WHATCOM COUNTY J.E. “Sam” Ryan Planning & Development Services Director 5280 Northwest Drive Bellingham, WA 98226-9097 360-676-6907, TTY 800-833-6384 360-738-2525 Fax

Memorandum

TO: Planning Commission FROM: Cliff Strong, Senior Planner THROUGH: Mark Personius, Asst. Director DATE: 26 April 2016 SUBJECT: Revised Volcanic Hazard language for 28 April 2016 ______Since we sent out your packet last week, in which we provided some potential lahar language based on your direction, Andy Wiser, staff geologist, has conferred with other geologists and has some proposed revisions. Also, we have additional information for you to consider in your deliberations.

Revisions Andy has amended the draft code based on his discussions with other geolgists. This language is attached, and replaces that found in your packet. (Note: it is not in underline/strikeout mode, as there were too many changes.) He has also prepared a map (attached) that shows the proposed Lahar Inundation Hazard Areas, which may help you in analyzing the effects the proposed language might have. The approach consists of: • Defining 7 volcanic hazard areas, 3 of which are lahar inundation areas, which are then broken down into 4 lahar hazard zone types. These are based on the types of hazards most likely to occur in a particular area, as well as travel times. • Allowing most types of development allowed by the underlying zone, but limiting certain large occupancy and special uses to different degrees, depending on the hazard zone. • If a use will have an occupancy of greater than 25, requiring a volcanic hazards assessment, incluing a lahar travel-time analysis, recommendations for siting of improvements intending to avoid volcanic hazards, and a volcanic hazard management and evacuation plan.

Emergency Management/Hazard Mitigation Plan As mentioned in the previous memo, the language of the proposed volcanic code is based on the Pierce County code, though modified for Whatcom County due to our own unique geology and the fact that we don’t have the same level of warning system and community-wide practiced response plans in place that they do. There, the communities in the lahar zones have sirens, media alerts, evacuation routes, etc., and schools, hospitals, and other large occupancy uses practice evacuations. Our preparedness and response plan is contained in the Whatcom County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (the volcanic hazard portion of which is attached), developed by a consortium of emergency responders under the management of the Whatcom County Division of Emergency Management, in the Sherriff’s office. Attached is the Volcanic Hazard section of that plan. As you’ll see, mitigation strategies (p 2-77 and 78) really only focus on educating people about what to do in case of a volcanic emergency. There’s also another plan, the Mount Baker-Glacier Peak Coordination Plan (attached), which is more specific in terms of preparedness and response to volcanic activity. It deals well with how all the agencies are to coordinate their efforts but again doesn’t really address how to get people out of the hazard areas once something is happening. Ultimately, it may be a good idea to recommend to Council that a more robust emergency plan and volcanic hazard public safety notification system be developed and put into place.

CompPlan Policies As you know, regulations must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies. In the draft CompPlan (currently undergoing County Council review), the following goal and policies are relavent. Goal 11F: Minimize potential loss of life, damage to property, the expenditure of public funds, and degradation of natural systems resulting from development in hazardous areas such as floodplains, landslide-prone areas, seismic hazards areas, volcanic impact areas, abandoned mine and exploratory gas well locations, potentially dangerous alluvial fans, and other known natural hazards by advocating the use of land acquisition, open space taxation, conservation easements, growth planning, regulations, and other options to discourage or minimize development, or prohibit inappropriate development in such areas. Policy 11F-4: Establish acceptable levels of public risk for development in known natural hazard areas based upon the nature of the natural hazard and levels of public risk, and maintain regulatory criteria for approving, disapproving, conditioning, or mitigating development activity. Policy 11F-6: Prohibit the siting of critical public facilities in known natural hazard areas unless the siting of the facility can be shown to have a public benefit that outweighs the risk of siting in the particular hazard area. Policy 11F-12: Consider conducting a public process with affected citizens, technical experts, and decision-makers to establish recommended levels of public risk for each of the identified natural hazards. In developing recommended levels of public risk for natural hazards, consider the appropriate variables affecting developments in hazardous areas. These variables may include: • Specific types of risk associated with the particular hazard area; • The gradation of hazards associated with a particular geo- hazard; • Level of detail necessary to map hazard areas; • Different levels of risk associated with different ownership classes (e.g. public ownership versus private ownership); • Different levels of risk associated with different types of land uses; and, • Mitigation measures related to specific adverse impacts of development in hazard areas. Once a set of risk levels have been identified, propose these risk levels for adoption by the County Council as the level to which future development must be designed. Policy 11F-13: Consider establishing acceptable levels of public risk for use in approving and conditioning development activity in known natural hazard areas. The established level of risk may be expressed as the potential hazard posed as determined by scientific and historical methods applicable to each specific natural hazard.

Staff would point out that in the process the Planning Commission is using to recommend revisions to the volcanic hazard regulations, we are not “conducting a public process… to establish recommended levels of public risk” as contemplated in the above policies. Rather, we are recommending development regulations based on your discussion and on the best available science we currently have. As we’ve mentioned, we expect that within the next two years we will have much better information on potential lahar risk from updated USGS data and new LiDar imagery on which to reconsider volcanic hazard maps and associated event risks. This is why staff recommends these regulations should be considered as interim until more information is available and a more robust discussion is held with a wider stakeholder base (not just the BIAWC, but emergency managers and responders, property owners, residents, businesses, etc., as well).

Potential Volcanic Hazard Area Regulations

16.16.310 Designation, mapping, and classification. C. Classification. For purposes of this chapter, geologically hazardous areas shall include all of the following: 4. Volcanic Hazard Areas. Volcanic hazard areas are those areas that have been affected, or have the potential to be affected, by Case M, Case I, or Case II lahars, or by debris flows or sediment- laden events originating from the volcano or its associated deposits. Also included as hazards are areas that have been, or have the potential to be, affected by pyroclastic flows, pyroclastic surges, lava flows, or ballistic projectiles, ash and tephra fall, volcanic gases, and volcanic landslides. In addition, volcanic hazards include secondary effects such as sedimentation and flooding due to the loss of flood conveyance as a result of river channel and flood plain aggradation. The implications of secondary effects may be observed at some distance from the initiating event, and may continue to impact affected drainages over many decades following the initiating event. Secondary effects may significantly alter existing stream and river channels, associated channel migration zones and flood plains due to stream and river bed aggradation and channel avulsion. Volcanic hazards include areas that have not been affected recently, but could be affected by future events. Volcanic hazard areas are classified into the following categories: a. Case M Lahar Inundation Hazard Areas. Areas that could be affected by cohesive lahars that originate as enormous avalanches of weak, chemically-altered rock from the volcano. Case M lahars can occur with or without eruptive activity. A single, post-glacial, Case M Lahar deposit is known to have traveled down the Middle Fork Nooksack River, and is postulated to have continued down the main stem of the Nooksack River, eventually reaching Bellingham Bay and to have also flowed north to Canada along the pre-historic path of the Nooksack River. Case M Lahars are thus interpreted to pose a threat to the Sumas River drainage due to the potential for bed aggradation and channel avulsion to overtop the low- lying drainage divide that exists between the Nooksack and Sumas River drainages. Case M Lahars are considered high consequence, low-probability events. b. Case I Lahar Inundation Hazard Areas. Areas that could be affected by relatively large non- cohesive lahars, which most commonly are caused by the melting of snow and glacier ice by magmatic activity and associated processes, but which can also have a non-eruptive origin. The average recurrence interval for Case I Lahars, based on deposits identified along the flanks of Mount Baker, is postulated to be 500 years, or greater. However, renewed magmatic activity at Mount Baker would be indicative of greatly increased potential for Case I Lahar generation; this may reduce the recurrence interval to approximate that of Case II Lahars. c. Case II Lahar Inundation Hazard Areas. Areas that could be affected by moderately large debris avalanches or small cohesive lahars, or other types of debris flow, generated on the east flank of Mount Baker at Sherman Crater or the upper Avalanche Gorge. Case II Lahars impact the Baker Laker basin and drainage, and are considered correlative to Case I Lahars that may impact the primary drainages on the west and north of Mount Baker, but with increased frequency and comparable volume. The postulated recurrence interval for Case II Lahars at Mount Baker is less than 100 years. d. Pyroclastic Flow Hazards Areas. Areas that could be affected by pyroclastic flows, pyroclastic surges, lava flows, and ballistic projectiles in future eruptions. During any single eruption some drainages may be unaffected by any of these phenomena, while other drainages are affected by some or all phenomena. Recurrence interval is not known. e. Ash/Tephra fall Hazard Areas. The location of ash/tephra fall hazards at Mt. Baker is predominantly controlled by the prevailing, westerly winds observed on the west coast of North America. However, easterly winds do occur in the region and direct ash/tephra fall impacts to Whatcom County population centers are certainly a possibility. Health hazards, power outages, negative impacts to machinery and aircraft, structural damage (e.g. roof collapse) and extensive disruption of daily activities are all potential hazards. f. Volcanic Landslide Hazard Areas. Landslides are common on volcanoes due to their relative height, steepness, and weakness in both the underlying bedrock and the volcanic deposits due to magma movement and chemical weathering. Landslides size is highly variable depending on site conditions and type, but may achieve high velocity and momentum which can carry a landslide across valleys and ridgelines. Given the range of possible landslide types and sizes, specific hazards, risk zones and recurrence interval have not been delineated at Mount Baker. g. Lateral Blast Hazard Areas. Lateral blast hazards result from low-angle, explosive volcanic eruptions that emanate from the flank of a volcano. The occurrence of a lateral blast is largely unpredictable, both with respect to timing and direction, and does not appear to be a common feature of eruptive activity at Mt. Baker, or at other volcanoes globally. Extensive destruction is likely within the lateral blast zone, and mitigation is generally considered unachievable.

