections within the HIVA are
organized alphabetically, and provide brief but concise information. Further details can be found
through definitions, county demographics, and links to other sources in the Appendix section.
Background
Whatcom County has experienced significant impacts from natural hazards, including but not
limited to floods, storms, forest fires, and earthquakes. In addition to natural hazards, there are
technological/man-made hazards such as dam failures, hazardous material spills, and terrorism.
All of these require assessment and delineation by officials in order to organize resources, so
that losses can be minimized or prevented.
2 Whatcom County Overview
To identify and understand the hazards in Whatcom County, its defining aspects must be taken
into account. Understanding not only the geography, weather, industries and incomes, but also
the environmental and political stance of the population provides an idea of Whatcom County’s
unique characteristics.
Distinguishing County Features

Located in the northwest corner of the state, as well as the northwest corner of the
United States.

Bordered on north with Province of British Columbia, Canada.

Eastern border area composed of National Forest and the North Cascade Mountain
Range.

Bordered on west by waters of the Strait of Georgia, a deep-water ship transit.

Portions of county completely unconnected to the rest of the United States mainland:
Point Roberts, Lummi Island, Eliza Island.

No western Whatcom County roads to eastern Whatcom County border.
3 Overview of County Hazards - Hazard Risk Level Matrix
Table 1. Hazard Risk Level Matrix
Priority Areas
1. Life Safety
Hazards
Earthquake
Hazardous Materials Release
Dam Failure
Landslide
Avalanche
Flood
Severe Strom
Conflagration
Terrorist Attack
Volcano
Tsunami/Seiche
Supply Chain Disruption
Tidal Overflow/Coastal Flood
Drought
2. Critical Facilities
3. Property Damage
Weighted Average
Overall Risk Level
4. Probability of
Occurrence
Qualitative
Description
Numerical
Equivalent
Qualitative
Description
Numerical
Equivalent
Qualitative
Description
Numerical
Equivalent
Qualitative
Description
Numerical
Equivalen
Qualitative
Description
Numerical
Equivalent
Catastrophic
Catastrophic
Catastrophic
Catastrophic
Critical
Negligible
Limited
Critical
Catastrophic
Catastrophic
Critical
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
4
4
4
4
3
1
2
3
4
4
3
1
1
1
Catastrophic
Limited
Catastrophic
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Limited
Limited
Limited
Limited
Limited
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
4
2
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Critical
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Limited
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Limited
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
Negligible
Critical
Negligible
Critical
Critical
Catastrophic
Critical
Limited
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Critical
Critical
Limited
1
3
1
3
3
4
3
2
1
1
1
3
3
2
Critical
Critical
Critical
Critical
Critical
Critical
Critical
Critical
Critical
Critical
Limited
Limited
Limited
Limited
2.83
2.69
2.47
2.47
2.2
2.17
2.15
2.09
2.03
2.03
1.94
1.66
1.66
1.33
Table 2. Qualitative Risk Level Statistics Matrix
Priority Areas
Hazard
Risk Levels
Priority 1: Life Safety
(Including hazard areas and
high risk populations)
Priority 2: Critical Facilities
(Communication, Utilities and
Transportation Systems
Shutdown of critical facilities
and services for 24 hours or
less
Priority 3: Property Damage
Priority 4: Probability of Occurrence
Less than 10 percent of property
severely damaged
One incident likely every 50 or more
years
Negligible
Injuries and/or illness treatable
with first aid
Limited
Injuries and/or illnesses do not
result in permanent disability
Complete shutdown of critical
facilities for more than 1 week
More than 10 percent of property
is severely damaged
One incident likely within 11-49 year
period
Critical
Injuries and/or illnesses result
in permanent disability or
possible death
facilities for at least 2 weeks
is severely damaged
One incident likely within 1-10 year
period
Catastrophic
Multiple deaths
facilities for 30 days or more
severely damaged
One incident likely to occur annually
4 Table 3. Calculation of Overall Risk Level
Priority
Priority Area
Weighting
Priority 1: Life Safety
0.27
Priority 2: Critical Facilities
0.22
Priority 3: Property Damage
0.18
Priority 4: Probability of Occurrence
0.33
Sum of Weights: Should Remain at One
1
Figure 1. Qualitative Description and Numerical Equivalent If Numerical Equivalent for Overall Risk Level is: Greater than 0, Less than or equal to 1 = Negligible Greater than 1, Less than or equal to 2 = Limited Greater than 2, Less than or equal to 3 = Critical Greater than 3, less than or equal to 4 = Catastrophic Hazard Overviews
The following pages include brief descriptions of the hazards affecting Whatcom County. Listed
in alphabetical order, each description covers a definition, summary, history of the hazard in the
county, and an assessment of hazard probability
These descriptions can be seen as an expansion of the vulnerabilities to priority areas and
hazard probabilities quantified in the Hazard Risk Level Matrix.
5 Avalanches
Definition
A large mass of snow, ice, earth, rock, or other material in swift motion down a mountainside or
over a precipice.
Summary
Whatcom County has remote mountainous sections which receive high levels of snowfall during
winter months. The maritime snowpack is traditionally deep, dense and prone to avalanches.
Whatcom County is also a popular destination for winter recreationalists increasing the
population exposure to avalanche.
Hazard Impacts
Avalanche incidents are primarily isolated to specific backcountry user groups. Mountainous
roads, however, are susceptible to avalanches, in particular Hwy 542 (Mt. Baker Hwy) and Hwy
20. Hwy 20 is closed during most of the avalanche season; however, a large avalanche
obstructing Hwy 542 has the potential to isolate hundreds to thousands at the Mt. Baker Ski
Resort with limited services.
Recent History in Whatcom County
 2009 - One skier caught and partially buried with broken leg on Table Mountain near Mt.
Baker Ski Resort. Helicopter lift off mountain.

2009 - Mt. Baker Hwy. closed due to avalanche activity near town of Glacier.

2008 - Five snowmobilers caught, three buried, two die near Church Mountain.

2006 - Skier caught, buried and killed near Mt. Herman.

2005 - Two snowboarders caught, buried and revived after 15 minutes.

2004 - Six burials, three deaths in 2004 season, all within 5 miles of Mt. Baker Ski
Resort.
Risk Assessment Critical
As most of Whatcom County is below the seasonal snowline, risk of avalanche incident is
mainly limited to winter recreationalists. The threat to life from avalanches is extreme and
Whatcom County traditionally will average at least one fatality a year due to avalanches.
6 Coastal Flooding / Tidal Overflow
Definition
Marine inundation which exceeds normal sea level or expected tidal levels.
Summary
Coastal Flooding can occur in different iterations. Storm surges and tsunamis are examples of
rapid onset inundations, which would occur with limited warning and preparation time. Longer
term coastal flooding can be attributed to factors like sea level and mean tidal level rise.
Hazard Impacts
Coastal inundations can be very dangerous, especially considering the high value and
subsequent density along coastal properties. The north county coast contains residential
properties as well as major industry like refineries and shipping, all of which would be displaced
by coastal hazards. The washout of roads is potentially the most problematic impact, as it would
hinder rescue attempts and slow the process of recovery. Large amounts of debris can be
deposited by coastal floods, including logs, driftwood, sand, and anything carried inland from the
immediate shoreline.
December 15, 2000 - Sandy Point coastal flooding (tidal overflow) on the westerly shore of this
peninsula was caused by high northwest winds exceeding 60 knots, and a high tide of over 8
feet. Waves broke on the shoreline and over the bulkheads. Water threw debris including logs,
gravel, and sand into homes and onto Sucia Drive. Damages totaled $750,000.
Risk: Limited
Much of coastal Whatcom County is low elevation, especially the Sandy Point and Lummi
areas, and would be directly exposed to tidal surges from storms, sea level rise caused by
climate change, or tsunamis of even minor strength. However, it is likely that less than 10
percent of the property in Whatcom County will be damaged. Bellingham sits high enough to be
affected only in harbor and marina areas, and many other areas are far enough inland to be
mitigated from coastal flooding.
7 Conflagration
Definition
Uncontrolled burning that threatens life, property, or the environment.
Summary
Conflagrations may occur in wildland areas, urban areas, or in the area in between known as
the interface. These large fires may start due to human activity or natural causes including
lightning and earthquakes. A defining characteristic of a conflagration is that available fire
suppression resources are inadequate to control the number or size of fires.
Hazard Impacts
Urban and interface conflagrations can put lives and property at risk, while wildland
conflagrations can burn over large areas of valuable timberland and field crops.
 June 1999 – Gasoline leaked from a pipeline, ignited and caused an interface fire that
killed 3, destroyed a home, and heavily damaged a park.

August 1994 – Lightning strike on Sumas Mountain ignited a wildfire, burning twelve
acres and approximately 40-50 thousand board feet of timber.

