Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation (2016)
Tribal code
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation
Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan
Photo Credits Gary Halvorson, Oregon State Archives
Image Source: Warm Springs Forest Products Industries
Volume I: Basic Plan
July 2016
Prepared for:
CTWS Emergency Management
June 2015
Final Report
June 2015
Final Report
June 2015
Final Report
June 2015
Final Report
Prepared by:
University of Oregon
Community Service Center
Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience
This Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan was prepared by:
With support from:
Planning grant funding provided by:
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program
Grant: EMS-2014-PC-0003
Sub-grant Application Reference: PDMC-PL-10-ORIT001-2013-001
This material is a result of tax-supported research and, as such, is not copyrightable. It
may be freely reprinted with the customary crediting of the source.
SPECIAL THANKS &
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation (CTWS) developed this
Indian Tribal Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (NHMP) with funding provided by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation Competitive
Grant Program. FEMA awarded the grant to support the update of the natural
hazards mitigation plan. The CTWS planning process utilized a four-phased planning
process, plan templates and plan development support provided by the Oregon
Partnership for Disaster Resilience (OPDR) at the University of Oregon’s Community
Service Center. This project would not have been possible without technical and
in-kind staff support provided by the CTWS.
Special thanks to Dan Martinez, CTWS Emergency Manger, for his leadership in
convening the committee and to Neil MorningOwl for his support in developing this
NHMP.
CTWS NHMP Update Peer Group
Convener, Dan Martinez
Leroy Archen
Nancy Collins
Don Courtney
Caroline Cruz
Fay Hurtado
Bill Lang
Lonny Macy
Sue Matters
Emergency Manager
Community Member
Sanitarian, Public Utilities
General Manager, Public Utilities
General Manager, Health and Human Services
Human Services Administration
Facility Manager, Public Utilities
Planning, Policy and Planning
KWSO Radio
Neal MorningOwl
Travis Wells
Student, Emergency Management
Tribal Engineer
Community Service Center Team
Josh Bruce, OPDR Director
Michael Howard, Assistant Program Director
Julie Foster, Grant’s Administrator
Additional Thanks:
To the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development staff in the
hazards, and Risk Map programs for flood data, mapping, and process support.
About the Community Service Center
The Community Service Center (CSC), a research center affiliated with the
Department of Planning, Public Policy, and Management at the University of
Oregon, is an interdisciplinary organization that assists Oregon communities by
providing planning and technical assistance to help solve local issues and improve
the quality of life for Oregon residents. The role of the CSC is to link the skills,
expertise, and innovation of higher education with the transportation, economic
development, and environmental needs of communities and regions in the State of
Oregon, thereby providing service to Oregon and learning opportunities to the
students involved.
About the Oregon Partnership for Disaster
Resilience
The Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience (OPDR) is a coalition of public,
private, and professional organizations working collectively toward the mission of
creating a disaster-resilient and sustainable state. Developed and coordinated by
the Community Service Center at the University of Oregon, the OPDR employs a
service-learning model to increase community capacity and enhance disaster safety
and resilience statewide.
Plan Template Disclaimer
This Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan is based in part on a plan template developed
by the Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience. The template is structured to
address the requirements contained in 44 CFR 201.6 (and modified to meet
requirements of 44 CFR 201.7); where language is applicable to communities
throughout Oregon, OPDR encourages the use of standardized language. OPDR
hereby authorizes the use of all content and language provided to the
Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation in the plan template.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Volume 1: Basic Plan
Plan Summary ...................................................................................................... i-1
Section 1: Introduction ........................................................................................ 1-1
Section 2: Risk Assessment .................................................................................. 2-1
Section 3: Mitigation Strategy .............................................................................. 3-1
Section 4: Implementation and Maintenance ....................................................... 4-1
Volume 2: Appendices
Appendix A: Planning and Public Process ............................................................ A-1
Appendix B: Community Profile ...........................................................................B-1
Appendix C: Economic Analysis of Natural Hazard Mitigation Projects.................. C-1
Appendix D: Grant Programs and Resources ....................................................... D-1
This page left intentionally blank.
PLAN SUMMARY
The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation (CTWS) developed this Tribal
Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (NHMP or Plan) in an effort to prepare for the longterm effects resulting from natural hazards. It is impossible to predict exactly when
these hazards will occur, or the extent to which they will affect the community.
However, with careful planning and collaboration among public agencies, private sector
organizations, and citizens within the community, it is possible to create a resilient
community that will benefit from long-term
recovery planning efforts.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency
44 CFR 201.7 – The Indian Tribal
(FEMA) defines mitigation as “. . . the effort to
Mitigation Plan is the
reduce loss of life and property by lessening
representation of the Indian
tribal government's
the impact of disasters . . . through risk
commitment to reduce risks
analysis, which results in information that
from natural hazards, serving as
provides a foundation for mitigation activities
a guide for decision makers as
that reduce risk.” Said another way, natural
they commit resources to
reducing the effects of natural
hazard mitigation is a method of permanently
hazards.
reducing or alleviating the losses of life,
property, and injuries resulting from natural hazards through long and short-term
strategies. Example strategies include policy changes, such as updated ordinances,
projects, such as seismic retrofits to critical facilities; and education and outreach to
targeted audiences, such as non-English speaking residents or the elderly. Natural
hazard mitigation is the responsibility of the “Whole Community” - individuals, private
businesses and industries, state and local governments, and the federal government.
Why Develop this Mitigation Plan?
In addition to establishing a comprehensive
community-level mitigation strategy, the
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K) and the
regulations contained in 44 CFR 201 require that
jurisdictions maintain an approved Natural
Hazard Mitigation Plan (NHMP) in order to
receive federal funds for mitigation projects.
Tribal and federal approval of this Plan ensures
that the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Reservation will remain eligible for pre- and
post-disaster mitigation project grants.
44 CFR 201.7(a)(1) – Indian tribal
governments applying to FEMA
as a grantee must have an
approved Tribal Mitigation Plan
meeting the requirements of
this section as a condition of
receiving non-emergency
Stafford Act assistance and
FEMA mitigation grants.
What is Mitigation?
“Any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to life
and property from a hazard event.”
- U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page i
Who Participated in Developing the Plan?
The CTWS NHMP is the result of a collaborative effort between the Tribal government,
citizens, public agencies, non-profit organizations, the private sector, and regional
organizations. The Peer Group guided the Plan development process. Members of the
Peer Group are identified in the acknowledgements section of this NHMP.
The CTWS Emergency Manager convened the planning process and will take the lead in
implementing, maintaining, and updating the plan. The Confederated Tribes of Warm
Springs Reservation is dedicated to directly involving the public in the continual review
and update of the natural hazards mitigation plan. Although members of the Peer Group
represent the public to some extent, the public will also have the opportunity to
continue to provide feedback about the Plan
throughout the implementation and maintenance
44 CFR 201.7(c)(1) – Documentation of
period.
The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Reservation will ensure continued public
involvement by posting the NHMP on their
website. The Plan will also be archived and posted
on the University of Oregon Libraries’ Scholar’s
Bank Digital Archive.
How Does this Mitigation Plan
Reduce Risk?
the planning process used to
develop the plan, including how
it was prepared, who was
involved in the process, and
how the public was involved.
44 CFR 201.7(c)(2) – A risk assessment
that provides the factual basis
for activities proposed in the
strategy to reduce losses from
identified hazards.. . .
The NHMP is intended to assist the
Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Reservation reduce the risk from natural hazards
by identifying resources, information, and
strategies for risk reduction. It is also intended
to guide and coordinate mitigation activities throughout the reservation lands. A risk
assessment consists of three phases: hazard identification, vulnerability assessment, and
risk analysis, as illustrated in the following graphic.
Page ii
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
Figure PS-1 Understanding Risk
Source: Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience.
By identifying and understanding the relationship between natural hazards, vulnerable
systems, and existing capacity, the CTWS is better equipped to identify and implement
actions aimed at reducing the overall risk to natural hazards.
What is CTWS’ Overall Risk to Natural Hazards?
The CTWS Peer Group reviewed and updated their risk assessment to evaluate the
probability of each hazard as well as the vulnerability of the community to that hazard.
Table PS-1 below summarizes hazard probability and vulnerability as determined by the
county Peer Group (for more information see Section 2, Risk Assessment).
Table PS-1 Risk Assessment Summary
Hazard
Wildfire
Winter Storm
Flood - Riverine
Drought
Windstorm
Cascadia Earthquake
Volcano
Crustal Earthquake
Landslide
Probability
High
High
High
High
High
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Vulnerability
High
High
High
Moderate
Moderate
High
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Total Threat
Score
240
230
224
205
177
171
158
104
82
Hazard Rank
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
Source: The CTWS NHMP Peer Group, 2015
At the end of this section hazard briefs provide summary information for priority
hazards.
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page iii
What is the Plan’s Mission?
The mission of the Confederated Tribes of Warm
Springs Reservation NHMP is:
To promote sound public policy designed to
protect tribal members, critical facilities,
infrastructure, private property, and the
environment from natural hazards.
44 CFR 201.7(c)(3)(i) – A description of
mitigation goals to reduce or
avoid long-term vulnerabilities
to the identified hazards.
What are the Plan Goals?
The Plan goals describe the overall direction that the participating jurisdiction’s
agencies, organizations, and citizens can take toward mitigating risk from natural
hazards. Below is a list of the plan goals:
Goal 1: Protect life and injury resulting from natural hazards.
Goal 2: Minimize the impact of natural hazards while protecting, restoring, and
sustaining environmental processes.
Goal 3: Minimize Tribal and private property damages and the disruption of essential
infrastructure and services from natural hazards.
Goal 4: Build and support local capacity to enable the public to prepare for, respond to,
and recover from disasters.
Goal 5: Increase the resilience of the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation
and their economy.
Goal 6: Minimize damage to historic and cultural resources.
Goal 7: Reduce development within mapped hazardous areas where the risks to people
and property cannot be mitigated.
Goal 8: Increase communication, collaboration, and coordination among agencies at all
levels of government and the private sector to mitigate natural hazards.
Goal 9: Integrate NHMP with the Peoples Plan and implementing measures.
(Note: although numbered the goals are not prioritized.)
How are the Action Items Organized?
Data collection, research and the public
participation process resulted in the
development of mitigation action items. The
Action Items identify the CTWS mitigation
strategy and draw linkages between the plan
goals and community vulnerabilities. The
action items are included within Section 3,
Mitigation Strategy.
Page iv
July 2016
44 CFR 201.7(c)(3)(ii) – A section that
identifies and analyzes a
comprehensive range of specific
mitigation actions and projects
being considered to reduce the
effects of each hazard, . . .
CTWS NHMP
Comprehensive Action Plan
The following table summarizes specific priority NHMP actions. Refer to the Mitigation
Strategy section for a complete list of actions.
Table PS-2: High Priority NHMP Actions
Action Priority Mitigation Actions
MH #1 Integrate natural hazard mitigation efforts into the People's Plan, building codes, and development regulations.
MH #2
MH #3
MH #4
MH #5
Enhance and deliver education programs aimed at increasing awareness and mitigating the risk posed by hazards.
At least twice each year a) provide information about the NHMP, b) describe progress toward implementation,
and c) collect feedback on the NHMP from audiences. Accomplish these tasks by supporting Community
Emergency Response Team programs/ training events that also include a mitigation component.
Develop a plan and seek funding for backup electric and telecommunications systems for critical facilities.
Develop a community evacuation plan to address multiple hazards. Develop routes, consistent advanced warning
notification system, and community awareness plan.
Over the next five years, a) develop a prioritized list of critical public facilities, consistent with the Critical
Infrastructure and Key Resources developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), such as
underground wastewater and stormwater collection and conveyance systems, radio communication systems, fire
stations, schools and other buildings to be inspected for hazard vulnerability, b) develop a prioritization of
facilities to be evaluated for hazard risk, c) seek funding for evaluations, d) develop a prioritized list of facilities/
services to be retrofitted, relocated, or replaced, e) secure funding for 2-3 retrofit projects per year.
Over the next five years, a) identify critical transportation corridors (including primary emergency, evacuation,
and access routes) and electric distribution routes b) develop a list of key backbone transmission and distribution
routes that serve critical customers and enable efficient restoration to the broader distribution system c)
MH #6 develop a long-term plan to underground, relocate, or “harden” key electric distribution lines along critical
corridors (including feasibility assessment and prioritization) d) seek funds and opportunities to relocate power
poles and power lines, or harden existing facilities, where feasible and appropriate, to reduce interruption to the
transportation system and to reduce risk of outages from severe winter storms, windstorms, or earthquakes.
MH #7
FL #1
FL #2
FL #3
LS #1
LS #2
LS #3
LS #4
WF #1
WF #2
WF #3
WF #4
WF #5
Utilize the final multi-hazard risk report and assessment currently being developed by FEMA through the Risk
MAP program to update the CTWS Hazard Analysis.
Update the stormwater management plan to include regulations to control runoff; both for flood reduction and to
minimize saturated soils on steep slopes that can cause landslides.
Identify and analyze repetitively flooded structures and infrastructure. Explore mitigation opportunities for
repetitively flooded properties and, if necessary, carry out acquisition, relocation, elevation, and flood- proofing
measures to protect these properties.
Update the Flood Insurance Study, Flood Insurance Rate Maps, and revisit development codes to determine if
floodplain standards are still adequate.
Create comprehensive geological mapping to areas prone to landslides and rockslides.
Use available data to determine areas and buildings at risk to landslides and propose Peoples Plan and land use
policies accordingly.
Develop a vegetation management plan. Proper vegetation can supply slope- stabilizing root strength, and
facilitate in intercepting precipitation.
Identify problem areas and implement stream stabilization measures to reduce the effects of erosion.
Continue to conduct current fuel management programs and investigate and apply new and emerging fuel
management techniques.
Continue to conduct education/ outreach for creating defensible space around properties in wildland fire hazard
areas.
Identify and inventory emergency water supplies; utilize GPS to map locations and available supply. At the
beginning of fire season share this information with Fire Management.
Reduce fuels and develop community fuel breaks in high risk, high priority wildland urban interface areas.
Utilize national urban interface programs, including the Firewise Communities program, which emphasizes
community responsibility for planning in the design of a safe community as well as effective emergency response
and individual responsibility for safer homes.
Source: The CTWS NHMP Peer Group, 2015
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page v
How will the plan be implemented?
The implementation and maintenance section details the formal process that will
ensure that the CTWS NHMP remains an active and relevant document (Section 4). The
CTWS Emergency Manager is the designated NHMP Peer Group convener (Plan
Convener) and is responsible for overseeing the review and implementation processes.
The Plan maintenance process includes a schedule for monitoring and evaluating the
Plan semi-annually and producing a plan revision every five years. This section also
describes how the communities will integrate public participation throughout the plan
maintenance process.
