# 2022 Hazard Mitigation

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/tribal%3Aconfederated_clusi%3Af44de1217a251e38

## Record

- **Collection:** Tribal code
- **Document type:** Tribal code

## Text

2022 Hazard Mitigation
Plan
Prepared for the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and
Siuslaw Indians
Prepared by WSP USA Inc.

CTCLUSI 2022
Hazard Mitigation Plan
2022
Prepared for:

CTCLUSI
1245 Fulton Avenue
Coos Bay, OR 97420
Prepared by:

WSP
333 SW Fifth Ave, Suite 608
Portland, OR 97204

DRAFT

Table of Contents

Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................................................... I
PROJECT MANAGER...................................................................................................................................................
CONSULTANTS .........................................................................................................................................................
SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................................................
ESTABLISHING THE HAZARD MITIGATION EMERGENCY MANAGMENT TEAM .......................................................................... 1
DEFINING THE FIVE-COUNTY SERVICE AREA HAZARD MITIGATION OVERVIEW ........................................................................ 1
IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING NATURAL HAZARD RISKS IN THE FIVE-COUNTY SERVICE AREA ....................................................... 2
ENGAGING CTCLUSI'S CITIZENS ................................................................................................................................. 3
DEVELOPING THE MITIGATION STRATEGY AND ACTION PLAN ............................................................................................. 3
WRITING, IMPLEMENTING, AND MAINTAINING THE PLAN ................................................................................................. 4
1 INTRODUCTION TO HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING ...................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 WHAT IS NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING? ............................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 THE PURPOSE OF HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING ................................................................................................. 1-2
2 PLAN UPDATE – WHAT HAS CHANGED? ........................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 PREVIOUS HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN ................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 WHY UPDATE? .............................................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.3 THE UPDATED PLAN – WHAT IS DIFFERENT? ......................................................................................................... 2-1
3 PLAN METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 PROJECT TEAM FORMATION ............................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.3 EMERGENCY MANAGMENT TEAM FORMATION ...................................................................................................... 3-1
3.4 DEFINING THE FIVE-COUNTY SERVICE AREA .......................................................................................................... 3-1
3.5 ENGAGING CTCLUSI CITIZENS .......................................................................................................................... 3-3
3.6 COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES ............................................................................................................... 3-3
3.7 PLAN DEVELOPMENT CHRONOLOGY AND MILESTONES ............................................................................................ 3-4
4 CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF COOS, LOWER UMPQUA, & SIUSLAW INDIANS PROFILE ....................................... 4-6
4.1 HISTORY OF THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF COOS, LOWER UMPQUA, & SIUSLAW INDIANS – REMEMBERING WHERE WE COME
FROM ............................................................................................................................................................... 4-6
4.2 GEOGRAPHIC SETTING ..................................................................................................................................... 4-7
4.3 TRIBAL ENROLLMENT ...................................................................................................................................... 4-7
4.4 TRIBAL GOVERNANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 4-9
4.5 TRIBAL ENTERPRISES – SUPPORTING OUR PEOPLE THROUGH ECONOMIC GROWTH ....................................................... 4-10
4.6 NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ON TRIBALLY-HELD LANDS ................................................... 4-10
4.7 DEVELOPMENT TRENDS – LOOKING TO THE TRIBES' FUTURE ................................................................................... 4-12
4.8 CAPABILITIES AND CAPACITY ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................................... 4-12
PART 2 ................................................................................................................................................................ 4-1
5 RISK ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................................................ 5-1
5.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 5-1
5.2 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................. 5-1
5.3 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 5-8
6 EARTHQUAKE................................................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 CTCLUSI HAZARD PROFILE .............................................................................................................................. 6-2
6.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS AND CASCADING IMPACTS ................................................................................................... 6-8
6.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM FUTURE CLIMATE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 6-10
6.5 EXPOSURE AND VULNERABILITY ........................................................................................................................ 6-10

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

i

DRAFT

Table of Contents

6.6 DEVELOPMENT TRENDS ................................................................................................................................. 6-12
6.7 ISSUES ....................................................................................................................................................... 6-13
6.8 HAZARD MAPS ............................................................................................................................................ 6-13
7 EPIDEMIC/PANDEMIC ...................................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 CTCLUSI HAZARD PROFILE .............................................................................................................................. 7-2
7.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS AND CASCADING IMPACTS ................................................................................................... 7-6
7.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM FUTURE CLIMATE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................... 7-6
7.5 EXPOSURE AND VULNERABILITY .......................................................................................................................... 7-6
7.6 DEVELOPMENT TRENDS ................................................................................................................................... 7-7
7.7 ISSUES ......................................................................................................................................................... 7-7
7.8 HAZARD MAPS .............................................................................................................................................. 7-7
8 FLOOD AND SEA LEVEL RISE ............................................................................................................................. 8-1
8.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.2 CTCLUSI HAZARD PROFILE .............................................................................................................................. 8-2
8.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS AND CASCADING IMPACTS ................................................................................................... 8-7
8.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM FUTURE CLIMATE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................... 8-7
8.5 EXPOSURE .................................................................................................................................................... 8-8
8.6 DEVELOPMENT TRENDS ................................................................................................................................. 8-11
8.7 ISSUES ....................................................................................................................................................... 8-11
8.8 HAZARD MAPS ............................................................................................................................................ 8-11
9 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................................................................................................. 9-1
9.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................... 9-1
9.2 CTCLUSI HAZARD PROFILE .............................................................................................................................. 9-3
9.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS AND CASCADING IMPACTS ................................................................................................... 9-5
9.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM FUTURE CLIMATE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................... 9-5
9.5 EXPOSURE .................................................................................................................................................... 9-6
9.6 DEVELOPMENT TRENDS ................................................................................................................................... 9-8
9.7 ISSUES ......................................................................................................................................................... 9-9
9.8 HAZARD MAPS .............................................................................................................................................. 9-9
10 MASS EARTH MOVEMENTS .......................................................................................................................... 10-1
10.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 10-1
10.2 CTCLUSI HAZARD PROFILE .......................................................................................................................... 10-2
10.3 HAZARD RANKING ...................................................................................................................................... 10-3
10.4 SECONDARY HAZARDS AND CASCADING IMPACTS ............................................................................................... 10-6
10.5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM FUTURE CLIMATE CONDITIONS ................................................................................... 10-7
10.6 EXPOSURE ................................................................................................................................................ 10-7
10.7 DEVELOPMENT TRENDS ............................................................................................................................... 10-9
10.8 ISSUES ................................................................................................................................................... 10-10
10.9 HAZARD MAPS ........................................................................................................................................ 10-10
11 SEVERE WEATHER EVENTS ........................................................................................................................... 11-1
11.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 11-1
11.2 CTCLUSI HAZARD PROFILE .......................................................................................................................... 11-2
11.3 PAST EVENTS............................................................................................................................................. 11-3
11.4 SECONDARY HAZARDS AND CASCADING IMPACTS ............................................................................................... 11-9
11.5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM FUTURE CLIMATE CONDITIONS ................................................................................. 11-10
11.6 EXPOSURE .............................................................................................................................................. 11-11
11.7 DEVELOPMENT TRENDS ............................................................................................................................. 11-13
11.8 ISSUES ................................................................................................................................................... 11-13

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

ii

DRAFT

Table of Contents

11.9 HAZARD MAPS ........................................................................................................................................ 11-13
12 TSUNAMI/SEICHES ....................................................................................................................................... 12-1
12.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 12-1
12.2 CTCLUSI HAZARD PROFILE .......................................................................................................................... 12-2
12.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS AND CASCADING IMPACTS ............................................................................................... 12-5
12.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM FUTURE CLIMATE CONDITIONS ................................................................................... 12-6
12.5 EXPOSURE AND VULNERABILITY ...................................................................................................................... 12-6
12.6 DEVELOPMENT TRENDS ............................................................................................................................... 12-8
12.7 ISSUES ..................................................................................................................................................... 12-9
12.8 HAZARD MAPS .......................................................................................................................................... 12-9
13 WILDFIRES.................................................................................................................................................... 13-1
13.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 13-1
13.2 CTCLUSI HAZARD PROFILE .......................................................................................................................... 13-3
13.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS AND CASCADING IMPACTS ............................................................................................... 13-7
13.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM FUTURE CLIMATE CONDITIONS ................................................................................... 13-8
13.5 EXPOSURE AND VULNERABILITY ...................................................................................................................... 13-8
13.6 DEVELOPMENT TRENDS ............................................................................................................................. 13-11
13.7 ISSUES ................................................................................................................................................... 13-11
13.8 HAZARD MAPS ........................................................................................................................................ 13-11
14 MITIGATION STRATEGY................................................................................................................................ 14-1
14.1 CTCLUSI'S 2022 HAZARD MITIGATION GOALS ................................................................................................. 14-1
14.2 ACTION PLAN .......................................................................................................................................... 14-10
14.3 PLAN ADOPTION ...................................................................................................................................... 14-11
14.4 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE STRATEGY ..................................................................................... 14-11
APPENDIX A. ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS ......................................................................................................A-1
ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................................................ A-1
DEFINITIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... A-2
APPENDIX B. ANNUAL HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRESS REPORTING AND MITIGATION ACTION EVALUATION
FORMS ................................................................................................................................................................ B-1
ANNUAL HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRESS REPORTING FORM ......................................................................................... B-2
MITIGATION ACTION EVALUATION FORM .................................................................................................................. B-0
APPENDIX C. PLANNING PROCESS WITH CTCLUSI CITIZENS................................................................................. C-1
APPENDIX D. FEMA TRIBAL REVIEW TOOL ......................................................................................................... D-1
SECTION 1: REGULATION CHECKLIST .........................................................................................................................D-2
SECTION 2: PLAN STRENGTHS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT ............................................................................D-5
APPENDIX E. PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTION ....................................................................................................... E-1
APPENDIX F. HAZARD DESCRIPTIONS AND EVENT TABLES .................................................................................. F-1
CTCLUSI'S DISASTER DECLARATIONS ....................................................................................................................... F-1
COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF FEMA DISASTER DECLARATIONS FOR COOS, CURRY, LINCOLN, DOUGLAS, AND LANE COUNTIES ............. F-4
SEVERE WEATHER EVENTS IN COOS, CURRY, LINCOLN, DOUGLAS, AND L ANE COUNTIES RESULTING IN DEATHS/INJURIES OR $25,000
OR MORE IN DAMAGES ......................................................................................................................................... F-6
ORIGINAL CTCLUSI HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RANKING RESULTS .............................................................................. F-9
APPENDIX G. FEMA CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS CROSSWALK .................................................................. G-1
APPENDIX H. SERVICE AREA FACILITIES, PARCELS, + FOREST STANDS ................................................................ H-1
APPENDIX I. REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................... I-1

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

iii

DRAFT

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements
Project Manager
Garrett Gray
Interim Director of Planning
Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians
1245 Fulton Avenue, Coos Bay, OR 97420
Phone: 541-888-1302 x7302
Email: ggray@ctclusi.org

Consultants
▪
▪
▪

Trevor Clifford: Project Manager, WSP
Colleen Kragen: Mitigation Planner, WSP
Brennah McVey: GIS Analyst, WSP

Special Acknowledgements
The update of this plan would not have been possible without the dedication and commitment to the
planning process by the CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Emergency Managment Team, CTCLUSI Tribal
Council, and CTCLUSI Citizens. We greatly appreciate their time and dedication.

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

DRAFT

Executive Summary

Executive Summary
The Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians (CTCLUSI) 2022 Hazard Mitigation
Plan (HMP) update is a risk-informed, capabilities-based strategic planning document. The HMP identifies
and prioritizes actions to mitigate hazard risks within the Tribes’ Five-County Service Area, referred to in
this plan as the "Service Area." The Service Area crosses the five Oregon counties of Coos, Curry, Douglas,
Lane, and Lincoln, as shown in Figure 1. This plan demonstrates the Tribes’ commitment to protecting its
members, assets, and the environment from natural hazard impacts by creating specific mitigation actions
that reduce the risk of the hazards.
Additionally, the plan follows the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) requirements for a
Tribal HMP. A FEMA approved 2022 HMP enables CTCLUSI to maintain eligibility for disaster-related
federal grant assistance via the Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) 2000 and supports applications for Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funding.