August 1992 – 200 federal and county firefighters battled a 40-acre lightning blaze east
of Deming.
Risk: Critical
Conflagrations are rare in modern, developed cities, but could happen after an earthquake or
hazardous materials release. In the case of an earthquake, simultaneous ignitions, fed by
natural gas, could quickly overwhelm fire resources and can be expected to damage the power
distribution network. Wildland and interface fires are a concern due to the amount of forested
lands as well as the location of residential areas, such as Sudden Valley, within forested areas.
The risk of wildland/interface conflagration is mitigated by the high moisture conditions normally
present in the county; however, risk becomes elevated during periods of drought or high heat.
8 Dam Failure
Definition
The uncontrolled release of impounded water resulting in downstream flooding, which can affect
life and property.
Summary
There are many dams for many different purposes throughout Whatcom County: Nooksack
Diversion Dam which shunts water to Lake Whatcom from the South Fork of the Nooksack
River; dams for waste water reservoirs; flood-control dams; lakes dammed for recreational
purposes; and hydroelectric projects on the Baker and Skagit Rivers. Dam failures can be
caused by flooding, earthquakes, volcanic eruption, blockages, landslides, lack of maintenance,
improper operation, poor construction, vandalism, or terrorism.
Hazard Impacts
A failure of a dam can have many effects such as loss of life and damage to structures, roads,
utilities, crops, and the environment. Economic losses also can result from a lowered tax base
and interruption of electrical power production.
There are no known occurrences of dam failures in Whatcom County.
Risk: Critical
With regular dam inspection, maintenance, and repair, the risk of dam failure is low. However, if
a geologic or terrorist event precipitated a failure, the effects could be dire on the downstream
residents in addition to the loss of critical infrastructure.
9 Drought
Definition
An extended period of months or years when a region notes a deficiency in its water supply.
Generally, this occurs when a region receives consistently below average precipitation.
Summary
Droughts can be difficult to identify due to their typical long length. A drought’s impact may not
materialize for several years of less than average precipitation, or sudden droughts can have
quick impacts if there is an extremely dry year or season. Near the beginning of a drought the
agricultural sector is usually the first to be impacted. Although Whatcom County is traditionally a
wet maritime climate there is potential and history of dry periods.
Hazard Impacts
Droughts can have impacts on nearly everyone in a community. A lack of water reduces
irrigation capabilities of farmers limiting the crop yield for the season/year and, critically, may
reduce the availability of drinking water in the Lake Whatcom reservoir. Low water may also
affect fishers, both recreational and commercial, as several native species require cooler waters
to survive. Electricity prices can increase during a drought event due to the lack of hydroelectric
capabilities of dams. Droughts can also increase vulnerability to other hazards such as fires and
ecological epidemics.
 2010 – Mandatory water restrictions imposed across the City of Bellingham.

2001 – Governor Gary Locke declares statewide drought emergency.
history for a state in the Pacific Northwest.

1977 – Severe drought conditions existed statewide, lowest precipitation, snowpack and
stream flows recorded.

1934-1935 – Longest drought period recorded in Western Washington history.
First time in
Risk: Limited
Severe drought in Whatcom County could have long-reaching effects due to the large amounts
of agriculture and fishery as well as usage of hydro-electric power, though the County’s typically
wet climate prevents impacts from being as severe as they would be in drier counties.
10 Earthquake
Definition
A violent shaking of the earth's crust that results from the sudden release of tectonic stress
along a fault line or from volcanic activity and may cause destruction to buildings.
Summary
Earthquakes present a unique and complex challenge for a community. Whatcom County is
located in an earthquake prone area with several geologic features, including abandoned mines,
which amplify the potential impacts of an earthquake. Magnitude of earthquakes can range
from not noticeable by people to large ground ruptures.
Hazard Impacts
Earthquakes can affect nearly all structures in a community, as well as roads and bridges.
Tsunamis, seiches, liquefaction, water depletion, fires, landslides, and disrupted or reduced
communication, electrical power, and transportation services are all potential impacts of an
earthquake.
Date
Location
Magnitude
Type
2001
Nisqually/Puget Sound
6.8
Benioff Zone
1996
Duvall
5.6
--
1995
Robinson Point
5.0
Crustal Zone
1990
NW Cascades
5.0
Crustal Zone
1981
Mt. St. Helens
5.5
Crustal Zone
1965
Puget Sound
6.5
Benioff Zone
1949
Olympia
7.1
Benioff Zone
Risk: Moderate - Critical
Due to its proximity to the Cascadia Subduction Zone, Whatcom County is vulnerable to the
catastrophic effects of a great earthquake (magnitude 8.0 or greater). The risk of a high
magnitude earthquake affecting Whatcom County is limited and return periods for large
subduction zone earthquakes are generally believed to be on the order of 300-700 years.
11 Epidemic / Disease
Definition
Impairment of health or a condition of abnormal functioning, over a limited population (outbreak)
to an extreme range (pandemic).
Summary
Outbreaks of disease can occur in many forms, being distinguished by the characteristics of
each type of infection. In addition to the physical maladies brought on by a particular disease,
epidemics can induce panic and paranoia in uninfected members of a population. The most
common infection cited in outbreaks is influenza, or the flu virus.
Hazard Impacts
Influenza pandemics are remarkable events that can rapidly infect virtually all countries. The
severity of disease and the number of deaths caused by a pandemic may vary greatly, but may
reach 25-35% of the total population. Large surges in the number of people seeking medical
attention may be expected along with increased absenteeism across all sectors.
 2009-2010 – H1N1 Worldwide Pandemic. Extensive countywide coordination of disease
response efforts.

1993 – Outbreak of measles centered on the campus of Western Washington University.
13 cases reported, no fatalities.
Risk: Critical
Given the unpredictable behavior of influenza viruses, neither the timing nor the severity of the
next pandemic can be predicted with any certainty. However, with the arrival of a pandemic,
increased risk to life safety should be anticipated.
12 Flood
Definition
An inundation of land with water; when the carrying capacity of a body of water is exceeded.
Summary
Whatcom County is set in a coastal maritime environment where heavy rains are fairly common.
Flooding is the most common natural hazard in Whatcom County and the Nooksack River the
most common source. Surface flooding and flash flooding are possible in heavy storm events.
Hazard Impacts
Flooding can occur nearly everywhere; however, the highest vulnerability lies within defined
floodplains. Human life is rarely threatened by flooding; however, physical structures can
sustain costly damages. Flooding can also increase the chances of landslides and outbreaks of
disease.
 2009 – Presidential declaration of disaster in Whatcom County due to flood inundation
around lowlands and along Nooksack River.

1990 – Nooksack River Floods 3.4 feet above flood stage, stretches into southern B.C.

1983 – Heavy rains cause surface flooding and led to landslides along the north
shoreline of Lake Whatcom.

1982 – Federal disaster declared due to severe storms coinciding with high tides.
Risk: Critical
Modern flood events are usually predicted well ahead of time and offer little threat to human life.
Property damage is typically isolated to within established floodplains, where there are no
critical facilities. Flooding is a nearly annual event in Whatcom County. Heavy rainstorms in the
fall and winter along with the deep seasonal snowpack create an environment in which some
flooding is almost an annual certainty.
13 Hazardous Materials Release
Definition
The release of a substance that has the capability to hurt or harm the things it touches.
Summry
Over ten billion pounds of hazardous materials are shipped, stored, processed, or manufactured
in, or through, Whatcom County each year. Natural hazards can readily and easily complicate
the transportation and management of hazardous materials.
Hazard Impacts
Uncontrolled releases of hazardous materials can result in a variety of impacts ranging from
injuries and death to workers, responders and civilians; damage to critical infrastructure, and
damage to the environment.
 June 1999 – Gasoline from a ruptured pipeline ignited and caused a fireball to explode
down Whatcom Creek, killing three (also cited under Fires).

August 1995 – Seven people were injured when a liquid oxygen tanker truck overturned
on Interstate 5 in Bellingham.
Risk: Critical
The risk of a Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) incident in Whatcom County is significant.
Whatcom County is not considered very vulnerable to radiological hazards, but is more
vulnerable to release of hazardous materials generated within the county or transported along
rail and road.
14 Landslide
Definition
The sliding movement of masses of loosened rock and soil down a hillside or slope. Trigger
events can be precipitation, seismic shaking or erosion.
Summary
Landslides in Whatcom County generally occur during or shortly after a heavy rainfall event or
are triggered by a seismic event. There are several areas of steep hillsides throughout the
county which increase the vulnerability to landslides.
Hazard Impacts
Landslides have the ability to destroy houses, roads, and buildings, as well as other
infrastructure. Development on hillsides combined with clear cutting of forests increases the risk
and magnitude of landslides. Landslides can also have indirect impacts such as loss of mobility
due to road closure, economic loss due to road closure and debris clean up.
 2009 – Landslides destroy several houses in Van Zandt area.

1997 – Ground movement on Sumas Mountain resulted in the rupture of a 26-inch
natural gas pipeline that subsequently exploded.