Plan Adoption
44 CFR 201.7(c)(5) – Documentation that
This NHMP meets the requirements of Section
the plan has been formally
409 of the Stafford Act and Section 322 of the
adopted by the governing body
of the jurisdiction . . .
DMA 2000. In addition, as required by 44 CFR
13.11(c) and 44 CFR 13.11(d) the CTWS will
44 CFR 201.7(d) – Plan review [process] . .
comply with all applicable Federal statutes and
.
regulations during the periods for which it
receives grant funding, as well as amend its plan
whenever necessary to reflect changes in tribal
or Federal laws and statutes. A copy of the resolution, adopted by the Tribal Council,
assures FEMA that the Confederated Tribes will comply with both of the CFR
requirements.
Once the Plan is locally reviewed and deemed complete the Plan Convener submits it to
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA – Region X) for review. This review
will address the federal criteria outlined in 44 CFR Part 201.7. Once the Plan is preapproved by FEMA, the CTWS Tribal Council will formally adopt the Plan. The Plan
Convener will be responsible for ensuring local adoption of the NHMP and provide the
support necessary to ensure plan implementation. Once the resolution is adopted and
documentation is provided to FEMA, the Plan is formally acknowledged by FEMA and
the CTWS will re-establish eligibility for the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program, the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, and the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program funds.
The accomplishment of the NHMP goals and actions depends upon regular Peer Group
participation and adequate support from Tribal Government. Thorough familiarity with
this Plan will result in the efficient and effective implementation of appropriate
mitigation activities and a reduction in the risk and the potential for loss from future
natural hazard events.
The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation adopted the plan on August 8,
2016
FEMA Region X approved The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation NHMP
on September 29, 2016. With approval of this Plan, the CTWS is now eligible to apply for
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act’s hazard mitigation
project grants through September 28, 2021.
Page vi
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
This page left intentionally blank.
Volume I:
Basic Plan
This page left intentionally blank.
SECTION I:
INTRODUCTION
Section I: Introduction provides a general introduction to natural hazard mitigation planning
for the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation (CTWS). In addition, it addresses
the planning process requirements contained in 44 CFR 201.7(b) thereby meeting the
planning process documentation requirement contained in 44 CFR 201.7(c)(1). The section
concludes with a general description of how the plan is organized.
What is Natural Hazard Mitigation?
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defines mitigation as “. . . the effort to
reduce loss of life and property by lessening the impact of disasters . . . through risk analysis,
which results in information that provides a foundation for mitigation activities that reduce
risk.”1 Said another way, natural hazard mitigation is a method of permanently reducing or
alleviating the losses of life, property, and injuries resulting from natural hazards through
long and short-term strategies. Example strategies (see Figure 1.1) include policy changes,
such as updated land development ordinances; projects, such as seismic retrofits to critical
facilities; and process tasks such as quarterly reporting to the Tribal Council on mitigation
activities.
Figure 1-1 Mitigation Strategy Categories
Policy
•Adopt hazard overlay zone(s)
•Require base isolation for critical facility construction
Projects
•Buyout floodprone properties
•Underground power lines
Process
•Quarterly NHMP Tribal Council briefing
•Integrate mitigation into capital improvements
Source: Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience
Natural hazard mitigation is the responsibility of the “Whole Community” - individuals,
private businesses and industries, state and local governments, and the federal government.
At the local level engaging in mitigation activities provides jurisdictions with a number of
benefits, including reduced loss of life, property, essential services, critical facilities and
economic hardship; reduced short-term and long-term recovery and reconstruction costs;
increased cooperation and communication within the community through the planning
process; and increased potential for state and federal funding for recovery and
reconstruction projects.
1 FEMA, What is Mitigation? http://www.fema.gov/what-mitigation
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 1-1
Why Develop a Mitigation Plan?
The CTWS developed this Tribal Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (NHMP or Plan) in an effort
to reduce future loss of life and damage to property resulting from natural hazards. It is
impossible to predict exactly when natural hazard events will occur, or the extent to which
they will affect community assets. However, with careful planning and collaboration among
public agencies, private sector organizations, and citizens within the community, it is
possible to minimize the losses that can result from natural hazards.
In addition to establishing a comprehensive community-level mitigation strategy, the
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K) and the regulations contained in 44 CFR 201
require that jurisdictions maintain an approved NHMP in order to receive federal funds for
mitigation projects. Tribal and federal approval of this plan ensures that the CTWS will
remain eligible for pre- and post-disaster mitigation project grants.
What Federal Requirements Does This Plan Address?
DMA2K is the latest federal legislation addressing mitigation planning. It reinforces the
importance of mitigation planning and emphasizes planning for natural hazards before they
occur. As such, this Act established the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant program and
new requirements for the national post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).
Section 322 of the Act specifically addresses mitigation planning for tribal governments.
Tribal governments must have approved mitigation plans in place in order to qualify to
receive post-disaster HMGP funds. Mitigation plans must demonstrate that tribal
governments’ proposed mitigation measures are based on a sound planning process that
accounts for the risk to the individual and tribal capabilities.
Chapter 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), section 201.7, also requires a tribal
government to have an approved mitigation plan in order to receive HMGP project grants.2
Pursuant of Chapter 44 CFR, the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan planning processes shall
include opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during review, and the updated
Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan shall include documentation of the public planning process
used to develop the plan.3 The Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan update must also contain a
risk assessment, mitigation strategy, and a plan maintenance process that has been formally
adopted by the tribal governing body.4
How was the Plan Developed and Updated?
The CTWS Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Peer Group developed this NHMP. The CTWS
formally convened on three occasions to discuss and revise the plan (see Appendix A for
details). Peer Group members contributed data, reviewed and updated the community
profile, risk assessment, action items, and implementation and maintenance sections of the
plan.
Page 1-2
2
Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 44. Section 201.7, subsection (a), 2015
3
ibid, subsection (b). 2015
4
ibid, subsection (c). 2015
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan. In
order to develop a comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the
planning process should include opportunity for the public, appropriate U.S. Federal
agencies, neighboring jurisdictions, local and regional agencies, as well as, private and nonprofit entities to comment on the Plan during review.5 OPDR provided a publicly accessible
project website for the general public to provide feedback on the draft NHMP via a web
form. In addition, CTWS provided a press release on their websites to encourage the public
to offer feedback on the Plan update.
2006 NHMP
The original plan was generated by URS and completed in 2006. The following section
describes the process that was used for the creation of the first plan.
FEMA tasked URS with providing technical assistance in support of the development of a
HMP for the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, thus ensuring its eligibility for future
HMGP funding for the March 2006 Presidential Disaster Declaration for the Reservation.
For the first step in the planning process URS met with FEMA to discuss the project work
plan and hazard mitigation planning in Region X. Next, URS and FEMA met with members of
the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs in Warm Springs, Oregon. During the meeting,
URS familiarized the Confederated Tribes with DMA 2000 requirements, the overall planning
process, and the estimated work schedule. URS also led the group through a hazard
identification and screening exercise. During this process, the tribal members identified six
potential hazards. In addition, the tribal members identified Steering Committee
participants and a primary point of contact for the Confederated Tribes.
Once the Steering Committee was formed, the following five-step planning process took
place from April to June 2006.
Organize resources: Members of the Steering Committee identified resources, including the
Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs staff, agencies, and local community members, who
could provide technical expertise and historical information needed in the development of
the HMP.
Assess risks: The Steering Committee identified the hazards specific to the Reservation, and
URS developed the risk assessment for the six identified hazards. The Steering Committee
reviewed the hazard maps and draft risk assessment, prior to and during the development
of the mitigation strategy.
Assess capabilities: URS and the Steering Committee reviewed current administrative and
technical, legal and regulatory, and fiscal capabilities to determine whether existing
provisions and requirements adequately address relevant hazards.
Develop a mitigation strategy: After reviewing the risks posed by each hazard, the Steering
Committee selected a comprehensive range of potential mitigation goals and actions.
5
Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 44. Section 201.7, subsection (b). 2015
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 1-3
Subsequently, the Steering Committee prioritized and ranked the actions to be
implemented.
Monitor progress: The Steering Committee developed an implementation process to ensure
the success of an ongoing program to minimize hazard impacts to the Reservation.
How is the Plan Organized?
Each volume of the Plan provides specific information and resources to assist readers in
understanding the hazard-specific issues facing residents, businesses, and the environment.
Combined, the sections work in synergy to create a mitigation plan that furthers the
community’s mission to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and their property
from hazards and their effects. This plan structure enables stakeholders to use the section(s)
of interest to them.
Volume I: Basic Plan
Plan Summary
The plan summary provides an overview of the FEMA requirements plans process and
highlights the key elements of the risk assessment, mitigation strategy, and implementation
and maintenance strategy. In addition, the plan summary presents short briefing papers for
top and middle tier hazards identified in the plan.
Section 1: Introduction
The Introduction briefly describes the CTWS mitigation planning efforts and the
methodology used to develop the Plan.
Section 2: Risk Assessment and Hazard Identification
Section 2 provides the factual basis for the mitigation strategies contained in Section 3.
(Additional information is included within Appendix B, which contains an overall description
of the CTWS. This section describes the risk assessment process and summarizes the best
available local hazard data. A hazard summary is provided for each of the hazards
addressed in the Plan. The summary includes hazard history, location, extent, vulnerability,
impacts, and probability (see also the hazard briefs provided in the plan summary).
The Risk Assessment allows readers to gain an understanding of CTWS’ sensitivities – those
community assets and characteristics that may be impacted by natural hazards, as well as
their resilience – the ability to manage risk and adapt to hazard event impacts. Additionally,
this section provides information on the CTWS’ participation in the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP). This NHMP addresses: Drought, Earthquake (crustal and Cascadia
Subduction Zone), Flood, Landslide, Volcano, Wildfire, Windstorm, and Winter Storm.
Section 3: Mitigation Strategy
This section documents the Plan vision, mission, goals, and actions (mitigation strategy) and
also describes the components that guide implementation of the identified actions. Actions
are based on community sensitivity and resilience factors and the hazard vulnerability
assessments in Section 2.
Page 1-4
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
Section 4: Plan Implementation and Maintenance
This section provides information on the implementation and maintenance of the Plan. It
describes the process for prioritizing projects, and includes a suggested list of tasks for
updating the Plan to be completed at the semi-annual and five-year review meetings.
Volume II: Appendices
The resource appendices are designed to provide the users of the CTWS NHMP with
additional information to assist them in understanding the contents of the mitigation plan,
and provide them with potential resources to assist with plan implementation.
Appendix A: Planning and Public Process
This appendix includes documentation of all the public processes utilized to develop the
Plan. It includes invitation lists, agendas, sign-in sheets, and summaries of Peer Group
meetings as well as any other public involvement methods.
Appendix B: Community Profile
The community profile describes the CTWS from a number of perspectives in order to help
define and understand their sensitivity and resilience to natural hazards. The information in
this section represents a snapshot in time of the current sensitivity and resilience factors in
the Reservation when the Plan was updated. Sensitivity factors can be defined as those
community assets and characteristics that may be impacted by natural hazards, (e.g., special
populations, economic factors, and historic and cultural resources). Community resilience
factors can be defined as the community’s ability to manage risk and adapt to hazard event
impacts (e.g., governmental structure, agency missions and directives, and plans, policies,
and programs).
Appendix C: Economic Analysis of Natural Hazard Mitigation Projects
This appendix describes the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA)
requirements for benefit cost analysis in natural hazards mitigation, as well as various
approaches for conducting economic analysis of proposed mitigation activities. The Oregon
Partnership for Disaster Resilience developed this appendix. It has been reviewed and
accepted by FEMA as a means of documenting how the prioritization of actions shall include
a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost
benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs.
Appendix D: Grant Programs and Resources
This appendix lists BIA, Federal, state and other resources and programs.
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 1-5
SECTION 2:
RISK ASSESSMENT
This section of the NHMP addresses 44 CFR 201.7(b)(2) - Risk Assessment. In addition, this
chapter can serve as the factual basis for addressing Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 7 –
Areas Subject to Natural Hazards.
The information presented below, along with the community characteristics presented in
the Community Profile Appendix, will be used as the local level rationale for the risk
reduction actions identified in Section 3 – Mitigation Strategy. The risk assessment process
is graphically depicted in Figure 2-1 below. Ultimately, the goal of hazard mitigation is to
reduce the area where hazards and vulnerable systems overlap.
Figure 2-1 Understanding Risk
Source: Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience.
What is a Risk Assessment?
A risk assessment consists of three phases: hazard identification, vulnerability assessment,
and risk analysis.
CTWS NHMP
Phase 1: Identify hazards that can impact the jurisdiction. This includes an
evaluation of potential hazard impacts – type, location, extent, etc.
Phase 2: Identify important community assets and system vulnerabilities. Example
vulnerabilities include people, businesses, homes, roads, historic places and drinking
water sources.
July 2016
Page 2-1
Phase 3: Evaluate the extent to which the identified hazards overlap with, or have
an impact on, the important assets identified by the community.
The following figure illustrates the three-phase risk assessment process:
Figure 2-2 Three Phases of a Risk Assessment
Source: Planning for Natural Hazards: Oregon Technical Resource Guide, 1998
This three-phase approach to developing a risk assessment should be conducted
sequentially because each phase builds upon data from prior phases. However, gathering
data for a risk assessment need not occur sequentially.
Hazard Identification
The CTWS identifies eight natural hazards that could have a local impact. For specific
information pertaining to individual hazards, including location information. Table 2-1 shows
the hazards identified in the CTWS, the table also shows regional hazards as identified in the
State of Oregon NHMP for the Mid-Columbia Gorge (Region 5) and Central Oregon (Region
6), which include description of regional hazards and infrastructure that may affect the
CTWS. The Dust Storm hazard is the only hazard identified in the regional Oregon profiles
that is not considered a threat by the CTWS NHMP Peer Group; as such it was not included.
It should be noted that the Oregon NHMP does not include detailed information on the
impact of hazards upon CTWS.
Table 2-1 Hazard Identification
Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Reservation
Drought
Earthquake (Cascadia/ Crustal)
Flood (Riverine)
Landslide
Volcano
Wildfire
Windstorm
Winter Storm
Oregon NHMP:
Region 5 (Mid-Columbia) and
Region 6 (Central Oregon)
Drought
Dust Storm
Earthquake (Cascadia/ Crustal)
Flood (Riverine)
Landslide
Volcano
Wildfire
Windstorm
Winter Storm
Source: CTWS NHMP Peer Group (2015) and Oregon NHMP (2015)
The previous version of this plan profiled the Flood, Landslide, Wildland Fire, and Winter
Storms (including Avalanche), with this version of the NHMP the CTWS Peer Group opted to
also profile the Drought, Earthquake, Volcano, and Windstorm hazards. In addition, the
previous plan profiled the non-natural hazards of Dam Failures and Hazardous Materials
Page 2-2
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
Events, in this version these hazards are described in applicable natural hazards sections
(flood, earthquake, winter storm, etc.).