16.16.350 Volcanic Hazard Area – Standards. A. Development may be allowed in Ash/Tephra Fall and Lateral Blast Hazard Areas; provided that all reasonable measures have been taken to minimize risks and adverse effects, and when the amount and degree of the alteration are limited to the minimum needed to accomplish the project purpose, and when the applicable general protective measures found in WWC 20 16.16.265 and the standards of 16.16.320 have been applied. B. Lahar Hazard Zones. Generally speaking, the severity of lahar hazards decrease with distance from the volcanic source, although consequences may increase due to greater development density farther from the mountain. Distance also allows additional time to implement evacuation procedures and other emergency preparedness measures. Some municipalities have tailored their volcanic hazard codes based on the ability to evacuate people from within a lahar hazard area based on distance from the source event (i.e., those areas closest to the event will have less time to evacuate than those areas farther away from the source of an event), as well as the amount of time necessary to conduct evacuation following public notification (such as via an acoustical flow monitoring alarm system) that a lahar has occurred. In Whatcom County a lahar warning system does not exist, nor do detailed, peer-reviewed lahar inundation and velocity models or travel time analyses. For these reasons the following Lahar Hazard Zones, which also apply to pyroclastic flow hazards, have been devised for the purpose of enacting prudent development regulations. Lahar Hazard zones are generally based on the assumption that detrimental impacts will decrease with distance from the source event, as well as in consideration of regional topography, published lahar recurrence intervals, and, to a lesser extent, conservative lahar travel-time estimates: 1. Lahar Hazard Zone A – Includes all areas potentially impacted by pyroclastic and lava flows. Also includes all areas impacted by Case II Lahars on the east side of the Mount Baker including the area immediately surrounding Baker Laker and Lake Shannon that may be impacted by debris flow-generated tsunamis or by the subsequent seiche. Lateral Blast hazards, while destructive, are considered to be rare events and are therefore regulated pursuant to WCC 16.16.350(A). 2. Lahar Hazard Zone B – Includes all areas impacted by Case M and Case I Lahars that are located within 1 hour travel time distance from the source event. Effectively this includes all areas upstream of the State Route 542 Bridge over the Nooksack River at Nugent’s Corner, extending up the Middle Fork Nooksack River to the Mosquito Lake Road Bridge and up the North Fork Nooksack River to, and including, the community of Glacier. Areas upstream of these locations are considered in Volcanic Hazard Zone A. 3. Lahar Hazard Zone C – Includes all areas that may be impacted by Case M and Case I Lahars downstream of the State Route 542 Bridge over the Nooksack River at Nugent’s Corner and extending downstream to Everson, as well as within the Sumas River Drainage for a correlative distance approximated by a 1.5 hour travel time distance from the source event. 4. Lahar Hazard Zone D – Includes all areas that may be impacted by Case M and Case I Lahars downstream of Everson and extending to Bellingham Bay, as well as the area beyond the 1.5 hour travel time distance in the Sumas Drainage and extending to the Canadian Border. Recognizing that hazards associated with a lahar, such as large volumes of debris and sediment, may differ substantially from that which is present during a clear-water flood, for the purposes of regulating development, the extent and severity of hazards in Zone D are considered commensurate with that of a 500-year flood, and development in these areas shall meet the requirements of Article 4, Frequently Flooded Areas. C. Lahar Hazard Zone Regulations. The following standards shall apply within the referenced Lahar Hazard Zones. 1. In Lahar Hazard Zones A-D all essential facilities and hazardous facilities, as defined in WCC 16.16.900, shall be prohibited, except sewer collection facilities and any other utilities that are located underground or not likely to cause harm to people or the environment if inundated by a lahar. 2. Special occupancy structures, as defined in WCC 16.16.900, are subject to the following: i. Lahar Hazard Zone A. No special occupancy allowed in Volcanic Hazard Zone A. ii. Lahar Hazard Zone B. Special occupancy structures shall be limited to a maximum 50 person occupancy. iii. Lahar Hazard Zone C. Special occupancy structures shall be limited to a maximum 100 person occupancy. iv. Lahar Hazard Zone D. Development shall meet the requirements of Article 4, Frequently Flooded Areas. 3. Covered assemblies, as defined in WCC 16.16.900, are subject to the following: i. Lahar Hazard Zone A. No covered assemblies allowed in Volcanic Hazard Zone A. ii. Lahar Hazard Zone B. Covered assemblies shall be limited to 100 person occupancy. iii. Lahar Hazard Zone C. Covered assemblies shall be limited to a maximum 200 person occupancy. iv. Lahar Hazard Zone D. Development shall meet the requirements of Article 4, Frequently Flooded Areas. 4. Other Uses. i. Lahar Hazard Zone A. Limited to single-family structures and accessory structures; with the exception of the town of Glacier, where all permitted and administrative uses shall be allowed, subject to the conditions of WCC 16.16.350(C)(5) and a maximum occupancy of 25. ii. Lahar Hazard Zone B. All permitted and administrative uses allowed per zoning with a maximum occupancy of 50. iii. Lahar Hazard Zone C. All permitted and administrative uses allowed per zoning with a maximum occupancy of 100. iv. Lahar Hazard Zone D. Development shall meet the requirements of Article 4, Frequently Flooded Areas. 5. Technical Assessment and Review. Any project proposing a maximum occupant load greater than 25 shall be required to have a volcanic hazards assessment prepared by a qualified professional that includes a lahar travel-time analysis, recommendations for siting of improvements intending to avoid volcanic hazards, and a volcanic hazard management and evacuation plan. In addition, the technical administrator shall have the authority to require such assessment for any project deemed subject to an elevated risk from volcanic hazards. Table 1. Volcanic Hazard Area Standards

Lahar Hazard Zone Facility/Occupancy List A B C D Essential Facilities Not Allowed Not Allowed Not Allowed Not Allowed Hazardous Facilities Not Allowed Not Allowed Not Allowed Not Allowed Lahar Hazard Zone Facility/Occupancy List A B C D Special Occupancies Not Allowed Limited to 50 person Limited to 100 person Development shall occupant load. occupant load. meet the requirements of Article 4, Frequently Flooded Areas. Covered Assemblies Not Allowed Limited to 100 person Limited to 200 person Development shall occupant load. occupant load. meet the requirements of Article 4, Frequently Flooded Areas. Other Occupancies Limited to single- All permitted and All permitted and Development shall family administrative uses administrative uses meet the requirements residences and allowed per zoning with a allowed per zoning with a of Article 4, Frequently accessory maximum occupancy of maximum occupancy of Flooded Areas. structures* 50. 100. * In the Glacier area all permitted and administrative uses shall be allowed, subject to the conditions of WCC 16.16.350(C.5) and a maximum occupancy of 25.

Definitions to Add to Article 9 "Essential facilities" means those facilities that are necessary to maintain life, health, welfare and safety functions such as but not limited to: fire and police stations; emergency medical facilities or medical facilities containing surgery or emergency treatment areas; emergency response services or preparedness centers and their associated buildings, shelters, or vehicle storage areas; jails; and detention centers; structures and equipment in government communications centers and other facilities required for emergency response; power generating stations, standby power generating equipment or other types of public utility facilities that if interrupted would cause disruption to normal living and business operations; and wastewater treatment plants.

"Hazardous facilities" means those occupancies or structures housing or supporting toxic or explosive chemicals or substances and any non-building structures housing, supporting or containing quantities of toxic or explosive substances that, if contained within a building, would cause that building to be defined as a hazardous facility. Hazardous facilities include any elements contained in the definition for "hazardous waste treatment and storage facility." Hazardous facilities may be classified as a group "H" occupancy in the UBC.

"Special occupancy structures" means those structures that have the potential to provide capacity for special groups of people such as but not limited to schools, daycare centers, resident incapacitated patients, etc.

"Covered assembly" means any structure that has the potential to provide capacity for large numbers of people or assemblies such as but not limited to convention centers, churches, theatres, etc.

T41N T40N T39N T38N T37N Peat R9E R9E

10

7 .9 5 50 8.2 0 5

50 8.5 10

6.5 8 0

R8E 5 R8E CaseLahar 1 - (Non-Cohesive) CaseLahar II - (Cohesive) zone hazard blast Lateral CaseLahar M - (Cohesive) flows, debris and ballistic lava flows,Pyroclastic GHA- Volcanic 4 Hazards Source Map: HAZARDS FROM FUTURE ACTIVITY OF MOUNT BAKER, Miller, Dan C. Scott, M. Kevin Gardner, A. Cynthia By 1995 WASHINGTON Pringle Hildreth,Bobbie Myers, Wes T. and Patrick 14,000the past in Mount Baker occurred at has event Case M one Only years,this isthe largedebris flow inthe Middle Forkof theNooksack River can flow debris this from Deposits (1978). Crandell and Hyde by identified the downstream mapped communityas far Deming, of presumeablybe but as 1 for Case for flows interval Recurrence PugetSound. continued flow to this areflows 500 years or more (less frequent). interval Recurrence frequent). (more less or years 100 are 2 flows Case for

2

4

5 Y

Baker

W

H E

# I

T

A

T S R7E 12

50 9.8 Glacier R7E

6 Kendall D L R AL ND KE Glacier .3 1 Acme 13 Deming 9 Y

Sumas W H 50 E T A ST VD BL M

CO N 2 T 9

A 9 4 Y

Everson H 5 . HW

W LD

Y O

E W

N K H I A

L

E

T

M

A

D

T Y

R S A

E SMITH RD E W

2 H MMI 1 IS M

HE A

Lynden S E Bellingham STATE HWYSTATE 544

11 ST A TE TE H W Y Y 5 3 9 E H Y AT W

D ST

R

E

L

O

RD

P R R

NW DR NW D W R6E

E

N DGE I

A R

B A

M W Y Ferndale A W D

R

L

A

T R R D

E

OR RE

P O

H

Custer Y A

LAT S

W I

S N

R6E O T

X

A LUMM H

I 5 MOUNT VIEW RD

Volcanic Hazards Published by USGS

5 30 5

.

2.

N

I 1

M

6

25 25 1

. 10

n

i 25 4.2

m

Kendall 6 2 R5E R5E

.

N

I

M

2

3 Deming

Sumas .

R4E

.

N 15 7.8 31

N I

I M

M 7 5

0 R4E

9 Everson

BRITISH COLUMBIA BRITISH

. N

I M 0 9 maintained in the Whatcom County in the maintained Washington State Washington WHATCOM R3E R3E This map was produced from data data from produced was map This (GIS). System Information Geographic Services Development & Planning Lynden 1.5M Bellingham R2E R2E 1Miles 1 Kilometers Projection - Lambert Conformal Conic, NAD 1983 NAD Conic, Conformal - Lambert Projection Ferndale 024 024 R1E R1E 15 mileshour per 25 mileshour per 50 mileshours per Zone_A_east Zone_A_west Zone_B Zone_C Zone_D Estimated Lahar Travel Time Proposed Lahar Hazard Zones

Legend Times Lahar Travel Miles, Travel_time_mns Velocity,

T41N T40N T39N T38N T37N

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

June 1, 2015

Whatcom County SECTION 2: HAZARD SUMMARIES Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan

VOLCANOES

A. DEFINITIONS

Blast Zone The area immediately surrounding a volcano, up to several tens of kilometers, that is destroyed by a volcano’s blast.

Lava Flow A stream of molten rock that pours or oozes from an erupting vent.

Lahar A mudflow or debris flow that originates from the slope of a volcano; pyroclastic flows can generate lahars by rapidly melting snow and ice.

Pyroclastic Flows High-density mixtures of hot, dry rock fragments and hot gases that move away from the vent that erupted them at high speeds.

Tephra 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 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.

B. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

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

Whatcom County Division of Emergency Management 2 - 71 Revised: June 1, 2015

Whatcom County SECTION 2: HAZARD SUMMARIES Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan

disasters are not part of our everyday experience.

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.

1. 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.

Whatcom County Division of Emergency Management 2 - 72 Revised: June 1, 2015

Whatcom County SECTION 2: HAZARD SUMMARIES Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan

2. 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.

C. 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 Recent Activity Type Past 225 Years 1792, 1843 to 1865, Mount Baker Ash, lava 1? 1870?, 1880, and 1975 steam emission Glacier Peak Ash 1+? Before 1800 (1750?) Tephra between 1830 and Mount Rainier Ash, lava 1? 1854 Ash, lava, Mount St. Helens 2 eruptive periods 1980 to present dome Indian Heaven Volcanic Lava, scoria None 8,000 years ago? Field Mount Adams Lava, ash None 3,500 years ago 1865, major eruption in Mount Hood, Oregon Ash, dome 2+? the 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

Whatcom County Division of Emergency Management 2 - 73 Revised: June 1, 2015

Whatcom County SECTION 2: HAZARD SUMMARIES Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan

occurred at Mount Saint Helens in Washington (1980 to 1986; 2004 to 2008) and at Lassen Peak in California (1914 to 1917).