1983 – A large boulder rolled onto railroad tracks near Larrabee State Park and derailed
12 cars of a 66-car northbound Burlington Northern freight train and tumbled the lead
engine into the water.
Risk: Critical
Landslides do not usually pose risks to critical infrastructure in Whatcom County, though the
remediation of rockslides or larger mass movements can be expensive. Landslides also pose
considerable risk to life, though events like rock falls do not usually kill because of their
punctuated occurrence and small area of effect.
Whatcom County’s steep mountainous terrain, complex geology, high precipitation, abundance
of unconsolidated glacial sediments, and inherent tectonic instability all factor into the increased
probability of landslide occurrence. Risks of landslides fluctuate seasonally, though some kind
of mass movement can be expected at high frequency. During periods of intense rain the risk
increases, due to increased soil saturation which causes instability.
15 Severe Storms
Definition
An atmospheric disturbance manifested in strong winds, rain, snow, or other precipitation (hail,
sleet, ice) accompanied by thunder or lightning under certain conditions.
Summary
Severe storm weather can come in many forms, the most common for Whatcom County being
heavy rain and wind during the winter months. Whatcom County experiences blizzards
periodically, though not as commonly as unfrozen or partially frozen precipitation.
Hazard Impacts
Storm actions are the most costly hazard on average, due primarily to their frequent occurrence
and ability to disrupt lifelines such as arteries of transportation and above ground electric lines.
Because the worst storms typically occur during winter months, loss of power/heating can be
dangerous, especially for homes with children or elderly residents. Severe weather also poses
additional risks for the transportation of materials.
 January 2009 - Record rains caused flooding and landslides, resulting in a Presidential
disaster declaration.

December 2008 – Heavy snowfall caused transportation disruptions and resulted in a
Presidential disaster declaration.

December 2000 – Sandy Point storm that caused severe damage to Sandy Point
beachfront homes ($750,000) was a combination of gale force northwest winds, extreme
high tides, and low pressure.

December 1996 – Wind, snow, flooding, and freezing result in landslides, avalanches,
road closures and power outages.
Risk: Critical
Whatcom County’s location and geography leave it susceptible to heavy storm activity. Coastal
systems move in relatively easily and release most of their moisture, being blocked by the
Cascade Mountain Range. While the impacts depend on the severity and type of storm,
Whatcom County experiences storm activity annually, oftentimes becoming more severe.
Annual impacts are likely to occur, such as minor power outages or wind damage to houses and
property, but more severe storms can and will happen.
16 Seiche / Tsunami
Definition
A series of enormous waves created by an underwater disturbance such as an earthquake,
landslide, volcanic eruption, or meteorite.
Summary
Although distinct in definition and causes, tsunamis and seiches share many characteristics as
well as mitigation techniques, Tsunamis are generally considered an oceanic phenomenon
while seiches are possible on lakes, bays and other enclosed bodies of water. Both events
generate large, destructive waves. Tsunamis are generally preceded by an earthquake in or
very near the ocean. The displacement of water generates a very large but low frequency wave
which may not be noticeable without instruments until near shore.
Hazard Impacts
Tsunamis and seiches affect shorelines and low lying areas near shorelines. Both events are
very destructive and pose significant risk to life and property. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have tsunami detection instruments throughout the Pacific
Ocean to increase reaction time to these events. Seiches generally have less warning; however,
vulnerability to seiches generally coincides with vulnerability to landslides.
There has been no recent tsunami or seiche activity in or near Whatcom County. There is
evidence of tsunami inundation in historic events, however. In 1700 a tsunami was generated
off the coast of Vancouver Island, B.C., caused by a magnitude 9 earthquake.
Risk: Limited
Whatcom County’s location is protected from the open ocean by Vancouver Island as well as
the San Juan Islands, leaving a relatively small portion of the lower coastal areas exposed.
Tsunamis are only generated by oceanic earthquakes of sufficient magnitude, which happen
very rarely.
17 Supply Chain Disruption
Definition
An interruption to the network of suppliers, storage facilities, transporters, and distributors
involved in the production, delivery and sale of critical products.
Summary
In a globalized economic system relying on just-in-time inventory strategies, events external to
Whatcom County may affect the supply of food, gasoline and other products to county
residents. Possible precipitating events include wars, natural disasters, and/or terrorist attacks.
Hazard Impacts
Disruption of the supply chain could cause shortages of food, medical supplies, and fuel, all of
which, in a sustained disruption, could put life safety at risk and potentially lead to civil unrest.
 September 11-14, 2001 – All civilian flights suspended in the wake of terrorist attacks.

May 1980 – Air, road, and rail traffic disrupted by eruption of Mount St. Helens.

October 1973 – Nationwide gasoline shortages caused by OPEC embargo.
Risk: Limited
Although difficult to forecast, events external to Whatcom County could impact the provision of
critical supplies and services within the county.
18 Terrorist Attack
Definition
The unlawful use of force or violence against people or property to intimidate or coerce a
government or civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives.
Summary
Lying on an international border and hosting several key transportation links and critical
facilities, Whatcom County may be considered as a possible location for terrorist activities.
Additionally, global events causing a disruption in the supply chain of critical commodities and
products may impact Whatcom County.
Hazard Impacts
Impacts of terrorist activities could range from injuries, deaths, property destruction and
disruption of the local economy.
In 1997, four Whatcom County residents were convicted of Federal charges relating to the
possession of pipe bombs and machine guns.
Risk: Critical
Although the probability of a terrorist attack in Whatcom County is considered negligible, if an
attack did occur, given the focus on violence on people and property, the consequences could
be severe.
19 Volcano
Definition
A vent in the earth’s crust through which magma (molten rock), rock fragments, gases, and
ashes are ejected from the earth’s interior. A volcanic mountain is created over time by the
accumulation of these erupted products on the earth’s surface.
Summary
Mt. Baker lies approximately 30 miles east of Bellingham, the largest city in Whatcom County.
Whatcom County is also close to Glacier Peak. Both are active volcanoes with a history of
eruptions. Volcanoes present multiple threats and much of the impact is dictated by weather
conditions at the time of eruption. Mt. Baker has the highest volume of glacial ice of any
Cascade volcano, increasing the risk of flooding due to eruption.
Hazard Impacts
Volcanoes present several threats to the area including flooding, landslide and ash damage. It
is unlikely that communities would be directly hit by lava flows. An eruption of Mt. Baker could
isolate areas of the county as pyroclastic flows and landslides have the potential to destroy
large roadways. The dam on Baker Lake, on the southeast side of Mt. Baker, has the potential
for breach if large amounts of water and debris inundate it. This would likely affect areas of
Skagit County, however.
The most recent eruption of Mt. Baker was in 1843; however in 1891 there was a collapse of a
lahar. In 1975 the mountain showed signs of potential eruption as steam and heat expulsion
from the crater increased. These indicators have since decreased to “normal” levels.
Vulnerability Critical
The proximity to volcanic mountains makes Whatcom County inherently vulnerable to the
possibility of eruption. Those areas closest to Mt. Baker are at the highest vulnerability, though
structures in floodplains are also at increased vulnerability. Lahar and debris flows generated
by an eruption have a channeled effect, primarily following the path of rivers and spreading into
flood plains. However, ash travels far and could disrupt air traffic and visibility.
Risk: Negligible
Although volcanic eruptions cause extensive disruption when they do occur, the return period is
extremely long.
20 Demographics

City of Bellingham Population and Demographic Information
http://www.cob.org/services/maps/population/index.aspx

US Census Bureau, QuickFacts for Whatcom County
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/53/53073.html
21 Transportation
Land Transportation
Public and Private Transportation
 Whatcom Transportation Authority
 Greyhound Bus
 Private Charters / Shuttles
 Taxis
 Car Rentals
Major Roads
 Interstate 5 runs north and south through Whatcom County: Canada to Mexico.
 Highway 9 traverses north and south: crosses south and north forks of the
Nooksack River.
 Guide Meridian running from Bellingham north to the Canadian border.
 Mt. Baker Highway (542) meets Highway 9 and winds east up to Mt. Baker.
Rail





Rail corridors from Sumas to Everson to Lynden
Amtrak: Bellingham on routes from Seattle and Vancouver, B.C.
From Whatcom County along Chuckanut Bay to Bellingham
Along the I-5 rail corridor to Blaine and north-west to Cherry Point
Cherry Point to Custer and link with I-5 rail corridor
Waterways
Marinas
 Bellingham—Squalicum Harbor, second largest in Puget Sound: over 1800
pleasure, commercial boats, fishing fleet moored.
 Blaine—Drayton Harbor: pleasure and fishing fleet.
 Point Roberts – Access 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.
Vessel Traffic Lanes
 Oil Tankers
 Ships
 Barges
 Tug Boats
 Commercial Fishing Vessels
 Recreation Boats
 Coast Guard Vessels
22 Ferry Crossings
 Alaska Marine Highway System Ferry from Bellingham to Alaska.
 Whatcom County Ferry across Hales Pass from Gooseberry Point to Lummi
Island (eight minute transit time).
 Plover Ferry from Blaine to Semiahmoo Spit.
 Commercial sightseeing ferries to San Juan Islands and Victoria, Canada depart
from 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: canoes, kayaks, small fishing boats, float trips.
Air Transportation
 Bellingham International Airport: Commercial jets – 6,700-foot runway.
 Lynden Municipal Airport: 2,450 foot runway
23 Services
Medical
Hospital
 Two locations: St. Joseph Hospital and Outpatient Center
Media
 One local television station: Channel 12, Bellingham
- Several companies provide television cable and satellite services
 Telephone Companies
- Quest Communications in Bellingham
- Whidbey Telephone Company in Point Roberts
- Verizon Northwest in the remainder of Whatcom County
 Ten radio stations: AM and FM
- Emergency Alert System Station: KGMI (790 AM)
 One daily newspaper
 Seven weekly newspapers
Public Education K - 12
 Thirty-four Elementary Schools
 Eleven Middle Schools
 Nine High Schools
 Numerous Private Schools
Colleges / Universities
 Bellingham Technical College
 Northwest Indian College
 City University
 Whatcom Community College
 Western Washington University
Utilities