In the next section of this NHMP hazard profiles are presented alphabetically; the order of
presentation does not signify the level of importance or risk.
Drought
Significant Changes Since Previous Plan:
The Drought Hazard was not assessed in the 2006 Plan, therefore, this
section provides new content.
Characteristics
Drought can be defined in several ways. The American Heritage Dictionary defines drought
as "a long period with no rain, especially during a planting season." Another definition of
drought is a deficiency in surface and sub-surface water supplies. In socioeconomic terms,
drought is present when a physical water shortage begins to affect people, individually and
collectively, and the area’s economy.
A drought is a period of drier than normal conditions. Drought occurs in virtually every
climatic zone, but its characteristics vary significantly from one region to another. Drought is
a temporary condition; it differs from aridity, which is restricted to low rainfall regions and is
a permanent feature of climate. The extent of drought events depends upon the degree of
moisture deficiency, and the duration and size of the affected area. Typically, droughts
occur as regional events.
There are four types of drought: meteorological, agricultural, hydrological and
socioeconomic. Meteorological drought is based on the degree of dryness. Agricultural
drought focuses the amount of soil moisture versus the needs of the crops. Hydrological
drought is associated with shortfalls of surface and subsurface water supply. Socioeconomic
drought refers to physical water shortages and its human effect, and occurs when the need
for water exceeds the supply resulting in a shortfall.
Location and Extent
Droughts occur in every climate zone, and can vary from region to region. Drought occurs in
all parts of CTWS, and may have profound effects on the economy, particularly the
agricultural and hydro-power sectors. Drought is typically measured in terms of water
availability in a defined geographical area. It is common to express drought with a numerical
index that ranks severity.
The Surface Water Supply Index (SWSI) from the Natural Resources Conservation Service is
an index of current water conditions throughout the state. The index utilizes parameters
derived from snow, precipitation, reservoir and stream flow data. The data is gathered each
month from key stations in each basin. The lowest SWSI value, -4.1, indicates extreme
drought conditions. The highest SWSI value, +4.1, indicates extreme wet conditions. The
mid-point is 0.0, which indicates a normal water supply. The table below shows the monthly
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 2-3
history of SWSI values from 1982 to 2015 for the Upper Deschutes Basin which includes the
CTWS. Research shows that the periods of drought have fluctuated; a severe drought period
occurred from about 1987 to 1996 (with short periods of non-drought), between 2001 and
2006 a period of moderate drought occurred. Since about 2006, conditions in the Upper
Deschutes Basin have been near normal or wet, except for a few shorter periods of mild
drought conditions (including from mid-2013 to 2015).
Figure 2-3 SWSI Values for the Upper Deschutes Basin (1982-2015)
Surface Water Supply Index
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
2015
Source: Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service, “Surface Water Supply Index, Upper
Deschutes Basin” www.or.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed November 2015.
History
Records, dating back to the late 1800s, clearly associate drought with a departure from
expected rainfall. Concern for mountain snowpack, which feeds the streams and rivers,
came later. Droughts were particularly noteworthy during the following years:
Page 2-4
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
Table 2-2 History of Droughts
Date
1904-1905
1917-1931
1928-1941
1959-1964
1985-1994
2000-2001
2001-2002
Location
Characteristics
Statewide A state-wide drought period of about 18 months
Statewide A very dry period puncuated by brief wet spells in 1920-21 and 1927
A significant drought affected all of Oregon from 1928 to 1941. The
prolonged statewide drought created significant problems for the
Statewide
agricultural industry. Punctuated by a three-year intense drought period from
1938-1941.
Eastern
Streamflows were low throughout eastern Oregon.
Oregon
A dry period lasting from 1985 to 1994 caused significant problems
Statewide statewide. The peak year was 1992, when the state declared a drought
emergency.
Southern,
Eastern Low snowpack in mountains worsens conditions.
Oregon
Southern,
Eastern Extreme drought conditions in the eastern Oregon region.
Oregon
2005
February 2005 was the driest February on record since 1977, surpassing
2001's conditions. Above normal temperatures contributed to decreased
Region 5, 6,
water availability for the summer. Stream and river levels dropped
and 7
significantly and watermasters regulated live flow use by irrigators. Drought
conditions also led to the use of stored water, when it was available .
2015
Statewide
Extreme drought conditions in the region; 25 Oregon counties declared
drought including Marion, Jefferson, and Wasco which surround CTWS.
Sources: Oregon State Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan 2015; George and Ray Hatton, The Oregon Weather Book
(1999), and Oregon Secretary of State’s Office, Archives Division.
The figure below shows the CTWS current drought conditions monitor according to the
National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. The
measurement shown displays the percent area of drought severity conditions. It indicates
that CTWS is currently registering D3 extreme drought. The possible impacts of a serve
drought are: major crop or pasture losses, widespread water shortages or restrictions.1
1 USDM “U.S. Drought Monitor Classification Scheme”
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 2-5
Figure 2-4 U.S. Drought Monitor
U.S. Drought Monitor
November 3, 2015
Oregon
(Released Thursday, Nov. 5, 2015)
Valid 7 a.m. EST
Drought Conditions (Percent Area)
Current
Last Week
10/27/2015
3 Months Ago
8/4/2015
Start of
Calendar Year
None
D0-D4 D1-D4 D2-D4 D3-D4
D4
0.00
100.00 100.00 91.57
60.68
0.00
0.00
100.00 100.00 100.00 67.29
0.00
0.00
100.00 100.00 100.00 48.31
0.00
13.61
86.39
34.11
0.00
0.00
100.00 100.00 100.00 67.29
0.00
9.64
90.36
0.00
80.70
49.29
12/30/2014
Start of
Water Year
9/29/2015
One Year Ago
11/4/2014
79.39
54.68
34.88
Intensity:
D0 Abnormally Dry
D3 Extreme Drought
D1 Moderate Drought
D4 Exceptional Drought
D2 Severe Drought
The Drought Monitor focuses on broad-scale conditions.
Local conditions may vary. See accompanying text summary
for forecast statements.
Author:
David Miskus
NOAA/NWS/NCEP/CPC
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/
Source: National Drought Mitigation Center, University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Droughtmonitor.unl.edu, Accessed
November 9, 2015.
El Niño
El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) weather patterns can increase the frequency and
severity of drought. During El Niño periods, alterations in atmospheric pressure in equatorial
regions yield an increase in the surface temperature off the west coast of North America.
This gradual warming sets off a chain reaction affecting major air and water currents
throughout the Pacific Ocean. In the North Pacific, the Jet Stream is pushed north, carrying
moisture laden air up and away from its normal landfall along the Pacific Northwest coast. In
Oregon, this shift results in reduced precipitation and warmer temperatures, normally
experienced several months after the initial onset of the El Niño. These periods tend to last
nine to twelve months, after which surface temperatures begin to trend back towards the
long-term average. El Niño periods tend to develop between March and June, and peak
from December to April. ENSO generally follows a two to seven-year cycle, with El Niño or La
Niña periods occurring every three to five years. However, the cycle is highly irregular, and
no set pattern exists. The last major El Niño was during 1997-1998, current conditions
indicate that 2015 may be a large El Niño weather pattern.
Page 2-6
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
Future Climate Variability
One of the main aspects of the probability of future occurrences is its reliance on historic
climate trends in order to predict future climate trends. The region east of the Cascades is
experiencing more frequent and severe droughts than is historically the norm, and many
climate predictions see this trend continuing into the future. Temperatures in the Pacific
Northwest region increased in the 20th Century by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit and are
projected to increasingly rise by an average of 0.2 degrees to 1.0 degrees Fahrenheit per
decade. Average temperature change by 2040 is projected to be 3.2 degrees Fahrenheit,
and by 2080, 5.3 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperature increases will occur throughout all
seasons, with the greatest variation occurring during summer months.2
Probability Assessment
Droughts are not uncommon in the State of Oregon, nor are they just an “east of the
mountains” phenomenon. They occur in all parts of the state, in both summer and winter.
Oregon’s drought history reveals many short-term and a few long-term events. The average
recurrence interval for severe droughts in Oregon is somewhere between 8 and 12 years.
Based on the available data and research the CTWS Peer Group assessed the probability of
experiencing a drought as “high,” meaning one incident is likely within the next 10 – 35
year period.
Vulnerabilities
All parts of CTWS are susceptible to drought, however, the following areas and issues are of
particular concern:
Drinking water system
Power and water enterprises
Residential wells in rural areas, particularly Sidwalter and Seekseequa
Fire response capabilities
Fish and wildlife, huckleberries, roots
Potential impacts to community water supplies are the greatest threat. Long-term drought
periods of more than a year can impact forest conditions and set the stage for potentially
destructive wildfires. The CTWS Peer Group rated the Reservation as having a “moderate”
vulnerability to drought hazards, meaning between 1-10% of the region’s population or
assets would be affected by a major emergency or disaster.
More information on this hazard can be found in the Risk Assessment for Region 6 of the
Oregon NHMP.
Mitigation Actions
Priority: MH #1, MH #2
Potential: MH #10
2 Climate Impacts Group, “Climate Change,” http://cses.washington.edu
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 2-7
Earthquake
Significant Changes Since Previous Plan:
The Earthquake Hazard was not assessed in the 2006 Plan, therefore, this
section provides new content.
Characteristics
The Pacific Northwest in general is susceptible to earthquakes from four sources: 1) the
offshore Cascadia Subduction Zone; 2) deep intraplate events within the subducting Juan de
Fuca Plate; 3) shallow crustal events within the North American Plate, and 4) earthquakes
associated with volcanic activity.
All types of earthquakes in the region have some tie to the subducting, or diving, of the
dense, oceanic Juan de Fuca Plate under the lighter, continental North American Plate.
There is also a link between the subducting plate and the formation of volcanoes some
distance inland from the offshore subduction zone.
Location and Extent
There have been several significant recent earthquakes in the region; however all have been
located in Klamath and Lake Counties in southern Oregon. The region has also been shaken
historically by crustal and intraplate earthquakes and prehistorically by subduction zone
earthquakes centered outside Central Oregon. All considered, there is good reason to
believe that the most devastating future earthquakes would probably originate along
shallow crustal faults in the region, or along the offshore Cascadia Subduction Zone.
As the following figure shows, the region routinely has small earthquake events. The
earthquakes shown in the figure below are relatively insignificant events below M 2.0
(primarily SE of Maupin to the northeast of the reservation). The larger events may have
been slightly felt but little to no structural/property damage resulted. There is no historic
record of significant crustal earthquakes centered in the CTWS in the past 150 years.
Page 2-8
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
EQ Soft Soils etc.
Figure 2-5 Earthquake Epicenters (1971-2008) and Soft Soils
For general information only; not to be used for planning purposes. http://www.oregongeology.org/hazvu Mon Nov 9 2015 03:45:43 PM.
Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (HazVu), accessed November 8, 2015
The Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI), in partnership with
other state and federal agencies, has undertaken a rigorous program in Oregon to identify
seismic hazards, including active fault identification, bedrock shaking, tsunami inundation
zones, ground motion amplification, liquefaction, and earthquake induced landslides.
DOGAMI has published a number of seismic hazard maps that are available for communities
to use. The maps show liquefaction, ground motion amplification, landslide susceptibility,
and relative earthquake hazards. OPDR used the DOGAMI Statewide Geohazards Viewer to
present visual maps of recent earthquake activity and liquefaction (Figure 2-5); ground
shaking is expected to be higher in the areas marked by soft soils in the map above. The
severity of an earthquake is dependent upon a number of factors including: 1) the distance
from the earthquake’s source (or epicenter); 2) the ability of the soil and rock to conduct the
earthquake’s seismic energy; 3) the degree (i.e., angle) of slope materials; 4) the
composition of slope materials; 5) the magnitude of the earthquake; and 6) the type of
earthquake.
History
A summary of significant earthquake events in the CTWS/ Central Oregon region is found in
the table below.
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 2-9
Table 2-3 Selected Earthquakes, M 5.0+ (1971-2015)
Date
Location
Magnitude
Approximate years: 1400
Offshore, Cascadia
BCE, 1050, BCE 600 BCE
subduction zone
400, 750, 900
January 1700
April 1906
April 1920
January 1923
March 1958
Probably
8.0-9.0
Generated a tsunami that struck Oregon,
Approximately
Washington and Japan; destroyed Native
9.0
American villages along the coast.
Offshore, Cascadia
Subduction zone
North of Lakeview,
OR
Crater Lake
Lakeview, OR
Southeast of Adel,
OR
1968
Adel
September 20, 1993
Klamath County
Comments
Based on studies of earthquakes and tsunamis in
Willapa Bay, WA. These are the midpoints of the
age ranges for these six events.
5.0
Three felt aftershocks.
5.0
6.0
4.5
4.7-5.1
5.9 and 6.0
Damage unknown
Damage to homes. 20 earthquakes of M4 or
greater were recorded between 5/28/68 &
6/24/68.
Two deaths, $10 million damage, including
county courthouse; rockfalls induced by ground
motion.
Source: Ivan Wong and others, "A Look Back at Oregon's Earthquake History, 1841-1994," in Oregon Geology,
(1995), 125-139; Niewendrop and others, "Map of Selected Earthquakes fore Oregon, 1841 through 2002,"
DOGAMI, (2003).
Probability Assessment
The Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) generates an earthquake on average every 500-600
years. However, as with any natural processes the average time between events can be
misleading. Some of the earthquakes may have been 150 years apart while some closer to
1,000 years apart.3 Establishing a probability for crustal earthquakes is difficult given the
small number of historic events in the region. Earthquakes generated by volcanic activity in
Oregon’s Cascade Range are possible, but likewise unpredictable.
Based on the available data and research the CTWS Peer Group determined that the
probability of experiencing a crustal earthquake is “low”, meaning one incident is likely
within the next 75 – 100 year period; the Peer Group also determined that the probability
of experiencing a Cascadia earthquake is “moderate”, meaning one incident is likely within
the next 35 – 75 year period.
Vulnerabilities
Accurate data is being developed for the earthquake hazard as part of the FEMA led Risk
MAP project currently underway. At t his time it is assumed that significant Infrastructure
(road, bridge, utility), residential, and commercial building damages are expected with a
crustal or Casacadia earthquake event.
3 Y. Wang & J.L. Clark, Special Paper 29, Earthquake Damage in Oregon: Preliminary Estimates of
Future Earthquake Losses. 1999. DOGAMI.