Establishing the Hazard Mitigation Emergency Managment Team
To oversee the development of the 2022 HMP update, CTCLUSI formed a nine-person Emergency
Managment Team. The members are listed in Table 0-1. The Emergency Managment Team included
personnel from departments across the Tribal government. They participated in four workshops,
beginning February 2020 and ending June 2022. The workshops included:
▪
▪
▪
▪

Workshop 1: Hazard Mitigation Planning Overview and Project Kickoff
Workshop 2: Risk Assessment
Workshop 3: Mitigation Strategy
Workshop 4: Draft Plan Review

Workshop materials (i.e., agenda, slide deck, sign-in sheet, worksheet(s), and summaries) are available in
Appendix C for review, documenting the plan development and decision-making process.
Table 0-1. Emergency Managment Team Members

Name

Title

Department

Garrett Gray

Assistant Planner

Planning Department

Janet Niessner

Tribal Resource Response Specialist

Natural Resources & Culture

Diann Weaver

Assistant Director of Health Services/Self-Governance

Community Health & Wellness

Armando Martinez

Community Health Aid

Community Health & Wellness

Larry Huffman

Grants Coordinator

Finance Department

Defining the Five-County Service Area Hazard Mitigation Overview
While CTCLUSI's traditional lands extend beyond Service Area, the Emergency Managment Team agreed
that the Five-County Service Area, mapped in Figure 3-1, is the coverage area in the previous HMP and
continues to be the same for the 2022 HMP update. During Workshop 1: Hazard Mitigation Planning
Overview and Project Kickoff, the Emergency Managment Team agreed the 2022 HMP update would
cover Tribal Citizens, properties, enterprises, and critical facilities within the Service Area. Tribal facilities
are primarily located in Florence, Coos Bay, and North Bend. A list of CTCLUSI's facilities and critical

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

1

DRAFT

Executive Summary

facilities is in Table 5-4. Table H-1 in Appendix H has a comprehensive list of all Tribal facilities and their
addresses.
The Service Area includes approximately 9.5 million acres and covers the Siuslaw, Lower Umpqua, and
Coos River watersheds along the Oregon coast; the ancestral terrirory is 1.6 million acres. Although the
Tribes are geographically near each other, each Tribe has its unique history and culture (Confederated
Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw). The Tribes promote their tribal culture, values, and beliefs,
supporting their citizens and surrounding communities and counties.

Identifying and Assessing Natural Hazard Risks in the Five-County Service Area
The purpose of a risk assessment is to describe the type, location, and extent of every natural hazard that
could occur in the Service Area. Informed by qualitative and quantitative methods, the risk assessment
includes information on previous hazard events within the Service Area and informs the probability of
future hazard events. Additionally, the assessment incorporates an exposure and vulnerability assessment
for CTCLUSI Citizens and assets in the Service Area.
During Workshop 2: Risk Assessment, the Emergency Managment Team qualitatively identified and
assessed natural hazard risks in the Service Area. Emergency Managment Team members independently
ranked each hazard based on the perceived severity, magnitude, frequency, onset, and duration for the
potential worst-case and the most likely scenarios. Table 5-1 defines these hazard rankings. The
Emergency Managment Team identified ten natural hazards that can impact the Service Area. To improve
the accessibility and utility of the hazard profiles, the Project Team consolidated drought and extreme
heat into severe weather, resulting in the following eight hazard profiles HMP:
Table 0-2. Natural Hazards Identified for the HMP

No.

Initial Hazards

1

Earthquake

2

Epidemic/Pandemic

3

Flood and Sea Level Rise

4

Hazardous Materials

5

Mass Earth Movements (includes landslides)

6

Severe Weather

7

Tsunami and Seiches

8

Wildfires

Consolidated Hazards

Drought and Extreme Heat

Following the qualitative identification and hazard scoring, the Project Team conducted a quantitative risk
assessment using available geospatial information for the eight identified hazards. This qualitative process
ioverlapped geospatial hazard layers with CTCLUSI’s critical infrastructures and facilities, assets, and Tribal
Citizen data. The methodology and results of this analysis are discussed further in Part 2 – Risk Assessment
Results were illustrated through hazard-specific maps and tables, which show the exposure and
vulnerability of critical infrastructures and facilities, assets, and Tribal Citizens; each hazard profile
contains:
▪
▪
▪

General background and hazard description
CTCLUSI specific: hazard rank, past events, location, frequency, severity, and warning time
Potential secondary hazards and cascading impacts

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

2

DRAFT
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪

Executive Summary

Potential future impacts from climate change
CTCLUSI exposure and vulnerabilities: Citizens, properties, critical facilities, and the environment
Development trends that can or already affect the hazard
Issues for continuing consideration
Hazard maps as applicable

Engaging CTCLUSI's Citizens
On March 25, 2021, CTCLUSI held a virtual
open house for Tribal Citizens to participate
in the development of the risk assessment
and mitigation strategies. CTCLUSI invited
Tribal Citizens to comment on the draft plan
during Workshop 4 – Draft Plan Review and
a 30-day Tribal Citizen review period, which
followed the workshop. Tribal Citizens were
informed of opportunities to participate in
the open house, workshop, and comment
period via the Tribes monthly new
publication, The Voice of CTCLUSI. The
results are detailed in Part 1 of the HMP, and
the complete materials are in Appendix C.

Developing the Mitigation Strategy and Action Plan
The Emergency Managment Team updated the 2022 plan to meets federal hazard mitigation
requirements. A crosswalk between this HMP and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is in Appendix G.
This completed crosswalk is a comparative analysis of the content in the 2022 CTCLUSI HMP and federal
hazard mitigation planning requirements for federally-recognized Tribes.
During Workshop 3: Mitigation Strategy, the Emergency Managment Team developed goals for the
CTCLUSI 2022 HMP update based on the Emergency Managment Team hazard identification results in
Workshop 1 and the capabilities assessment in Workshop 2. The capability assessment reviewed
CTCLUSI’s planning and regulatory, administrative and technical, and financial capabilities; this is
discussed further in Section 3.5. Additionally, the Emergency Managment Team reviewed the Tribes'
citizen and community member open house responses and compared them to the Workshop 2 results.
The Tribal Citizen-driven, risk-informed, and capability-based goals for the CTCLUSI 2022 HMP are also
consistent with the 2006 HMP (URS, 2006):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Promote disaster-resistant development
Build and support local capacity to enable the public for, respond to, and recover from disasters
Reduce the possibility of damage and losses due to coastal erosion
Reduce the possibility of damage and losses due to earthquakes
Reduce the possibility of damage and losses due to tsunamis
Reduce the possibility of damage and losses due to wildland fire
Reduce the possibility of damage and losses due to winter storm: flood
Reduce the possibility of damage and losses due to winter storm: landslides

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

3

DRAFT

Executive Summary

9. Reduce the possibility of damage and losses due to winter storm: snow
10. Reduce the possibility of damage and losses due to winter storm: wind
The Emergency Managment Team identified 47 hazard mitigation actions for inclusion in the CTCLUSI
2022 HMP to reduce or eliminate the loss of life and property resulting from hazard events. These actions
are intended to meet the plan goals listed above and are within the current administrative capabilities of
the CTCLUSI.

Writing, Implementing, and Maintaining the Plan
The Emergency Managment Team developed the CTLCUSI 2022 HMP with critical stakeholder and
community involvement. The planning process included Tribal Citizen outreach and workshop
engagement materials. A complete set of materials are in Appendix C. The plan meets or exceeds the
requirements established under 44 CFR 201.7: Tribal Mitigation Plans (United States Government
Publishing Office, 2010), as indicated in the FEMA Region X Tribal Mitigation Plan Review Tool in Appendix
D.
Formal adoption by CTCLUSI will occur Figure 0-1. Planning Process
before the HMP is submitted to
FEMA
(Federal
Emergency
Management Agency, 2010). Once
CTCLUSI has approved the plan, it is
sent to FEMA Region X for review and
FEMA's official Approval Pending
Adoption (APA) letter. CTCLUSI
documents the federal review
process via the FEMA Region X Tribal
Mitigation Plan Review Tool. Once
approved by FEMA, CTCLUSI is
eligible for federal hazard mitigation
grant funding (Federal Emergency
Management Agency, 2019).
Over the next five years, CTCLUSI will
implement the actions listed in the
plan to realize its goals. Plan implementation will be led by the CTCLUSI Planning Director and supported
by the Emergency Managment Team. The Emergency Managment Team will meet annually to review:
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪

Mitigation action implementation
Changes in natural hazard risks
Update mitigation capabilities
Reassess opportunities to continue Tribal citizen engagement
Integration with other relevant plans and programs

The Progress Reporting template in Appendix B will be used to document this process. In five years,
CTCLUSI will undertake a comprehensive plan update informed by these annual reports and notes:
▪
▪

Progress reporting
A strategy for continued engagement of CTCLUSI Citizens

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

4

DRAFT
▪
▪

Executive Summary

A commitment to planning integration with other relevant plans and programs
Continued oversight from a plan maintenance Emergency Managment Team

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

5

DRAFT

Part 1: Planning Process Overview and Tribal Profile

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan
Part 1: Planning Process Overview and
Tribal Profile

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

DRAFT

Introduction to Hazard Mitigation Planning

44 CFR 201.7

Part 1

Local Mitigation Plans outline
an entity’s commitment to
reducing risks associated with
natural hazards.

1 Introduction to Hazard Mitigation
Planning
1.1 What is Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning?

Hazard mitigation uses long- and short-term strategies to reduce or alleviate the loss of life, personal
injury, and property damage resulting from a disaster. It involves planning efforts, policy changes,
programs, studies, improvement projects, and other strategies to reduce hazard impacts. Mitigation plans
are vital to breaking the cycle of disaster damage, reconstruction, and repeated damage. Title 44 of the
CFR, Part 201 – Mitigation Planning, Section 201.2, defines hazard mitigation as “any action taken to
reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property from natural hazards” (Code of Federal
Regulations, 2013, p. 364). There are textboxes throughout this plan highlighting the HMP’s compliance
with these relevant CFRs.
FEMA's Tribal Mitigation Planning Figure 1-1. The Mitigation Planning Process (Federal Emergency
Handbook states that natural hazards Management Agency, 2019)
are physical and environmental events
that can harm or destroy individuals,
1. Describe
the
land, property, communities, and so on;
Community
for example, earthquakes, tornadoes,
2. Identify
pandemics, or epidemic/pandemics
7. Track the
the
Progress
(Federal Emergency Management
Hazards
Agency, 2019). The mitigation planning
process is displayed in Figure 1-1.
To develop and implement practical
hazard mitigation actions, communities
apply a planning process that mirrors
the mitigation planning process. This
cycle outlines the critical planning steps
to reduce the impact or remove the risk
of natural hazards. These components
establish a consistent approach for
decision making, resource allocation,
and progress tracking for the HMP.

Mitigation
Planning

6. Develop
the Action
Plan

5. Develop
the
Strategy

3. Explain
Impacts on
the
Community

4. Review
Capabilities
& Mitigate
Impacts

1.1.1 The 2000 Disaster Mitigation Act
Before 2000, federal disaster funding focused on relief and recovery after a disaster occurred, with a
limited budget for hazard mitigation planning in advance. On October 30, 2000, Congress passed the 2000
DMA, amending the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988. The DMA
shifted federal emphasis toward hazard preparedness and mitigation (Title 42 of the United States Code
Section 5121 et seq.) (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2019). The 2000 Act replaced the previous
mitigation planning section (409) with a new section (322).

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

1-1

DRAFT

Introduction to Hazard Mitigation Planning

The DMA requires state, local, and tribal government entities to develop and adopt FEMA-approved
hazard mitigation plans as a condition for federal disaster grant assistance (Federal Emergency
Management Agency, 2007). Section 322 emphasized the need for state, tribal, and local entities to
coordinate and collaborate on mitigation planning and implementation efforts (Federal Emergency
Management Agency, 2007). Additionally, Section 322 established the legal basis for the Federal
Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) mitigation plan requirements for the Hazard Mitigation
Assistance grant programs.
The DMA encourages cooperation among state, local, and tribal authorities in pre-disaster planning and
emphasizes community-based planning before disasters occur. The act also promotes sustainability,
including the sound management of natural resources, local economic and social resiliency, and
addressing hazards and mitigation in the most extensive possible social and economic context (Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 2019). The enhanced planning network described in the DMA helps
local organizations and governments articulate precise needs for mitigation, resulting in a faster allocation
of funding and more cost-effective risk-reduction projects.