Electricity: Puget Sound Energy, PUD #1, Blaine PUD, Sumas PUD, Bonneville Power
(to direct service customers).
Gas: Cascade Natural Gas, Williams Natural Gas 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.
24 Climate
Storm Tracks
Maritime climate is produced by air masses in the North Pacific. The weather systems moving
on different storm tracks produce different kinds of weather:

From South-Southwest to Southwest (Pineapple Express): directs warm humid air up
from tropics producing persistent rain in the Pacific Northwest.
o
o

From Southwest to West: temperature and moisture content usually lower and produces
less-intense (although not necessarily light) rainfall which may start out as snow but
gradually change to rain.
o

Freezing levels: Winter—just above sea level up to 3,000 feet; autumn and
spring—3,000 to 5,000 feet.
From North: most frequent producer of snow along southwestern British Columbia Coast
and Puget Sound Lowlands.
o

Freezing levels associated with this pattern vary with season: Winter—3,000 to
5,000 feet; autumn and spring—5,000 to 7,000 feet.
From West to Northwest: precipitation from this storm track usually doesn’t last long, but
may come as a surprise and move through quickly, possibly producing some
thundershowers.
o

The mild air moving up from the tropics usually raises the freezing level to 8,000
feet
Snow melts rapidly in the mountains, often leading to serious flooding.
Snow from Vancouver to Bellingham to Everett – sometimes all the way to
Portland. Usually does not last more than a day.
Jet Stream: fast moving river of air that directs storm tracks, and is nearest to Pacific
Northwest in the winter months, causing the Northwest to receive most of its annual
precipitation.
o
Climate and precipitation affected by La Nina, El Nino, and Pacific Decadal
Oscillation.
Precipitation
Average annual precipitation: 36 inches, though values vary greatly depending on elevation:



Lowlands—Rainfall varies from 30 to 40 inches
East toward Cascade Mountains—Precipitation increases
Mount Baker Summit—140 inches; snow pack and glaciers year round.
25 Average Temperatures (Bellingham)
 Winter 35/46 degrees F.
 Spring 42/58 degrees F.
 Summer 54/73 degrees F.
 Fall 45/59 degrees F.
Seasonality
 Summer (July through September), generally dry and sunny
 October to February: Rainy season
- Lowland winters: Mild and wet
- Mountain winters: Cold and snowy
26 Geography
Lowlands
West of Cascade Foothills: Part of huge Fraser/Nooksack river-delta system. It runs north from
the Chuckanut Hills to the present mouth of the Fraser in Vancouver, British Columbia. [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 Mt. 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
Ninety-six mile length, 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 or Birch Point); 16% is rocky shoreline, which includes parts of Lummi
Island; 17% is accreting (building or extending shoreline); and 5% estuarine shore.
Lakes
 245 lakes
 4 large reservoirs inside the Federal Lands: (Ross, Diablo, Gorge, Baker).
 2 large natural lakes in the Chuckanut region: (Lake Whatcom, Samish Lake).
Large lakes in Whatcom County
(shown in acres)
Whatcom
5,000
Samish
825
Terrell
440
Silver
185
Padden
150
Wiser
125
Judson
112
27 North Cascade Mountains
 Roughly two thirds of Whatcom County is Federally protected land in the North
Cascades 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.
-

There are about 350,000 acres of National Forest Lands in Whatcom County. Two
roads connect western Whatcom County with the Federal lands:
-

Mount Baker Highway (Route 542) gives access to Mount Baker Recreation
Area.
Middle Fork Road (secondary, more primitive entrance) leading to hiking and
camping region on south and west sides of Mt. Baker, including the Twin Sisters
area.
Two parts of North Cascades National Park Complex are located in Whatcom County:
-

The Mt. Baker/Snoqualmie National Forest lies east of the Foothills and west of
the “North Unit” of North Cascades National Park.
 East of the park is the Pasayten Wilderness, administered through
Okanogan National Forest (this is a roadless area).
The North Unit (Picket Range)—roadless, high country.
Ross Lake National Recreation area—Seattle City Light has several hydropower
projects in this area with three dams on the Skagit River.
Route 20 (through Skagit County) is the principal access to Baker Lake as well as to the
North Cascades National Park.
28 Hazard Data / Additional Information
Avalanches
Areas Vulnerable to Avalanche
Mount Baker Highway
Ferry
Whatcom
San Juan
Stevens
Pend
Oreille
North Cascades Highway
Skagit
Okanogan
Island
Clallam
Snohomish
Chelan
Tumwater
Canyon
Stevens Pass
Jefferson
Mason
Kitsap
Snoqualmie Pass
Douglas
Lincoln
Grays Harbor
Spokane
King
Grant
Whitman
Adams
Pierce
Thurston
Kittitas
Chinook Pass, Cayuse Pass
White Pass
Lewis
Pacific
Wahkiakum
Garfield
Franklin
Columbia
Cowlitz
Asotin
Yakima
Johnston Ridge
Walla Walla
Benton
Clark
Skamania
Klickitat
SR 129
Transportation Routes Vulnerable to Avalanche
Recreation Areas Vulnerable to Avalanche
(approximate area)
Areas Vulnerable to Avalanche
250
200
150
Series1
100
50
0
CO
AK
WA
UT
MT
ID
WY
CA
NH
NV
OR
NM
NY
Avalanche death by State: 1950-2007
29 ME
AZ
ND
VT
Sources of Additional Information
 Northwest Weather and Avalanche Center (NWAC): http://www.nwac.us/
 Washington State Department of Transportation: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/
 Washington State Parks: http://www.parks.wa.gov/
Coastal Flooding / Tidal Overflow
 Whatcom County Planning- Shorelines:
http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/pds/shorelines_critical_areas/smp_update.jsp
Conflagration
 State of Washington, Department of Natural Resources:
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/RecreationEducation/FirePreventionAssistance/Pages/Home.aspx
Dam Failure
 State of Washington, Department of Ecology, Dam Safety:
http://www.topozone.com/states/Washington.asp?county=Whatcom&feature=Dam
 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Dam Failure Disaster Information:
http://www.fema.gov/hazard/damfailure/df_before.shtm
30 Drought
 NOAA Drought Information Center: http://www.drought.noaa.gov/
 US Drought Monitoring Service: http://drought.gov
 Washington State Drought Information: http://wa.water.usgs.gov/news/drought/
Earthquake
Probability of Earthquake Occurrence in the Pacific Northwest
Earthquake Diagram of Pacific Northwest
31 Sources of Additional Information
 United States Geologic Survey: www.usgs.gov
 Whatcom County Earthquake Preparedness:
http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/dem/prepare/earthquake.jsp
 Pacific Northwest Seismic Network: http://www.pnsn.org/recenteqs/latest.htm
Epidemic / Disease
 Center for Disease Control: www.cdc.gov
 Whatcom County Health Department: http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/health/
Flood
Expected Impacts/Secondary Hazards of Flooding
 Landslides triggered by oversaturation of slopes.
 Inundated electrical and heating systems, loss of utilities, bridges, and roads washed out
/ transportation routes altered or flooded out.
 Restricted firefighting and emergency medical services access through flood area roads.
 Debris flow against bridges Log Jams in rivers. Logs (deadheads) washed into
Bellingham Bay and other waterways, creating hazards to vessels.
 Diseases, toxic waste and household hazardous chemicals spread throughout flooded
area may be spread through floodwaters, Contaminating domestic water.
 Agriculture damages (Loss and erosion of farmlands, row crops and fruit orchards),
drowning of farm animals and wildlife, fish eggs and hatchlings washed out of river
shallows.
100 Year Flood Hazard Map for Whatcom County (darker colors indicate flood zone)
32 Sources of Additional Information
 FEMA Flood Information: http://www.fema.gov/hazard/flood/index.shtm
 USGS Flood Information: http://www.usgs.gov/hazards/floods/
 River and Flood Division-Whatcom County:
http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/publicworks/riverflood/index.jsp
Hazardouns Materials Release
 Whatcom Unified Local Emergency Planning Committee
Landslide
Landslide Hazard and Slope Stability for Whatcom County
33 Common Varieties of Landslides
 Deep-seated landslides are found along the slopes of the shoreline, often referred to as
ancient landslides, which may become active in particularly wet conditions. These large
landslides range in size from less than an acre to several acres and may extend over a
mile of shoreline.
 Shallow landslides with debris avalanches are the most common type, typically occurring
during prolonged periods of heavy rainfall and involve a relatively thin layer of extremely
dangerous wet soil and vegetation that can travel quickly with destructive force.
 Mid-slope benches can be hazardous slide areas. These relatively level benches, sitting
on an otherwise steep slope, may indicate past slope movement.
 Shoreline or steep inland areas are periodically struck with very large, rapid landslides.
These large slumps or slides can cut 50 or more feet into the upland and involve tens of
thousands of tons of earth.
Probable Landslide Areas in Whatcom County
 Chuckanut Mountain, residential areas on steep slopes such as Sudden Valley, upper
Baker Highway, and parts of Highway 9.
 Bluffs on Lummi Island
 Western Washington University bluffs
 Sehome Hill Arboretum
 Slopes overlooking Hale Passage, Bellingham Bay, Boundary Bay, Strait of Georgia
 Eldridge Avenue homes overlooking Bellingham Bay
 Mount Baker / Nooksack River
 Coastal slope stability of Whatcom County:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/femaweb/whatcom.htm
Severe Storms
Sources of Additional Information:
 Winter Storm Preparedness: http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/dem/prepare/winter.jsp
34 Seiche / Tsunami
Wind-Blown Waves Versus Tsunamis
Sources of Additional Information:
 State of Washington, Department of Natural Resources
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/ResearchScience/Topics/GeologicHazardsMapping/Pages/tsuna
mis.aspx
 Department of Natural Resources, Inundation map of the Bellingham Area
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/ger_ofr2004-15_tsunami_hazard_bellingham.pdf
35 Volcano
Mt. Baker Volcanic History
Mt. Baker Llahar and Pyroclastic Flow Hazard Map of Whatcom and Skagit Counties