Page 2-10
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
The CTWS Peer Group rated the Reservation as having a “moderate” vulnerability to the
crustal earthquake hazard, meaning between 1-10% of the region’s population or assets
would be affected by a major emergency or disaster; the Peer Group rated the Reservation
as having a “high” vulnerability to the Cascadia earthquake hazard, meaning more than
10% of the region’s population or assets would be affected by a major emergency or
disaster.
As part of the update of this NHMP the Peer Group will utilize the final multi-hazard risk
report and hazard assessment currently being developed through FEMA's Risk MAP program
to update the CTWS Hazard Analysis for this hazard (Multi-hazard #13).
More information on this hazard can be found in the Risk Assessment for Region 6 of the
Oregon NHMP.
Mitigation Actions
Priority: MH #1, MH #2, MH #3, MH #4, MH #5, MH #6, MH #7
Potential: EQ #1, MH #9, #10, #12
Flood
Significant Changes Since Previous Plan:
The Flood Hazard section includes updated national flood insurance program
(NFIP), and history information. The CTWS flood maps are out of date; an
update of this section should occur following when new data is available. In
addition, the format of the section and minor content changes have
occurred.
Characteristics
Flooding is the accumulation of water where usually none occurs or the overflow of excess
water from a stream, river, lake, reservoir, or coastal body of water onto adjacent
floodplains. Floodplains are lowlands adjacent to water bodies that are subject to recurring
floods. Floods are natural events that are considered hazards only when people and
property are affected.
Nationwide, floods result in more deaths than any other natural hazard. Physical damage
from floods includes the following:
CTWS NHMP
Inundation of structures, causing water damage to structural elements and
contents.
Erosion or scouring of stream banks, roadway embankments, foundations, footings
for bridge piers, and other features.
Impact damage to structures, roads, bridges, culverts, and other features from highvelocity flow and from debris carried by floodwaters. Such debris may also
July 2016
Page 2-11
accumulate on bridge piers and in culverts, increasing loads on these features or
causing overtopping or backwater effects.
Destruction of crops, erosion of topsoil, and deposition of debris and sediment on
croplands.
Release of sewage and hazardous or toxic materials as wastewater treatment plants
are inundated, storage tanks are damaged, and pipelines are severed.
Floods also result in economic losses through closure of businesses and government
facilities, disrupt communications, disrupt the provision of utilities such as water and sewer
service, result in excessive expenditures for emergency response, and generally disrupt the
normal function of a community.
On the Reservation, the most common type of flooding event is riverine flooding, also
known as overbank flooding. Riverine floodplains range from narrow, confined channels in
the steep valleys of mountainous and hilly regions, to wide, flat areas in plains. The amount
of water in the floodplain is a function of the size and topography of the contributing
watershed, the regional and local climate, and land use characteristics. Flooding in steep,
mountainous areas is usually confined, strikes with less warning time, and has a short
duration. Larger rivers typically have longer, more predictable flooding sequences and broad
floodplains.
In addition to riverine flooding, the Reservation is susceptible to flash flooding. Flash flood is
a term widely used by experts and the general population, but no single definition or clear
means of distinguishing flash floods from other riverine floods exists. Flash floods are
generally understood to involve a rapid rise in water level, high velocity, and large amounts
of debris, which can lead to significant damage that includes the tearing out of trees,
undermining of buildings and bridges, and scouring of new channels. The intensity of flash
flooding is a function of the intensity and duration of rainfall, steepness of the watershed,
stream gradients, watershed vegetation, natural and artificial flood storage areas, and
configuration of the streambed and floodplain. Dam failure may also lead to flash flooding
(see Related Hazards section below for more information). Urban areas are increasingly
subject to flash flooding due to the removal of vegetation, installation of impermeable
surfaces over ground cover, and construction of drainage systems. Wildfires that strip
hillsides of vegetation and alter soil characteristics may also create conditions that lead to
flash floods and debris flows. Debris flows are particularly dangerous due to the fact that
they generally strike without warning and are accompanied by extreme velocity and
momentum.
Finally, localized flooding may occur outside of recognized drainage channels or floodplains
due to a combination of locally heavy precipitation, increased surface runoff, and
inadequate facilities for drainage and stormwater conveyance. Such events frequently occur
in flat areas and in urbanized areas with large impermeable surfaces. Local drainage may
result in “nuisance flooding,” in which streets or parking lots are temporarily closed, and
minor property damage.
Because the effects are not widespread and damage is typically minimal, they are not
studied in detail as part of this NHMP.
Page 2-12
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
Location and Extent
Floods are described in terms of their extent (including the horizontal area affected and the
vertical depth of floodwaters) and the related probability of occurrence. Flood studies often
use historical records, such as streamflow gages, to determine the probability of occurrence
for floods of different magnitudes. The probability of occurrence is expressed in percentages
as the chance of a flood of a specific extent occurring in any given year.
Factors contributing to the frequency and severity of riverine flooding include the following:
Rainfall intensity and duration
Antecedent moisture conditions
Watershed conditions, including steepness of terrain, soil types, amount and type of
vegetation, and density of development
The existence of attenuating features in the watershed, including natural features
such as swamps, glacial dams, and lakes and human-built features such as dams
The existence of flood control features, such as levees and flood control channels
Velocity of flow
Large landslides from canyon walls
Availability of sediment for transport, and the erodability of the bed and banks of
the watercourse
These factors are evaluated using a hydrologic analysis to determine the probability that a
discharge of a certain size will occur; and a hydraulic analysis to determine the
characteristics and depth of the flood that results from that discharge.
The magnitude of flood used as the standard for floodplain management in the United
States is a flood having a probability of occurrence of 1 percent in any given year. This flood
is also known as the 100-year flood or base flood. The most readily available source of
information regarding the 100-year flood is the system of Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRMs) prepared by FEMA. These maps are used to support the NFIP. The FIRMs show 100year floodplain boundaries for identified flood hazards. These areas are also referred to as
Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) and are the basis for flood insurance and floodplain
management requirements. FEMA prepared FIRMs for the Reservation in April 2002.
The Flood Insurance Study (FIS, FEMA 2005) for the Reservation shows the identified SFHAs
for the following flooding sources in the Reservation boundaries:
Warm Springs River, which is the largest tributary of the Deschutes River on the
Reservation, has a drainage area of 530 square miles and a 100-year peak discharge
of 8,000 cubic feet per second (cfs).
Shitike Creek has a drainage area of 105 square miles, including Tenino Creek, and a
100- year peak discharge of 2,000 cfs.
Tenino Creek has a drainage area of 21 square miles, and a 100-year peak discharge
of 650 cfs.
Using information provided by the FIS and the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, Figure
2-6 shows potential flood-prone areas in the Reservation. Warm Springs River, Shitike Creek,
and Tenino Creek generally occur during the rainy season during the months of November
through February. Severe flooding is usually a result of a combination of rain on snow with
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 2-13
saturated or frozen soil. Therefore, based on previous occurrences, the likelihood of a major
flood occurring within the Reservation is every 10 years. Localized flooding, such as along
Highway 26 and Quartz Creek, can occur annually.
Figure 2-6 Flood Hazard Areas
Source: CTWS HMP (2006); URS
Page 2-14
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
History
Several large floods have occurred on the Warm Springs River, Shitike Creek, and Tenino
Creek within the Reservation, including:
In the winter of 1964, a 100-year flood event damaged the Kah-Nee-Ta Resort and
24 homes in Warm Springs and washed out portions of Highway 26. Damage on the
Reservation was estimated at $903,000.
In January 1974, flood levels along the Shitike Creek reach a recurrence interval of
60 years. No structural damage was reported.
In February 1996, during a 4-day period, recording breaking rain in conjunction with
warm temperatures and deep snowpack led to severe flooding along the Warm
Springs Creek, Shitike Creek, and Tenino Creek. River flood stages were comparable
in magnitude to the December 1964 flood, which was the largest in Oregon since
flood control reservoirs were built in the 1940s and 1950s. The Reservation received
a Federal disaster declaration in February 1996 due to these storms and flooding
events (DR-1099).
On March 20, 2006, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of
the Stafford Act for severe storms, flooding, landslides, and mudslides from
December 18, 2005, through and including January 21, 2006, in several areas of
Oregon, including the Reservation (DR-1632).
2012, flood on Badger and Beaver Creeks, Warm Springs River
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
The CTWS Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) were modernized in April 2012 and cover
stretches of the Warm Springs River, Shitike Creek, and Tenino Creek. As of November 2015,
there are 26 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policies in force and zero (0) paid
claims. The CTWS is not a member of the Community Rating System (CRS). The figure below
displays the policies and shows that all policies are in the City of Warm Springs.
The Community Repetitive Loss record for CTWS identifies zero repetitive loss buildings,
zero severe repetitive loss buildings, and zero total repetitive loss claims.
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 2-15
Figure 2-7 Repetitive Loss and Severe Repetitive Loss Properties
Source: Department of Land Conservation and Development, November 2015.
Page 2-16
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
Related Hazards – Floods due to Dam Failure
A dam failure is the structural collapse of a dam that releases the water stored in the
reservoir behind the dam. A dam failure is usually the result of the age of the structure,
inadequate spillway capacity, or structural damage caused by an earthquake or flood. The
sudden release of water has the potential to cause human casualties, economic loss, and
environmental damage. This type of disaster is dangerous because it can occur rapidly,
providing little warning and evacuation time for people living downstream. The flows
resulting from dam failure generally are much larger than the capacity of downstream
channels and can, therefore, lead to extensive flooding. Flood damage occurs as a result of
the momentum of the flood caused by the sediment- laden water, flooding over the channel
banks, and impact of debris carried by the flow.
History
Pelton Reregulating Dam, Pelton Dam, and Round Butte Dam, which are located to the
south of the Reservation, and Happy Valley Reservoir, which is located on the Reservation,
have never failed or been subject to significant damage.
Location, Extent, and Probability of Future Events
As shown in Figure 2-8, three dams are located outside of the Reservation, about 6 miles
west of the city of Madras. These three dams (Round Butte Dam, Pelton Reregulating Dam,
and Pelton Dam) are jointly owned by the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs and
Portland General Electric, and are known as the Pelton Round Butte Hydroelectric Project.
Round Butte Dam is the largest dam, with a height of 440 feet and a 135,000 acre-feet
storage capacity (holding 40 percent of the water stored in the Deschutes basin). This 1964
rockfill dam has been classified as a high hazard dam by the Oregon Water Resources
Department. Pelton Dam is the second largest dam of this hydroelectric project, standing
204 feet tall. This 1957 concrete-arch dam has a storage capacity of 37,300 acre-feet and is
considered a high hazard dam. Finally, Pelton Reregulating Dam is the smallest of these
three dams, with a height of 78 feet and a storage capacity of 3,270 acre-feet. This 1957
concrete and rockfill dam is also classified as a high hazard dam.
Happy Valley Reservoir is the only dam located on the Reservation. This dam is 45 feet tall
and has a storage capacity of 4,750 feet. Oregon Water Resources Department has classified
this dam as a high hazard dam.
The United States Geological Survey has prepared dam inundation maps for the failure of
Round Butte and the Pelton dams due to lahar flows. As shown in Appendix B, Figure B-3,
dam failure models show that floods generated by the breaching of Round Butte Dam would
overtop and cause the Pelton dams to fail. As a result of these failures, large flood waves on
the lower Deschutes River and its tributaries would inundate Warm Springs.
The depth and duration of these floods are dependant upon the amount of water in the
reservoirs. In addition, it is nearly impossible to estimate the probability of dam failure. The
annual probability of Pelton Round Butte Hydroelectric Project failure due to the Mount
Jefferson eruption is 1 in 15,000 years.
A dam failure inundation map for Happy Valley Reservoir is not available. However, should
this dam fail, it would send flood waves down Badger Creek and Pine Hollow Creek.
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 2-17
Figure 2-8 Dam Failure Hazard Areas
Source: CTWS HMP (2006); URS
Page 2-18
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
Probability Assessment
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has mapped the 10, 50, 100, and 500year floodplains in the Reservation. This corresponds to a 10%, 2%, 1% and 0.2% chance of a
certain magnitude flood in any given year. The 100-year flood is the benchmark upon which
the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is based.
Based on the available data and research the CTWS Peer Group determined that the
probability of experiencing a flood is “high”, meaning one incident is likely within the next
10 to 35-year period.
Vulnerabilities
USGS scientists and US Army Corps of Engineers studies indicate the Reservation is at a low
level of risk for catastrophic flooding. The town of Warm Springs and the Indian Head Casino
are the most vulnerable identified areas. Although at risk the casino is protected by a levee
system that may be vulnerable to undercutting, as part of the FEMA led Risk MAP project a
needs evaluation of this system could be performed.
According to the 2006 exposure analysis, utilizing FIRMs prepared for the Confederated
Tribes of Warm Springs and US Census blocks, approximately 20 percent of the total area of
Warm Springs and Ka-Nee-Ta are at risk to the 100-year flood. Therefore, within this hazard
area are approximately 500 tribal members, 133 residential structures (worth $9.4 million),
and 15 critical facilities (worth $44.6 million).
Dams Failure Hazard Areas
According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the breaching of Round Butte Dam
would overtop and cause the Pelton dams to fail. As a result of these failures, large flood
waves on the lower Deschutes River and its tributaries would inundate Warm Springs.
According to the 2006 exposure analysis, exposed within these inundation areas are 2,272
tribal members, 600 residential structures (worth $42.2 million) and 24 critical facilities
(worth $61.5 million), which includes the Pelton dams.
The CTWS Peer Group rated the Reservation as having a “high” vulnerability to the flood
hazard, meaning more than 10% of the region’s population or assets would be affected by a
major emergency or disaster.
As part of the update of this NHMP the Peer Group will utilize the final multi-hazard risk
report and hazard assessment currently being developed through FEMA's Risk MAP program
to update the CTWS Hazard Analysis for this hazard (Multi-hazard #13).
More information on this hazard can be found in the Risk Assessment for Region 6 of the
Oregon NHMP.
Mitigation Actions
Priority: FL #1, FL #2, FL #3, MH #1, MH #2, MH #3, MH #4, MH #5, MH #7
Potential: FL #4, FL #5, FL #6, MH #9, #10, #11, #12.
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 2-19
Landslide
Significant Changes Since Previous Plan:
The occurrence history for this hazard has been updated as well as the
probability rating. If and when new data (Lidar) is available an update of this
section should occur. In addition, the format of the section and minor
content changes have occurred.
Characteristics
Landslide is a general term for the dislodgment and fall of a mass of soil or rocks along a
sloped surface or for the dislodged mass itself. The term is used for varying phenomena,
including mudflows, mudslides, debris flows, rockfalls, rockslides, debris avalanches, debris
slides, and slump-earth flows. Landslides may result from a wide range of combinations of
natural rock, soil, or artificial fill. The susceptibility of hillside and mountainous areas to
landslides depends on variations in geology, topography, vegetation, and weather.