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)

1. 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.

Finally, an eruption cloud deposited several inches of ash as far as 20 miles downwind to the northeast. Geologic

Whatcom County Division of Emergency Management 2 - 74 Revised: June 1, 2015

Whatcom County SECTION 2: HAZARD SUMMARIES Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan

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.

D. VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

Lahars are the primary threat from volcanic activity at Mount Baker. Originating from melted snow and ice, lahars could create torrents of ash, rock, and water. Flank collapses may also create volcanic landslides that may form into lahars. Lahars resulting from flank collapses can also be triggered by earthquakes, gravity, or increases in hydrovolcanic activity. Debris flows can remain hazardous for many years if the deposited material remobilizes from heavy rains.

Most cohesive debris flows will be small to moderate in volume and will originate as debris avalanches of altered volcanic rock, most likely from the Sherman Crater, Avalanche Gorge, or the Dorr Fumarole area. Small volume debris flows will pose little risk to most people, but moderate volume debris flows could travel beyond the flanks of the volcano.

The probability of either Mount Baker or Glacier Peak erupting, collapsing, or causing slides is low. However, volcanic activity from either mountain could result in massive destruction of property and probable loss of lives in or near the floods, lahars, earthquakes, landslides, and ash fall.

Examples of hazards and “worst-case scenarios” in Whatcom County, including adjacent counties and Canadian Provinces, 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:

a. Raised level of Baker Lake b. Baker Lake Dam failure

Whatcom County Division of Emergency Management 2 - 75 Revised: June 1, 2015

Whatcom County SECTION 2: HAZARD SUMMARIES Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan

c. Flooding of the entire Skagit floodplain to Puget Sound

2. Large flank collapses or pyroclastic flows could result in the following:

a. Inundation of Skagit River Valley by displacement of water in reservoirs by lahars b. 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) c. Floodwaters could extend from Sumas into Huntingdon and Abbotsford, B.C. d. 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

Whatcom County Division of Emergency Management 2 - 76 Revised: June 1, 2015

Whatcom County SECTION 2: HAZARD SUMMARIES Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan

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.

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.

Potential Volcanic Hazards

1. Flooding: Baker Lake and Lake Shannon – possibly dams destroyed

a. Nooksack River from origins to Bellingham Bay b. 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

E. MITIGATION STRATEGIES

Generally, technology and tell-tale signs of eruptions from volcanoes allow experts to predict volcanic activity, such as the predictions of the 1980 Mount Saint Helen’s eruption that saved many lives. However, the magnitude and timing of volcanic activities cannot be precisely predicted, giving the public little to no warning to prepare for a volcano emergency. Because of this, the best way to mitigate against volcanoes is to educate and

Whatcom County Division of Emergency Management 2 - 77 Revised: June 1, 2015

Whatcom County SECTION 2: HAZARD SUMMARIES Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan

raise awareness of affected citizens. In 2013 Whatcom Division of Emergency Management, United States Geological Survey, and the Washington State Emergency Management Division participated in the US/ Columbia Volcanic Exchange. Best practices concepts were brought back from the participants , and a focused effort led to a completion of a public information campaign for the Northern Cascade volcanos. 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.

WILDLAND FIRES

A. DEFINITIONS

Structure Fire A fire of natural or human-caused origin that results in the uncontrolled destruction of homes, businesses, and other structures in populated, urban or suburban areas.

Wildland fire Fire of natural or human-caused origin that results in the uncontrolled destruction of forests, field crops and grasslands.

Wildland Urban interface A fire of natural of human-caused origin that occurs in, or near, forest or grassland areas, where isolated homes, subdivisions, and small communities are also located.

Whatcom County Division of Emergency Management 2 - 78 Revised: June 1, 2015

MOUNT BAKER-GLACIER PEAK COORDINATION PLAN:

Coordinating efforts between governmental agencies in the event of volcanic unrest at Mount Baker or Glacier Peak, Washington

Prepared by the Mount Baker/Glacier Peak Facilitating Committee Mount Baker-Glacier Peak Facilitating Committee

2 Mount Baker/Glacier Peak Emergency Plan

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ...... 4 GEOLOGIC BACKGROUND ...... 4 Mount Baker ...... 4 Glacier Peak ...... 7 THE ONSET OF CRISIS: MONITORING AND EVENT NOTIFICATION ...... 9 Event Notification...... 10 Notification for ground-based hazard ...... 11 Notification for ash hazard to aircraft...... 12 CRISIS RESPONSE: ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES...... 12 Interagency Organizations...... 12 Agency Responsibilities...... 15 CONCEPT OF OPERATION...... 18 Preparedness Phase (when volcanoes are in repose)...... 18 Response Phase...... 19 Recovery Phase...... 19 Organization and responsibilities according to levels of unrest ...... 20 ENSURING PREPAREDNESS ...... 24 APPENDIX A: AUTHORITIES...... 25 Federal United States ...... 25 Federal Canada...... 25 State of Washington...... 25 Province of British Columbia ...... 25 Local...... 25 APPENDIX B: USGS FACT SHEET “WHAT ARE VOLCANO HAZARDS?” (Following pages) ...... 26 APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS ...... 27 APPENDIX D: REQUIREMENTS FOR SITING A FIELD VOLCANO OBSERVATORY...... 28 Space requirements: ...... 28 Communication requirements:...... 29 Power requirements: ...... 29 Doppler radar ...... 29 Parking ...... 29 APPENDIX E: JOINT INFORMATION CENTER PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE ...29 Coordination of information flow...... 29 Recommended structure of Joint Information Center during a volcanic incident ...... 30 APPENDIX F: REFERENCES AND WEB SITES ...... 30 References:...... 30 Web sites:...... 31

3 Mount Baker-Glacier Peak Facilitating Committee

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The mountains of the Pacific Northwest were the source of legends by native peoples and continue to awe and inspire people today. They have been the objects of livelihoods, the goals of mountaineers, homes for many, and vacation spots for many more. Not everyone who sees them however, is aware that some of the most prominent peaks are also volcanoes. Best known among them is Mount St. Helens, whose eruption in 1980 forever changed the local population's perspective as to what living near an active volcano may mean. Northwest Washington contains two prominent volcanoes: Mount Baker and Glacier peak. Both have erupted within the last three centuries, and Glacier Peak has produced one of the largest explosive eruptions of the Cascade volcanoes in the past fifteen thousand years. Populations are sparse around Mount Baker and especially so around Glacier Peak, thus these volcanoes do not pose the same level of risk as nearby Mount Rainier, nor do they erupt as frequently as Mount St. Helens. Nevertheless, an eruption or major landslide-produced lahar1 could cause significant disruption and possibly loss of life in affected areas. As generally noted by geologists, "it's not a question of 'if', but 'when'" either volcano will erupt. When the next eruption or landslide-produced lahar occurs, its effects will be more easily dealt with if a plan is in place so that responsible agencies know what to expect and how to respond. For this reason, the Mount Baker/Glacier Peak Coordination Plan was drawn up by emergency managers from Snohomish, Skagit, and Whatcom Counties, the State of Washington, and the Province of British Columbia, as well as personnel from the U. S. Forest Service and the U.S. Geological Survey. The purpose of this plan is to coordinate the actions that various agencies must take to minimize loss of life and damage to property before, during, and after a hazardous geologic event at either volcano. The plan strives to assure timely and accurate dissemination of warnings and public information. The plan also includes the necessary legal authorities as well as statements of responsibilities of County, State, and Federal agencies in the United States and Provincial and Federal agencies in Canada.

GEOLOGIC BACKGROUND The volcanoes of Mount Baker and Glacier Peak differ in their topographic form, in the type of magma they produce, in the nature and style of their eruptions, and in the kinds of hazards they present. The main characteristics of these volcanoes are as follows:

Mount Baker Mount Baker is an ice-clad volcano prominently visible from the communities of Bellingham, Washington, and Vancouver, British Columbia. At 10,775 feet (3284 m) in elevation, it is the third highest volcano in Washington. Since the disappearance of

1 Terms in bold italics are defined in the glossary in Appendix B.

4 Mount Baker/Glacier Peak Emergency Plan

continental ice sheets from this area about 14,000 years ago, volcanic activity has been dominated by eruptions producing lava flows and minor ash falls, and by small to moderate debris avalanches and lahars. During this period: • Small volumes of ash were erupted at least 4 times; the largest of these (about 6,000 years ago) produced an ash layer as thick as 20 inches (50 cm) at a distance of seven miles (11 km) northeast of the volcano. Some of these events involved new magma; others (most recently around 1843) resulted from violent steam explosions. • Lava flows were erupted at least twice and moved down Boulder Creek valley and Sulphur Creek valley, in the latter to a distance of 7 miles (12 km) from the vent. • During one eruptive episode, numerous hot pyroclastic flows (rapidly moving mixtures of rock, ash, and gas) moved down the Boulder Creek valley into the Baker River valley. • About 6,000 years ago, the south flank of Mount Baker collapsed, producing a voluminous lahar whose deposits extend down the Nooksack River at least as far as Deming. Farther downstream the deposits are buried by younger river sediments, but the lahar probably reached Puget Sound. The lahar may have also overtopped the divide near Everson and flowed down the Sumas River into the Fraser River valley. • Debris avalanches (rock avalanches) and small to moderate-sized lahars have occurred repeatedly. Lahars that occurred during the hydrothermal explosions of 1843 record the collapse of the east rim of Sherman Crater and affected all the major drainages on the east flank, from Sulphur Creek to Rainbow Creek. These lahars apparently caused a rise of about 8 feet (2.5 m) in the level of the natural Baker Lake (a small body of water about a mile upstream of the mouth of Swift Creek). Since the 1840s there have been at least ten small debris avalanches, lahars, or glacial outburst floods. Most reached only one to two miles (2-3 km) from their source areas; a few traveled about six miles (10 km). • In 1975, increased fumarolic activity in the Sherman Crater area caused concern that a hazardous volcanic event might be imminent. For a time, local access was restricted, and the level of Baker Lake was lowered. Enhanced monitoring eventually showed that surface heat flow had increased, but that magma had not moved to shallow levels and that an eruption was not imminent. Potential future hazards • The most common events at Mount Baker are debris avalanches and lahars. Small- to moderate-sized debris avalanches and lahars occur more frequently than large ones and may occur during volcanic quiescence (Fig. 1). Small debris avalanches and lahars occur every few years to decades and are often related to rain-on-snow events. Lahars large enough to reach Baker Lake occur on a time scale of one every few decades to centuries and may or may not be triggered by an eruption. Lahars that are large enough to travel more than about 10 miles (15

5 Mount Baker-Glacier Peak Facilitating Committee

km), seem to be related to eruptive activity and, like modest magmatic eruptions, are separated by several centuries to a few millennia.

Sumas

Lynden Maple Falls R ive 542 N o rk N o o k s a c k r o rth F Everson Glacier

M i d d Deming le

F Kulshan o Caldera r k Mount N o o Dorr Fumaroles k s a c Roman Wall Baker k R. 9 Sherman Crater Bellingham Black Buttes Bellingham Bay Lake Whatcom Baker Schriebers Meadow Lake 5 Cinder Cone

WHATCOM COUNTY SKAGIT COUNTY

er

Lake iv R

Shannon r e Concrete ak B iv S k agit R er 20 Sedro Woolley

Burlington EXPLANATION Inundation Zone I - Pathways for eruption-related lahars due to large flank collapses or pyroclastic flows, or floods in the Skagit River valley caused by displacement of water in reservoirs by lahars. Mount Vernon Inundation Zone II - Pathways of lahars resulting from more frequent, small-to-moderate flank collapses from the area of Sherman Crater.