1.1.2 2006 CTCLUSI HMP
CTCLUSI prepared its initial HMP in 2006 in compliance with the DMA.
The Tribes officially adopted the first HMP on November 12, 2006, and
FEMA approved the plan. The 2006 HMP's purpose was to guide
CTCLUSI toward disaster resistance per Tribal sovereignty, community
needs, and federal grant and disaster fund recipient requirements.
CTCLUSI is updating its HMP to identify and prioritize actions to reduce
or alleviate risks from natural hazards, reducing the loss of life,
personal injury, and property damage to CTCLUSI Citizens and Tribal
enterprises. This update to the HMP fulfills a DMA requirement that
hazard mitigations plans be updated every five years to maintain
eligibility for disaster-related federal grant assistance. This plan guides
efforts to efficiently mitigate hazards that affect Tribal properties and
Citizens and work with other agencies to mitigate and respond to
hazards that cross jurisdictional boundaries.

44 CFR 201.7(C)(6)
The plan must assure the
tribal government will
comply with applicable
Federal statutes and regulations in effect with respect
to the periods for which it
receives grant funding,
including 2 CFR Parts 200
and 3002, and will amend its
plan whenever necessary to
reflect changes in tribal or
Federal laws and statutes.

1.2 The Purpose of Hazard Mitigation Planning
All CTCLUSI Citizens are the beneficiaries of this HMP. CTCLUSI updated the 2006 HMP to assess previous
hazards and mitigation actions, identify new or escalated hazards, and develop, update, and prioritize
mitigation actions. These actions reduce or alleviate risks from natural hazards, reducing the loss of life,
personal injury, and property damage for CTCLUSI and its Citizens. The plan establishes a roadmap for
CTCLUSI to mitigate hazards within the Service Area. Stakeholder participation during the plan update
ensures the results are targeted and effective.
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪

Enables access to federal grant funding to reduce disaster risk through mitigation actions
Meet or exceed the DMA 2000 requirements
Complete a risk assessment focusing on hazards of concern within the Service Area
Ensure compliance with federal hazard mitigation planning requirements
Review existing CTCLUSI plans and programs to identify opportunities for integration of hazard
mitigation principles and cooperation with planning partners

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

1-2

DRAFT

Introduction to Hazard Mitigation Planning

1.2.1 Climate Change Adaptation and the CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan
Climate adaptation planning is like natural hazard mitigation planning. Both are adjustments in human
and natural systems to mitigate the impacts of hazards, except that the former focuses on climate-related
hazards. While climate change itself is not a hazard, it may change the characteristics of a hazard within
the Service Area (e.g., extent). Climate change adaptation strategies enable Tribes to reduce vulnerability
to all types of natural hazards by predicting these changes and increasing local capacity to adapt. Figure
1-2 shows the key aspects of hazard mitigation and climate change adaptation and where the two
intersect (ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability USA, 2015).
Figure 1-2. Hazard Mitigation and Climate Adaption Planning Relationship (ICLEI Local Governments for
Sustainability USA, 2015)

HAZARD
MITIGATION
- Understanding
human-caused and
technical hazards
- Historical event
emphasis
- Meeting federal
requirements

- Natural hazards
- Preparing for
future changes
- Community driven
- Natural & built
environment

CLIMATE
CHANGE
ADAPTATION
- Geological change
- Future models
- Analyze from the
bottom up
- Understanding
ecosystems &
species

1.2.2 Who Will Benefit from this Plan?
CTCLUSI Citizens ultimately benefit from this hazard mitigation plan. The plan strives to reduce the risk
for the Citizens and Tribal enterprises within the Service Area. It provides a viable planning framework for
all foreseeable natural hazards that can have a negative effect. Participation in developing the plan by
stakeholders and Tribal Citizens ensures outcomes that mutually benefit the Tribes and the local
communities. The plan’s goals and recommendations lay the groundwork for developing and
implementing Tribal mitigation activities and partnerships.
1.2.3 Contents of this Plan
This hazard mitigation plan has three primary parts:
▪
▪
▪

Part 1: Planning Process and Tribal Profile
Part 2: Risk Assessment
Part 3: Mitigation Strategy

Each part includes elements required under federal guidelines. Additionally, DMA compliance
requirements are cited at the beginning of plan sections to illustrate compliance and highlight each
section’s importance and utility to the reader. The HMP appendices provide details and supporting data:
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪

Appendix A: Acronyms and Definitions
Appendix B: Annual Hazard Mitigation Progress Reporting and Mitigation Action Evaluation Forms
Appendix C: Planning Process with CTCLUSI Citizens and Community Members
Appendix D: FEMA Tribal Review Tool
Appendix E: Plan Adoption Resolution

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

1-3

DRAFT
▪
▪
▪
▪

Introduction to Hazard Mitigation Planning

Appendix F: Hazard Descriptions and Event Tables
Appendix G: FEMA Code of Federal Regulations Crosswalk
Appendix H: Service Area Facilities, Parcels, + Forest Tracks
Appendix I: References

1.2.4 Plan Approach
The CTCLUSI 2022 HMP development process followed these steps:
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪

Formed the Planning Team
Established the Emergency Managment Team
Defining the Service Area
Engaged Tribal Citizens
Coordinating with other agencies
Reviewing existing programs
Plan development chronology and milestones
Conduct the risk assessment
Develop mitigation actions
Confirm the plan implementation strategy

1.2.5 Grant Funding
A FEMA Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant supplemented the planning effort. The CTCLUSI Planning
Department was designated to manage the project. Grant funding covered 75 percent of the cost for the
development of this plan.

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

1-4

DRAFT

Plan Update – What has Changed?

2 Plan Update – What has Changed?
2.1 Previous Hazard Mitigation Plan
The CTCLUSI prepared its initial HMP in compliance with the DMA in
2006. The Tribes officially adopted the HMP on November 12, 2006,
and FEMA subsequently approved the plan. The Tribe’s defined
purpose for the local HMP was to guide the CTCLUSI toward disaster
resilience in full accord with the character and needs of the community
and federal requirements. The 2006 HMP identified these ten goals
(URS, 2006):

44 CFR 201.7(d)(3) &
201.7(c)(4)(iii)
Describe the plan's revisions
to reflect changes in
development, progress in
tribal mitigation efforts, and
changes in priorities.

1. Promote disaster-resistant development
2. Build and support local capacity to enable the public for, respond to, and recover from disasters
3. Reduce the possibility of damage and losses due to coastal erosion
4. Reduce the possibility of damage and losses due to earthquakes
5. Reduce the possibility of damage and losses due to tsunamis
6. Reduce the possibility of damage and losses due to wildland fire
7. Reduce the possibility of damage and losses due to winter storm: flood
8. Reduce the possibility of damage and losses due to winter storm: landslides
9. Reduce the possibility of damage and losses due to winter storm: snow
10. Reduce the possibility of damage and losses due to winter storm: wind
The initial HMP identified and profiled eight hazards affecting the CTCLUSI based on historical and
anecdotal information and current plans and studies. The 2006 plan recommended 54 actions for
mitigating the ten identified hazards.

2.2 Why Update?
2.2.1 Federal Eligibility
The CFR Title 44 stipulates that hazard mitigation plans must present a schedule for monitoring,
evaluating, and updating. The CFR provides an opportunity to reevaluate recommendations, monitor the
impacts of actions that have been accomplished, and determine if there is a need to change the focus of
mitigation strategies. DMA compliance is contingent on meeting the plan update requirement. Tribes
covered by an expired plan are not eligible for federal funding under the DMA.
2.2.2 Changes in Development
HMP updates must also reflect development changes in the Service Area since the approval of the
previous plan under 44CFR. The update must describe development changes in hazard-prone areas that
increased or decreased vulnerability. If no development changes impacted a Tribe’s overall vulnerability,
plan updates could validate the information in the previously approved plan. This requirement ensures
that the mitigation strategy addresses the exposure and vulnerability of existing and potential
development and considers possible future conditions that could impact vulnerability.

2.3 The Updated Plan – What is Different?
The CTCLUSI 2022 HMP was developed using the best available data and current plans and studies,
following the same basic planning process as in 2006. The Emergency Managment Team and Project Team
were critical components in the process. The risk assessment was also informed by the 2020 Oregon

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

2-1

DRAFT

Plan Update – What has Changed?

Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan and other regional HMPs. The updated 2022 plan differs from the 2006
plan in the following ways:
▪

▪
▪
▪
▪

The plan has been reorganized into three parts:
▪ Planning Process Overview and Tribal Profile
▪ Risk Assessment
▪ Mitigation Strategy
Additional and emerging hazards have been added to the risk assessment
The hazard profiles have been expanded to include discussion of the effects of climate change on
hazard risks and community vulnerability.
Due to the ongoing novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and requirements and recommendations
for social distancing, outreach to Tribal Citizens was accomplished virtually.
Table G-1 in Appendix G crosswalks the CFR requirements for HMPs between the previous plan and
the 2022 update.

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

2-2

DRAFT

Plan MethodologyPlan Update – What has Changed?

3 Plan Methodology
3.1 Overview
The CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan update process:
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪

Formed the Project Team
Included CTCLUSI's response to the 2000 DMA
Established a Emergency Managment Team
Defined the Five-County Service Area
Conducted a risk assessment
Engaged the Tribal Citizens
Reviewed existing programs

44 CFR 201.7(c)(1)
The plan must document the
planning process, including
how it was prepared and who
was involved in the process.

3.2 Project Team Formation
CTCLUSI hired WSP, referred to as the Project Team in this HMP, to update their 2006 HMP. The Project
Team designed the plan sections and facilitated stakeholder workshops. Throughout the planning process,
the Project Team reported directly to the CTCLUSI Project Manager. Primary CTCLUSI and WSP Project
Team members included:
▪
▪
▪
▪

Garrett Gray: Assistant Planner, CTCLUSI
Trevor Clifford: Project Manager, WSP
Colleen Kragen: Mitigation Planner, WSP
Brennah McVey: GIS Analyst, WSP

3.3 Emergency Managment Team Formation
Hazard mitigation planning enhances collaboration and support among parties whose interests can be
affected by hazard losses. A broad range of stakeholders can identify and create partnerships to achieve
a shared vision for community risk reduction by working together. To ensure broad representation in the
planning process, CTCLUSI leveraged the pre-existing Emergency Managment Team to oversee all phases
of the plan update. The members of the committee included key CTCLUSI Citizens and other critical
stakeholders from the Service Area. Members are listed in Table 0-1.

3.4 Defining the Five-County Service Area
The Emergency Managment Team agreed that the CTCLUSI 2022 HMP should cover all Tribal Citizens,
properties, and critical facilities within the Five-County Service Area, which crosses the Oregon counties
of Coos, Curry, Douglas, Lane, and Lincoln, shown in Figure 3-1 on the next page. The Service Area
encompasses the Tribes’ ancestral area, approximately 1.6 million acres in the Siuslaw, Lower Umpqua,
and Coos River watersheds along the Oregon coast. Tribal facilities are primarily located in Florence, Coos
Bay, and North Bend. A list of CTCLUSI's facilities and critical facilities is in Table 5-4. Table H-1 in Appendix
H has a comprehensive list of all Tribal facilities and their addresses.

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

3-1

DRAFT
1

Plan Methodology

Figure 3-1. The CTCLUSI Five-County Service Area

2
CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

Page | 3-2

DRAFT

Plan Methodology

3.5 Engaging CTCLUSI Citizens
For this 2022 HMP, the public is defined as CTCLUSI "Citizens." Broad
participation by CTCLUSI Citizens in the 2022 planning process ensured
varied points of view about the Service Area’s needs were considered
and addressed. Details of citizen involvement in the plan drafting
process are in Appendix C of this plan. Participation in the planning
process from CTCLUSI Citizens was encouraged through:
▪

▪

44 CFR 201.7(c)(1)(i)
The plan must document an
opportunity
for
public
comment during the drafting
stage and prior to plan
approval, with a tribal
government definition of
"public."

On March 25, 2021, CTCLUSI held a virtual open house for Tribal
Citizens opportunities to interact with the Project Team and
participate in the development of the risk assessment and
mitigation strategies
The 30-day Tribal Citizen review period followed Workshop 4, providing Citizens an opportunity to
provide feedback on any sections of the plan.