Landslides may also occur due to indiscriminate development of sloping ground or the
creation of cut-and-fill slopes in areas of unstable or inadequately stable geologic
conditions.
Additionally, landslides often occur together with other natural hazards, thereby
exacerbating conditions, as described below:
Shaking due to earthquakes can trigger events ranging from rockfalls and topples to
massive slides.
Intense or prolonged precipitation that causes flooding can also saturate slopes and
cause failures leading to landslides.
Landslides into a reservoir can indirectly compromise dam safety, and a landslide
can even affect the dam itself.
Wildfires can remove vegetation from hillsides, significantly increasing runoff and
landslide potential.
Location and Extent
As shown in Figures 2-9 and 2-10, landslides are possible throughout the Reservation, but
are especially prevalent on steep slopes. The western portions of the Reservation border the
Cascade Mountain Range and are characterized by steep slopes, indicating that these areas
are vulnerable to landslide events. In addition, bluffs and mesas in the northeastern and
eastern portions of the Reservation are susceptible to landsliding.
The probability of a landslide is dependent upon many factors including, but not limited to,
the steepness of the slope, the type and stability of slope materials, amount of vegetative
cover, human influence, and water. Based on previous events, the Reservation is susceptible
to large landsliding events every 10 years.
Page 2-20
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
Figure 2-9 Landslide Hazard Areas
Source: CTWS HMP (2006); URS
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 2-21
Figure 2-10 Landslide Hazard Areas
Source: DOGAMI Statewide Landslide Information Layer for Oregon (SLIDO)
History
While landslides on the Reservation are triggered by the aforementioned events, they
mostly occur during periods of significant precipitation. Two landslides induced by heavy
precipitation and flooding have occurred in recent history.
The Reservation also received a Federal disaster declaration in February 1996 due to
severe storms and flooding (DR-1099). These events produced landslides on the
Reservation, and also produced approximately 700 landslides and debris flows
throughout the state of Oregon.
A Federal disaster was declared in Oregon for 18 counties and the Reservation on
March 20, 2006 (DR-1632). The disaster declaration was the result of severe storms,
flooding, landslides, and mudslides, which occurred in the 18 counties and the
Reservation from December 18, 2005, to January 21, 2006.
Chronic landsliding and rocksliding are known to occur near Seekseequa and
Simnasho.
2015 a landslide occurred temporarily affecting Route 8 and Highway 9.
Probability Assessment
The probability of rapidly moving landslides occurring depends on a number of factors;
these include steepness of slope, slope materials, local geology, vegetative cover, human
activity, and water. There is a strong correlation between intensive winter rainstorms and
Page 2-22
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
the occurrence of rapidly moving landslides (debris flows). Given the correlation between
precipitation / snow melt and rapidly moving landslides, it would be feasible to construct a
probability curve. Many slower moving slides present in developed areas have been
identified and mapped; however, the probability and timing of their movement is difficult to
quantify. The installation of slope indicators or the use of more advanced measuring
techniques could provide information on these slower moving slides.
Based on the available data and research the CTWS Peer Group determined that the
probability of experiencing a landslide is “low,” meaning one incident is likely within the
next 75 – 100 year period.
Vulnerabilities
Chronic landsliding occurs near Seekseequa and Simnasho and throughout the Western
portion of Reservation and bluffs and mesas to east and northeast.
According to the 2006 exposure analysis, using a USGS digital data and slope inclinations of
0-13 percent (low) and 14-32 percent (medium), landslides are possible throughout the
Reservation, but are especially prevalent on steep slopes of the western portions of the
Reservation as well as the bluffs and mesas to the east and northeast. Therefore, the
community of Sidwalter is at low risk to landslides, with 200 tribal members, 67 residential
structures (worth $4.7 million), and 3 critical facilities (worth $13.6 million) residing in this
area. The communities of Warm Springs, Bear Springs, Kah-Nee-Ta, Simnasho, and
Seekseequa are at a higher risk to landslides, with 2,697 tribal members, 741 residential
structures (worth $52.2 million) and 36 critical facilities (worth $123.8 million) located
within this moderate landslide area. It is important to note that the dataset used only
offers the general indication of areas that may be susceptible to landsliding and is not
suitable for local planning or site selection.
The CTWS Peer Group rated the Reservation as having a “low” vulnerability to landslide
hazards; meaning less than 1% of the region’s population or assets would be affected by a
major emergency or disaster.
As part of the update of this NHMP the Peer Group will utilize the final multi-hazard risk
report and hazard assessment currently being developed through FEMA's Risk MAP program
to update the CTWS Hazard Analysis for this hazard (Multi-hazard #13).
More information on this hazard can be found in the Risk Assessment for Region 6 of the
Oregon NHMP.
Mitigation Actions
Priority: LS #1, LS #2, LS #3, LS #4, MH #1, MH #2, MH #4, MH #5, MH #7
Potential: LS #5, MH #9, MH #10, MH #11, MH #12
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 2-23
Volcano
Significant Changes Since Previous Plan:
The Volcano Hazard was not assessed in the 2006 Plan, therefore, this
section provides new content.
Characteristics
The Pacific Northwest, lie within the “ring of fire,” an area of very active volcanic activity
surrounding the Pacific Basin. Volcanic eruptions occur regularly along the ring of fire, in
part because of the movement of the Earth’s tectonic plates. The Earth’s outermost shell,
the lithosphere, is broken into a series of slabs known as tectonic plates. These plates are
rigid, but they float on a hotter, softer layer in the Earth’s mantle. As the plates move about
on the layer beneath them, they spread apart, collide, or slide past each other. Volcanoes
occur most frequently at the boundaries of these plates and volcanic eruptions occur when
molten material, or magma, rises to the surface.
The primary threat to lives and property from active volcanoes is from violent eruptions that
unleash tremendous blast forces, generate mud and debris flows, or produce flying debris
and ash clouds. The immediate danger area in a volcanic eruption generally lies within a 20mile radius of the blast site. The following section outlines the specific hazards posed by
volcanoes.
Volcanoes are commonly, but not always, conical hills or mountains built around a vent that
connects with reservoirs of molten rock below the surface of the earth. Volcanoes are built
up by an accumulation of their own eruptive products: lava or ash flows and airborne ash
and rocks. When pressure from gases or molten rock becomes strong enough to cause an
upsurge, eruptions occur. Gases and rocks are pushed through the vent and spill over, or fill
the air with lava fragments. Figure II-10 diagrams the basic features of a volcano.
There are four general types of volcanoes found within a short distance of the CTWS:
Lava domes are domes that are formed when lava erupts and accumulates near the
vent.
Cinder cones are cone-shaped and formed by accumulation of cinders, ash, and
other fragmented materials originating from an eruption.
Shield volcanoes are broad, gently sloping volcanic cones of flat domical shape,
usually several tens or hundreds of square miles in extent, built chiefly of
overlapping and interfingering basaltic lava flows.
Composite or stratovolcanoes are typically steep-sided, symmetrical cones of large
dimensions built of alternating layers of lava flows, volcanic ash, cinders, and blocks.
Most composite volcanoes have a crater at the summit containing a central vent or
clustered group of vents.
Along with the different kinds of volcanoes, there are different types of eruptions. Eruption
type is a major determinant of the physical results it creates and the hazards it poses. The
Page 2-24
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
main types of volcano hazards include: Tephra, lave flows, pyroclastic flows, lahars and
debris flows, volcanic landslides, and earthquakes.
Location and Extent
Although there have been no recent volcanic events in the Reservation, it is important to
note the area is active and susceptible to eruptive events since the region is a part of the
active Cascade Volcanic Range.
The western portion of the Reservation is on the east slope of the Cascade Range. Volcanic
activity in the Cascades will continue, but questions regarding how, to what extent, and
when, remain. Many volcano-associated hazards affect local areas within 5 to 10 miles (e.g.,
explosions, lava flows, pyroclastic flows and debris avalanches). However, lahars, or volcanic
mudflows can travel considerable distances downstream valleys and wind-borne tephra
(ash) can blanket areas many miles from the source.
CTWS is therefore at risk from volcanic events and should consider the impact of volcanorelated activity on communities, dams that create reservoirs, tourist destinations (e.g., Kahnee-ta), agriculture, highways and railroads. The Reservation should also consider probable
impacts on the local economy should a volcano-related hazard occur.
Geologic hazard maps have been created for most of the volcanoes in the Cascade Range by
the USGS Volcano Program at the Cascade Volcano Observatory in Vancouver, WA and are
available at http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Publications/hazards_reports.html.
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 2-25
Figure 2-11 Volcanic Hazards in Central Oregon
Source: Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan
Although the hazard map shows sharp boundaries for hazard zones, the degree of hazard
does not change abruptly at these boundaries. Rather, the hazard decreases gradually as
distance from the volcano increases, and decreases more rapidly as elevation above valley
floors increases. Areas immediately beyond outer hazard zones should not be regarded as
hazard free, because the boundaries can only be located approximately, especially in areas
of low relief. Too many uncertainties exist about the source, size, and mobility of future
events to locate the boundaries of zero-hazard zones precisely. Additionally, tephra (ash)
hazard zones are not shown on the map, but tephra can impact large areas and the entire
map region should be regarded as within the tephra hazard zone.
Scientists also use wind direction to predict areas that might be affected by volcanic ash;
during an eruption that emits ash, the ash fall deposition is controlled by the prevailing wind
direction. The predominant wind pattern over the Cascades originates from the west, and
previous eruptions seen in the geologic record have resulted in most ash fall drifting to the
east of the volcanoes. Regional tephra fall shows the annual probability of ten centimeters
or more of ash accumulation from Pacific Northwest volcanoes. Figure 2-11 depicts the
potential and geographical extent of volcanic ash fall in excess of ten centimeters from a
large eruption of Mt. St. Helens.
Page 2-26
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
Figure 2-12 Regional Tephra-fall Maps
Source: USGS “Volcano Hazards in the Mount Jefferson Region, Oregon”
History
No eruptions have occurred in the Reservation during the past 1,000 years, however the
millennium before experienced numerous nearby eruptions, including several at Three
Sisters, and one eruption at Newberry Volcano. The most devastating effects of these events
were restricted to what is now wilderness or largely undeveloped areas, but ashfall from
these eruptions probably deposited less than one-quarter inch to one-half inch of gritty ash
in areas that are now populated.
Research of other stratovolcanoes suggest that Mount Jefferson should be considered
dormant, not extinct. A major eruption could generate pyroclastic flows and lahars, and an
explosive eruption could spew ash for hundreds of miles downwind. The volcano has steep
slopes and debris flows would likely be contained within 10 miles of the surrounding valley.
Probability Assessment
The annual probability of volcanic activity in or affecting CTWS can only be estimated with
great uncertainty, but, depending on the type of eruption, ranges from roughly 1 in 1,000 to
1 in 10,000. However, as precursors of volcanic unrest begin the probability of eruption
increases greatly. The precursors might include increased seismic activity, temperature and
chemical changes in groundwater, ground deformation and release of volcanic gases.
Based on the available data and research the CTWS Peer Group determined that the
probability of experiencing a volcanic event is “low,” meaning one incident is likely within
the next 75 – 100 year period (or longer).
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 2-27
Vulnerabilities
Potential vulnerability to ashfall, lahars from St Helens, Mt Jefferson, Three Sisters, and
Newberry Crater.
The CTWS Peer Group rated the Reservation as having a “moderate” vulnerability to
volcanic hazards; meaning between 1-10% of the region’s population or assets would be
affected by a major emergency or disaster.
More information on this hazard can be found in the Risk Assessment for Region 6 of the
Oregon NHMP.
Mitigation Actions
Priority: MH #1, MH #2
Potential: MH #10, MH #11, MH #12
Wildfire
Significant Changes Since Previous Plan:
The occurrence history for this hazard has been updated as well as the
probability rating. The existing Wildfire Prevention Plan (2011) is scheduled
to be updated in 2016; when the WPP is updated it should be incorporated
into this plan. In addition, the format of the section and minor content
changes have occurred.
Characteristics
A wildland fire is a type of wildfire that spreads through consumption of vegetation. It often
begins unnoticed, spreads quickly, and is usually signaled by dense smoke that may be
visible from miles around. Wildland fires can be caused by human activities (such as arson or
campfires) or by natural events such as lightning. Wildland fires often occur in forests or
other areas with ample vegetation. In addition to wildland fires, wildfires can be classified as
urban fires, interface or intermix fires, and prescribed fires.
The following three factors contribute significantly to wildland fire behavior and can be used
to identify wildland fire hazard areas.
Topography: As slope increases, the rate of wildland fire spread increases. South-facing
slopes are also subject to more solar radiation, making them drier and thereby intensifying
wildland fire behavior. However, ridgetops may mark the end of wildland fire spread, since
fire spreads more slowly or may even be unable to spread downhill.
Fuel: The type and condition of vegetation plays a significant role in the occurrence and
spread of wildland fires. Certain types of plants are more susceptible to burning or will burn
with greater intensity. Dense or overgrown vegetation increases the amount of combustible
Page 2-28
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
material available to fuel the fire (referred to as the “fuel load”). The ratio of living to dead
plant matter is also important. The risk of fire is increased significantly during periods of
prolonged drought as the moisture content of both living and dead plant matter decreases.
The fuel’s continuity, both horizontally and vertically, is also an important factor.
Weather: The most variable factor affecting wildland fire behavior is weather. Temperature,
humidity, wind, and lightning can affect chances for ignition and spread of fire. Extreme
weather, such as high temperatures and low humidity, can lead to extreme wildland fire
activity. By contrast, cooling and higher humidity often signals reduced wildland fire
occurrence and easier containment.
The frequency and severity of wildland fires is also dependent upon other hazards, such as
lightning, drought, equipment use, railroads, recreation use, arson, and infestations. If not
promptly controlled, wildland fires may grow into an emergency or disaster. Even small fires
can threaten lives and resources and destroy improved properties. In addition to affecting
people, wildland fires may severely affect livestock and pets. Such events may require
emergency watering/feeding, evacuation, and shelter.
The indirect effects of wildland fires can be catastrophic. In addition to stripping the land of
vegetation and destroying forest resources, large, intense fires can harm the soil,
waterways, and the land itself. Soil exposed to intense heat may lose its capability to absorb
moisture and support life. Exposed soils erode quickly and enhance siltation of rivers and
streams, thereby enhancing flood potential, harming aquatic life, and degrading water
quality. Lands stripped of vegetation are also subject to increased debris flow hazards, as
described above.
Location and Extent
On the Reservation, wildland fires generally occur in the following areas:
Warm Springs and the surrounding area, which is composed of sagebrush grass and
intermittent juniper stands.