USGS Volcanic Hazard Information: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov

NOAA current volcanic activity information:
www.noaawatch.gov/themes/volcanoes.php

Mt. Baker specific information:
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Baker/framework.html
36 Appendix D 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 include:
 Identification of spatial Compartments for study
 Fire Management Zone 37 = Whatcom County
 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:
 Initial Attack: 21 - 30 minutes (Moderate)
 Suppression Complexity: Average (Moderate)
Ignition Risk factors include:
 Population Density - Wildland Urban Interface
o 1001+ Dwellings/structures
 Power Lines In Unit
o Sub-station
o Distribution Lines
o Transmission Lines
 Industrial Operations
o Active timber sale
o Maintenance/service contracts
o Mining
o Debris/slash burning
o Construction project
1 





Recreation
o Dispersed camping areas, party areas, hunters, waterbased, hiking
o Off highway vehicle use
o Developed camping areas
Flammables Present
o Powder magazine
o Gas pumps or storage
o Gas or oil wells/transmission
Other
o Woodcutting area, power equipment
o Dump
o Fireworks, children with matches
o Electronic installations
o Shooting/target
o Government operations
o Cultural Activities
o Incendiary
Railroads
o Railroads are present
Transportation System
o Public Access Road(s)
o County road(s)
o State/Federal highway(s)
Commercial Development
o Camps, resorts, stables
o Schools
o Business, agricultural/ranching
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)
2 Compartment 14: 37656
Part I
indicate that: Catastrophic Fire Likely.
 Crowning Potential: 6 + (High)
 Slope Percent: 21 - 35 (Moderate)
 Aspect: North (Low)
 Elevation: 0 - 3500 (High)
Protection Capability ratings are:
 Initial Attack: 31+ minutes (High)
 Suppression Complexity: Complex (High)
 1001+ Dwellings/structures
 Transmission Lines
 Distribution Lines
 Sub-station
o Mining
 Recreation
 Flammables Present
o Powder magazine
 Other
o Shooting/target
o Incendiary
o Dump
3 
Railroads

Transportation System
o County road(s)

Commercial Development
o Schools
Part II
 Administrative: High value or numerous administrative sites (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)
 Visual Resources: Partially retain existing character (Moderate)
 T&E Species: Species present (High)
 Soils (Erosion): Moderately erodible (EHR 4-12) (Moderate)
 Airshed: High receptor sensitivity (High)
Part I
indicate that: Catastrophic Fire Possible.
 Crowning Potential: 3 - 5 (Moderate)
 Slope Percent: 36 + (High)
 Aspect: South (High)
 Elevation: 5001 + (Low)
4 Protection Capability ratings are:
 Initial Attack: 31+ minutes (High)
 Suppression Complexity: Simple (Low)
o 501-1000 Dwellings/structures
o Transmission Lines
o Sub-station
o Distribution Lines
o Mining
 Recreation
 Flammables Present
o Powder magazine
 Other
o Shooting/target
o Incendiary
o Dump
 Railroads
 Transportation System
o County road(s)
 Commercial Development
o Schools
5 Compartment 15: 37658
Part II
 Administrative: Few or no administrative sites (Low)
 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)
 Visual Resources: Preserve and retain existing character (High)
 T&E Species: Species present. (High)
 Soils (Erosion): Moderately erodible (EHR 4-12) (Moderate)
 Airshed: Low receptor sensitivity (Low)
6 Appendix E 2004 Plan Development Process *This appendix is included for reference purposes only*
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 multi-jurisdictional, all of the jurisdictions
included in the Hazard Mitigation Plan dedicated time and effort to provide jurisdictionspecific information contained in the Plan.
KEY CONTRIBUTORS IN PROVIDING JURIDICTION-SPECIFIC INFORMATION
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
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.
1 Public Meeting Schedule
Date
July 6, 2004
Time
7:00 p.m.
Location
Blaine City Hall
July 7, 2004
7:00 p.m.
July 12, 2004
7:00 p.m.
Whatcom County Courthouse
IMPORTANT DATES AND ELEMENTS IN THE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
DEVELOPMENT
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., at 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:
2 Name
Lloyd Kirry
Affiliation
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 WDNR’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.
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.
3 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
Affiliation
Bellingham School District
Steve Hovde
Birch Bay Water & Sewer
Jim Kenoyer
Blaine School District
Dave Johnson
Cemetery District 7
Mary Miller
Cemetery District 8
Tom Jones
Cemetery District 9
Patrick Bouma
DID #1
Floyd Bouma
DID #1
Roger Anderson
DID #15
Doug Channel
Diking District 1
Gordon Neevel
Diking District 3
Gordon Travis
Evergreen Water & Sewer District 19
Don Drommond
Evergreen Water & Sewer District 19
Ron Cowan
Ferndale School District
Jan Eskola
Glacier Fire & Rescue
James Evangelista
Glacier Water District
Chip Anderson
Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District
Dennis Carlson
Lynden School District (504)
Dave Crossen
4 Name
Terry Klimpel
Affiliation
Samish Water District
Richard Gay
Water District 18, Acme
Michelle Starrs
Water District 4
Jim Trowbridge
Water District 7
Barb Burke
Whatcom FD 1
Neil Good
Whatcom FD 10
Candy Roberts
Whatcom FD 16
Tom Gooch
Whatcom FD 4
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.
5 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 Nugent’s 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 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.
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.
6 Appendix F NFIP National Flood Insurance Program Participation
Topic
Insurance
Summary
Considerations
How many NFIP policies are in the
community?
Where to find Information
 State NFIP Coordinator or
FEMA NFIP Specialist
F1-Whatcom County
Answer
1,366 policies in force
$258,254,200.00 insurance in force
What is the total premium and
coverage?
How many claims have been paid in
the community?

FEMA NFIP or Insurance
Specialist
30 repetitive loss properties, 1
severe
216 paid losses
$3,532,340.59 total losses paid
What is the total amount of paid
claims?
22 sub. damage claims since 1978
How many of the claims were for
substantial damage?
Staff
Resources
Number of Structures exposed to
flood risk within the community

Community Floodplain
Administrator (FPA)
Currently we do not have the ability
to accurately determine the number
of structures exposed to flood risk
within the community.
Describe any areas of flood risk with
limited NFIP policy coverage

Community FPA & FEMA
Insurance Specialist
There is good coverage within the
mapped floodplain areas. However,
areas that could get damage due to
flood events outside of the mapped
floodplain (alluvial fan and channel
migration zone areas) are lacking
NFIP policy coverage.
Does the community have a
dedicated Floodplain Manager or
NFIP Coordinator?