[open house feedback]
Hazard Mitigation Plan Webpage
All CTCLUSI Citizens were invited to participate in the plan update
process and comment on the draft HMP. The CTCLUSI provided
updates on the Planning Department’s public web page and provided
the draft plan for public review on the web page between [date] and
[date]: https://ctclusi.org/planning-department/.

3.6 Coordination with Other Agencies
In addition to the Tribal Government agencies represented in the
Emergency Managment Team, the Project Team engaged the
leadership and staff of all Tribal Government departments throughout
the update process, to solicit input via email and workshop invitations.

44 CFR 201.7(c)(1)(ii)
The plan documents, as
appropriate, the opportunity for
neighboring
communities, tribal and
regional agencies involved
in hazard mitigation activities, agencies that have the
authority
to
regulate
development as well as
other interests to be involved in the planning
process.

In the draft review process, CTCLUSI conducted FEMA's standard 30day public comment period. The Project Team invited all Tribal
Government Departments and Citizens to review and comment on the
draft plan. The Citizens and departments were notified of the public comment period on the Tribes’
website. The plan's final version was sent to FEMA Region X for pre-adoption review, ensuring program
compliance.
3.6.1 Review Existing Programs
FEMA emphasizes the importance of reviewing related plans and
44 CFR 201.7(c)(1)(iii)
requirements in conjunction with an HMP development or update. By
comparing these existing documents CTCLUSI can align their mitigation
The plan describes the review
and incorporation of existing
actions, risk assessments, and mitigation goals more effectively and
plans, studies, and reports.
efficiently. Section 4.8 of this plan reviews Tribal laws and ordinances
in effect within the Tribes’ Service Area that can affect hazard
mitigation actions. Table 3-1 below lists the State and local plans reviewed during the 2022 HMP update,
including the State of Oregon Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (2020), other CTCLUSI plans, and plans from
Coos, Curry, Lincoln, Douglas, and Lane Counties.

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

3-3

DRAFT

Plan Methodology

Table 3-1. Existing Plans Reviewed from CTCLUSI and the Five-County Service Area

CTCLUSI

Coos County

Curry County

Lincoln County

Douglas County

Lane County

2006 HMP

2016 Natural
HMP

2016 Natural
HMP

2015 MultiJurisdictional
Natural HMP

2016 MultiJurisdictional
Natural HMP

2018 MultiJurisdiction
HMP

2008
Emergency
Operations
Plan

2011
Community
Wildfire
Protection Plan

2008
Community
Wildfire
Protection Plan

2007
Comprehensive
Plan

2017 Community
Wildfire
Protection Plan

2020
Community
Wildfire
Protection Plan

2018 Tribal
Estuary
Response Plan

2014
Emergency
Operations Plan

2015
Emergency
Operations Plan

2015 Emergency
Operations Plan

2017
Comprehensive
Hazard Analysis

2019
Emergency
Operations Plan

2016 Wetland
Inventory and
Assessment

1985
Comprehensive
Plan

2017
Comprehensive
Plan

2009 Rural
Comprehensive
Plan

The review of these plans and programs informed the development of CTCLUSI's 2022 HMP. Existing Tribal
plans were reviewed to develop the goals in this HMP, supporting CTCLUSI's overarching goals and
objectives. CTCLUSI's existing 2006 HMP, the 2008 Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), and the 2009 Draft
Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) were reviewed during the HMP initial planning stage to ensure
hazard consistency between these plans.

3.7 Plan Development Chronology and Milestones
Table 3-2. Emergency Managment Team Meetings

Date

Event

Description

November 8,
2019

Tribes release a request for proposals
to update their hazard mitigation plan

- Secure contractor support to facilitate the update
of the Tribes’ hazard mitigation plan

February 7,
2020

Tribes select WSP as their technical
support contractor

- Technical support secured

Emergency Managment Team
Workshop #1: Kickoff

- Overview of planning process, purpose, and
requirements
- Confirmation of the Service Area
- Update goals, objectives, and actions
- Hazard identification and ranking
- Capability assessment overview
- Planning for Tribal engagement
- Next steps and action items

March 12,
2020

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

3-4

DRAFT
Date

October 20,
2020

February 3,
2021

June 23, 2022

Plan Methodology
Event

Description

Emergency Managment Team
Workshop #2: Risk Assessment

- Hazard Mitigation Refresher
- Update on the planning process
- Capability and capacity assessment feedback
- Hazard identification and ranking feedback
- Review of 2006 hazard mitigation actions
- Distribution of risk assessment worksheet
- Map review
- Planning for Tribal citizen open house
- Next steps and action items

Emergency Managment Team
Workshop #3: Mitigation Actions

- Update and review of the planning process
- Mitigation strategy development
- Mitigation action development worksheet
- Mitigation action prioritization worksheet
- Next steps and action items

Emergency Managment Team
Workshop #4: Draft HMP Review

- Review all sections of the plan with the Emergency
Management Team
- Discuss plan implementation and maintenance
program, including ongoing Tribal Citizen
engagmenet
- Finalize plan ahead of 30-day Tribal Citizen review
period

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

3-5

DRAFT

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw Indians Profile

4 Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw
Indians Profile
4.1 History of the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw Indians –
Remembering Where We Come From
CTCLUSI is made up of:
▪
▪
▪

The Coos Tribes: the Hanis Coos and the Miluk Coos
The Lower Umpqua Tribe
The Siuslaw Tribe

The ancestral homelands of the CTCLUSI are approximately 1.6 million acres in the Siuslaw, Lower
Umpqua, and Coos Rivers from the Coastal Range in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west
(Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw) (URS, 2006). The Tribes hunted, fished, and
gathered, relying on abundant natural resources within their territories. Fish such as salmon and shellfish
made up a large part of their diets. Timber resources, specifically the cedar tree, provided shelter, clothing,
and transportation (URS, 2006).
Tribes along the west coast of Oregon spoke a diverse array of languages. The two Coos bands spoke
different dialects of the Coos language (hanis and miluk) and had different cultures and histories. To the
north, the Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw tribes spoke the Siuslaw language (sha’yuushtl’a quuiich). This
cultural diversity mirrors the range of ecosystems and the ecological richness of the Tribes’ homelands
(Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw).
European-Americans began to settle the ancestral homelands of the CTCLUSI in the early 1800s. The Coos,
Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Tribes initially accommodated and maintained relations with EuropeanAmericans. However, in the mid-1800s, the Tribes experienced increasing pressure as settlers consumed
ever-increasing resources and land (URS, 2006). In 1855, the U.S. government drafted a treaty that
promised to compensate the Tribes in exchange for their lands. CTCLUSI signed the treaty; however,
Congress never ratified it and continued to open the area to settlement.
Additionally, the U.S. government rounded up members of the Tribes and forcefully marched them north
to Fort Umpqua. These Tribal members were imprisoned to prevent their involvement in the Rogue River
War between white settlers and Indians to the south (Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, &
Siuslaw). In 1860, the Tribes were moved again. They marched 60 miles up the coast to a reservation on
the Yachats River and were held there for 17 years. During their imprisonment, the Tribes’ populations
were reduced by more than 50 percent due to starvation, mistreatment, and disease. Tragically they also
lost most of the ancestral lands that sustained them (Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, &
Siuslaw) (URS, 2006).
Once they were released, members of CTCLUSI's Tribes settled along Coos Bay and the Siuslaw and
Umpqua Rivers. Following the 1855 treaty, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) officially combined these
Tribes into the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians. Although, the Tribes
continued to live separately until 1916 when they created a formal, democratic Tribal government known
as CTCLUSI (URS, 2006).
CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan
4-6

DRAFT

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw Indians Profile

In 1954, the Tribes were unknowingly included in the Western Oregon Termination Act, which terminated
their alliance with the U.S. government and official recognition as a sovereign nation. Federal assistance
to Tribal governments ceased with the passage of this Act. Between 1955 and 1984, CTCLUSI maintained
its government and provided essential services to its Tribal Citizens.
The Tribes’ sovereignty was restored on October 17, 1984, when President Ronald Reagan signed Public
Law 98-481, the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Restoration Act. Since the restoration, the Tribes have
established beneficial programs for Tribal Citizens, achieved the return of Tribal forest lands and other
properties, and developed government facilities, Tribal enterprises, and housing (URS, 2006)
(Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw, 2020).

4.2 Geographic Setting
The CTCLUSI's Service Area is between the Coastal Range and the southwest coast of Oregon, in the FiveCounty Service Area, which includes Coos, Curry, Douglas, Lane, and Lincoln counties. Within this area,
most Tribal properties are located in the coastal cities of Florence, Coos Bay, and North Bend. Forest
parcels and three Ranches are located further inland. Figure 3-1 shows Tribal properties along with the
boundaries of the Service Area and the Tribes’ ancestral homelands. CTCLUSI has three types of land
parcels:
▪

▪
▪

Reservation: Geographically defined area held in trust by the federal government where Tribal
Government has sovereign jurisdiction over the reservation land, and all government entities respect
it.
Fee: When Tribes acquire additional land and pay taxes for the land.
Trust: Properties that exclusively belong to the Tribes and are non-taxable.

4.2.1 Tribal Lands – Rooting the Tribes’ Mitigation Program with a Sense of Place
In 1941, the BIA took a small, privately donated parcel (6.12 acres) into trust for the CTCLUSI in the city of
Coos Bay. The Tribes constructed a Tribal Hall on this parcel that is still in use today and is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places (Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw). The Tribes
maintained this small reservation between 1954 and 1984 when the U.S. government formally recognized
the Tribes as a sovereign nation.
Since 1984, the federal government returned forest lands and other properties within CTCLUSI's ancestral
homeland. These lands include Gregory Point (Baldich), Coos Head, and multiple forest parcels. CTCLUSI
develops and maintains these areas for the cultural and economic benefit of Tribal Citizens.

4.3 Tribal Enrollment
Currently, CTCLUS has 1,313 enrolled Tribal Citizens, and of that total number, 760 Tribal Citizens are
within the Five-County Service Area. The remaining Citizens reside in other locations.
4.3.1 Demographics
Enrollment and demographic data came from CTCLUSI. Table 4-1 on the next page shows the demographic
breakdown.

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan
4-7

DRAFT

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw Indians Profile

Table 4-1. CTCLUSI Member Demographics

Demographics

Members in the Service Area

Total Members

Age 0-17

169

400

Age 18-24

48

154

Age 25-34

81

233

Age 35-44

49

150

Age 45-54

53

136

Age 55+

107

240

Total

507

1,313

Male

253

664

Female

254

649

Total

507

1,313

4.3.2 Vulnerable Populations
Protecting vulnerable populations that are at a higher risk is a primary goal of hazard mitigation planning.
These populations can include children, low-income households, senior citizens, disenfranchised
minorities, and those that speak English as a second language or do not speak English (Federal Emergency
Management Agency, 2009).
The Tribal demographics distinguished between member age groups and gender. Nearly half, 47 percent,
of CTCLUSI's population in the Service Area fall into vulnerable population categories of minors and those
over 65 years old. These age groups are illustrated in the pie chart in Figure 4-1.
▪

▪

Under 19 years old – 34 percent
▪ Individuals under 18 are vulnerable
populations as they are legally dependent
on adults and usually require adult
supervision, especially during a disaster.
Additional challenges arise when children
are away from their guardians, such as
during daycare or school.
65 years or older – 13 percent
▪ This population group is more vulnerable
because they may need more support or
resources after an earthquake, such as
medical care, mobility, or transportation
support.

Figure 4-1. CTCLUSI Member Age Percentages Chart

Member Age Groups in the Service
Area

0-17
18-24

13%
34%

10%

25-34
35-44

10%

45-54

9%
16%

8%

55-64
65 +

It is critical to identify potentially vulnerable
populations during plan development to establish mitigation actions that account for special
considerations to protect these populations. Each of the hazard profiles assesses risk for vulnerable
populations in Sections 6 to 13.