0 5 10 Miles Proximal pyroclastic flowage hazard zone - Area that could be affected by pyroclastic flows and lava flows.

Figure 1: Areas at risk from lahars or pyroclastic flows during future eruptions of Mount Baker. • Debris-avalanche or lahar material entering Baker Lake would displace an equivalent volume of water. If the volume of displaced water were large enough, it could overtop or destroy Upper Baker Dam and thus potentially overtop or destroy Baker Dam. In the case of overtopping (or less likely failure) of Baker dam, a flood or lahar would move down the Skagit River valley. • A large lahar in any drainage around Mount Baker may aggrade river valleys and increase sediment yield, thus potentially exacerbating flooding problems for years or decades after the initial event has occurred. • An eruption of Mount Baker may dust communities as far as 60 miles (100 km) or more downwind with about a third of an inch (a few millimeters) of volcanic ash, and pose a hazard to jet aircraft. Due to prevailing wind patterns, the most likely

6 Mount Baker/Glacier Peak Emergency Plan

areas to be affected are to the northeast, east or southeast; however, areas affected by ash fall will depend upon wind patterns during an eruption. Residents should be aware that they are as likely to be affected by ash from another Cascade volcano, such as Mount St. Helens or Glacier Peak as they are from an eruption of Mount Baker.

HAZARD ZONES

Less frequent Lava and lahars Pyroclastic flows More frequent Ash-cloud Surges lahars Figure 2: Areas at risk from lahars, pyroclastic flows, ash-cloud surges and associated phenomena

Glacier Peak Unlike Mount Baker, Glacier Peak is not prominently visible from any major city. At 10,541 feet (3212 m) elevation, it is, next to Mount St. Helens, the shortest of the major Washington volcanoes. But its small size belies a violent past. Glacier Peak has produced larger and more explosive eruptions in post-glacial time than any other Washington volcano except Mount St. Helens. In contrast to Mount Baker, whose most recent eruptions produced primarily lava flows, Glacier Peak’s eruptions tend to produce highly explosive eruptions or lava domes that may collapse repeatedly to produce fast moving pyroclastic flows and lahars. Activity over the last 14,000 years has included: • A series of large eruptions about 13,000 years ago spread ash across northern Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, and southern Alberta. Single eruptions during this period deposited as much as four inches (10 cm) of ash 60 miles (100 km) downwind. • About 6,000 years ago, eruptions repeatedly produced lava domes on the north flank of the volcano that collapsed and filled the Suiattle River valley and its tributaries with pyroclastic-flow deposits.

7 Mount Baker-Glacier Peak Facilitating Committee

• At least three smaller eruptions produced tephra during the past 5,900 years; the youngest of which occurred less than 300 years ago. • Lahars have accompanied nearly all of these eruptions. During at least three post- glacial eruptive periods (about 13,000, 6,000, and 2,800 years ago) some lahars reached as far as the ocean. Lahars from the 13,000-yr eruptions extended to Puget Sound down the Stillaguamish River Valley, which at that time formed the outflow to the Suiattle and Sauk Rivers. Lahars from the 6,000- and 2,800-yr eruptions extended to the lower Skagit River and probably to the ocean. • At least one lahar-producing eruptive episode has occurred since about 2,800 years ago, depositing debris as far downstream as the confluence of the White Chuck River and Sauk Rivers, and the lower Suiattle valley. No lahar deposits younger than ~2,800 yrs have been recognized farther downstream, although flooding and other effects of the lahars surely extended farther.

Potential future hazards • Deposits of ash associated with major eruptions could extend across northeastern Washington, northern Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, and southern Alberta (Fig. 3). However, communities should be aware that if an eruption occurs during rare times when the wind blows from the east, then areas west of the volcano could be severely affected. Even minor amounts of ash could prove disruptive to air and ground transportation.

Figure 3: Cumulative thickness of ash (inches) deposited during eruptions from Glacier Peak approximately 13,000 years ago. • Growth and repeated collapse of lava domes could generate pyroclastic flows on the flanks of the volcano. However, Glacier Peak is so remote that collapse of lava domes on the flanks of the volcano and even lahars in the upper White Chuck and Suiattle River Valleys would pose little threat of human casualties. However, ash falls associated with the pyroclastic flows may impact populated areas at greater distances from the volcano.

8 Mount Baker/Glacier Peak Emergency Plan

• In the years following eruptive episodes, volcanic debris could aggrade river valleys as far as Puget Sound, filling channels and promoting flooding (Fig. 4). Currently, all drainages are channeled into the Skagit valley. However, aggradation of the Sauk River near Darrington could divert the upper part of the Sauk River into the Stillaguamish, increasing the risk of floods and lahars to communities in the Stillaguamish River Valley.

Figure 4: Several cubic kilometers of tephra ejected by Mount Pinatubo in June 1991 was reworked by streams around the mountain during the following years. Above, lahars of Pinatubo ash along the Abacan River buried the town of Bacalor to depths of 15 feet in the town proper, and more than 30 feet in some outlying villages (photo by C.G. Newhall, USGS). • The recurrence interval for lahars extending into the lower Sauk or Skagit River Valley is on the order of several thousand years. The recurrence interval for large ash-producing eruptions that could affect eastern Washington is of the same order.

THE ONSET OF CRISIS: MONITORING AND EVENT NOTIFICATION Nearly all eruptions are preceded by measurable changes in seismicity, gas emission, ground deformation or other geophysical and geochemical parameters caused by magma forcing a path to the surface. The areas around Mount Baker and Glacier Peak are continuously monitored by the Pacific Northwest Seismograph Network (PNSN), which is jointly operated by the University of Washington and the USGS. The first indications of volcanic unrest at Mount Baker or Glacier Peak will likely be an increase in earthquake activity, and it will likely take days to weeks to decide whether the increase is the result of magma movement towards the surface or not.

9 Mount Baker-Glacier Peak Facilitating Committee

In response to developing volcanic unrest, a USGS response team expects to: 1. Establish a temporary volcano observatory at or near an Emergency Operations Center in Whatcom, Skagit, or Snohomish County. The observatory will maintain close contact with emergency managers and will be sited to allow efficient daily helicopter access to the volcano. The primary function of the USGS response team is to monitor all volcanic developments and provide eruption-forecasting and hazard-assessment information to support decisions by public officials. 2. Install monitoring instruments to collect and analyze visual, seismic, lahar- detection, deformation, and gas-emission data. As an important element of redundancy, critical seismic data will be received and analyzed both at the University of Washington and the local temporary volcano observatory.

Warning time and duration of eruption: long or short? At volcanoes around the world, the amount of warning time between the first appearance of volcanic unrest and the onset of a major, hazardous eruption has ranged from about a day, to years. At Redoubt Volcano in Alaska, increased steaming was noted in early November, 1989; but seismic activity remained low until 13 December, about 25 hours before the onset of a major explosive eruption. Three more explosive events on 15 December were followed by six months of dome growth and dome collapse until activity ceased in early summer of 1990. At Soufriere Hills Volcano on the island of Montserrat, British West Indies, the first seismic unrest in January 1992 preceded the first eruption by three years. The first small steam explosion in July 1995 was followed by the appearance of a lava dome in September of that year. Pyroclastic flows from the growing dome began spilling into surrounding valleys in March 1996, leading to the gradual destruction of Plymouth, the capital city, and surrounding towns and farmland over the next two years. Dome growth and periodic explosions continue at Montserrat. For a variety of reasons, hazardous magmatic eruptions at Mount Baker or Glacier Peak will probably be preceded by weeks or more of unrest. Chief among those reasons is that Mount Baker and Glacier Peak have been dormant for centuries; the conduit systems that convey magma to the surface have solidified and will have to be fractured and reopened for the next magma to reach the surface. In the Cascade Mountains, two volcanoes have produced magmatic eruptions during the twentieth century. At Mount St. Helens, the climactic eruption of May 18, 1980, was preceded by increased seismicity, uplift, and steam eruptions that began in late March of that year. At Mount Lassen, small steam and ash explosions began on June 30th, 1914 and continued sporadically for almost a year before the onset of large magmatic eruptions in May, 1915.

Event Notification Volcanic activity at Mount Baker or Glacier Peak may have dramatically different impacts depending on the type of eruption and the direction in which hazards (lahars or tephra plumes) are transported. Local agencies require information on hazards that affect nearby areas, whereas airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration require information on tephra plumes that can be hazardous to aircraft hundreds of miles from source. The information required by these two groups is not always the same, and therefore the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with various agencies, has developed two hierarchies of alert levels; one directed toward emergency response on the ground and the other toward ash hazards to aircraft. Those two hierarchies are described below.

10 Mount Baker/Glacier Peak Emergency Plan

Notification for ground-based hazard The USGS issues statements of ground-based hazards through the Washington Emergency Management Division (EMD), which transmits them, as appropriate, to state and federal agencies (including FAA, FEMA, National Weather Service), British Columbia (Provincial Emergency Program), adjacent states, and counties. The counties then transmit the notifications as appropriate to their own emergency-management agencies, cities, city-government organizations, special-purpose districts, and citizens. Event notification for ground-based hazards may occur under two distinctly different circumstances: (1) in response to small events that are generally unexpected and short- lived; (2) in response to developing volcanic unrest that may culminate in hazardous volcanic activity. The former is handled through information statements, the latter through volcano alert levels. Information Statement (Short -lived events, not necessarily volcanic) Unusual events such as steam bursts, small avalanches, rock falls, minor mudflows, a small earthquake swarm, thunderstorms, and slash burnings often attract media and public interest and inquiry. Most such events are short-lived and some may be hazardous, but lack recognizable precursors that would provide time for warning. Most of these events do not suggest volcanic unrest or major flank instability that would warrant a crisis response. However, owing to public and media inquiries that result from such events, the USGS along with other involved agencies will attempt to verify the nature and extent of the event, and issue commentary as appropriate. Information statements may also be issued to provide commentary about notable events occurring within any volcano alert level during volcanic unrest. Volcano Alert Levels Volcano Alert Levels reflect the degree of concern and the anticipated imminence of hazardous volcanic activity. Alert-level notifications will be accompanied by explanatory text to clarify hazard implications as fully as possible. Updates may be issued to supplement any alert-level statement. Alert-level assignments depend upon observations and interpretations of changing phenomena. Some volcanic events may not be preceded by obvious changes, or the observed changes may not be well understood; thus, surprises are possible, and uncertainty about timing and nature of anticipated events is likely. Alert levels are not always followed sequentially.

Notice of Volcanic Unrest (first recognition of conditions that could lead to a hazardous event). This alert level is declared by the USGS when anomalous conditions are recognized that could lead to a hazardous volcanic event. The most likely such condition would be sustained, elevated seismicity, detected by the PNSN. A notice of volcanic unrest expresses concern about the potential for hazardous volcanic activity but does not imply imminent hazard. Among the possible outcomes are: (1) anomalous condition is determined not symptomatic of an eventual hazardous volcanic event, thus the notice is cancelled; (2) symptomatic activity wanes, leading to cancellation of the notice; (3)

11 Mount Baker-Glacier Peak Facilitating Committee conditions indicate a progression toward hazardous volcanic activity, leading to issuance of a volcano advisory or volcano alert.