Community FPA
Yes
Is floodplain management an
auxiliary duty?
No
Is there a Certified Floodplain
Manager on Staff?
No, there are staff planning to
become CFM certified in the near
future
Provide an explanation of NFIP
administration services (e.g., permit
review, GIS, education or outreach,
inspections, engineering capability)
Education and outreach includes an
annual flood newsletter, an
informational flood video aired on
local network annually, annual
repetitive loss mailing, annual letter
to Insurance/Local Realtors/Lenders
regarding flood insurance.
Administrative includes: Floodplain
inquiries, permit review, GIS
education, comprehensive flood
planning, and flood hazard
reduction.
What are the barriers to running an
effective NFIP program in the
community, if any?
Limited resources due to budget
constraint
1 Compliance
History
Regulation
Is the community in good standing
with the NFIP?

State NFIP Coordinator,
FEMA NFIP Specialist,
community records
Yes
Are there any outstanding
compliance issues (i.e., current
violations)?
No
When was the most recent
Community Assistance Visit (VAC) or
Community Assistance Contact
(CAC)?
06/06/2005 last CAV date
When did the community enter the
NFIP?

Community Status Book
http://www.fema.gov/fema/cs
b.shtm
09/30/1977 regular entry
September 30, 1977
When did the community’s Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS)
become effective?
Are the FIRMS digital or paper?

Community FPA, State or
FEMA NFIP Specialists
Paper and digital (DFIRM-GIS
layers)
Does the Floodplain Ordinance meet
or exceed FEMA or State minimum
requirements? If so, in what ways?

Community FPA
Yes , currently meets and is being
updated to be compliant with the
FEMA Bi-Op. Also, some parts of
the code will likely be updated to
include higher regulatory standards.
Provide an explanation of the
permitting process and include a
copy of floodplain permit.

Community FPA
Applicant goes to
Planning/Development services for
a permit. Permit is screened at the
counter to determine if the project is
located within the floodplain. If
project is located within the
floodplain it is routed to the Flood
Division for a flood review and
conditions are put on the applicable
permit (see attached).
Does the community participate in
CRS?

Community FPA, Sate, FEMA
NFIP
Yes
What is the community’s CRS Class
Ranking?

Flood Insurance Manual
http://www.fema.gov/business
/nfip/manual.shtm
6
What categories and activities
provide CRS points and how can the
class be improved?

Community FPA, FEMA CRS
Coordinator, ISO
representative
CRS Activities:
320,330,350,360,420,430,440,450,
501,510,520,530,610
Does the plan include CRS planning
requirements?

CRS manual
http://www.fema.gov/library/vi
ewRecord.do?id=2434
Yes
2 NFIP Continued Compliance Actions
Topic
Considerations
Staff
Identify need for additional staff.
Resources
Answer
We could use additional staff, but hiring is limited
due to budget issues.
Identify training needs of existing staff.
Compliance
Flood Risk
Maps
Community
Outreach
Community
Rating
System
(CRS)
When is the next Community Assistance visit anticipated?
Training could be improved by offering semi-annual
refresher training at locations closer to the
participating communities in order to cut costs and
make more accessible, webinars, or on-line training
would be beneficial. Also, training needed related to
reviewing for ESA compliance.
2011
If unknown, discuss any need for CAV, CAC, or other
compliance assistance.
Are there flood prone areas that need new flood studies?
N/A
What areas are highest priority and why?
Point Roberts, because it seems to get the most
permit activity in an area that hasn’t been studied in
detail. The North Fork and Middle Fork of Nooksack
River are also in need of better mapping.
Does the community have new data that can be included
in future flood map updates?
Yes, new data (such as survey data and LiDAR) is
currently being used in the re-mapping effort and
could be used for future mapping needs.
Displays at local hardware stores during flood
season. Possible presentations to students at local
schools.
Consider outreach and education to provide in the
community.
Currently, Whatcom County is doing a new
Countywide FIS study which includes detailed
studies on 2 systems. Detailed studies are needed
for some coastal areas and upper fork of Nooksack
River.
Outreach can be targeted to increase NFIP policies,
promote NFIP services, or increase knowledge of local
flood risk, among other topics.
We already provide outreach and education as
documented in CRS program. Additional activities
are limited to budget issues.
Consider a variety of audiences, such as elected officials
or builders.
Does the community want to participate in the CRS
program?
Whatcom County currently participates in the CRS
program
Does the community want to improve its current CRS
class ranking?
Yes, if possible without additional resources.
Identify activities the community is or will be pursuing to
gain CRS points.
Nothing at this time.
3 National Flood Insurance Program Participation
Topic
Insurance
Summary
Considerations
How many NFIP policies are in
the community?
coverage?
How many claims have been
paid in the community?
Staff
Resources
Compliance
History
Regulation
 State NFIP Coordinator or FEMA
NFIP Specialist

Specialist
F2-City of Bellingham
Answer
152 policies in force
1 repetitive loss property
19 paid claims
claims?
$659,075.54 total losses paid
How many of the claims were
for substantial damage?
Number of Structures exposed
to flood risk within the
community
Describe any areas of flood risk
with limited NFIP policy
coverage
1 sub. damage claim since 1978
dedicated Floodplain Manager
or NFIP Coordinator?
auxiliary duty?
Manager on Staff?
administration services (e.g.,
permit review, GIS, education
or outreach, inspections,
engineering capability)
What are the barriers to running
an effective NFIP program in
the community, if any?
Is the community in good
standing with the NFIP?

Administrator (FPA)
464


Community FPA
A portion of the Baker Creek floodplain
is not within a study area while it has
had repeated flooding. Flooding is
somewhat dependent on system
capacity issues with Interstate 5 and
other State conveyance systems.
Storm and Surface Water Utility
Manager also acts as Floodplain
Administrator
Yes
No
Plan reviewers are trained to determine
if projects or structures are within
floodplain boundaries with required
review for all permits. GIS system has
FEMA coverage for permit review.
Permits are conditioned for no
occupancy until all certifications are
complete and returned.
Change to true digital mapping may
ease process.

State NFIP Coordinator, FEMA
NFIP Specialist, community
records
Yes
violations)?
Community Assistance Visit
(VAC) or Community
Assistance Contact (CAC)?
No
Is a CAV or CAC scheduled or
needed?
When did the community enter
the NFIP?
Changes to floodplains are forthcoming.
A CAV would be appreciated.
09/02/1982 regular entry.

http://www.fema.gov/fema/csb.s
htm
When did the community’s
Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRMS) become effective?
09/02/82

Does the Floodplain Ordinance
meet or exceed FEMA or State
minimum requirements? If so, in
what ways?

Community FPA, State or FEMA
NFIP Specialists
Community FPA
4 Paper
Ordinances and maps updated and
revised January 16, 2004. Deemed in
compliance at that time.
permitting process and include
a copy of floodplain permit.

Community FPA
Does the community participate
in CRS?
What is the community’s CRS
Class Ranking?

provide CRS points and how
can the class be improved?
Does the plan include CRS
planning requirements?

NFIP
http://www.fema.gov/business/nf
ip/manual.shtm
Coordinator, ISO representative


CRS manual
http://www.fema.gov/library/view
Record.do?id=2434
NFIP Continued Compliance Actions
Topic
Considerations
Staff
Resources
Regulation
Flood Risk
Maps
Community
Outreach
Community
Rating System
(CRS)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Answer
For the amount of floodplain area within City existing staff
level is sufficient.
Compliance
The floodplain certification is a
requirement of building permits, fill and
grade permits and stormwater permits.
There is no separate floodplain
development permit.
No
When is the next Community Assistance visit
anticipated?
If unknown, discuss any need for CAV, CAC, or
other compliance assistance.
Are there potential ordinance changes to consider
strengthening requirements?
Ongoing training and/or refresher courses would be
helpful.
Unknown. Bellingham would welcome a CAV, however,
the number of projects within flood areas has diminished.
We are looking at a major stream rerouting project for
Squalicum Creek that would be of interest.
City still working on potential changes to comply with
BiOp.
Are there potential improvements to permitting
process or other administrative aspects of the
community’s NFIP program?
Digital mapping.
Could the community enhance its floodplain
services?
Are there flood prone areas that need new flood
studies?
We should enter CRS program.
Priority for the City would be Squalicum and Padden
Creeks.
Does the community have new data that can be
included in future flood map updates?
community. Outreach can be targeted to increase
NFIP policies, promote NFIP services, or increase
knowledge of local flood risk, among other topics.
Consider a variety of audiences, such as elected
officials or builders.
program?
It is expected that the City will be submitting data for
those two projects.
Community outreach has not been a significant part of
our program due to the limited nature of the flooding.
Discussion of that lacking at a CAV would be appreciated.
Does the community want to improve its current
CRS class ranking?
Identify activities the community is or will be
pursuing to gain CRS points.
5 Yes, Bellingham has apprised FEMA of flood areas on
Baker Creek outside of the area of study in the past.
Bellingham will likely be providing a new study for
Squalicum Creek as a part of the stream reroute. A new
study for Padden Creek will be needed as a result of a
proposed project to daylight ½ mile of this stream that
was formerly culverted.
Bellingham will consider entering CRS. It is likely that we
need only to quantify some of the existing activities that
we already do to receive a CRS class ranking.
National Flood Insurance Program Participation
Topic
Insurance
Summary
Considerations
community?
What is the total premium and coverage?
How many claims have been paid in the
community?