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan
4-8

DRAFT

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw Indians Profile

4.4 Tribal Governance
4.4.1 Tribal Government and Council
CTCLUSI is a self-governed and sovereign nation. The government is led by a Tribal Council consisting of a
Tribal Chief, who serves for ten years, and six members, who serve four-year terms. The Tribes’ general
council elects the Chief and Council members. They have legislative and executive authority over the Tribal
government, except when the general council has the authority (Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower
Umpqua, & Siuslaw, 2020). The broader Tribal government oversees and provides administrative support
to all Tribal departments, programs, and services and is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the
Tribes (Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw, n.d.).
4.4.2 Government Departments
CTCLUSI's Tribal Government is comprised of nine Departments. Table 4-2 lists Tribal departments and
provides a brief description of their services.
Table 4-2. CTCLUSI Tribal Departments

Department

Services

Court & Peace
Giving

Exercises the Tribes’ sovereignty by providing conflict resolution (Confederated Tribes of
Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw, 2020).

Administration
Support
Services /
Enrollment

Manages and maintains all Tribal member records and enrolls new members with the
assistance of the Enrollment Committee (Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, &
Siuslaw, n.d.).

Finance

Responsible for the oversight of Tribal government financial resources and other assets per
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Provides monthly financial reports to the Tribal
Council, prepares combined budgets from Tribal departments for reviewing and tracking
expenditures, completes federal and state grant reporting, and provides accurate and
consistent accounting of all the financial transactions of the CTCLUSI (Confederated Tribes of
Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw, 2021).

Housing

Works in partnership with community-based organizations to provide housing services,
including the development and maintenance of decent, safe, and affordable housing, for all
eligible Tribal members, members of other Tribes, and other needy families (Confederated
Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw, 2021).

Human
Resources

Manages hiring and employment for Tribal government and enterprises. Manages benefits for
Tribal employees (Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw, n.d.).

Culture &
Natural
Resources

Works to manage and conserve natural and cultural resources on Tribally-held lands and, in
cooperation with other governments, influence conservation and resource management
throughout the Tribes’ ancestral homelands. The department's goals include maintaining and
improving Tribal environmental quality and managing natural resources for economic and
social benefits. The Tribes’ Forestry Management program is part of the department and
manages the Tribes’ seven forest tracts, totaling 14,742 acres (Confederated Tribes of Coos,
Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw, n.d.). The department also educates others and promotes the
economic and cultural significance of the land for Tribal self-determination and sovereignty
(Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw, n.d.).

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan
4-9

DRAFT

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw Indians Profile

Department

Services

Planning

Supports economic development and job growth within the Tribes through development,
implementation, and management of the Tribes’ five and ten-year strategic plans. Assists in
managing the Tribes’ master planning, including general planning, capital improvement
planning, and land use planning. The Tribes’ planning programs include Tribal properties
(Coos Head and the Hollering Place), Emergency Preparedness, GIS, Realty and Land Use,
Transportation, and Transit (Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw, 2021).

Police

Full-service police and public safety organization responsible for delivering law enforcement
services to Tribal communities and enterprises (Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua,
& Siuslaw, n.d.).

Community
Health &
Wellness

The Health Services Division provides limited OTC medications and safety items like smoke
alarms, bicycle helmets, and infant car seats and gift baskets containing education materials,
safety items, and gifts for expectant Tribal parents. Additionally, Diabetes, education, fitness
programs, water testing, and well and septic programs are coordinated.

Family
Support
Services

Our Family Support Services are inclusive of mental health support and referral services,
parenting classes, employment assistance, youth activities, home visiting, and family events.
Further, Family Support Services also include Behavioral Health support, Childcare (CCDF)
Program, Circles of Healing, Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP),
Substance Abuse Support, and Youth Prevention Programs.

4.5 Tribal Enterprises – Supporting Our People through Economic Growth
The CTCLUSI owns three Tribal businesses:
▪
▪
▪

Blue Earth Services & Technology
Ocean Dunes Golf Links
Three Rivers Casino & Resort

Tribal businesses and enterprises, including the Tribes’ forestry resources and three Ranches, bring
revenue to the Tribes, allowing the CTCLUSI to develop and expand Tribal services and facilities.

4.6 Natural Resource Conservation and Management on Tribally-Held Lands
4.6.1 Annual Climate
The Service Area experiences a predominantly mild climate, with local variations in precipitation and
temperature based on ecoregion and topography. Table 4-3 shows average precipitation and mean
temperature ranges in the Service Area between 1901 and January 2021. Precipitation is most common
in the winter, mainly from the rain in lower elevations and snow building to snowpack at higher elevations
in the Cascades Range. Winter storms can bring high winds and heavy precipitation that increases the risk
of landslides. The summers are often drier; this can contribute to drought conditions and wildfire risks.
The inland parts of Lane and Douglas counties generally experience warmer summers and cooler winters
than the rest of the Service Area (Oregon Office of Emergency Management, 2021).
Table 4-3. Average Precipitation and Temperatures (National Centers for Environmental Information, 2021)

County

Annual Precipitation (in)

January min/max °F

July min/max °F

Coos

69

35/48

50/73

Curry

86

35/47

51/76

Douglas

53

32/44

50/78

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan
4-10

DRAFT

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw Indians Profile
County

Annual Precipitation (in)

January min/max °F

July min/max °F

Lane

64

31/42

50/76

Lincoln

90

36/46

50/72

4.6.2 Department of Cultural and Natural Resources
CTCLUSI conserves and manages the Tribes’ cultural and natural resources within their lands and ancestral
homelands to benefit Tribal Citizens. The Tribes’ Natural Resources & Culture Department has established
programs to protect lands, waters, and cultural and natural resources.
The Air and Water programs are responsible for monitoring and investigating contamination to those
resources, with ongoing mitigation for improvement to Tribal community health. The Tribal Response
Program is responsible for remediation of contaminated properties, and response planning and actions in
protecting cultural and natural resources of the Tribe. The Restoration and Wetlands Program undertakes
restoration for both Tribal properties and incoming properties, as well as monitors the health of wetlands
on the coast. The Forest Management Program manages the Tribe’s forest tracts, including for timber
management and wildfire response. The Tribal Historic Preservation Program oversees the planning,
response, and mitigation for cultural resource protection. The department additionally holds programs
for Tribal youth and membership, such as the Cultural Stewardship Program, Tobacco Prevention
Program, Language, and more, to perpetuate the culture of the Tribe, as well as educate membership on
cultural and natural resources.
All of these programs overlap and collaborate to effectively manage Tribal properties and response
actions off-Tribal properties through numerous operating plans, including: the Tribal Environmental Plan,
the Strategic Energy Plan, Forest Management Plan, the Tribe’s Water Quality Standards, Integrated
Water Quality Monitoring Plan, Tribal Estuary Response Plan, Wastewater Monitoring Plan, the
Laboratory Management Plan, the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan, and the Curations
Management Plan. Numerous documents assist in implementing these plans, such as standard operating
procedures and Tribal codes, all of which undergo extensive review by partner agencies for integrated
implementation under trust responsibilities.
An example of department efforts in resource protection is shown through the Tribes’ Traditional Cultural
Property (TCP), Q’alya Ta Kukwis Shichdii Me. Since time immemorial, Coos Bay and its sloughs, inlets, and
adjacent uplands have been central to Coos Tribe and encompass cultural, sacred, religious, and historical
significance sites. The Coos Tribe used the bay for fishing, gathering, ceremony, and to lay the dead to
rest. In recognition of the cultural significance, identity, and connection to this place and resources, and
to protect these features for future generations, CTCLUSI designated a TCP Historic District around Coos
Bay and Jordan Cove, Q’alya Ta Kukwis Shichdii Me, which translates to Jordan Cove and the Bay of the
Coos People. The district is a 26-square-mile area, including portions of private and public land in the cities
of Coos Bay and North Bend and adjacent unincorporated areas in Coos County. The TCP Q’alya Ta Kukwis
Shichdii Me was found to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places by the National Parks
Service in 2020. This landscape with all of its features are considered just some of the uncountable
resources that are vulnerable to the hazards listed in this plan.

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan
4-11

DRAFT

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw Indians Profile

4.7 Development Trends – Looking to the Tribes' Future
The Tribes continue to acquire fee-simple and trust lands for the
benefit of Tribal Citizens. The Planning Department manages strategic,
capital improvements, and land use planning for Tribal properties.
Most Tribal development is planned in Florence, Coos Bay, and North
Bend's coastal communities near existing Tribal communities. These
planned developments include two sites:
▪

44 CFR 201.7(d)(3)
The plan is revised to reflect
changes in priorities and
development trends.

Coos Head Area: The 43-acre Coos Head area, currently owned by CTCLUSI, is a former brownfield
site formerly occupied by a military facility. The Tribes have completed environmental remediation of
the site and have developed the Coos Head Area Master Plan to guide redevelopment. The intent is
to dedicate approximately 23 acres to community-oriented, revenue-generating land uses, including
an interpretive center, conference center, hotel, and recreational vehicle campground. The remaining
approximately 20 acres of the site would be developed with Tribal uses, including a replicated Tribal
village, ethnobotany interpretive areas and trails, a community center, Tribal housing, and camping
facilities (Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw, 2018).

4.8 Capabilities and Capacity Assessment
The CTCLUSI 2022 HMP is a capability and capacity-based plan.
Capability is the ability to provide something, while Capacity is the
amount that can be provided. For example, an Emergency Manager
can coordinate a mitigation program; however, the same Emergency
Manager likely would not have the capacity to coordinate each
mitigation action.

44 CFR 201.7(c)(1)(iv)
The Capabilities and Capacity Assessment shows
how the planning process
was integrated to the extent
possible with other ongoing
tribal planning efforts and
other FEMA programs and
initiatives.

The Project Team and the Emergency Managment Team completed a
comprehensive hazard mitigation capabilities and capacity assessment
during Workshop 1: Project Kickoff Meeting. First, the Emergency
Managment Team identified CTCLUSI's current resources, abilities, and local area agreements that
support the HMP. Next, each hazard's exposure and vulnerability were weighed against the current
capacities to determine the level of risk. The assessment evaluated the following resource groups:
▪
▪
▪

Planning and Regulatory
Administrative and Technical
Financial
Education and Outreach

4.8.1 Planning and Regulatory
Planning and regulatory capabilities include the plans, policies, codes, and ordinances that mitigate the
impacts of hazards.

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan
4-12

DRAFT

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw Indians Profile

Yes/No
Year

Plan Title

Comprehensive/
Master Plan

Yes, Coos Head
Area Master
Plan, 2018

Capital
Improvements
Plan

No, but the
general plan
has capital
improvements

Economic
Development
Initiative

Yes, 2018

Emergency
Operations Plan

Yes, 2009

Continuity of
Operations Plan

Yes, 2009

Transportation
Plan

Yes, 2010

Stormwater
Management
Plan

No

Community
Wildfire
Protection Plan

No

Are
Hazards
Addressed
?

Yes

How are
related
projects
identified?

Can the plan aid
mitigation
implementation
?

Accomplishments
(2006-2022)

Plan includes
mitigation
actions to
support
future growth

Plan outlines
opportunities and
constraints for
the Coos Head
Area: open spaces
and natural areas
and tsunami
inundation and
flood zones

Continuing to build
on their previous
accomplishments in
self-determination
and self-sufficiency

Congress passes
S.1285, Oregon
Tribal Economic
Development Act

No

Yes

No, but
addresses
public
safety

Plan identifies
essential
government
administratio
n functions,
lead
departments,
and prioritizes them
Plan has
short, mid,
and longterm
recommendat
ions for
Indian Trust
Lands

Outlines alert,
notification, and
emergency
operations
implementation

Tribal Government
Administration will
complete a COOP
Test, Training &
Exercise Plan

Road inventory
can aid in
identifying
hazards and
prioritize
mitigation actions

Maintain road
inventory and
mapping

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan
4-13

DRAFT

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw Indians Profile

Yes/No
Year

Plan Title
Climate Change
Resiliency Plan

Are
Hazards
Addressed
?

How are
related
projects
identified?

Can the plan aid
mitigation
implementation
?

Accomplishments
(2006-2022)

The plan
identifies
capability,
funding
sources,
mitigation
goals, and
actions

Mitigation Goals
and Potential
Actions are in
Table 6-4 (e.g.,
disaster-resistant
development,
capacity building
for preparedness
and response)

The system exists to
track the initiation,
status, and
completion of
mitigation activities.
Goals and progress
review on
completion and
implementation of
activities is done at
the annual review

Identifies maps of
radio coverage
area and radio
system
recommendations
and
enhancements
(e.g., providing
reliable radio
system service in
and near Coos
Bay)

Procedures for radio
systems and a
standardized radio
frequency template.
Herman Peak was
scheduled for a new
shelter and 180-foot
tower in 2009;
while this asset is
available to
CTCLUSI, it is not
owned by the
Tribes.