Central and northeastern portion of the Reservation, which is primarily
characterized by old growth Ponderosa pine, poles, and young saw timber. Incense
cedar and perennial grasses are also present in this area as are sources of fuel.
The western and southwestern portion of the Reservation, which is primarily
characterized by mixed conifer vegetation and subalpine species including Douglas
fir, Ponderosa pine, western larch, western hemlock, and perennial grasses amongst
other species.
As shown in Figure 2-13, nearly the entire Reservation has a high-very high wildland fire risk.
Fire susceptibility throughout the Reservation dramatically increases in late summer and
early autumn as summer thunderstorms with lightning strikes increases and vegetation dries
out, decreasing plant moisture content and increasing the ratio of dead fuel to living fuel.
However, various other factors, including humidity, wind speed and direction, fuel load and
fuel type, and topography can contribute to the intensity and spread of wildland. In
addition, common causes of wildland fires include arson and negligence from industrial and
recreational activities.
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 2-29
Figure 2-13 Wildfire Hazard Areas
Source: CTWS HMP (2006); URS
Page 2-30
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
History
Many significant wildland fires have occurred on the Reservation, since 1996 there have
been 18 wildfires/ Complexes that have burned a total of 1.51 million acres (11 significant
wildfires, that burned about 320,000 acres, have occurred since the previous version of this
plan), including4:
67,207-acre County Line 2 Fire in August 2015, 11 homes and 23 outbuildings
burned, loss of timber, fencing along HWY 26
6,644-acre Logging Unit Fires in July/ August 2014 (Skyline Fire, Haily Butte Fire,
North Pinhead Fire, Logging Unit Fire, Camas Prairie Fire)
42,044-acre Shaniko Creek Fire in July/ August 2014, lightning ignited, 15 miles
north of Warm Springs
3,803-acre Bear Butte 2 Fire in July/ August 2014
51,340-acre Sunnyside Turnoff Fire in July/ August 2013, gusty winds and high
temperatures exacerbated the fire
12,265-acre Waterfalls 2 Fire in August/ September 2012, lightning ignited, 22 miles
west of Warm Springs.
108,154-acre High Cascades Complex Fire in August/ September 2011, more info?
12,600-acre Glacier Peak Wildfire in July 2007, 2 miles SE of Warm Springs
11,137-acre Baker Canyon Fire in August/ September 2006, lightning ignited, 15
miles east of Warm Springs
4,129-acre Wolfe Point II fire in July 2006 , more info?
412-acre, Shitike Creek Fire, 2 miles WNW of Warm Springs, no structures lost.
1,271-acre Schoolie Rim Fire in July 2005, 4 miles WNW of Kah-nee-ta, no structures
lost.
1,170-acre Rattlesnake Springs Fire in July 2005; 9 miles ESE of Warm Springs,
lightning ignited, no structures lost.
4,150-acre Wolfe Point Fire in July 2005; human caused, centered near Kah-nee-ta,
no structures lost.
13,539-acre Log Springs Fire in August 2004
23,573-acre Eyerly Fire in July 2002; $5,500,000 in damage, sparked by lightning,
destroyed several structures, including 18 homes, 13 outbuildings, 3 travel trailers,
and 2 cars. An additional, 1 home and 5 buildings were damaged.
1,000-acre Shimasho fire in July 1998
115,000-acre Shimasho fire in August 1996
Probability Assessment
Based on previous occurrences, the likelihood of significant wildland fire (larger than 1,000
acres) occurring in and/or near the Reservation is every 2 years. As such, the CTWS Peer
Group determined that the probability of experiencing a wildfire event is “high,” meaning
at least one incident is likely within the next 10 – 35 year period (as the history of wildfires
4 NOAA Storm Events Database, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/, Accessed November 12,
2015; InciWeb, http://inciweb.nwcg.gov/, Accessed November 12, 2015; The Confederated Tribes of
Warm Springs Hazard Mitigation Plan (2006)
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 2-31
indicates, it is likely that CTWS will experience a wildfire more frequently than once every 10
years).
Vulnerabilities
According to the 2006 exposure analysis, wildland fire hazard areas were determined using
a wildland fire fuel model that considered slope, aspect, and fuel hazard. South-facing,
steep, and heavily vegetated areas were assigned the highest fuel values while areas with
little slope and natural vegetation were assigned the lowest fuel values. Within the areas of
high wildland fire exposure is the community of Sidwalter. This community includes 200
tribal members, 67 residential structures (worth $4.7 million), and 2 critical facilities (worth
$6.8 million). Within the areas of very high wildland fire exposure are the communities of
Warm Springs, Bear Springs, Kah-Nee-Ta, Seekseequa, and Simnasho. At risk to very high
wildland fire exposure are 2,472 tribal members, 667 residential structures (worth $47.0
million), and 39 critical facilities (worth $130.9 million).
The Warm Springs Wildfire Prevention Plan (WFPP, 2011) is scheduled to be updated in
2016. The update of the WFPP will include minor updates to the Risk Assessment, mitigation
activities, and highest priority areas. When complete the updated WFPP shall be
incorporated into this NHMP by reference. For more information on wildfire risk and fuels
reduction projects see the Warm Springs WFPP.
The CTWS Peer Group rated the Reservation as having a “high” vulnerability to wildfire
hazards; meaning more than 10% of the region’s population or assets would be affected by
a major emergency or disaster.
Future Climate Variability
One of the main aspects of the probability of future occurrences is its reliance on historic
climate trends in order to predict future climate trends. The region east of the Cascade
Mountain Range in Oregon is experiencing more frequent and severe wildfires than is
historically the norm, and many climate predictions see this trend continuing into the
future. Temperature increases will occur throughout all seasons, with the greatest variation
occurring during summer months. Hotter temperatures mean more combustible vegetation.
This information was considered while developing the probability of wildfire occurrence for
the CTWS.
As part of the update of this NHMP the Peer Group will utilize the final multi-hazard risk
report and hazard assessment currently being developed through FEMA's Risk MAP program
to update the CTWS Hazard Analysis for this hazard (Multi-hazard #13).
More information on this hazard can be found in the Risk Assessment for Region 6 of the
Oregon NHMP.
Mitigation Actions
Priority: WF #1, WF #2, WF #3, WF #4, WF #5, MH #1, MH #2, MH #3, MH #4, MH #5, MH #7
Potential: WF #6, MH #8, MH #9, MH #10, MH #11, MH #12
Page 2-32
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
Windstorm
Significant Changes Since Previous Plan:
The Windstorm Hazard was not assessed in the 2006 Plan, therefore, this
section provides new content.
Characteristics
Extreme winds occur throughout Oregon. The most persistent high winds take place along
the Oregon Coast and in the Columbia River Gorge. High winds in the Columbia Gorge are
well documented. The Gorge is the most significant east-west gap in the Cascade Mountains
between California and Canada. Wind conditions in central Oregon are not as dramatic as
those along the coast or in the Gorge yet can cause dust storms or be associated with severe
winter conditions such as blizzards. A majority of the destructive surface winds striking
Oregon are from the southwest. Some winds blow from the east but most often do not carry
the same destructive force as those from the Pacific Ocean.
Though tornadoes are not common in Oregon, these events do occasionally occur and
sometime produce significant property damage and even injury. Tornadoes are the most
concentrated and violent storms produced by earth’s atmosphere, and can produce winds in
excess of 300 mph. They have been reported in most of the regions throughout the state
since 1887. Most of them are caused by intense local thunderstorms common between April
and October.
Location and Extent
A windstorm is generally a short duration event involving straight-line winds and/or gusts in
excess of 50 mph. Although windstorms can affect the entirety of the CTWS, they are
especially dangerous in developed areas with significant tree stands and major
infrastructure, especially above ground utility lines. A windstorm will frequently knock down
trees and power lines, damage homes, businesses, public facilities, and create tons of storm
related debris.
Windstorms in the CTWS usually occur in the winter from October to March, and their
extent is determined by their track, intensity (the air pressure gradient they generate), and
local terrain; summer thunderstorms may also bring high winds along with heavy rain and/
or hail. The National Weather Service uses weather forecast models to predict oncoming
windstorms, while monitoring storms with weather stations in protected valley locations
throughout Oregon.
The table below shows the wind speed probability intervals that structures 33 feet above
the ground would expect to be exposed to within a 25, 50 and 100 year period. The table
shows that structures in Region 6, which includes the CTWS, can expect to be exposed to 60
mph winds in a 25-year recurrence interval (4% annual probability).
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 2-33
Table 2-4 Probability of Severe Wind Events by NHMP Region
Region 1:
Oregon Coast
Region 2:
North Willamette Valley
Region 3:
Mid/Southern Willamette Valley
Region 4:
Southwest Oregon
Region 5:
Mid-Columbia
Region 6:
Central Oregon
Region 7:
Northeast Oregon
Region 8:
Southeast Oregon
25-Year Event
(4% annual
probability)
50-Year Event
(2% annual
probability)
100-Year Event
(1% annual
probability)
75 mph
80 mph
90 mph
65 mph
72 mph
80 mph
60 mph
68 mph
75 mph
60 mph
70 mph
80 mph
75 mph
80 mph
90 mph
60 mph
65 mph
75 mph
70 mph
80 mph
90 mph
55 mph
65 mph
75 mph
Source: Oregon State Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2009
History
Windstorms occur yearly; more destructive storms occur once or twice per decade. In the
past 65 years,13 significant windstorms have been recorded on the Reservation. These
storms occurred in November 1951, December 1951, December 1955, October 1962, March
1971, November 1981, March 1991, December 1991, December 1995, November 2005,
October 2007, August 2009, and August 2013.5 In addition, there have been 26 additional
windstorm events (16 in the winter months, 10 in the summer months) that included wind
speeds between 35 and 80 mph (many of these wind events are accompanied by heavy
rains and/ or thunderstorms).
Probability Assessment
Windstorms affect the CTWS annually. More destructive storms occur once or twice per
decade. According to the Oregon NHMP Region 6 – Central Oregon, where CTWS is located,
is likely to experience windstorms of 60 mph during a 25-year cycle. It should be noted that
some of the report incidents are localized events that do not affect large areas of CTWS.
5 Oregon State NHMP (2015); Jefferson County NHMP (2013); George and Ray Hatton, 1999, The
Oregon Weather Book; NOAA Storm Events Database, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/.
Accessed November 12, 2015.
Page 2-34
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
Based on the available data and research the CTWS Peer Group determined that the
probability of experiencing a windstorm event is “high,” meaning one incident is likely
within the next 10 – 35 year period.
Vulnerabilities
Entire reservation is vulnerable, above ground utility infrastructure is particularly
vulnerable, as is truck commerce, particularly on Hwy 26.
The CTWS Peer Group rated the Reservation as having a “moderate” vulnerability to
windstorm hazards; meaning between 1-10% of the region’s population or assets would be
affected by a major emergency or disaster (particularly if utility lines are damaged).
More information on this hazard can be found in the Risk Assessment for Region 6 of the
Oregon NHMP.
Mitigation Actions
Priority: MH #1, MH #2, MH #3, MH #6
Potential: MH #8, MH #10, MH #11, MH #12, MH #13
Winter Storm
Significant Changes Since Previous Plan:
The occurrence history for this hazard has been updated as well as the
probability rating. In addition, the format of the section and minor content
changes have occurred.
Characteristics
In Oregon, winter storms begin with cyclonic weather systems in the North Pacific Ocean or
the Aleutian Islands that can cause massive low-pressure storm systems to sweep into the
continental United States. As the moist air masses push across the Cascade Mountains, the
air masses cool and the water condenses as snow. Wind in combination with the snow can
cause reduced visibilities and deep snowdrifts. In addition, heavy snow can cause
avalanches in areas along steep terrain. In some instances, freezing rain occurs, when very
cold inland arctic air becomes trapped under warm moist air.
The National Climatic Data Center has established climate zones in the United States for
areas that have similar temperature and precipitation characteristics. Oregon’s latitude,
topography, and proximity to the Pacific Ocean give the state diversified climates. The
southern portion of the CTWS is located within Zone 7: South Central Area, northern
portions of the CTWS are located within Zone 6: North Central Area. The climate in Zone 7
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 2-35
generally consists of wet winters and dry summers.6 These wet winters result in potentially
destructive winter storms that produce heavy snow, ice, rain and freezing rain, and high
winds. Severe storms affecting the CTWS with snow and ice typically originate in the Gulf of
Alaska or in the central Pacific Ocean. Winter storms occur over eastern Oregon regularly
during November through February when cold arctic air sinks south along the Columbia
River basin, filling the region with cold air.
Figure 2-14 Oregon Climate Divisions
Source: Oregon Climate Service,
The principal types of winter storms that occur include:
Snowstorms: require three ingredients: cold air, moisture, and air disturbance. The
result is snow, small ice particles that fall from the sky. In Oregon, the further inland
and north one moves, the more snowfall can be expected. Blizzards are included in
this category.
Ice storms: are a type of winter storm that forms when a layer of warm air is
sandwiched by two layers of cold air. Frozen precipitation melts when it hits the
warm layer, and refreezes when hitting the cold layer below the inversion. Ice
storms can include sleet (when the rain refreezes before hitting the ground) or
freezing rain (when the rain freezes once hitting the ground).
Extreme Cold: Dangerously low temperatures accompany many winter storms. This
is particularly dangerous because snow and ice storms can cause power outages,
leaving many people without adequate heating.
Location and Extent
As shown in Figure 2-15, the valley locations within the central and eastern portions of the
Reservation are at moderate and high risk to freezing rains. It is in these lower-elevation
areas where temperatures may be near or above freezing during the day, but as storms pass
6 Oregon Climate Service, “Climate of Jefferson County,”
Page 2-36
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
and temperatures plummet, wet roadways often turn to ice. It is not uncommon for freezing
rain storms to occur every 2 to 3 years on the Reservation.
The western side of the Reservation, at the foothills of the Cascades, is at risk to moderate
and high snow storm hazards. As such, this mountainous area can accumulate over 140
inches of snow during the months of January and February. Generally, these severe winter
storms occur every 5 to 10 years.
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 2-37
Figure 2-15 Winter Storm Hazard Areas
Source: CTWS HMP (2006); URS
Page 2-38
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
History
In the past 30 years, four heavy snow-associated winter storms have been recorded on the
Reservation. Meteorologists define heavy snow as 6 inches or more falling in less than 12
hours, or snowfall of 8 inches or more in 24 hours. These storms occurred in January 1969,
February 1989, and December 2003–January 2004, and February 2014.7 In addition, recent
severe ice storms on the Reservation occurred in January 1986, January 1991, January 1996,
February 1996, and February 2005. Additional winter storms that involved snow and/ or ice
occurred in December 2005, November 2006, November 2007, January 2008, December
2008, January 2010, November 2011 (followed by extreme cold), December 2010, February
2011, November 2011, January 2012 (also with high wind and followed by freezing rain/
ice), February 2012, March 2012, December 2012, November 2013 (followed by extreme
cold), and November 2014.8
Probability Assessment
The recurrence interval for a severe winter storm is about every 13 years; however, there
can be many localized storms between these periods. Severe winter storms occur in eastern
Oregon regularly from November through February. The CTWS experiences winter storms a
couple times every year, to every other year.