Volcano Advisory (hazardous volcanic event is likely but not necessarily imminent) This alert level is declared by the USGS when monitoring and evaluation indicate that a hazardous volcanic event is likely but not necessarily imminent. This alert level is used to emphasize heightened concern about potential hazard. Among the possible outcomes are: (1) precursory activity wanes, leading either to cancellation of the advisory or to a downgrade to a notice of volcanic unrest; (2) conditions evolve so as to indicate that a hazardous volcanic event is imminent or underway, leading to issuance of a volcano alert. Volcano advisory statements will be updated as necessary, to clarify as fully as possible the USGS’s understanding of the hazard implications.

Volcano Alert (hazardous volcanic event appears imminent or is underway) This alert level is declared by the USGS when precursory events have escalated to the point where a hazardous volcanic event appears imminent or is underway. Depending upon further developments, a volcano alert may be maintained, downgraded or canceled. A volcano alert will indicate, in as much detail as possible, the time window, place, and expected impact of an anticipated hazardous events. Updated statements will provide information as dictated by evolving conditions.

Notification for ash hazard to aircraft Tephra plumes from volcanic eruptions can travel hundreds or thousands of miles from their sources. Even when the concentration of ash is so low that it is of little interest or concern to populations on the ground, it can severely impact aircraft, especially large commercial jet aircraft. Consequently, NOAA, FAA, and USGS are jointly developing a separate plan for interagency communication about atmospheric ash hazards. Under this plan, the USGS will issue, to NOAA, FAA, and the appropriate Canadian agencies, separate notices about anticipated or existing atmospheric-ash hazards. Those notices will be given in the terms of the already-established color code: • Green - Volcano is quiet; no eruption is anticipated. • Yellow - Volcano is restless; eruption is possible but not known to be imminent. • Orange - Small explosive eruption(s) either imminent or occurring; tephra plume(s) not expected to reach 25,000 feet (7,600 m) above sea level. • Red- Major explosive eruption imminent or occurring; large tephra plumes expected to reach at least 25,000 feet (7,600 m) above sea level. CRISIS RESPONSE: ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Interagency Organizations The overriding principle in a volcanic emergency is that that preservation of human life takes precedence over protection of property. Federal, State and/or local

12 Mount Baker/Glacier Peak Emergency Plan jurisdictional authorities may protect life and property by, among other actions, closing high-risk areas to public access, or evacuating local residents from hazard zones. During a response, each agency and organization will provide resources and administrative support, and will act in accordance with the basic principles of the Incident Command System (ICS). County Emergency Management agencies (DEMs), the Washington State Emergency Management Division (EMD), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) have primary responsibilities for coordinating local, regional, State and Federal responses, respectively. In Canada, the Provincial Emergency Program (PEP) and Emergency Preparedness Canada (EPC) coordinate the response of British Columbia and Canada respectively for disasters that affect them. The responsibilities of Local, State, Provincial and Federal agencies are summarized in Table 1. The authorities under which these agencies operate are described in Appendix A.

Table 1: Responsibilities and contact information for FAC members. Jurisdiction and its Responsibilities Contact Information LOCAL GOVERNMENT Snohomish County – Emergency Operation Local jurisdictions are responsible for the overall Center, 3509 109th Street SW, Everett, 425- direction and control of emergency activities 423-7635. undertaken within their jurisdictional boundaries. Each Skagit County – Consolidated Communication county may activate an emergency operations center Center, 2911 East College Way, Suite B, located at the address given to the right. Mount Vernon, 360-428-3250. Whatcom County - County Courthouse Basement, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, 360-676-6681. STATE GOVERNMENT Washington State – Emergency Operation The Governor, the Governor’s cabinet, composed of Center, Camp Murray, Tacoma, Building 20, the Executive Heads of State agencies or their 800-258-5990 representatives, and staff from the State Emergency Management Division, are responsible for the conduct of emergency functions and will exercise overall direction and control of state government operations. PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT Provincial Emergency Coordination Centre – Coordination of provincial response and recovery 455 Boleskine Road, Victoria, British would occur under the direction of the Provincial Columbia, 800-363-3456 Emergency Program of British Columbia. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT The Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA ROC – 130-228th Street S.W., Bothell, (FEMA) is responsible for federal agency coordination 425-487-4700 and operation of the Regional Operation Center (ROC). The U.S. Geological Survey will conduct field operations, monitoring and provide advice to other U.S. Geological Survey, Cascades Volcano agencies regarding the status of the volcano. The Observatory, 5400 MacArthur Blvd., Vancouver, USGS may locate with an appropriate county. WA 98661, 360-993-8900. The U.S. Forest Service, Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, is responsible for management of lands U.S. Forest Service, Mount Baker-Snoqualmie within the National Forests and the Skagit Wild and National Forest, 2105 State Route 20, Sedro Scenic River. Woolley, WA 98284 360-856-5700.

13 Mount Baker-Glacier Peak Facilitating Committee

CANADIAN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EPC. REOC P.O. Box 10000, Victoria, B.C. Canadian Federal response will be in support of V8W3A5, 250-363-3621 provincial operations. Emergency Preparedness Canada would be responsible for federal agency coordination and is located at the Regional Emergency Operations Centre (REOC).

In addition to the agencies and organizations that already exist with responsibility for preparededness, response, and recovery, two committees have been or will be formed specifically to deal with hazards from Mount Baker and Glacier Peak. These are the Mount Baker/Glacier Peak Facilitating Comittee (FAC) and the Multi-Agency Coordinating Group (MAC) Responsibilities of the FAC, MAC, and of County Departments or Divisions of Emergency Management are illustrated in the following chart (Fig. 5), and described below.

Response Organization Coordination Diagram

U.S. Federal Canadian Federal

FAC State Province

MAC

Regional County County Management

Incident Incident Incident Incident Commander Commander Commander Commander Unified Command

Direct coordination authority Incident Management Team Participant unit Figure 5: Flow chart of relationships between various agencies involved in unrest at Glacier Peak or Mount Baker. Mount Baker/Glacier Peak Facilitating Committee (FAC) The FAC has been established to maintain preparedness during times of volcanic quiescence and to determine appropriate levels of action when unrest begins and ends. It is made up of members from each jurisdiction with statutory responsibilities for emergency response (Table 2). Additional agencies (Associate Members in Table 2) may also attend meetings of the FAC. The FAC may be called together by any member who identifies a need for coordinated discussions. The FAC will be responsible for exercising this plan. The Washington State Emergency Management Division has the responsibility

14 Mount Baker/Glacier Peak Emergency Plan to assemble the FAC for an annual review of the plan. Responsibilities of the FAC before, during, and after a crisis is outlined in the Concept of Operations Section.

Table 2: Members and Associate Members of the FAC. See Table 1 for contact list for full members. Contact list for Associate Members is given in Appendix __. Members shall include Associate Members may include Skagit County Department of Emergency Management Washington State Patrol Whatcom County Division of Emergency Management FEMA, Region X Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management Emergency Preparedness Canada Washington State Division of Emergency Management National Park Service Washington State Department of Natural Resources Tribal Nations and/or First Nations U.S. Geological Survey Bureau of Indian Affairs U.S. Forest Service Geological Survey of Canada Provincial Emergency Program (British Columbia) Other concerned jurisdictions, agencies and/or organizations The Multi-Agency Coordinating Group (MAC) The MAC will operate only during crisis, and may be given the responsibility of coordinating and supporting actions such as warnings, road blocks, air operations (including space restrictions), emergency public information, and search and rescue. The MAC may also serve as a clearinghouse for information from the various agencies. The MAC should be composed of representatives from each jurisdiction with responsibilities for resource allocation or emergency response operations. If the incident involves Mount Baker, Snohomish County Emergency Management, upon request, will establish and administer the MAC on behalf of the impacted jurisdictions. If the incident involves Glacier Peak, Whatcom County Emergency Management, upon request, will establish and administer the MAC. The members of the MAC shall have the authority to make decisions that integrate facilities, personnel, procedures, and communications into a common system. During a crisis either the FAC and/or MAC may choose to establish a Joint Information Center (JIC) in order to disseminate information to the press and the public on ongoing events. The structure of the JIC is given in Appendix E. Incident Management Teams (IMT’s) Once activities have exceeded the management capabilities of local resources, a Washington State Interagency Incident Management Team (IMT) may be activated. The IMT shall be responsible for the coordinated management of the incident and implementing the objectives of the local jurisdiction and (or) the MAC. The IMT will carry out the direction of the Unified Command, and may be activated by contacting the State Emergency Management Division.

Agency Responsibilities Divisions or Departments of Emergency Management During a crisis, information about the status of a volcano would normally be transmitted from the USGS through the Washington State EMD to the MAC and to county Divisions or Departments of Emergency Management (DEMs). The DEMs would then relay the information to local jurisdictions and agencies. As needed, the county DEMs would:

15 Mount Baker-Glacier Peak Facilitating Committee a) Implement Emergency Operation Plans, maintain and activate Emergency Operations Centers. b) Provide local public warnings and information. c) Activate the Emergency Alert System (EAS). d) Assist Incident Commander(s). e) Participate in establishing a unified command structure. f) Establish a regional coordination center. g) Provide local Public Information Officers (PIO’s) for a JIC. h) Assist the U.S. Geological Survey in establishing a Field Volcano Observatory. i) Provide for the welfare of citizens impacted by a volcanic event. j) Initiate and coordinate local declarations of emergency or requests for assistance from state and/or federal resources. k) Develop crisis-response plans in their own counties. l) Provide information and training on volcanic-hazard response to emergency managers and the public. m) Assess volcanic risk as part of a larger Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis (HIVA). State Military Department, Emergency Management Division EMD, through its 24 hour Emergency Operations Center (EOC), is responsible for providing alert and warning to local jurisdictions potentially impacted by volcanic unrest. Additionally EMD will notify specific state and federal agencies that have a response role during a volcanic event. The EOC would then work with other entities in order to coordinate resources to support local and state agency response. In support of this plan EMD’s responsibilities include: a) Coordinating the acquisition and distribution of resources to support response b) Developing plans and procedures. c) Acting as the central point of contact for local government requests for specific State and Federal disaster related assets and services. d) Activating and staffing the Washington State Emergency Operations Center (EOC) e) Activating the State Emergency Alert System (EAS) to advise the public of the existence of emergency conditions and protective actions that should be taken. f) Activate the Washington Emergency Information Center (WEIC) to provide event related public information g) Coordinating with the Federal Government on supplemental disaster assistance necessary to preserve lives and property, and on recovery assistance necessary to restore damaged areas to pre-disaster condition. h) Activating, if necessary, the Washington State- British Columbia Cooperative Agreement. i) Deploying State Liaison Officers to affected jurisdictions. Federal Emergency Management Agency The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) roles and responsibilities during a disaster and or an emergency are governed by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Assistance and Emergency Relief Act, as amended, 42 USC 5121, et seq., and the Federal Response Plan (FRP) for Public Law 93-288, as amended. The primary responsibility of