No

Comprehensive
Emergency
Management
Plan

Yes

Flood Plain
Management
Plan

No

Other special
plans (e.g.,
disaster recovery,
climate change
adaptation)

2009 Tribal
Radio System
Assessment
Plan

Strategic Energy
Plan

Yes, 2022

Yes

No, but
addresses
public
safety

Plan outlines
information
on CTCLUSI
Public Safety
Radio System

Forest
Management
Plan

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan
4-14

DRAFT

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw Indians Profile

Yes/No
Year

Plan Title

Are
Hazards
Addressed
?

How are
related
projects
identified?

Can the plan aid
mitigation
implementation
?

Accomplishments
(2006-2022)

Water Quality
Standards, Water
Quality
Monitoring Plan

Integrated Solid
Waste
Management
Plan

Yes, 2013

Tribal
Environmental
Plan

Laboratory
Management
Plan

Curations
Management
Plan

Tribal Estuary
Response Plan

Yes, 2018

Wastewater
Monitoring Plan

Yes

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan
4-15

DRAFT

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw Indians Profile

Hazard Mitigation Codes,
Permitting, and Inspections

Yes/
No +
Year

Describe code and if it is
adequately enforced

Building Code

Yes,
2012

Version/Year: CTCLUSI
Building Code

Building Code Effectiveness
Grading Schedule

N/A

Fire Department Insurance
Services Office (ISO) Rating

No

Rating:

Site Plan Review Requirements

No

Permit Review Committee

Land-use Planning &
Mitigation Ordinances

Yes/No
+ Year

Describe its hazard
mitigation
effectiveness

Zoning Ordinance

No

Subdivision Ordinance

No

Floodplain Ordinance

No

Natural Hazard Specific
Ordinance (e.g.,
stormwater)

No

Flood Insurance Rate Maps

No

Acquisition of Land for Open
Space and Recreation Uses

Yes

Water quality standards,
which reduce public health
risks, and Air Ordinance

No

Accomplishments (2006-2022)
Uniform performance standards and
safeguards for health, safety, welfare,
comfort, and security

Describe
ordinance and if
it is adequately
enforced

Accomplishments
(2006-2022)

Applicable ordinances
and policies are built
into Tribal Code
CTCLUSI adheres
to State of Oregon
standards

Rate the Overall Planning and Regulatory Capabilities
Very Low

Low

Moderate

High

Very High

How can the Tribes expand Planning and Regulatory Capabilities and reduce risks?

4.8.2 Administrative and Technical
Administrative and technical capabilities include staff, skills, and resources that may be leveraged for
mitigation planning and implementation.
CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan
4-16

DRAFT

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw Indians Profile

Administration

Yes/No

Is
coordination
effective?

Accomplishments
(2006-2022)

Established in 2022

Planning Commission

Yes, Tribal Planning Department and
Tribal Council

Mitigation Planning Team

Yes

Yes

Maintenance programs to
reduce risk (e.g., tree trimming,
clearing drainage systems)

Yes

Yes

Mutual aid agreements (interlocal agreements)

A Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) with the U.S. Coast Guard
and the North West Committee and
Regional Response Team is being
developed at the time of this writing.

Staff

Yes/No
FullTime/PartTime

Chief Building
Official

Yes, full-time

Floodplain
Administrator

No

Emergency
Manager

Yes, is the
Director of
Planning

Director of
Planner

Yes

Civil Engineer

No

GIS Coordinator

No

Other

Yes:
Transportation
Coordinator;
Chief of Police;
Director of
Community
Health

Planning
Department

Yes, Tribal
Planning
Department

Department of
Natural
Resources &
Culture

Yes, all
department
staff

Is there staff
to
enforce
regulations?

Is outside
coordination
effective?

Yes

Yes

No, staff
capacity is
inadequate

Yes, all
department
staff

Is training
effective?

Accomplishme
nts (20062022)

Yes

No

Yes

Yes, ongoing

Plan updates,
new staff,
increased
equipment and
facilities

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan
4-17

DRAFT

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw Indians Profile

Technical

Yes/No Year
Adopted

Warning Systems
and Services (e.g.,
reverse 911)

Yes, CTCLUSI Alert
Hub App

Hazard Data and
Information

Yes, 2022 HMP

Grants
Management
Department

Yes, the Grants
Management
Department
manages grants

Is capability leveraged for risk
mitigation?

Accomplishments
(2006-2022)

Yes, created inventory (population/buildings/critical facilities) and
vulnerability estimates. A comprehensive risk
assessment of injuries or loss of life, loss of
facility and system functions, and economic
losses.

Rate the Overall Administrative and Technical Capabilities
Very Low

Low

Moderate

High

Very High

How can the Tribe expand Administrative and Technical Capabilities and reduce risks?
Hiring an Emergency Management Coordinator to help expand capacity and Tribal Resources

4.8.3 Financial
Financial capabilities include funding sources that do not need to be repaid (e.g., government grants,
taxes, user fees, and philanthropic sources) and finance (e.g., bonds, private lending).
Funding Resource

Access/Eligibility (Yes/No)

Capital Improvement
Project Funding

Yes

Authority to levy
taxes for specific
purposes (e.g., special
assessment districts)

No

Utility Fees (e.g.,
electric, water)

Yes, Revenue Bonds (public
utility revenues)

Impact fees for new
development

Yes, System Development
Charges for commercial
development

How is funding
used for
mitigations?

If not,
can it
be?

Accomplishments
(2006-2022)

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan
4-18

DRAFT

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw Indians Profile
How is funding
used for
mitigations?

Funding Resource

Access/Eligibility (Yes/No)

Stormwater Utility
Fee

No

Take on debt (e.g.,
General Obligation
Bonds)

Yes, sale of Tribal Bonds in
Tribal Code

Take on debt through
private activities (e.g.,
loan)

Yes, Down Payment Loan
Assistance, Emergency
Assistance, and Home Repair
for Tribal Members

Yes, for Emergency
Assistance

Indian Community
Development Block
Grant

Yes

Grants are used for
preventative
maintenance

Other Federal
Funding Programs

Yes, 2008 Air Quality
Program: Region 10
Environmental Protection
Agency’s (EPA) Tribal
Response Program and Project Performance Grant;
EPA’s Clean Water Grants;
BIA’s Tribal Resilience Program (coastal management
and planning)

Air Quality Program:
installed a particulate
matter (PM) 2.5 &
Meteorological
Monitoring Project on
tribal lands

State Funding
Programs

Yes, Oregon Public Health
Emergency Preparedness
Grants

Insurance Products

No

Other

N/A

Hard Dollars

No

Environemntal
Protection Agency
State and Tribal
Response Program
Environmental
Protection Agency
Clean Air Act Section
105
Environmental
Protection Agency
Clean Water Act
Section 106 and 319

Yes

Yes

Yes

If not,
can it
be?

Accomplishments
(2006-2022)

Response planning,
brownfields
remediation,
laboratory
contaminants analysis

Increased staff,
equipment,
facilities,
partnerships,
agreements.

Mitigation, planning,
monitoring

Increased staff,
equipment,
facilities,
partnerships,
agreements.

Mitigation, planning,
monitoring

Increased staff,
equipment,
facilities,
partnerships,
agreements.

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan
4-19

DRAFT

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw Indians Profile
How is funding
used for
mitigations?

Funding Resource

Access/Eligibility (Yes/No)

BIA

Yes

Forest Management
Plan, hazard
mitigation

Bureau of Indian
Affairs’ Self
Determination
Funding

Yes

Cultural Resources
Protection

Department of the
Interior Tribal Historic
Preservation Office

Yes

Cultural Resources
Protection

If not,
can it
be?

Accomplishments
(2006-2022)

Rate the Overall Financial Capabilities
Very Low

Low

Moderate

High

Very High

How can the Tribe expand Financial Capabilities and reduce risks?

4.8.4 Education and Outreach
Education and outreach capabilities include ongoing programs that local-to-federal government,
nonprofit, and other organizations provide to communities that may be leveraged to implement hazard
mitigation actions and build community resilience. Please indicate which of the following programs
currently exist and how they are or could be used to mitigate hazards and build resilience.
Yes/No
Program/Organization
Year

How the program relates
to resilience and mitigation

How it assists
resilience or
mitigation
activities?

Citizen groups/nonprofit
organizations (e.g.,
environmental
protection, emergency
preparedness)

Yes,
2011

Three Rivers Foundation
serves as a charitable giving
arm of CTCLUSI, the Board of
which comprised of Tribal
Council

Grants for
resilience and
mitigation
actions

Ongoing public
education or
information program
(e.g., fire safety,)

Yes

Public Health alert
notifications and Health &
Wellness Programs

Early warnings
and community
engagement

Accomplishments
(2006-2022)

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan
4-20

DRAFT

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw Indians Profile

Yes/No
Program/Organization
Year
Natural disaster or
safety-related school
programs

No

StormReady
certification

No

Firewise Communities
certification

No

Public and private
partnerships to address
hazards

No

Tribal Response
Program

Yes,
ongoing

Forest Management
Program

Yes,
ongoing

Air Quality Program

Yes,
ongoing

Water Quality Program

Yes,
ongoing

Tribal Historic
Preservation Office

Yes,
ongoing

Prevention Program

Yes,
ongoing

Restoration and
Wetlands

Yes,
ongoing

How the program relates
to resilience and mitigation

How it assists
resilience or
mitigation
activities?

Accomplishments
(2006-2022)

Rate the Overall Education and Outreach Capabilities
Very Low

Low

Moderate

High

Very High

How can the Tribe expand Education and Outreach Capabilities and reduce risks?

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan
4-21

DRAFT

CTCLUSI Hazard
Mitigation Plan
Part 2: Risk Assessment

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

Part 2: Risk Assessment

DRAFT

Risk Assessment

Part 2
5 Risk Assessment

Figure 4-1. Risk: The Relationship Between
Hazard, Exposure, and Vulnerability

5.1 Introduction
Risk is the intersection of a hazard, the exposure to the hazard,
and vulnerability to that hazard; this is illustrated in Figure 5-1.
Risk exists where a structure, population, and/or infrastructure
are exposed and possibly vulnerable to a hazard. If there is no
exposure or vulnerability, there is no risk from the hazard. The
HMP incorporates mitigation actions to minimize or remove
exposures and/or vulnerabilities, reducing or removing the risk.
The risk assessment process focuses on the following elements:
▪
▪
▪

Hazard Identification and Ranking: Determine the hazards
that may impact the Tribes.
Exposure Identification: Estimate the total number of people and properties in the Tribal Service Area
that are likely to experience a hazard event if it occurs.
Vulnerability Identification and Estimated Losses: Assess the hazard's potential impact on the Service
Area's populations, properties, environment, culture, and critical facilities. The Tribes' capacity to
mitigate the hazard effects. Then estimate the potential life and economic losses and possible costs
avoided from mitigation actions taken.

CTCLUSI’s level of risk is evaluated based on the identified hazards from workshop 1 and the vulnerability
and exposure of properties and Tribal Citizens to the hazards. Each hazard profile discusses CTCLUSI’s
vulnerability and exposure to each of the eight identified hazards. The risk is adjusted to account for the
Tribes’ existing capabilities to manage the risk. The capabilities assessment is in Section 4.8. This process
enables CTCLUSI to develop and prioritize mitigations based on the level of risk to the hazards.

5.2 Methodology
The hazard profiles in Section 6 to 13 used qualitative and quantitative
methods to describe and analyze the eight hazards identified by the
Emergency Managment Team. These profiles included the Service
Area’s hazard risk, exposure, and vulnerabilities of Tribal Citizens,
properties, and critical facilities.
5.2.1 Qualitative Methods – Identifying and Prioritizing Hazards
The Emergency Managment Team was asked to identify and prioritize
hazards in the Service Area based on the probability, frequency,
magnitude, severity, and warning time; definitions for each measure
are provided in Table 5-1. The Committee ranked the hazards based on
their assumptions of the most-likely and worst-case scenarios. The
Emergency Managment Team considered the exposure and
vulnerability of populations, properties, and critical facilities in the
Service Area. The Emergency Managment Team reviewed state, Tribal,

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

44 CFR Section
201.7(c)(2)(i)
The plan includes a
description of the type,
location, and extent of all
natural hazards that can
affect the tribal planning
area in each hazard profile.
The plan also includes
information on previous
occurrences of hazard
events and the probability
of future hazard events for
the Service Area.