Specialist
F3-City of Blaine
Answer
0 repetitive losses
2 paid losses
What is the total amount of paid claims?
$22,115.36 total paid losses
Compliance
History
How many of the claims were for substantial
damage?
Number of Structures exposed to flood risk
within the community
Describe any areas of flood risk with limited
NFIP policy coverage
Does the community have a dedicated
Floodplain Manager or NFIP Coordinator?
Is floodplain management an auxiliary duty?
Is there a Certified Floodplain Manager on
Staff?
administration services (e.g., permit review,
GIS, education or outreach, inspections,
What are the barriers to running an effective
NFIP program in the community, if any?
Is the community in good standing with the
NFIP?
Regulation
Are there any outstanding compliance issues
(i.e., current violations)?
When was the most recent Community
Assistance Visit (VAC) or Community
Is a CAV or CAC scheduled or needed?
When did the community enter the NFIP?
Staff
Resources
When did the community’s Flood Insurance
Rate Maps (FIRMS) become effective?



Administrator (FPA)
Community FPA
8 (eight)
Not aware of any
No, covered by Community
Development Director
Yes
No
Permit review

community records
Lack of staff, funds, and minimal
impact/benefit
The city believes that is the case.
No

http://www.fema.gov/fema
/csb.shtm
Not scheduled, and not needed
1/16/2004

Does the Floodplain Ordinance meet or
exceed FEMA or State minimum
Provide an explanation of the permitting
process and include a copy of floodplain
permit.

Community FPA

Community FPA
Does the community participate in CRS?

Ranking?

What categories and activities provide CRS
points and how can the class be improved?

requirements?

Community FPA, Sate,
FEMA NFIP
http://www.fema.gov/busi
ness/nfip/manual.shtm
Community FPA, FEMA
CRS Coordinator, ISO
epresentative
CRS manual
http://www.fema.gov/librar
y/viewRecord.do?id=2434
6 Paper
Requests are reviewed for
compliance in conjunction with
Shoreline permits, and with
building permits when Shoreline
permit not required. It is a staff
review for code compliance. We
do not have a flood plain permit
application.
Not that we are aware of.
Does not meet the recent ESA
standards
Topic
Considerations
Staff
Resources
Compliance
When is the next Community Assistance visit anticipated? If unknown,
discuss any need for CAV, CAC, or other compliance assistance.
Regulation
Are there potential ordinance changes to consider strengthening
requirements?
Are there potential improvements to permitting process or other administrative
aspects of the community’s NFIP program?
Flood Risk
Maps
Could the community enhance its floodplain services?
Community
Outreach
Community
Rating System
(CRS)
Does the community have new data that can be included in future flood map
updates?
Consider outreach and education to provide in the community.
Outreach can be targeted to increase NFIP policies, promote NFIP services,
or increase knowledge of local flood risk, among other topics. Consider a
variety of audiences, such as elected officials or builders.
Does the community want to participate in the CRS program?
Does the community want to improve its current CRS class ranking?
Identify activities the community is or will be pursuing to gain CRS points.
7 Answer
Yes, the ordinance can be
revised to comply with the ESA
requirements.
Topic
Insurance
Summary
Considerations
community?
coverage?
How many claims have been paid in the
community?
Staff
Resources
Floodplain Manager or NFIP
Coordinator?
Is floodplain management an auxiliary
duty?
Is there a Certified Floodplain Manager
on Staff?

Specialist
Regulation
Is the community in good standing with
the NFIP?
Are there any outstanding compliance
issues (i.e., current violations)?
When was the most recent Community
Assistance Visit (VAC) or Community
Is a CAV or CAC scheduled or needed?
NFIP?
When did the community’s Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) become
effective?
38 paid losses

Administrator (FPA)

Community FPA

Number of structures in the “Flood
Plain”: 453
Number of structures in the
“Floodway”: 14
Number of residential structures in
the “Flood Plain”: 254
Number of residential structures in
the “Floodway”: 5 (data compiled
10/2007)
None
Yes
Yes
No
Permit review, community
outreach, administration services,
inspections.
community, if any?
Compliance
History
1 repetitive loss property
What is the total amount of paid claims?
substantial damage?
Number of Structures exposed to flood
risk within the community
F4-City of Everson
Answer

community records
Loss of floodplain specialist at
DOE regional level makes
floodplain management more
difficult to find answers to specific
questions.
Yes
No

http://www.fema.gov/fema/cs
b.shtm
None scheduled
08/02/1982

Does the Floodplain Ordinance meet or
exceed FEMA or State minimum

Community FPA
Provide an explanation of the permitting
process and include a copy of
floodplain permit.

Community FPA

8 Paper
We provide a City prepared
Development Assessment Flow
Chart and Floodplain Development
Permit for applicants to complete
as part of the normal Building
Permit application process.
Yes
Meets
CRS?
Ranking?
What categories and activities provide
CRS points and how can the class be
improved?
requirements?
NFIP
 Flood Insurance Manual
http://www.fema.gov/business
/nfip/manual.shtm
 Community FPA, FEMA CRS
Coordinator, ISO
representative
 CRS manual
http://www.fema.gov/library/vi
ewRecord.do?id=2434
Topic
Considerations
Staff
Resources
Compliance
Regulation
Flood Risk
Maps
7
Activities 310 -630 are applied and
we continue to review policies and
procedures to improve our rating.
Yes
Answer
Additional staff would be helpful to
maximize the best possible rating for
our community through application of
all aspects of Activities 310-630.
As scheduled by DOE.
If unknown, discuss any need for CAV, CAC, or other compliance
assistance.
requirements?
Considering amendments to assess
BAS ramifications.
Are there potential improvements to permitting process or other
administrative aspects of the community’s NFIP program?
None at this time.
Not at this time.
Johnson creek overflow corridor.
Community
Outreach
Community
Rating System
(CRS)
Does the community have new data that can be included in future
flood map updates?
Outreach can be targeted to increase NFIP policies, promote NFIP
services, or increase knowledge of local flood risk, among other
topics. Consider a variety of audiences, such as elected officials or
builders.
No
Yes
Identify activities the community is or will be pursuing to gain CRS
points.
More community information
assimilation. Policy review and
revision
9 We currently participate.
Topic
Insurance
Summary
Considerations
community?
coverage?
How many claims have been paid
in the community?
Staff
Resources
NFIP Specialist
 FEMA NFIP or Insurance
Specialist
$1,048,432.06 total losses paid
substantial damage?
with limited NFIP policy coverage
NFIP Coordinator?
auxiliary duty?
Manager on Staff?
permit review, GIS, education or
outreach, inspections, engineering
capability)
 Community Floodplain
Administrator (FPA)
 Community FPA & FEMA
 Community FPA
with the NFIP?
needed?
NFIP?
Undetermined / Do not know
Undetermined / Do not know
No
Yes – managed by Community
Development Director or designee
No
City of Ferndale reviews development
proposals for compliance with
Floodplain Management requirements
as defined by the Ferndale Municipal
Code. Review may include
modifications to development
submittals.

State NFIP Coordinator, FEMA
NFIP Specialist, community
records
violations)?
Community Assistance Visit (VAC)
or Community Assistance Contact
(CAC)?
Regulation
$24,380,100.00 insurance in force. 1
repetitive loss property, 1 severe
29 paid losses
claims?
community, if any?
Compliance
History
F5-City of Ferndale
Answer
Public perception that FIRM’s in
certain portions of the City are
inaccurate/ out of date. Lack of new
modeling cannot verify or deny these
claims.
Yes
No / Unknown
10/14/1997 last CAV date. Note that
the City has worked with FEMA (last
contact 7/29/2011) in developing
ordinances intended to comply with
NMFS Biological Opinion
Unknown
 Community Status Book
http://www.fema.gov/fema/csb.s
htm
What did the community’s Flood
become effective?
January 16, 2004

NFIP Specialists
what ways?