16 Mount Baker/Glacier Peak Emergency Plan

FEMA is to coordinate and deliver assistance and support to state and local governments when requested. This request is typically through the governor as a Request for a Presidential Declaration of Disaster. A volcanic eruption would be handled in much the same way as any natural disaster. FEMA’s responsibilities include: a) Coordinating Federal level emergency planning, management, mitigation and assistance functions of Federal agencies in support of Sate and local efforts. b) Providing and maintaining the Federal and State NAWAS Warning Circuits. c) Providing FEMA liaison staff to the FAC, MAC and the State EOC. d) Following a Presidential Declaration: 1. Establishing a Disaster Field Office. 2. Coordinating public information activities for all federal agencies and disseminating to news media. 3. Coordinating State requests for Federal or military assistance. 4. Coordinating Federal assistance operations United States Geological Survey The USGS Volcano Hazards Program seeks to lessen the harmful impacts of volcanic activity by monitoring active and potentially active volcanoes, assessing their hazards, responding to volcanic crises, and conducting research on how volcanoes work. USGS responsibilities include: a) Issuing timely warnings of potential geological hazards to responsible emergency- management authorities and the populace affected. b) Monitoring volcanic unrest, tracking its development, forecasting eruptions, and evaluating the likely hazards c) Deploying staff and monitoring equipment during times of volcanic crisis. d) Establishing a temporary volcano observatory located so as to provide ready access to the volcano for the USGS hazard-assessment team and ready access to the hazard- assessment team for the emergency managers (Appendix D). U.S. Forest Service The Forest Service manages public lands on and around both Glacier Peak and Mount Baker. Authorities include land management responsibility related to use, management and protection of these lands. Roles and responsibilities during a disaster or emergency include protection of life, property and national forest resources. Control of access and use of national forest is regulated by the U.S. National Forest in coordination with adjoining landowners and agencies. Provincial Emergency Program (British Columbia) The role of the Provincial Emergency Program with regard to volcanic eruptions in British Columbia or Washington State is to: a) Receive information from the Geological Survey of Canada, or the U.S. Geological Survey. b) Disseminate timely and accurate information to all Federal and Provincial agencies as and when required. c) Provide timely and accurate information to those communities which may be at risk - issue warnings.

17 Mount Baker-Glacier Peak Facilitating Committee d) Coordinate the Provincial Governments response to and recovery from volcanic eruptions. e) Manage the media, in relation to the Provincial Government involvement.

Note: All the above activities will be managed/coordinated through the Emergency Coordination Centre (ECC). The ECC is staffed on a 24/7 basis, 365 days a year.

How to cope: Logistical problems during volcanic crises Volcanic crises pose problems to communities that may not exist during other types of catastrophes. Below are some problems that are inherent in volcanic crises. Appendix F lists some publications describing case studies. Uncertainty. Once a volcano shows signs of life, it is not clear whether or when it could produce a major hazardous eruption. In 1975, Mount Baker increased the steam output from its summit crater for a few months, then fell back to dormancy with no indication of magma movement. Popocatepetl Volcano near Mexico City has periodically threatened nearby communities since 1993, causing nearby villagers to evacuate more than once, only to return after large eruptions failed to take place. At St. Pierre in Martinique (French West Indies), local authorities in 1902 opted not to evacuate in spite of four months of seismicity and steam explosions at Mount Pelée, five miles to the north. On May 8, a major eruption produced a pyroclastic flow that destroyed the town and killed 29,000 residents. In 1982, in response to earthquake swarms and uplift at Long Valley, California, the USGS issued a low-level forecast of a possible eruption. Activity subsided and the USGS was branded the "U.S. Guessing Society" by local residents. Authorities in these circumstances are generally in a "no-win" situation. Their best hope of maintaining public trust is to convey the uncertainty inherent in volcanic crises, and to maintain extremely close and open relations with community leaders. Controlling access. During the crisis at Mount St. Helens in March and April, 1980, volcano-watchers would bypass road blocks to view the volcano, stage illegal climbs to the summit, even land helicopters at the summit to film commercials. The difficulty in controlling access to the mountain was compounded by the checkerboard pattern of public and private land ownership, and the extensive network of logging roads.

CONCEPT OF OPERATION This plan is based on the premise that each agency with responsibilities for preparedness, response, or recovery activities has, or will develop, an individual operations plan or Suggested Operating Guidelines (SOG) that covers its organization and emergency operations. This plan establishes a mechanism for coordination of each agency's efforts. The Concept of Operations can be defined with respect to three phases of volcanic activity: (1) preparedness (2) response and (3) recovery.

Preparedness Phase (when volcanoes are in repose) a. The FAC shall: 1. Prepare emergency plans and programs to ensure continuous readiness and response capabilities. The FAC shall meet yearly to: a. Coordinate, write, revise and exercise this volcano response coordination plan. b. Develop and evaluate alert and warning capabilities for the volcanic hazard risk areas c. Review public education and awareness requirements and implement an outreach program on volcano hazards.

18 Mount Baker/Glacier Peak Emergency Plan

Response Phase a. Members of the FAC shall: 1. Meet whenever any member deems it necessary. 2. Share information on the current activity of Mount Baker and/or Glacier Peak and coordinate data relating to hazard assessments, evaluations and analysis. 3. Assess the need to activate the MAC Group and activate the MAC as necessary, or; 4. Coordinate any needed public information or establish a JIC for this purpose. b. Upon activation, the MAC shall: 1. Facilitate accurate and timely collection and exchange of regional incident information. 2. Coordinate regional objectives, priorities and resources. 3. Analyze and anticipate future agency/regional resource needs. 4. Coordinate regional public information through a JIC. 5. Communicate MAC decisions to jurisdictions/agencies. 6. Review need for other agencies involvement in the MAC. 7. Provide necessary liaison with out-of-region facilities and agencies as appropriate. 8. Designate regional mobilization centers as needed, in coordination with the IMT. 9. Coordinate damage assessment and evaluation. a. Evaluate disaster magnitude and local disaster assistance and recovery needs. b. Obtain detailed data on casualties, property damage, resources status.

Recovery Phase When hazardous geologic activity has subsided to a point where reconstruction and restoration activities may be initiated, even when the mountain is still in eruptive state, recovery efforts may be initiated and carried out. a. In addition to the functions previously noted, the MAC shall: 1. Coordinate recovery and reconstructive efforts. 2. Assist Incident Commander(s) in demobilization. 3. Continue to coordinate the collection and dissemination of disaster information including informing the public about hazardous conditions, health, sanitation and welfare problems, and need for volunteers 4. Determine when to terminate the MAC operations. b. The FAC shall: 1. Conduct an After Action Review of the event and make changes to the plan as necessary.

19 Mount Baker-Glacier Peak Facilitating Committee

Organization and responsibilities according to levels of unrest Following are the detailed responsibilities and tasks of jurisdictions and agencies at the various levels of notification. A. Following a Notice of Volcanic Unrest:

1. Local jurisdictions and Agencies: • Convene the FAC. • Review plans and procedures for response to the Volcanic Hazards threat. • Designate individuals who will be responsible for filling positions in the local ICS and/or Unified Command Structure as requested. • Provide orientation sessions on updated plans and organizational structure. • Update personnel lists. • Update call-up procedures for all staff. • Conduct briefings as needed.

2. State EMD • Convene the FAC. • Review internal plans and procedures. • Implement notifications. • Provide technical assistance to local jurisdictions. • Coordinate with other Emergency Support Functions (ESF) agencies that will provide assistance. • Coordinate mutual aid agreements with British Columbia and neighboring states. • Evaluate the need for assistance from other agencies. • Evaluate resource requirements. • Issue advisories and state level policies in consultation with the FAC. • Conduct hazard specific training. • Conduct briefings as needed.

3. USGS • Convene the FAC. • Monitor the status of the volcano and determine the need for additional instrumentation. • Issue alert-level notifications and updates. • Consider establishing field observatory.

4. National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service • Convene the FAC. • Provide public education

20 Mount Baker/Glacier Peak Emergency Plan

• Evaluate need for access control and implement as needed. • Evaluate need for air space controls and implement as needed. • Authorize placement of additional instrumentation as needed.

5. British Columbia PEP • Convene the FAC. • Review and update the Provincial Volcano Response Plan. • Receive information from the USGS or the Geological Survey of Canada. • Disseminate information to local governments, provincial ministries and federal departments in British Columbia.

6. Emergency Preparedness Canada • Disseminate information to other federal organizations and other provinces as required. • Ensure liaison with FEMA Region X and other U.S. agencies as needed.

7. FAC • Discuss and evaluate developing events • Review this Plan • Disseminate public information • Consider establishing the MAC

B. During a period of increased volcanic unrest (Volcano Advisory):

1. Local Jurisdictions and Agencies: • Establish local Incident Command and consider the possible need for Unified Command with other jurisdictions. • Conduct surveys on resource availability and reaffirm prior commitments. • Test communications systems and assess communication needs. • Begin procurement of needed resources. • Assign PIOs to the JIC as needed. • Provide briefings and direction to all response personnel. • Request all assigned personnel to stand by for orders to activate emergency plan. • Coordinate support requirements for USGS Field Observatory. • Take readiness and precautionary actions to compress response time and to safeguard lives, equipment and supplies.

21 Mount Baker-Glacier Peak Facilitating Committee

2. State EMD • Implement plans for state level communications support within the affected area. • Consider coordinating joint public education programs. • Increase, as needed, the staffing at the EOC. • Consider establishing a Washington Emergency Information Center (WEIC) and support local government with PIO information. • Ensure state agencies are alerted to potential problems and review their operational responsibilities. • Assign liaison(s) to local unified command upon request.

3. USGS • Establish field observatory if not already established

4. British Columbia PEP • Issue warnings to communities at risk. • Activate regional incident management teams. • Conduct hazard-specific training and exercises.

5. Emergency Preparedness Canada • Coordinate support by federal agencies to the provincial preparedness efforts.

6. FAC • Establish MAC if not already established. • Consider requesting the participation of the Mobilization Incident Commander (MIC) of the Incident Management Team (IMT).

C. Upon receipt of official notification that a volcanic eruption or lahar is imminent or occurring (Volcano Alert):

1. Local Jurisdictions and Agencies: • Fully mobilize all assigned personnel and activate all or part of the Mt. Baker/Glacier Peak Coordination Plan. • Activate Comprehensive Emergency Management Plans. • Continually broadcast emergency public information. • In accordance with ICS procedures, direct and control emergency response activities in each jurisdiction. • Ensure MAC is adequately staffed and equipped. • Consider requesting state mobilization and possible activation of an IMT.

22 Mount Baker/Glacier Peak Emergency Plan

2. State EMD

• Activate State Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan • Coordinate the state response to the emergency. • Coordinate interstate mutual aid. • Coordinate federal response.

3. FAA • Issue airspace alert warning of restricted or prohibited space. • Coordinate use of affected airspace by aircraft involved in emergency response.

4. FEMA • Activate Federal Response Plan • Administer disaster relief funding following declaration of an emergency or major disaster by the President. • Coordinate Federal response

5. USGS • Monitor the status of seismic and geologic activity in the hazard area. • Issue alert-level notifications and updates. • Provide liaison to the MAC to provide ongoing information and advice.

6. National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service Implement plans to participate directly in the following coordinated response operations within the affected areas: • Fire • Evacuation • Security • Access Control • Search and Rescue • Alerting and Notification • Provide personnel for Unified Command Structure • Provide representation to the MAC • Support operations, logistics, and planning functions with personnel and resources.