5-1

DRAFT

Risk Assessment

and local hazard planning documents and historical information on each hazard within the Service Area
to inform their decisions.
Table 5-1. Hazard Ranking Definitions

Rate

Severity

Magnitude

Frequency

Onset

Duration

1

No injuries or deaths expected.
Minimal damage or impacts to
natural systems.

Single or limited
number of properties
impacted.

Less
than
every 25 years

Greater than
30 days of
warning

Only brief
moments

2

Between 1 and 5 injuries or
deaths. Minimal to moderate
damage or impacts to natural
systems.

Neighborhood
or
small
community
impacted.

10-25 years

5-30 days of
warning

1-24 hours

3

Between 5 and 25 injuries or
deaths. Moderate damage or
impacts to natural systems.

City
or
impacted.

town

5-10 years

1-5 days of
warning

Days
weeks

4

Between 25 and 50 injuries or
deaths. Extensive damage or
impacts to natural systems.

Entire
impacted.

county

1-5 years

1-10 hours of
warning

Weeks to
months

5

Greater than 50 injuries or
deaths. Catastrophic damage or
impacts to natural systems.

State and/or region
impacted.

Once per year

No warning

Months to
years

to

The Emergency Managment Team identified the following eight hazards for inclusion in the CTCLUSI 2022
HMP, and the results of the hazard ranking survey are reported in tables 5-2 and 5-3 (below).
▪ Earthquake
▪ Epidemic/Pandemic/Pandemic
▪ Flood and Sea-Level Rise (SLR)
▪ Hazardous Materials

▪ Mass Earth Movements (includes landslides)
▪ Tsunami
▪ Severe Weather Events (includes drought and extreme heat)
▪ Wildfires

Table 5-2. Most likely Scenario

Hazards

Severity

Magnitude

Frequency

Onset

Duration

Average

Rank

Severe Weather (drought
& extreme heat)

1.33

2.33

2.75

2.17

2.83

2.282

1

Earthquake

2.5

2.25

2

3.75

2.75

2.65

2

Flood & Sea Level Rise

1.5

2.25

3

2.75

3.75

2.65

3

Tsunamis & Seiches

2.5

2.5

1.25

4

2.75

2.6

4

Mass Movements
(landslides)

1.5

2

2.75

3.75

2

2.4

5

Epidemic/Pandemic/Pan
demic

2

3.25

1.75

1.75

3.25

2.4

6

Wildfires

1.25

1.5

2.75

3.75

2.5

2.35

7

Hazardous Materials

1.5

1.75

2.25

3

3.25

2.35

8

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

5-2

DRAFT

Risk Assessment

Table 5-3. Worst-case Scenario

Hazards

Severity

Magnitude

Frequency

Onset

Duration

Average

Rank

Hazardous Materials

4

4.25

4.25

5

5

4.5

1

Epidemic/Pandemic/Pan
demic

4.75

5

3.75

4

4.75

4.45

2

Earthquake

4.5

5

2.75

4.75

4.5

4.3

3

Tsunamis & Seiches

5

4.5

2

5

4.75

4.25

4

Severe Weather (drought
& extreme heat)

3

3.83

3.83

4.5

4.1

3.852

5

Wildfires

3.75

4

4

5

4

4.15

6

Flood & Sea Level Rise

2.5

4.25

4

3.5

4.5

3.75

7

Mass Movements
(landslides)

2.5

3.25

3.5

5

3.25

3.5

8

During the hazard identification and ranking process, the Emergency Managment Team decided to
consolidate drought and extreme heat into severe weather given the related factors of these hazards; all
three were separate in the CTCLUSI 2006 HMP. Additionally, the 2022 CTCLUSI HMP addresses new and
emerging hazards that affect the Tribes, including pandemics, hazardous materials, and incorporating SLR
in the flood hazard profile. A pandemic profile is included to reflect the impact of the global COVID-19
pandemic on the Tribes.
5.2.2 Quantitative Methods – Map-based Risk Assessment
The CTCLUSI 2022 HMP includes the most current and accurate
scientific data available. GIS software and data sets were used to map
a hazard’s extent where the information existed. However, not all
hazards had geospatial data. These spatial data sets were retrieved
from federal sources in the Five-County Service Area and other
applicable databases as applicable.

44 CFR 201.7(c)(2)(ii)
The plan includes a description of each identified
hazard's impact as well as an
overall summary of the
vulnerability of the tribal
planning/service area.

GIS software was used to generate map and tabular outputs to
quantify and visualize the exposure and vulnerability of people, property, and critical facilities within the
Service Area; the results are available in the hazard profiles of this plan, Sections 6 through 13.
Exposure of CTCLUSI Citizens and Structures
The risk assessment analyzed socially and economically vulnerable populations where the data was
available; however, this was not the case for all eight hazards. Additionally, the GIS analysis factored in
the economic value and the overall hazard exposure of structures in the Service Area.
▪

▪

Population Exposure: CTCLUSI Tribal Government provided population data, which showed that the
total enrolled population of Tribal Citizens is 1,313. Out of those Citizens, 507 reside in the Service
Area. Socially vulnerable population categories were member age groups for minors and those over
65. Population exposure for each hazard is addressed in the hazard profile sections.
▪ Under 19 years old: 34 percent of Tribal Citizens in the Service Area
▪ 65 years or older: 13 percent of Tribal Citizens in the Service Area
Structural Exposure: The exposure to each hazard considers 69 facilities in the Service Area. CTCLUSI
identified ten critical facilities in the Service Area. A full account of Tribal properties is in Appendix H.

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

5-3

DRAFT

Risk Assessment

The type of facilities, critical facilities, and sum of the structures are in Table 5-4. The facility exposure
for each hazard is addressed in the hazard profile sections.
Table 5-4. CTCLUSI Facility Types and Counts

Facility Type

Total Facilities

Critical Facilities

Administration

4

0

Camp

11

0

Casino

3

0

Communication

0

0

Community

3

0

Housing

20

0

Lighthouse

1

0

Maintenance

4

4

Other

14

0

Power

1

1

Ranch

3

0

Water/Wastewater

4

4

Grand Total

69

10

Assessing the hazard-specific risks posed to critical facilities is important for the development and
prioritization of mitigation actions. FEMA defines critical facilities as all human-made structures or
improvements that due to their function, size, service areas, or uniqueness have the potential to cause
serious bodily harm, extensive property damage, or impact socioeconomic activities if the facilities are
damaged, destroyed, or vital services are impaired (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2007).
CTCLUSI’s critical facilities are spread across the Service Area. The map in Figure 5-2 highlights the two
locations in the Service Area where there are critical facilities, with one yellow box around the location in
Florence and the other around Coos Bay. Figures 5-3 and 5-4 zoom in on these two locations to clearly
show the critical facility sites.

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

5-4

DRAFT

Risk Assessment

Figure 5-2. CTCLUSI Critical Facilities: Overview

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

5-5

DRAFT

Risk Assessment

Figure 5-3. CTCLUSI Critical Facilities: Coos Bay

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

5-6

DRAFT

Risk Assessment

Figure 5-4. CTCLUSI Critical Facilities: Florence

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

5-7

DRAFT

Risk Assessment

5.2.3 Data Sources
Table 5-5 lists all the data and sources used to develop maps and tabular outputs.
Table 5-5. Geographic Information System Data Sources

Data

Source

Structures/Critical Facilities

CTCLUSI Tribal Government

Population

CTCLUSI Tribal Government

Earthquake

Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) 2013

Weather Events (Drought
and Extreme Heat)

US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): National Climatic
Data Center 2021

Flooding and Sea-Level Rise

FEMA 2020

Wildfire

Oregon Department of Forestry 2018, Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Oregon
Department of Forestry 2010

Tsunami

DOGAMI 2013

Mass Earth Movement
(Landslide)

Landslides DOGAMI 2016, and mapped landslide deposits DOGAMI 2019

5.3 Limitations
Loss estimates, exposure assessments, and hazard-specific vulnerability evaluations rely on the best
available data and methodologies. Uncertainties are inherent in any loss estimation methodology and can
arise from incomplete scientific knowledge concerning natural hazards and/or their effects on the built
environment. CTCLUSI Tribal Citizen data contained only ages and gender, limiting analysis of population
exposure and vulnerability.
Figure 5-5. GIS Data Point Limitation
5.3.1 GIS Limitations
GIS data and analysis are limited by the scale of hazards and Diagram
exposures assessed. For example, buildings are often a point on
a map rather than shapes showing their entire footprint (i.e.,
unlike blueprints or floor plans). Figure 5-6 displays a facility
that overlaps a flood zone but would not be identified in that
flood zone because the facility's data point is right outside of
the flood zone boundary.

Therefore, maps and analysis should be considered a general
representation of risk throughout the Service Area and not
determine site-specific risks. Potential exposure and loss are
also estimated and should be used only to understand relative
risk, not absolute risk. The qualitative hazard identification and
raking exercise and risk assessment survey completed by the
Emergency Managment Team and CTCLUSI's survey responses
are essential for addressing these limitations and validating the
risk assessments.

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

Flood
Zone
GIS Data
Point
Outside
the Flood
Zone

5-8

DRAFT

Risk Assessment: Earthquake

6 Earthquake
6.1 General Background
Earth’s crust is comprised of tectonic plates, constantly
moving at a prolonged rate (United States Geological Survey,
2016). As the plates push against each other, they
occasionally get stuck, resulting in friction. Earthquakes are
the result of the energy from that friction being released and
traveling through the ground in waves, resulting in surface
shaking (United States Geological Survey, n.d.). Surface
shaking can be as short as a few seconds or start with one
event followed by several more minor earthquakes over
several days, known as tremors. The smaller seismic events
that follow a more significant initial earthquake are called
aftershocks.
Most seismic hazards occur on well-known active faults
(Bolt, 2020). However, determining if a fault is active or
potentially active depends on geologic evidence, which may
or may not be available. Earthquakes are more likely to occur
on faults with these conditions (Bolt, 2020):
▪
▪
▪
▪

Pressure builds up more rapidly
There were recent earthquakes
Past earthquakes caused more significant displacements
Faults are between plates and can relieve accumulated
tectonic stresses

The fault types listed above are typically well documented.
Depending on the proximity and depth of the earthquake’s
epicenter, ground shaking can still feel strong. In contrast,
large regional faults can generate moderate magnitudes that
result in only moderate shaking because of the epicenter’s
distance and depth. Lesser-known faults are challenging to
predict since there is no historic geological data to inform
predictions.

DEFINITIONS
Aftershock: Lower-magnitude earthquakes that follow an initial primary
earthquake.
Earthquake: A sudden shaking of the
ground caused by seismic waves traveling through the earth.
Earthquake Magnitude: The seismic
wave/amplitude
measured
and
recorded by seismographs from an
earthquake’s epicenter. Magnitude is
represented by a class name and
numerical value from 3 to 8.
Epicenter (seismology): The point on
the ground’s surface directly above the
focus point where the fault ruptures.
Fault: A fracture in the Earth’s crust
where compression or tension pressure
on causes displacement of soil and rock
on the opposite side of the fracture.

Focal Depth: The depth from the earth’s
surface to the hypocenter.
Liquefaction: A loss of soil strength or
cohesion that results in the soil behaving
like a thick liquid (e.g., quicksand).
Modified
Mercalli
Scale:
A
measurement of the level of intensity
felt on the ground’s surface in populated
areas, represented by Roman numerals I
to X.

6.1.1 Potential Damage from Earthquakes
Surface Rupture: An area of the ground
Earthquakes can result in changes to the ground surface
that is offset (raised, lowered, tilted)
structure and placement. Ground shaking and displacement
when a fault rupture reaches the surface
from an earthquake can lead to secondary impacts like mass
of the ground.
earth movements and cascading effects, such as injuries and
death and structural damage to buildings and infrastructure.
Earthquakes can disrupt communications and damage utilities such as electricity, gas, sewer, and water
lines. Older facilities and infrastructure built before stringent earthquake codes are particularly
vulnerable. After an earthquake, entities must check their structures and utility lines for damage

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

6-1

DRAFT

Risk Assessment: Earthquake

(Committee on Consumers and the Public Interest, 2019). Secondary and cascading impacts from
earthquakes are addressed further in Section 6.3.