Based on the available data and research the CTWS Peer Group determined that the
probability of experiencing a winter storm event is “high,” meaning one incident is likely
within the next 10 – 35 year period.
Vulnerabilities
According to the 2006 exposure analysis, using information provided by the National
Weather Service and USGS, the valley locations within the central and eastern portions of
the Reservation, including the communities of Warm Springs, Kah-Nee-Ta, Sidwalter,
Simnasho, and Seekseequa are at risk to freezing rains. Moderate freezing rain hazard areas
include 400 tribal members, 133 residential structures (worth $9.4 million), and 13 critical
facilities (worth $38.5 million) while high risk freezing rain hazard areas include 2,472 tribal
members, 667 residential structures ($47.0 million), and 26 critical facilities (worth $99.0
million).
Only the western side of the Reservation, at the foothills of the Cascades, is at risk to
moderate and high snow storm hazards. As such, 25 tribal members, 8 residential facilities
($5.6 million) and 1 critical facility (worth $170,000) are located in moderate snow storm
hazard area.
7 Oregon State NHMP (2015); Jefferson County NHMP (2013); George and Ray Hatton, 1999, The
Oregon Weather Book; NOAA Storm Events Database, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/.
Accessed November 12, 2015.
8 NOAA Storm Events Database, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/. Accessed November 12,
2015.
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 2-39
The CTWS Peer Group rated the Reservation as having a “high” vulnerability to winter
storm hazards; meaning that more than 10-percent of the region’s population or assets
would be affected by a major emergency or disaster.
More information on this hazard can be found in the Risk Assessment for Region 6 of the
Oregon NHMP.
Mitigation Actions
Priority: MH #1, MH #2, MH #3, MH #4, MH #6
Potential: WT #1, WT #2, MH #8, MH #10, MH #11, MH #12, MH #13
Hazardous Materials Events
Significant Changes Since Previous Plan:
This hazard was in the previous All Hazards Mitigation Plan. No changes
except for minor content and format modifications have occurred.
Characteristics
Hazardous materials may include hundreds of substances that pose a significant risk to
humans. These substances may be highly toxic, reactive, corrosive, flammable, radioactive,
or infectious. Numerous Federal, State, and local agencies including the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Department of Transportation, National Fire Protection
Association, FEMA, U.S. Army, and the International Maritime Organization regulate
hazardous materials.
Hazardous material releases may occur from any of the following:
Fixed site facilities (such as refineries, chemical plants, storage facilities,
manufacturing, warehouses, wastewater treatment plants, dry cleaners, automotive
sales/repair, gas stations, etc.)
Highway and rail transportation (such as tanker trucks, chemical trucks, railroad
tankers)
Air transportation (such as cargo packages)
Pipeline transportation (liquid petroleum, natural gas, and other chemicals)
Unless exempted, facilities that use, manufacture, or store hazardous materials in the
United States fall under the regulatory requirements of the Emergency Planning and
Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986, enacted as Title III of the Federal Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (42 United States Code 11001–11050; 1988). Under
EPCRA regulations, hazardous materials that pose the greatest risk for causing catastrophic
emergencies are identified as Extremely Hazardous Substances (EHSs). These chemicals are
identified in the List of Lists – Consolidated List of Chemicals Subject to the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to- Know Act (EPCRA) and Section 112 of the Clean Air Act
(EPA 2005). Releases of EHSs can occur during transport and from fixed facilities.
Page 2-40
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
Transportation-related releases are generally more troublesome because they may occur
anywhere, including close to human populations, critical facilities, or sensitive
environmental areas. Transportation-related EHS releases are also more difficult to mitigate
due to the variability of locations and distance from response resources.
In addition to accidental human-caused hazardous material events, natural hazards may
cause the release of hazardous materials and complicate response activities. The impact of
earthquakes on fixed facilities may be particularly serious due to the impairment or failure
of the physical integrity of containment facilities. The threat of any hazardous material
event may be magnified due to restricted access, reduced fire suppression and spill
containment, and even complete cutoff of response personnel and equipment. In addition,
the risk of terrorism involving hazardous materials is considered a major threat due to the
location of hazardous material facilities and transport routes throughout communities and
the frequently limited antiterrorism security at these facilities.
On behalf of several Federal agencies including the EPA and U.S. Department of
Transportation, the National Response Center serves as the point of contact for reporting
oil, chemical, radiological, biological, and etiological discharges into the environment within
the United States.
History
The National Response Center Web-based query system of non-Privacy Act data show that
since 1990, five chemical spills have occurred in Warm Springs. All of these gasoline spills
occurred on Highway 26 and involved a tanker truck and/ or a passenger vehicle:
9/24/2013 – injuries but 0 fatalities, Tanker Truck hit Elk and rolled on HWY 26 near
mile marker 82, released gasoline into creek, weather conditions were unknown,
late evening.
11/22/2010 – 0 injuries or fatalities, Tanker Truck rolled on HWY 26 near mile
marker 93, released gasoline into ground, weather conditions were snowy, late
evening.
1/19/2001 – 0 injuries or fatalities, Tanker Truck jack-knifed on HWY 26 near mile
marker 99, released gasoline into nearby wet weather ditch, weather conditions
were overcast, late evening.
3/4/1999 - 0 injuries or fatalities, Tanker Truck rolled on HWY 26 near mile marker
77, released gasoline into nearby Beaver Creek, weather conditions clear and cold,
mid-afternoon.
11/27/1991 - 0 injuries and 3 fatalities, car collided with Tanker Truck on HWY 26
near mile marker 86.7, released gasoline burned off in fire, weather conditions
unknown, late evening.
In addition to oil and chemical spills, the EPA has recorded one airborne hazardous material
release and two toxic releases in Warm Springs since 1996.
Location and Extent
The EPA regulates six facilities on the Reservation. Of these facilities, two-thirds facilities are
permitted to discharge to water and one-half are hazardous waste handlers. However, while
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 2-41
several of the small, fixed facilities (e.g., body shops) have varying uses of hazardous
chemicals, in general these facilities do not pose a significant risk to the Reservation.
In addition to fixed facilities, hazardous material events have the potential to occur along
Highways 26, 9, and 3, and the railroad tracks, which are located in close proximity to the
Reservation. The trucks and trains that use these transportation arteries commonly carry a
variety of hazardous materials including gasoline, other crude oil derivatives, and other
chemicals known to cause human health problems. The Warm Springs River, Shitike Creek,
and Tenino Creek are waterways most vulnerable to hazardous material transportation
incidents.
Based on previous occurrences, the likelihood of a small oil or chemical spill occurring within
the Reservation is every 4 years. However, more comprehensive information on the
probability and magnitude of hazardous material events from all types of sources (such as
fixed facilities or transport vehicles) is not available. Wide variations among the
characteristics of hazardous material sources and among the materials themselves make
such an evaluation difficult.
While it is beyond the scope of this Plan to evaluate the probability and magnitude of
hazardous material events within the Reservation in detail, it is possible to determine the
exposure of population, buildings, and critical facilities should such an event occur. Of the
facilities that were required to file an annual EPA Tier II Material Inventory Report because
of the presence of hazardous materials, one facility located in the community of Warm
Springs was identified as having EHSs. Therefore, as shown in Figure 2-16, areas at risk for
hazardous material events include the community of Warm Springs and any area within a ½mile radius of Highways 26, 9, and 3, and the railroad tracks.
Vulnerabilities
According to the 2006 exposure analysis, the entire community of Warm Springs falls within
the community-wide buffer around the 1 EHS facility located on the Reservation. This
includes 2,272 tribal members, 600 residential buildings (worth $42.2 million), and 22
critical facilities (worth $36.2 million).
The communities of Warm Springs, Simnasho, and Bear Springs are located within the ½mile radius of Highways 26, 9, and 3, and the railroad tracks. Therefore 2,397 tribal
members, 608 residential structures (worth $42.8 million), and 30 critical facilities (worth
$71.1 million) are located within a hazardous materials transport corridor. However, these
figures are for the entirety of the transportation corridors and, therefore, overstate the
exposure since a hazardous material event along the corridors is unlikely to affect all of the
area within the ½-mile buffer.
Page 2-42
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
Figure 2-16 Hazardous Materials Hazard Areas
Source: CTWS HMP (2006); URS
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 2-43
Federal Disaster and Emergency Declarations
Looking at the past events that have occurred in the county can provide a general sense of
the hazards that have caused significant damage in the county. Where trends emerge,
disaster declarations can help inform hazard mitigation project priorities.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved the first federal disaster declaration in May 1953
following a tornado in Georgia. Table 2-5 summarizes the major declared disasters that
affected the CTWS and contiguous Oregon counties, since 1955. The table shows that there
have been two major disaster declarations for the Reservation; there have been five
additional disaster declarations for the surrounding contiguous lands.
An Emergency Declaration is more limited in scope and without the long-term federal
recovery programs of a Major Disaster Declaration. Generally, federal assistance and
funding are provided to meet a specific emergency need or to help prevent a major disaster
from occurring. There have been two emergency declarations that have affected CTWS.
Fire Management Assistance may be provided after a jurisdiction submits a request for
assistance to the FEMA Regional Director at the time a "threat of major disaster" exists.
There has been one fire management assistance declaration for the Reservation.
Table 2-5 FEMA Major Disaster, Emergency, and Fire Management Declarations
for the Reservation and Contiguous Lands
Declaration Declaration
Number
Date
Incident Period
From
To
Jurisdiction
DR-184
12/24/1964
12/24/1964
12/24/1964
Statewide
DR-413
1/25/1974
1/25/1974
1/25/1974
Wasco
DR-1061
8/3/1995
7/8/1995
7/9/1995
DR-1099*
2/9/1996
1/4/1996
2/21/1996
Wasco
CTWS,
Statewide
DR-1510
2/19/2004
12/26/2003
1/14/2004
Statewide
DR-1632*
3/20/2006
12/18/2005
1/21/2006
CTWS,
Jefferson
DR-1683
2/22/2007
12/14/2006
12/15/2006
Wasco
EM-3039
4/29/1977
4/29/1977
4/29/1977
EM-3228
9/7/2005
8/29/2005
10/1/2005
FMA-2443*
7/16/2002
7/13/2002
7/18/2002
Jefferson
Incident
Heavy rains and
flooding
Severe Storms,
Snow Melt,
Flooding
Flash Flooding
Severe Storms,
Flooding
Severe Winter
Storm
Severe Storms,
Flooding,
Landslides,
Mudslides
Severe Winter
Storms, Flooding
Drought
Hurricane Katrina
Evacuation
Eyerly Fire
Individual Public Assistance
Assistance
Categories
Yes
A, B, C, D, E, F, G
Yes
A, B, C, D, E, F, G
None
A, B, C, D, E, F, G
None
A, B, C, D, E, F, G
None
A, B, C, D, E, F, G
None
A, B, C, D, E, F, G
None
A, B, C, D, E, F, G
None
A, B
None
B
None
-
Source: FEMA, Disaster History. Major Disaster Declarations.
Note: * - a declaration that included the CTWS as a designated area.
Page 2-44
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
Vulnerability Assessment
Community vulnerabilities are an important component of the NHMP risk assessment. For
more in-depth information regarding specific community assets and vulnerabilities,
reference Appendix B: Community Profile.
Significant Changes Since Previous Plan:
The methodology and exposure analysis is unchanged since the previous
plan since development in hazard areas has not changed. Hazards that are
newly profiled lack significant data to perform an accurate exposure analysis;
an action item is included to enhance the available data and improve the risk
assessment through the FEMA led Risk MAP process. This section includes
an enhanced community economic and demographic vulnerability
assessment. Some content and format modifications have occurred.
Methodology
The methodology used to prepare the dollar estimates for vulnerability is described below.
Potential dollar losses are summarized in the hazard profiles above.
A conservative exposure-level analysis was conducted to assess the risks of the identified
hazards (2006 NHMP). This analysis is a simplified assessment of the potential effects of the
hazard on values at risk without consideration of probability or level of damage.
Using GIS, the locations of critical facilities were compared to locations where hazards are
likely to occur. If any portion of the critical facility or community fell within a hazard area,
the critical facility and/or entire community was counted as impacted. The exception for this
analysis includes communities and critical facilities located within the 100-year floodplain
(see Flood profile for further explanation).
Replacement values or insurance coverage were developed for physical assets. These values
were obtained from HAZUS-MH, the CTWS, and the U.S. Census. For facilities that didn’t
have specific values per building in a multibuilding scenario, the buildings were grouped
together and assigned one value. For each physical asset located within a hazard area,
exposure was calculated by assuming the worst-case scenario (that is, the asset would be
completely destroyed and would have to be replaced). Finally, the aggregate exposure, in
terms of replacement value or insurance coverage, for each category of structure or facility
was calculated. A similar analysis was used to evaluate the proportion of the population at
risk. However, the analysis simply represents the number of people at risk; no estimate of
the number of potential injuries or deaths was prepared.
Data Limitations
The vulnerability estimates provided herein use the best data currently available, and the
methodologies applied result in an approximation of risk (data is as presented in the 2006
NHMP, available data has not changed). These estimates may be used to understand
relative risk from hazards and potential losses. However, uncertainties are inherent in any
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 2-45
loss estimation methodology, arising in part from incomplete scientific knowledge
concerning hazards and their effects on the built environment, as well as approximations
and simplifications that are necessary for a comprehensive analysis.
It is also important to note that the quantitative vulnerability assessment results are limited
to the exposure of people, buildings, and critical facilities to hazard. It was beyond the scope
of this NHMP to develop a more detailed or comprehensive assessment of risk (including
annualized losses, people injured or killed, shelter requirements, loss of facility/system
function, and economic losses). Such impacts may be addressed with future updates of the
NHMP. An action item is included to update the available data and to develop an enhanced
Risk Assessment as part of the FEMA led Risk MAP process that is currently underway.
Exposure Analysis
The results of the 2006 exposure analysis are summarized in the hazard profiles presented
earlier and in the Tables 2-8 and 2-9 below.