Community FPA

Community FPA
10 Paper (FIRMS have been scanned
electronically, but are not interactive).
FIRMs have been converted to GIS
layers through internal City process
The current ordinance meets or
exceeds standards at this time, but
does not reflect Biological Opinion.
City Council will consider adopting new
standard that meets or exceeds
th
standards on August 15 2011.
Review processes vary dramatically
CRS?
Class Ranking?
provide CRS points and how can
the class be improved?
 Community FPA, Sate, FEMA
NFIP
 Flood Insurance Manual
http://www.fema.gov/business/nfi
p/manual.shtm
 Community FPA, FEMA CRS
Coordinator, ISO
representative
 CRS manual
http://www.fema.gov/library/view
Record.do?id=2434
Topic
Considerations
Staff
Resources
N/A
N/A – However, while DOE/FEMA staff
have been very cooperative on
navigating various compliance issues,
there haven’t been opportunities to
discuss ways to participate in incentive
programs, etc.
N/A
Answer
Application of current flood regulations is manageable
under current staff levels. If there were ways to
establish universal, electronic reporting or
documentation processes, it could be helpful (while
modeling has improved, much of the reporting seems to
have not kept up with technology)
Compliance
depending on specific land use
proposal. Generally speaking, an
application is made to the City, and is
reviewed by the Community
Development Department. If the
development is proposed within a
floodplain, the City will attach
conditions to the development permit
specifying the steps necessary to
achieve compliance with flood
regulations. In these cases, the
development permit acts as the
floodplain permit.
No
When is the next Community Assistance visit
anticipated?
If unknown, discuss any need for CAV, CAC, or other
compliance assistance.
Unknown. CAV’s should be conducted less as an audit
(though there are some auditing functions) and more as
a way to provide tools to communities that may not be
employing them and may not be aware of them.
As development within the floodplain becomes less of an
option, applications for development permits become
less common. In some cases, lack of compliance may
be the result of inactivity and unfamiliarity. CAV’s should
be conducted with the approach of trying to gain
compliance, rather than searching for non-compliance.
Regulation
Are there potential ordinance changes to consider
strengthening requirements?
Are there potential improvements to permitting process
or other administrative aspects of the community’s
NFIP program?
Flood Risk
Maps
Are there flood prone areas that need new flood
studies?
Community
Does the community have new data that can be
included in future flood map updates?
11 The floodplain management ordinance, once adopted
pursuant to the Biological Opinion, should offer improved
guidance for development without substantial changes.
Stable regulations will allow the City to expand its
services to the community.
Improvements in flood modeling technology has
revealed that notions of mitigating flood attenuation
capacity by “digging a bigger hole” do not always work.
Regulations that emphasize this philosophy without
providing other methods of discovery should be reexamined.
The community has questioned whether the current
FIRM’s accurately analyze the 100-Year Flood within the
downtown core; the current FIRM’s reflect flood areas
that have not historically flooded or given indication of
potential flooding.
If the Biological Opinion-compliant ordinance is adopted,
Outreach
Community
Rating
System
(CRS)
community.
the City expects to provide educational materials to
elected officials and the development community.
Outreach can be targeted to increase NFIP policies,
promote NFIP services, or increase knowledge of local
flood risk, among other topics. Consider a variety of
audiences, such as elected officials or builders.
program?
Does the community want to improve its current CRS
class ranking?
Identify activities the community is or will be pursuing
to gain CRS points.
12 The City is interested in participating, pending a CAV in
September/October 2011.
Topic
Insurance
Summary
Considerations
community?
NFIP Specialist
$8,972,000.00 insurance in
force
coverage?
How many claims have been paid in
the community?
F6-City of Lynden
Answer

FEMA NFIP or Insurance Specialist
0 repetitive loss properties
4 paid losses
claims?
Staff
Resources
Compliance
History
Regulation
substantial damage?
Floodplain Manager or NFIP
Coordinator?
Is floodplain management an auxiliary
duty?
Manager on Staff?
community, if any?
with the NFIP?
Are there any outstanding compliance
issues (i.e., current violations)?
Community Assistance Visit (VAC) or
Community Assistance Contact
(CAC)?
needed?
NFIP?
become effective?
0 sub. damage claims since
1978



Community Floodplain Administrator
(FPA)
Community FPA & FEMA Insurance
Specialist
Community FPA
3 to 4
N/A
Public Works Director
Yes
Yes
On a case by case basis
None

State NFIP Coordinator, FEMA NFIP
Specialist, community records
Yes
No

http://www.fema.gov/fema/csb.shtm
1/3/1982

Paper
Does the Floodplain Ordinance meet
or exceed FEMA or State minimum
CRS?
Ranking?

NFIP Specialists
Community FPA

Community FPA
Done on a case by case basis

Community FPA, Sate, FEMA NFIP
No

N/A
What categories and activities provide
CRS points and how can the class be
improved?
requirements?

http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/
manual.shtm
CRS manual
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRec
ord.do?id=2434
N/A

13 Meets requirements
N/A
Topic
Considerations
Staff
Resources
Compliance
Regulation
assistance.
requirements?
Answer
None
Not needed
N/A
No
Flood Risk
Maps
N/A
No
None
flood map updates?
Community
Outreach
Community
Rating
System
(CRS)
Just the information the City receives
from Whatcom County River and Flood
N/A
topics. Consider a variety of audiences, such as elected officials or
builders.
Unknown
points.
Topic
Insurance
Summary
Staff
Resources
Compliance
History
Regulation
Considerations
How many NFIP policies are in
the community? What is the
total premium and coverage?
 State NFIP Coordinator or FEMA NFIP
Specialist
How many claims have been
paid in the community?

F7-City of Nooksack
Answer
force
0 repetitive losses
1 paid loss
claims?
How many of the claims were
for substantial damage?
Number of Structures exposed
to flood risk within the
community
with limited NFIP policy
coverage
dedicated Floodplain Manager
or NFIP Coordinator?
auxiliary duty?
Manager on Staff?
outreach, inspections,
an effective NFIP program in
the community, if any?
Is the community in good
standing with the NFIP?
violations)?
Community Assistance Visit
(VAC) or Community
needed?
When did the community enter
the NFIP?
become effective?

Community Floodplain Administrator
(FPA)

Specialist

Community FPA
174 (including outbuildings) in
FEMA flood zone AE areas
None
No
Yes, one of duties of the Public
Works Director
No
Services are as listed with the
exception of engineering
capability
None

Yes
No
No

01/16/2004, revision is currently
underway.

what ways?
permitting process and include
a copy of floodplain permit.

Community FPA, State or FEMA NFIP
Specialists
Community FPA

Community FPA
Does the community participate
in CRS?
Class Ranking?


http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/man
ual.shtm
15 Both?
The current City of Nooksack
ordinance meets all requirements.
Builders or individuals apply for a
Floodplain Development Permit at
time of Building Permit application
for individual structures. Permit
application attached.
Not at this time.
provide CRS points and how
can the class be improved?


CRS manual
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.
do?id=2434
Topic
Considerations
Staff
Resources
Compliance
Regulation
assistance.
requirements?
Flood Risk
Maps
Community
Outreach
flood map updates?
topics.
Community
Rating
System
(CRS)
Consider a variety of audiences, such as elected officials or builders.
Answer
As small as the City of Nooksack is,
staffing is adequate.
2013, if a five year visit is standard.
There are no ordinance changes being
planned, a change was made in 2010 to
correct an omission from previous City
Council action. The City is always
looking for ways to improve the process
involved.
The City of Nooksack recently completed
a flood study that is submitted to FEMA at
this time.
The City of Nooksack feels that additional
outreach could be made, but local
individuals, officials, and builders seem to
understand the process if they are
involved in any way.
The City of Nooksack would be interested
in participation in the CRS program.
Yes
points.
Unknown
Topic
Insurance
Summary
Considerations
community?
 State NFIP Coordinator or FEMA NFIP
Specialist
coverage?
How many claims have been paid
in the community?
F8-City of Sumas
Answer
force

3 repetitive loss properties
53 paid losses
claims?
substantial damage?
with limited NFIP policy coverage
Staff
Resources
NFIP Coordinator?
auxiliary duty?
Manager on Staff?
outreach, inspections, engineering
capability)
4 sub. damage claims since
1978

Community Floodplain Administrator (FPA)
429

Specialist
N/A

Community FPA
Yes, Rod Fadden
Yes
No
I do permit reviews, Outreach
CCR renewals, Inspections
an effective NFIP program in the
community, if any?
Compliance
History
Regulation
with the NFIP?
violations)?
Community Assistance Visit (VAC)
or Community Assistance Contact
(CAC)?
needed?
NFIP?
N/A

Yes, we get the 15% discount
No
No

become effective?
01/16/2004

what ways?

Community FPA, State or FEMA NFIP
Specialists
Community FPA

Community FPA

17 Paper
Yes
The floodplain permit is
issued at the time the building
permit is.
Yes
CRS?
Class Ranking?
provide CRS points and how can
the class be improved?



http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/manual.
shtm
Community FPA, FEMA CRS Coordinator,
ISO representative
Flood Risk
Maps
Community
Outreach
Community
Rating System
(CRS)
310-350, 410-450, 510-540,
610-
CRS manual
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do
?id=2434
Topic
Considerations
Staff
Resources
Compliance
Regulation
In good standing
assistance.
requirements?
Answer
Ok
N/A
No
No
No
No
N/A
flood map updates?
Yes
We do newsletters
topics.
Consider a variety of audiences, such as elected officials or
builders.
Already in the program
Does the community want to improve its current CRS class
ranking?
points.
18 19

Whatcom County - WhatcomReady.org

Transcription

Similar documents

Issue 142 - Lawrence Klepinger

UPDATE FROM THE OFFICE - WSU Whatcom County Extension

View Flyer - Pacific Continental Realty

July 2012 - The Arc of Whatcom County

Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. - Sustainable Connections

Annual Report 2015 - Opportunity Council

Summer 2012 Newsletter - Bellingham

Working in Whatcom County since 1987, in partnership with God

2014 Annual Report - Whatcom Dispute Resolution Center