6.2 CTCLUSI Hazard Profile
The most common earthquakes that occur in Oregon are crustal, intraplate, or great subduction
earthquakes. In CTCLUSI’s Service Area, the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) generates the most severe
earthquake hazards, and damage following a great subduction earthquake is expected to be widespread
and severe. The CSZ is a fault line approximately 600 miles long and just off the coast of the Service Area
(Confederated Tribes of Coos Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians, 2018). Earthquakes occur from this
fault line generally between 400 to 600 years. Figure 6-1 displays the seismic hazards for Oregon and the
level of risk from red as the highest and blue as the lowest.
CTCLUSI's coastline is at the highest risk for CSZ earthquake events emanating off the coast, as shown in
Figure 6-1. An earthquake registering a scale of 9.0 or higher could trigger a 100-foot tsunami that would
inundate the Oregon coast (Confederated Tribes of Coos Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians, 2018).
Additionally, seismic hazards in the CSZ region are exacerbated by topography and bedrock geology, local
soil profiles, and building practices. Section 6.3.1 explains how geology and soil types can lead to
secondary hazards such as mass earth movements. The initial earthquake, after-shocks, and secondary
and cascading impacts that follow the seismic event can damage CTCLUSI's structures and Service Area
infrastructure. Further secondary hazards and cascading impacts are discussed in Section 6.3.
Figure 6-1. Oregon State Seismic Hazard Color Scale (United States Geological Survey, 2014)

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

6-2

DRAFT

Risk Assessment: Earthquake

6.2.1 Hazard Ranking
The Emergency Managment Team completed a hazard ranking survey during the CTCLUSI 2022 HMP
update process and assessed hazard-related factors based on worst case and most likely scenarios. Hazard
definitions and ranking factors are in Table 5-1. Survey results were prioritized and ranked based on their
averaged score. The severity, magnitude, frequency, onset, and duration variables are scored one to five,
where one is the lowest and five is the highest. Compared to the other hazards in the survey, earthquakes
are the third worst-case scenario and second most likely scenario.
Table 6-1. Earthquake Hazard Ranking Output

Severity

Magnitude

Frequency

Onset

Duration

Average

Rank

Worst-Case Scenario
4.50

5.00

2.75

4.75

4.50

4.30

3

2.75

2.65

2

Most Likely Scenario
2.50

2.25

2.00

3.75

6.2.2 Past Events
The most common earthquakes in the Service Area are on crustal faults. They typically occur in the earth’s
crust at shallow depths of 6 to 12 miles below the surface (State of Oregon Department of Geology and
Mineral Industries). Ground shaking from intraplate earthquakes with epicenters outside of Oregon is less
common; however, more significant events off the coast can be felt and impact the Service Area (State
Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team, 2020). The most recent major earthquake in the CSZ was an
estimated 9.0 magnitude earthquake on January 26, 1700. This earthquake caused the US coastline to
drop several feet and generated a tsunami that impacted coastal Tribes in the Pacific Northwest. Japanese
records indicate that a destructive, distantly produced tsunami also struck their coast on January 26, 1700.
There is no historical record of a federal disaster declared for earthquakes in CTCLUSI’s Service Area or
major damaging crustal earthquakes in the region in the past 156 years. However, the risk for a
catastrophic event that would impact CTCLUSI's Service Area could happen at any time. Table 6-2 lists
significant past earthquakes that have affected the Service Area.
Table 6-2. Significant Past Earthquakes on Oregon’s Coast (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2020)

Date

Location

Scale

Estimate: 1400 Before
the Common Era (BCE),
1050 BCE, 600 BCE, 400,
750, 900

CSZ (Offshore)

~8.09.0

Timeframes are estimated for these events.

January 1700

CSZ (Offshore)

~9.0

This earthquake generated a tsunami that destroyed
Native American villages along the coasts of Washington and Oregon and reached Japan.

November 1873

Near
Brookings,
Curry County

7.3

This intraplate earthquake is thought to have originated in the Juan de Fuca plate offshore. Damage
included collapsed chimneys in Port Orford, Grants
Pass, and Jacksonville.

November 1962

Portland,
Multnomah County

5.25.5

This crustal earthquake damaged many homes in the
city (chimneys, windows, etc.).

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

Details

6-3

DRAFT

Risk Assessment: Earthquake
Date

March 1993

Location
Scott Mills, Marion
County

Scale

Details

5.6

A crustal earthquake caused approximately $28 million
in damage to homes, schools, businesses, and government facilities. A federal disaster (FEMA-985-DR-OR)
was declared in counties outside of the Service Area.

September 1993

Klamath
Falls,
Klamath County

5.96.0

Two crustal earthquakes resulted in two fatalities and
approximately $7.5 million in damage to homes, businesses, and government facilities. A federal disaster
(FEMA-1004-DR-OR was declared in counties outside
of the Service Area.

May 8, 2015

Pacific Ocean west
of Coos Bay, Coos
County (Offshore)

4.4

-

November 29, 2019

Port Orford, Curry
County

4.5

-

February 8, 2020

Pacific Ocean west
of Coos Bay, Coos
County (Offshore)

4.7

-

Figure 6-2. The Cascadia Subduction Zone from British Columbia to
6.2.3 Location
CTCLUSI's Service Area is near the plate Northern California (Barnett, et al., 2009)
boundary between the Juan de Fuca
Plate and the North American plate. This
boundary is located approximately 50
miles off the entire west coast, running
the length of the United States and into
Canada, as mapped in Figure 6-2. There
are two significant earthquake zones on
the plate boundary, the CSZ, and a deep,
intra-plate “Benioff” zone. The Service
Area is also exposed to deep intraplate,
crustal
faulting,
and
volcanic
earthquakes, as illustrated in Figure 6-4
(Pacific Northwest Seismic Network).

Cascadia Subduction Zone
The CSZ is a 600-mile fault zone that runs from Northern California to British Columbia, about 60 to 100
miles offshore. More than 90 percent of earthquakes in the Pacific Northwest occur along the CSZ,
displayed in Figure 6-3. Earthquakes are generated when the Juan de Fuca Plate moves under the North
American Plate in the Pacific Ocean. This interaction results in a north/south compression stress in the
crust along the west coast. There were 41 earthquakes in the last 10,000 years within the fault zone. These
massive events have occurred between 190 to 1200 years apart.

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

6-4

DRAFT

Risk Assessment: Earthquake

A great subduction earthquake can Figure 6-3. Earthquake Types Along the Cascadia Subduction Zone
be greater than a magnitude 9.0
and produce a tsunami of up to 100
feet in height. Ground shaking
produced by a great subduction
earthquake would be most severe
along the coast but felt throughout
the Pacific Northwest (Oregon
Office of Emergency Management).
A great subduction earthquake has
the potential to cause catastrophic
damage to structures and critical
infrastructure and loss of life in the
CTCLUSI’s Service Area (United
States Geological Survey, 2017).
Earthquake generated tsunamis are detailed in Section 12.
Deep Intraplate or Benioff Zone Earthquakes
Deep intraplate Benioff Zone earthquakes occur along subduction zones and are caused by a slip along
the subduction zone or the downward movement of an oceanic crustal plate going under a continental
plate (Benioff Zone, 2021). The Benioff Zone, which can also be called the Wadati-Benioff Zone, is shown
in Figure 6-3 (United States Geological Survey). These zones can produce an earthquake on a subduction
zone fault or slip fault. Deep earthquakes can reach a strong to major magnitude (Table 6-3) and typically
occur about 40 miles beneath the surface (Oregon State University). Historical deep earthquake events
on the CSZ include (Oregon State University):
▪
▪
▪

A magnitude 7.1 in 1949 that caused over $100 million in damage to the city of Olympia, Washingon
An event in 1965 caused over $50 million in damage
The 2001 Nisqually earthquake caused approximately $2.5 billion

Although these more recent events occurred in Washington, Oregon and the Service Area are in the CSZ
and are also subject to Benioff Zone earthquakes.
Crustal Zone
Crustal earthquakes typically occur in the upper 16 miles of the Figure 6-4. Cross-Section of the Benioff
earth’s crust, oriented east-west and northwest-southeast (State Zone (United States Geological Survey)
of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries). In
southern Oregon, extensional (tensional) stress can also cause
faulting and crustal earthquakes. Past earthquakes have revealed
many shallow fault structures, including the Western Rainier
Seismic Zone and the Mt. St. Helens Seismic Zone. However, not all
active faults have been mapped, and many crustal earthquakes
occur on faults that don’t reach the earth’s surface. Significant
crustal earthquakes in the Service Area include the 1993 Scott’s
Mill (M5.6) and 1993 Klamath Falls (M6.0) earthquakes in Oregon
(State of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries).

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

6-5

DRAFT

Risk Assessment: Earthquake

6.2.4 Frequency
Great subduction earthquakes with a magnitude over 9.0 in the CSZ have a return interval of 400 to 600
years, with a 7 to 12 percent chance of occurring in the next 50 years (State Interagency Hazard Mitigation
Team, 2020). Smaller CSZ earthquakes with magnitudes between 8.3 and 8.5 have an average return
interval of about 240 years. The combined probability of an earthquake in the CSZ in the next 50 years is
approximately 37 to 43 percent (University of Oregon, Community Service Center, & Oregon Partnership
for Disaster Resilience, 2016).
Crustal earthquakes are the most common and frequent in the Pacific Northwest. There are over 1,000
earthquakes each year with a magnitude 1.0 or greater in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest. Historically,
deep intraplate earthquakes in the San de Fuca Plate have occurred every 30 years. The US Geological
Survey (USGS) estimates an 84 percent chance of another deep earthquake of magnitude 6.5 or greater
in the region in the next 50 years (Pacific Northwest Seismic Network). Crustal zone earthquakes occur in
the crust of the North American plate and may register as a magnitude seven or greater. Such earthquakes
can cause greater loss of life and property than any other kind of disaster but may occur no more than
once every 1,000 years. Ruptures in the North American Plate cause shallow faults in the Pacific Northwest
with depths greater than 22 miles.
Benioff deep zone earthquakes can cause 6 to 7.4 magnitude earthquakes (Pacific Northwest Seismic
Network). The largest recorded deep zone earthquakes were the 7.1 magnitude Olympia earthquake in
1949 and the 6.8 magnitude Nisqually earthquake in 2001 (Pacific Northwest Seismic Network). Scientists
estimate the recurrence interval for this type of earthquake to be 30-40 years for magnitude 6.5, and 5070 years for magnitude 7.0 (Pacific Northwest Seismic Network).
6.2.5 Severity
As shown in Table 6-2, past crustal earthquakes felt in the Service Area have caused damage ranging from
minor structural damage to widespread damage to buildings. CSZ earthquakes are the most severe seismic
hazard for the region and are likely to result in widespread, catastrophic damage from ground shaking
and subsequent tsunamis (Pacific Northwest Seismic Network). The potential magnitude, in the most
extreme scenarios, of earthquakes in the CTCLUSI’s Service Area by type are (Pacific Northwest Seismic
Network):
▪
▪
▪

CSZ: 9.0+ magnitude for up to four minutes
Benioff: 6.5 or greater with no aftershocks
Crustal Zone: As large as 7.5 with some aftershocks

Scientists and planners use different scales to communicate about earthquake power. The audience
receiving the information about earthquake risk and hazard determines which scale is used (i.e., scientists
or the general public). The most common earthquake measurement scales for hazard mitigation are the
Richter Scale and the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale.
Richter magnitude is recorded on a scale of 1 through 9 (Table 6-3). The Richter magnitude is measured
by recording the ground vibrations emanating from an earthquake's source, or epicenter, on a
seismograph. The Richter magnitude is an absolute scale, meaning that it will not change with distance
from the earthquake epicenter. In recent years, the Richter Scale has been replaced with the Moment
Magnitude (Mw) scale. The Moment Magnitude scale is a more effective method for measuring
earthquakes at larger distances from the epicenter than the Richter Scale. While the Richter scale is

CTCLUSI 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan

6-6

DRAFT

Risk Assessment: Earthquake

becoming less used, m

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/tribal%3Aconfederated_clusi%3Af44de1217a251e38. Public record. Not legal advice.