7. British Columbia PEP • Coordinate the provincial response to the emergency. • Coordinate response with the State of Washington where appropriate.

23 Mount Baker-Glacier Peak Facilitating Committee

8. Emergency Preparedness Canada • Ensure federal responsibilities are implemented and sustained. • Provide national level support to the provincial response.

9. MAC • Coordinate support for Unified Command

ENSURING PREPAREDNESS No living person in the Northwest has experienced an eruption at Mount Baker or Glacier Peak; nor has any local official or scientist yet dealt with crises at either of these volcanoes. When the next volcanic crisis strikes, it is vital that public officials and citizens alike know what actions to take to protect life and property. Residents of western Washington and southwestern British Columbia are the focus of an outreach program developed in partnership by the USGS, universities, and government agencies. The goals of this program include strengthening the educational system’s coverage of volcanic hazards, history and risks, both by offering better classroom materials and by providing special training and information for teachers. Another emphasis includes taking the message about vulnerability to events from Mount Baker and Glacier Peak “on the road” through public presentations. Of great importance is the need for emergency managers, local officials and scientists to be familiar and comfortable with their roles in the event of volcanic unrest. Development of specific plans like this one is only a first step. The plan must be reviewed regularly and revised to meet the changing needs of the region’s rapidly growing communities. Although a volcanic eruption in the Cascades may be a once-in-a- lifetime event, those individuals charged with public safety must train themselves and their organizations through exercising the plan in order to ensure that crisis coordination will be smooth and seamless.

Plan Limitation No plan, including this one, can guarantee a perfect disaster response. Officials must be prepared for the unpredictable nature of volcanoes when determining how to respond to crises. It may be necessary, for example, to adopt a defensive posture for an indefinite time due to a lack of verifiable and/or conclusive information, a lack of adequate resources, or danger to responders. If some disruptive response has been carried out but no major eruption or collapse has followed, responders may have the difficult task of determining when to order a return to normal operations. When a major catastrophic event does occur at Mount Baker or Glacier Peak, it could overwhelm even the most extensive response preparations. Some volcanic eruptions, combined with extreme weather, have decimated instrument networks and damaged transportation, communications, and warning systems so thoroughly as to cripple (at least temporarily) any crisis response.

24 Mount Baker/Glacier Peak Emergency Plan

APPENDIX A: AUTHORITIES

Federal United States Public Law 93-288 Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1974 Public Law 920 Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950 as amended Public Law 96-342 The Improved Civil Defense Act of 1980 Public Law 84-99 Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies Federal Response Plan 1999 Flood Control Act of 1950 Department of Transportation Act of 1966 Federal Aviation Administration Act of 1958 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Order 122

Federal Canada Emergencies Act of 1988 Emergency Preparedness Act of 1988

State of Washington RCW 38.08 Powers and Duties of the Governor RCW 38.52 Emergency Management RCW 38.54 State Fire Service Mobilization RCW 43.06 Governor’s Emergency Powers Act WAC 118 Emergency Management WAC 296 Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act Washington State Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan Memorandum of Cooperation between the Province of British Columbia and the State of Washington of 1981

Province of British Columbia Emergency Program Act of 1996 and its regulations of 1993

Local Mutual Aid Agreement for Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish and San Juan Counties Northwest Region Fire Mobilization Plan Skagit County Department of Emergency Management Skagit County Resolution # 8438 Ordinance # 8859 – Establishment of Joint Emergency Management Council Agreement by County/Cities for a Joint Emergency Management Council Skagit County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan Whatcom County Division of Emergency Management Whatcom County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan Interlocal Cooperative Agreement for Emergency Management

25 Mount Baker-Glacier Peak Facilitating Committee

Whatcom County Charter Whatcom County Code 2.40-Emergency Management Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management Snohomish County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management Bylaws Snohomish County Code Chapter 2.36 * Emergency Services APPENDIX B: USGS FACT SHEET “WHAT ARE VOLCANO HAZARDS?” (Following pages)

26 USG S

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY—REDUCING THE RISK FROM VOLCANO HAZARDS What are Volcano Hazards?

olcanoes give rise to numerous Vgeologic and hydrologic hazards. Eruption Cloud Prevailing Wind U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scien- tists are assessing hazards at many Eruption Column of the almost 70 active and potentially Ash (Tephra) Fall active volcanoes in the United Landslide States. They are closely monitoring Acid Rain (Debris Avalanche) Bombs activity at the most dangerous of these volcanoes and are prepared to issue Vent Pyroclastic Flow Lava Dome Collapse Lava Dome warnings of impending eruptions or Pyroclastic Flow other hazardous events. Fumaroles Lahar (Mud or Debris Flow)

More than 50 volcanoes in the United States Lava Flow have erupted one or more times in the past 200 years. The most volcanically active regions of the Nation are in Alaska, Hawaii, California, Oregon, and Washington. Volcanoes produce a Ground wide variety of hazards that can kill people and Water destroy property. Large explosive eruptions can endanger people and property hundreds of Silica (SiO2) Magma miles away and even affect global climate. Content Type Some of the volcano hazards described below, 100% such as landslides, can occur even when a vol- cano is not erupting. Rhyolite Crack 68 Dacite 63 Eruption Columns and Clouds Andesite 53 An explosive eruption blasts solid and mol- Basalt ten rock fragments (tephra) and volcanic gases into the air with tremendous force. The largest rock fragments (bombs) usually fall back to Magma the ground within 2 miles of the vent. Small fragments (less than about 0.1 inch across) of volcanic glass, minerals, and rock (ash) rise 0 high into the air, forming a huge, billowing eruption column. Eruption columns can grow rapidly and Volcanoes produce a wide variety of natural hazards that can kill people and destroy property. This simplified reach more than 12 miles above a volcano in sketch shows a volcano typical of those found in the Western United States and Alaska, but many of these less than 30 minutes, forming an eruption hazards also pose risks at other volcanoes, such as those in Hawaii. Some hazards, such as lahars and landslides, can occur even when a volcano is not erupting. (Hazards and terms in this diagram are highlighted cloud. The volcanic ash in the cloud can pose a in bold where they are discussed in the text below.) serious hazard to aviation. During the past 15 years, about 80 commercial jets have been United States. Heavy ash fall can collapse is water vapor (steam), most of which is heated damaged by inadvertently flying into ash buildings, and even minor ash fall can damage ground water (underground water from rain- clouds, and several have nearly crashed be- crops, electronics, and machinery. fall and streams). Other common volcanic cause of engine failure. Large eruption clouds gases are carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, hydro- can extend hundreds of miles downwind, re- Volcanic Gases gen sulfide, hydrogen, and fluorine. Sulfur di- sulting in ash fall over enormous areas; the Volcanoes emit gases during eruptions. Even oxide gas can react with water droplets in the wind carries the smallest ash particles the far- when a volcano is not erupting, cracks in the atmosphere to create acid rain, which causes thest. Ash from the May 18, 1980, eruption of ground allow gases to reach the surface through corrosion and harms vegetation. Carbon diox- Mount St. Helens, Washington, fell over an small openings called fumaroles. More than ide is heavier than air and can be trapped in low area of 22,000 square miles in the Western ninety percent of all gas emitted by volcanoes areas in concentrations that are deadly to

U.S. Department of the Interior USGS Fact Sheet-002-97 U.S. Geological Survey Revised June 1998 people and animals. Fluorine, which in high concentrations is toxic, can be adsorbed onto volcanic ash particles that later fall to the ground. The fluorine on the particles can poi- son livestock grazing on ash-coated grass and also contaminate domestic water supplies. Cataclysmic eruptions, such as the June 15, 1991, eruption of Mount Pinatubo (Philip- pines), inject huge amounts of sulfur dioxide gas into the stratosphere, where it combines with water to form an aerosol (mist) of sulfuric acid. By reflecting solar radiation, such aero- sols can lower the Earth’s average surface tem- Yreka perature for extended periods of time by sev- CALIFORNIA eral degrees Fahrenheit (ûF). These sulfuric acid aerosols also contribute to the destruction 5 of the ozone layer by altering chlorine and ni- 97 trogen compounds in the upper atmosphere. 14,162 ft Weed Mount Shasta Lava Flows and Domes 0 10 MILES Molten rock (magma) that pours or oozes onto the Earth’s surface is called lava and forms lava flows. The higher a lava’s content The town of Weed, California, nestled below 14,162-foot-high Mount Shasta, is built on a huge debris avalanche that of silica (silicon dioxide, SiO ), the less easily roared down the slopes of this volcano about 300,000 years ago. This ancient landslide (brown on inset map; arrows 2 indicate flow directions) traveled more than 30 miles from the volcano’s peak, inundating an area of about 260 it flows. For example, low-silica basalt lava square miles. The upper part of Mount Shasta volcano (above 6,000 feet) is shown in dark green on the map. can form fast-moving (10 to 30 miles per hour) streams or can spread out in broad thin sheets and (or) ice. Volcano landslides range in size melting snow and ice (especially water from a up to several miles wide. Since 1983, Kilauea Vol- from small movements of loose debris on the glacier melted by a pyroclastic flow or surge), cano on the Island of Hawaii has erupted basalt surface of a volcano to massive collapses of the intense rainfall, or the breakout of a summit lava flows that have destroyed nearly 200 entire summit or sides of a volcano. Steep vol- crater lake. Large lahars are a potential hazard houses and severed the nearby coastal highway. canoes are susceptible to landslides because to many communities downstream from gla- In contrast, flows of higher-silica andesite they are built up partly of layers of loose volca- cier-clad volcanoes, such as Mount Rainier. and dacite lava tend to be thick and sluggish, nic rock fragments. Some rocks on volcanoes traveling only short distances from a vent. have also been altered to soft, slippery clay To help protect lives and property, scientists Dacite and rhyolite lavas often squeeze out of minerals by circulating hot, acidic ground wa- of the USGS Volcano Hazards Program main- a vent to form irregular mounds called lava ter. Landslides on volcano slopes are triggered tain a close watch on the volcanic regions of domes. Between 1980 and 1986, a dacite lava when eruptions, heavy rainfall, or large earth- the United States, including the Pacific Coast dome at Mount St. Helens grew to about 1,000 quakes cause these materials to break free and States, Wyoming, Hawaii, and Alaska. This on- feet high and 3,500 feet across. move downhill. going work enables the USGS to detect the first At least five large landslides have swept signs of volcano unrest and to warn the public Pyroclastic Flows down the slopes of Mount Rainier, Washington, of impending eruptions and associated hazards. High-speed avalanches of hot ash, rock frag- during the past 6,000 years. The largest vol- ments, and gas can move down the sides of a cano landslide in historical time occurred at the Bobbie Myers, Steven R. Brantley, Peter Stauffer, and James volcano during explosive eruptions or when the start of the May 18, 1980, Mount St. Helens W. Hendley II Graphic design by steep side of a growing lava dome collapses eruption. Sara Boore, Bobbie Myers, and Susan Mayfield and breaks apart. These pyroclastic flows can be as hot as 1,500ûF and move at speeds of 100 Lahars COOPERATING ORGANIZATIONS to 150 miles per hour. Such flows tend to fol- Mudflows or debris flows composed Alaska Div. of Geological and Geophysical Surveys low valleys and are capable of knocking down mostly of volcanic materials on the flanks of a Federal Aviation Administration and burning everything in their paths. Lower- volcano are called lahars. These flows of mud, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration density pyroclastic flows, called pyroclastic rock, and water can rush down valleys and National Park Service National Weather Service surges, can easily overflow ridges hundreds of stream channels at speeds of 20 to 40 miles per U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service feet high. hour and can travel more than 50 miles. Some University of Alaska The climactic eruption of Mount St. Helens lahars contain so much rock debris (60 to 90% University of Hawaii on May 18, 1980, generated a series of explo- by weight) that they look like fast-moving riv- University of Utah sions that formed a huge pyroclastic surge. ers of wet concrete. Close to their source, these University of Washington This so-called “lateral blast” destroyed an area flows are powerful enough to rip up and carry of 230 square miles. Trees 6 feet in diameter trees, houses, and huge boulders miles down- For more information contact: were mowed down like blades of grass as far as stream. Farther downstream they entomb ev- U.S. Geological Survey 15 miles from the volcano. erything in their path in mud. Cascades Volcano Observatory Historically, lahars have been one of the 5400 Mac Arthur Blvd., Vancouver, WA 98661 Volcano Landslides deadliest volcano hazards. They can occur both Tel: (360) 696-7693, Fax: (360) 696-7866 e-mail: [email protected] A landslide or debris avalanche is a rapid during an eruption and when a volcano is quiet. URL: http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/ downhill movement of rocky material, snow, The water that creates lahars can come from Mount Baker/Glacier Peak Emergency Plan

APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS CVO: Cascades Volcano Observatory DEM: Department (or Division) of Emergency Management DFO: Disaster Field Office DoD: Department of Defense EAS: Emergency Alert System ECC: Emergency Coordination Center EMD: Emergency Management Division EOC: Emergency Operation Center EPA: Environmental Protection Agency EPC: Emergency Preparedness Canada ERT: Emergency Response Team ESF: Emergency Support Function FAA: Federal Aviation Administration FAC: Facilitating Committee FCO: Federal Coordinating Officer FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency FRP: Federal Response Plan HIVA: Hazard Identification Vulnerabilty Assessment ICS: Incident Command System IMT: Incident Management Team JIC: Joint Information Center MAC: Multi-Agency Coordinating Group MIC: Mobilization Incident Commander NAWAS : National Warning System NOAA: National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration PEP: Provincial Emergency Program PIO: Public Information Officer PNSN: Pacific Northwest Seismographic Network REOC: Regional Emergency Operation Centre

27 Mount Baker-Glacier Peak Facilitating Committee

ROC: Regional Operation Center SAR: Search and Rescue SCO: State Coordinating Officer SOG: Suggested Operating Guidelines USGS: U.S. Geological Survey WEIC: Washington Emergency Information Center

APPENDIX D: REQUIREMENTS FOR SITING A FIELD VOLCANO OBSERVATORY The following is a rough guide to USGS requirements for a field observatory in, or close to, an established EOC. There is room for negotiation on these requirements. For example, if necessary, the USGS could set up operations room in a temporary structure (trailer?) in the parking lot and lease nearby office space for staff. The bottom line is: the USGS can probably adapt to most situations, especially for the first few weeks of any crisis.

Space requirements: Space requirements can be separated into 5 areas; (1) Roof or tower space for mounting radio-communication antennas, (2) an "Operations" room that would be the focus of the real-time monitoring activities and coordinating field work, (3) an area where staff could set up desks and numerous computers for data analysis, preparation for field activities, and hold staff meetings, (4) storage space for items such as batteries or helicopter sling equipment, and (5) a media area separate from the other work areas. • Antennas. Real-time data from the volcano will be radio-telemetered to our field observatory. We will need space to mount approximately 10 yagi antennas, minimum of 4 ft. separation between antennas, line-of-sight to the volcano or to our repeaters, and within 100 feet of Operation room. • Operations room. Approximately 300 sq. ft: All data are funneled into the operations room for acquisition and display. Also in Operations is the VOCOM radio for communication with field crews and phone lines for both voice and data. Space requirements for Operations should also take into account that it will be available at slow times for media photo opportunities and backdrops for interviews. (This need may be furnished by the JIC operations area) • Staff office area. Approximately 400 sq. ft: Staff will use this not only for office work, but also to store some field supplies, rock samples, equipment, etc.. It should be sufficiently large to contain some chairs and desks or tables, and still have room to hold a meeting of 15-20 people. • Storage space. Approximately 300 sq. ft. A secure area for field equipment and supples such as batteries, concrete, water jusgs. etc., that is separate from staff and operation areas. This may be obtained through a commercial vendor, but would need to be nearby.

28 Mount Baker/Glacier Peak Emergency Plan

• Media briefings. We expect a room suitable for media briefings will already be in place or can be quickly found. The more physically separated from operations and staff offices the better.

Communication requirements: • Six standard voice phone lines (1 for fax, 2 hotlines, 1 for recorded volcano information, and 2 for normal use) • Two standard lines for data, either dialing into the USGS computer network or colleagues dialing into the observatory's computer network. Concurrent with setting up the observatory, we will negotiate the installation of a dedicated relatively high-speed data link between the observatory and the nearest Department of Interior facility.

Power requirements: Data acquisition and analysis equipment do not use high power, but do require reliable power for the equivalent of 10-15 standard desktop computers (total about 3-5 kW). If reliable power is not available, it may be necessary to obtain a backup generator and quality uninterruptible power supplies.

Doppler radar Doppler radar requires a 6' x 6' rooftop space, capable of supporting about 300 lbs, with line-of-sight to the volcano for the possible installation of a Doppler radar. Ideally, the radar would be located within a few hundred feet of the operations room. The radar requires about 1 kW.

Parking Workers will travel frequently between the volcano, a local helipad, and motel rooms, etc. Convenient, secure parking for 8-10 vehicles would be a blessing. APPENDIX E: JOINT INFORMATION CENTER PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE

Coordination of information flow The purpose of a JIC is to coordinate the flow of information about volcanic activity and related response issues among agencies, and to provide a single information source for the media, business and general public. The JIC is an element of the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) where the emergency response is being coordinated. Communication between agencies and to the media and public must be rapid, accurate, and effective, and a JIC provides a forum for the necessary information exchange. Public information between and from all responding agencies, emergency operations centers, political jurisdictions, and the media are handled through this one center, thereby allowing the coordination of information from all sources, and reducing or eliminating conflicting information and rumor. Temporary media offices at the Washington

29 Mount Baker-Glacier Peak Facilitating Committee

Emergency Management Division (EMD) encourage an efficient flow of information from the JIC.

A JIC may be necessary in one or more of the following circumstances: • Multiple local, state and federal agencies are involved in the information dissemination about the incident. • The volume of media inquiries overwhelms the capabilities of the public information officers within the emergency operation center. • A large scale public phone team effort must be mounted over an extended period of time. When conditions warrant, or when a Volcano Advisory is declared, a JIC will be activated by the Facilitating Committee (FAC) and/or the Multi-Agency Coordinating (MAC) Group. A JIC facility must have office space for the public information officers, facilities for communication by FAX, phone, and email, briefing rooms, easy access for the media, available food service, and security.

Recommended structure of Joint Information Center during a volcanic incident A. Potential Participants: Washington State Emergency Management Division U.S. Geological Survey National Park Service U.S. Forest Service Washington Department of Natural Resources Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management Whatcom County Division of Emergency Management Skagit County Department of Emergency Management Others as required B. Operating Assumptions: 1. All information will be coordinated among the response staff in order to ensure timely and accurate information flow to the public, to quell rumors, and to prevent interruption of the response effort. 2. JIC will operate under incident command system. 3. The JIC will adjust its size and scope to match the size and complexity of the event. 4. State and local agencies may be requested to provide staffing for the JIC as necessary. APPENDIX F: REFERENCES AND WEB SITES

References: On Mount Baker and Glacier Peak Beget, J.E., 1982, Recent activity at Glacier Peak, Science, v. 215, pp. 1389-1390.

30 Mount Baker/Glacier Peak Emergency Plan

Beget, J.E., 1983, Postglacial volcanic deposits at Glacier Peak, Washington, and potential hazards from future eruptions, USGS Open-File report 82-830. Gardner, Cynthia A., Scott, K.M., Miller, C.D., Myers, B., Hildreth, W., and Pringle, P.T., 1995, Potential Volcanic Hazards from Future Activity of Mount Baker, Washington, Open-file Report 95-498, 16pp. Hyde, Jack H. and Crandell, Dwight R., 1978, Postglacial volcanic deposits at Mount Baker, Washington, and potential hazards from future eruptions: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1022-C, 17pp. Mastin, L.G., and Waitt, R.B., 2000, Glacier Peak—History and Hazards of a Cascade Volcano, U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 058-00. Scott, K.M., Hildreth, W., and Gardner, C.A., 2000, Mount Baker—Living with an Active Volcano, U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 059-00. Waitt, R.B., Mastin, L.G., and Beget, J.E., 1995, Volcanic-Hazard Zonation for Glacier Peak Volcano, Washington, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-499, 9pp. On volcanic crises and volcanic hazards Blong, R.J., 1984, Volcanic Hazards: New York, Academic Press, 424 p. Foxworthy, B.L., and Hill, M., 1982, Volcanic eruptions of 1980 at Mount St. Helens: The first 100 days. USGS Prof. Paper 1249: Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office. Harnley, C. D., and Tyckoson, D. A., 1984, Mount St. Helens: An Annotated Bibliography, Scarecrow Press, Inc., Metuchen NJ and London, 248 pp. International Association of Volcanology and Chemistry of the Earth's Interior (IAVCEI), 1995, Understanding Volcanic Hazards [video]. Distributed by Northwest Interpretive Association, (360) 274-2127. International Association of Volcanology and Chemistry of the Earth's Interior (IAVCEI), 1995, Reducing Volcanic Risk [video]. Distributed by Northwest Interpretive Association, (360) 274-2127. Mader, G.G., Blair, M.L., and Olson, R.A., 1987, Living with a volcanic threat: Response to volcanic hazards, Long Valley, California, William Spangle and Associates, Inc., 105 pp. Newhall, C. G., and Punongbayan, eds., 1996, Fire and Mud: Eruptions and Lahars of Mount Pinatubo, Philippines, 1126 pp. Tilling, R.I., ed., 1989, Volcanic Hazards. American Geophysical Union Short Course in Geology: Volume 1, American Geophysical Union, Washington D.C., 123pp.

Web sites: American Red Cross http://www.redcross.org British Columbia Provincial Emergency http://www.pep.bc.ca Program FEMA http://www.fema.gov Geological Survey of Canada http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/gsc/pacific/vancouver Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mbs Pacific Northwest Seismic Network http://www.geophys.washington.edu/SEIS/PNSN/ Skagit County DEM http://www.skagitcounty.net/offices/emergency_manag ement/main.htm Snohomish County http://www.co.snohomish.wa.us

31 Mount Baker-Glacier Peak Facilitating Committee

Snohomish County DEM http://www.snodem.org USGS Cascades Volcano Observatory http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov Washington State Department of Natural http://www.wa.gov/dnr/ Resources Washington State Emergency Management http://www.wa.gov/wsem Whatcom County http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us Whatcom County DEM http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/dem/home.htm

32 Mount Baker/Glacier Peak Emergency Plan

33