Page 2-46
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
Table 2-6 Exposure Analysis: Population and Residential Structures
Residential
Hazard
Dam Failures
Floods
Hazardous Materials
Events
Risk
Dam Inundation Zone
100-Year Flood Zone
½-Mile Buffer Transportation
Corridors
Community Buffer EHS facility
Low
Landslides
Moderate
Communities
Warm Springs
Warm Springs, Kah-Nee-Ta
Warm Springs, Simnasho, Bear Springs
Warm Springs
Sidwalter
Warm Springs, Bear Springs, Kah-Nee-Ta,
Seekseequa, Simnasho
Moderate
High
Wildland Fires
Very High
Sidwalter
Warm Springs, Bear Springs, Kah-Nee-Ta,
Seekseequa, Simnasho
Winter Storms
High Freezing Rain
Number
Value
600
133
$42,240,000
2,397
641
$45,126,400
2,272
600
$42,240,000
200
67
$4,716,800
2,697
741
$52,166,400
$9,363,200
0
0
$0
200
67
$4,716,800
2,697
741
$52,166,400
0
0
$0
Sidwalter, Simnasho, Seekseequa
400
133
$9,363,200
Warm Springs, Kah-Nee-Ta
2,472
667
$46,956,800
25
8
$563,200
0
0
$0
Extreme
Moderate Freezing Rain
Population
2,272
492
Moderate Snow Storm
Bear Springs
High Snow Storm
Source: CTWS HMP (2006); URS
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 2-47
Table 2-7 Exposure Analysis: Critical Facilities
O ffices and
Facilities
Hazard
Risk
No.
Value
($) 1
Enterprises
No.
Value
($) 1
Educational
Facilities
No.
Value
($) 1
Gathering
Places
No.
Value
($) 1
Police and Fire
Stations
No.
Value
($) 1
Potable Water
and WW
Facilities
No.
Value
($) 1
Communication
Facilities
No.
($) 1
Value
($) 1
Kah-Nee-Ta
Resorts
No.
Value
($) 1
Dam Failures
Inundation Zone
6
$4,707
7
$34,872
3
$1,695
2
$956
3
$2,938
2
$17,234
1
$2,000
0
$0
Floods
100-Year Flood
Zone
2
$1,138
4
$13,553
1
$565
2
$956
2
$1,356
3
$27,689
0
0
1
$654
½-Mile Buffer
T ransportation
Corridors
7
$4,877
5
$9,568
3
$1,695
3
$1,253
5
$3,860
6
$51,701
1
$2,000
0
$0
Community Buffer
EHS Facility
6
$4,707
5
$9,568
3
$1,695
2
$956
3
$2,938
2
$17,455
1
$2,000
0
$0
0
7
0
0
7
0
$0
$4,877
$0
$0
$4,877
$0
0
7
0
0
7
0
$0
$34,872
$0
$0
$34,872
$0
0
3
0
0
3
0
$0
$1,695
$0
$0
$1,695
$0
0
4
0
0
4
0
$0
$1,550
$0
$0
$1,550
$0
1
7
0
1
7
0
$678
$4,775
$0
$678
$4,775
$0
2
5
0
1
6
0
$13,557
$44,923
$0
$6,778
$51,701
$0
0
1
0
0
3
0
$0
$2,000
$0
$0
$2,313
$0
0
2
0
0
2
0
$0
$33,854
$0
$0
$33,854
$0
Moderate
Freezing Rain
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
2
$594
4
$2,278
5
$37,569
2
$313
0
$0
High Freezing
Rain
6
$4,707
7
$34,872
3
$1,695
2
$956
3
$3,175
2
$20,912
1
$2,000
2
$33,854
Moderate Snow
Storm
1
$170
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
High Snow
Storm
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
Hazardous
Materials Events
Landslides
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Wildland Fires
High
Very High
Extreme
Winter Storms
Source: CTWS HMP (2006); URS
Page 2-48
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
Population Assessment
The socio-demographic qualities of the community population such as language, race and
ethnicity, age, income, and educational attainment are significant factors that can influence
the community’s ability to cope, adapt to and recover from natural disasters. Historically, 80
percent of the disaster burden falls on the public.9 Of this number, a disproportionate
burden is placed upon special needs groups, particularly children, the elderly, the disabled,
minorities, and low-income persons. Population vulnerabilities can be reduced or eliminated
with proper outreach and community mitigation planning. For planning purposes, it is
essential that Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation consider both immediate
and long-term socio-demographic implications of hazard resilience.
Population Vulnerabilities
As of 2013, more than 30% of Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs’s population is
under the age of 15; indicating a high percentage of dependent youth.
The CTWS age dependency ratio10 is 60.7; indicating a high number of people not in
the workforce.
The CTWS has a population of older folks who are living alone; many of these
individuals are in the northern part of the Reservation.
Approximately 40% of all households are headed by single-parents.
The median income for the town of Warm Springs ($44,929) is lower than the
regions; however, it has been increasing since 2009.
About one-third of tribal members meet the federal poverty; in the event of a
natural disaster these individuals may require additional assistance.
Economy Assessment
Economic diversification, employment and industry are measures of economic capacity.
However, economic resilience to natural disasters is far more complex than merely restoring
employment or income in the local community. Building a resilient economy requires an
understanding of how the component parts of employment sectors, workforce, resources
and infrastructure are interconnected in the existing economic picture. The current and
anticipated financial conditions of a community are strong determinants of community
resilience, as a strong and diverse economic base increases the ability of individuals, families
and the community to absorb disaster impacts for a quick recovery. It is imperative that the
Reservation recognize that economic diversification is a long-term issue; more immediate
strategies to reduce vulnerability should focus on risk management for the dominant
industries.
Hazards Workshop Session Summary #16, Disasters, Diversity, and Equity, University of Colorado, Boulder
(2000).
9
10 Dependency Ratio: the ratio of population typically not in the work force (less than 15, greater than 64)
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 2-49
Economic Vulnerabilities
Approximately 30% of the labor force is unemployed throughout the Reservation
(45% in the north).In the event of a large—scale disaster, unemployment has the
potential to rise when businesses and companies are unable to overcome the
ramifications of the hazard event.
About 40% of mortgage owners pay more than 35% of household income on
housing (mortgage or rent) in the northern part of the Reservation.
The largest occupation sectors are Professional and related (19%), Personal care and
service (13%), and Office and administrative support (12%). In the event of a natural
disaster, the manufacturing sector may not be as vulnerable in the short term as
other sectors; however, other large industries such as retail and wholesale trade
may be significantly affected by a disaster as these basic industries tend to rely on a
stable disposable income, which may decline following a disaster.
Environment Assessment
The capacity of the natural environment is essential in sustaining all forms of life including
human life, yet it often plays an underrepresented role in community resiliency to natural
hazards. The natural environment includes land, air, water and other natural resources that
support and provide space to live, work and recreate.11 Natural capital such as wetlands and
forested hill slopes play significant roles in protecting communities and the environment
from weather-related hazards, such as flooding and landslides. When natural systems are
impacted or depleted by human activities, those activities can adversely affect community
resilience to natural hazard events.
Environmental Vulnerabilities
Dynamic weather and relatively flat (east of the Cascades), arid land across CTWS
are indicators of hazard vulnerability when combined with the changing climate and
severe weather related events. Both wet and dry cycles are likely to last longer and
be more extreme, leading to periods of deeper drought and more frequent flooding.
Less precipitation in the summers and subsequently lower soil moisture with hotter
temperatures will likely increase the amount of vegetation consumed by wildfire.
Extended drought periods affect snowpack and agricultural irrigation.
Built Environment, Critical Facilities, and Infrastructure
Assessment
Critical facilities (i.e. police, fire, and government facilities), housing supply and physical
infrastructure are vital during a disaster and are essential for proper functioning and
response. The lack or poor condition of infrastructure can negatively affect a community’s
ability to cope, respond and recover from a natural disaster. Following a disaster,
communities may experience isolation from surrounding cities and counties due to
11 Mayunga, J. “Understanding and Applying the Concept of Community Disaster Resilience: A capital-based
approach. Summer Academy for Social Vulnerability and Resilience Building,” (2007).
Page 2-50
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
infrastructure failure. These conditions force communities to rely on local and immediately
available resources.
Housing Vulnerabilities
It is crucial to maintain the quality of built capacity (transportation networks, critical
facilities, utility transmission, etc.) throughout the area, as poor infrastructure can
negatively affect the Reservation’s ability to cope, respond, and recover from a
natural disaster.
Mobile home and other non-permanent residential structures account for 18% of
housing. These structures are particularly vulnerable to certain natural hazards, such
as windstorms and heavy flooding events.
Based on U.S. Census data, more than two-thirds of the residential housing
throughout the Reservation was built before the current seismic building standards
of 1990.
Approximately one-third of residential structures were constructed prior to the local
implementation of the flood elevation requirements of the 1970’s.
The county has one-third of the housing units occupied by renters, versus two-thirds
homeowners. Studies have shown that renters are less likely than homeowners to
prepare for hazardous events.
Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Some roads and bridges in the Reservation are highly vulnerable to hazards,
specifically earthquakes. Because bridges vary in size, materials, siting, and design,
any given hazard will affect them differently. The Reservation should pay
considerable attention to roads and bridges that may become obstructed that serve
as primary interstate travel routes (Highway 26), as this will likely have significant
impacts on access in and out of the county and region. Oregon Department of
Transportation has jurisdiction over the interstate and highways, but the
Reservation may control maintenance in and around the communities.
There are three high hazard dams located in, or near, the Reservation: Pelton,
Pelton Reregulating, and Round Butte
Risk Analysis
This NHMP utilizes a hazard analysis methodology that was first developed by FEMA circa
1983, and gradually refined by the Oregon Military Department’s Office of Emergency
Management over the years.
The methodology produces scores that range from 24 (lowest possible) to 240 (highest
possible). Vulnerability and probability are the two key components of the methodology.
Vulnerability examines both typical and maximum credible events, and probability
endeavors to reflect how physical changes in the jurisdiction and scientific research modify
the historical record for each hazard. Vulnerability accounts for approximately 60% of the
total score, and probability approximately 40%.
This method provides the jurisdiction with a sense of hazard priorities, or relative risk. It
doesn't predict the occurrence of a particular hazard, but it does "quantify" the risk of one
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 2-51
hazard compared with another. By doing this analysis, planning can first be focused where
the risk is greatest.
In this analysis, severity ratings, and weight factors, are applied to the four categories of
history, vulnerability, maximum threat (worst-case scenario), and probability as
demonstrated below.
History (Weight factor for category = 2)
History is the record of previous occurrences. Events to include in assessing history of a
hazard in your jurisdiction are events for which the following types of activities were
required:
The Emergency Operations Center (EOC) or alternate EOC was activated;
Three or more Emergency Operations Planning (EOP) functions were implemented,
e.g., alert & warning, evacuation, shelter, etc.;
An extraordinary multi-jurisdictional response was required; and/or
A "Local Emergency" was declared.
LOW = 0 to 1 event in the past 100 years, scores between 1 and 3 points
MODERATE = 2 to 3 event in the past 100 years, scores between 4 and 7 points
HIGH = 4+ events in the past 100 years, scores between 8 and 10 points
Probability (Weight factor for category = 7)
Probability is the likelihood of future occurrence within a specified period of time.
LOW = one incident likely within 75 to 100 years, scores between 1 and 3 points
MODERATE = one incident likely within 35 to 75 years, scores between 4 and 7 points
HIGH = one incident likely within 10 to 35 years, scores between 8 and 10 points
Vulnerability (Weight factor for category = 5)
Vulnerability is the percentage of population and property likely to be affected under an
“average” occurrence of the hazard.
LOW = < 1% affected, scores between 1 and 3 points
MODERATE = 1 - 10% affected, scores between 4 and 7 points
HIGH = > 10% affected, scores between 8 and 10 points
Maximum Threat (Weight factor for category = 10)
Maximum threat is the highest percentage of population and property that could be
impacted under a worst-case scenario.
LOW = < 5% affected, scores between 1 and 3 points
MODERATE = 5 - 25% affected, scores between 4 and 7 points
HIGH = > 25% affected, scores between 8 and 10 points
Page 2-52
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
The table below presents the entire updated hazard analysis matrix for CTWS. The hazards
are listed in rank order from high to low. The table shows that hazard scores are influenced
by each of the four categories combined. With considerations for past historical events, the
probability or likelihood of a particular hazard event occurring, the vulnerability to the
community, and the maximum threat or worst-case scenario wildfire, winter storm, flood,
and drought events rank as the top hazard threats (top tier). Windstorm, the Cascadia
Subduction Zone earthquake, and volcano events rank next highest (middle tier). Crustal
earthquakes and landslides comprise the lowest ranked hazards (bottom tier).
Table 2-8 Hazard Analysis Matrix
History
20
20
16
20
14
2
2
2
Crustal Earthquake
Landslide
6
Source: CTWS NHMP Peer Group, 2015.
Hazard
Wildfire
Winter Storm
Flood - Riverine
Drought
Windstorm
Cascadia Earthquake
Volcano
Vulnerability
50
50
45
35
20
40
35
25
15
Maximum
Threat
100
90
100
80
80
80
100
70
40
Probability
70
70
63
70
63
49
21
7
21
Total
Threat
Score
240
230
224
205
177
171
158
104
82
Hazard
Rank
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
Conducting the hazard analysis is a useful step in planning for hazard mitigation, response,
and recovery. The method provides the jurisdiction with sense of hazard priorities, but does
not predict the occurrence of a particular hazard.
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 2-53
Top
Tier
Middle
Tier
Bottom
Tier
SECTION 3:
MITIGATION STRATEGY
Section 3 outlines Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation’s (CTWS) strategy
to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards. Specifically, this
section presents a mission and specific goals and actions thereby addressing the mitigation
strategy requirements contained in 44 CFR 201.7(c). The NHMP Peer Group reviewed and
updated the mission, goals and action items documented in this plan. Additional planning
process documentation is in Appendix B.
Mitigation Plan Mission
The Plan mission states the purpose and defines the primary functions of the CTWS’s NHMP.
It is intended to be adaptable to any future changes made to the Plan and need not change
unless the community’s environment or priorities change.
The mission of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation NHMP is:
To promote sound public policy designed to protect tribal members, critical facilities,
infrastructure, private property, and the environment from natural hazards.
The 2015 NHMP Peer Group added a plan mission statement and agreed that it accurately
describes the overall purpose and intent of this Plan. The Peer Group believes the concise
nature of the mission statement allows for a comprehensive approach to mitigation
planning.
Mitigation Plan Goals
Mitigation plan goals are more specific statements of direction that CTWS members, and
public and private partners can take while working to reduce the risk from natural hazards.
These statements of direction form a bridge between the broad mission statement and
particular action items. The goals listed here serve as checkpoints as agencies and
organizations begin implementing mitigation action items.
The 2015 CTWS NHMP Peer Group reviewed the previous plan goals and determined they
would modify their goals to better align with mitigation objectives.
All the Plan goals are important and are listed below in no particular order of priority.
Establishing community priorities within action items neither negates nor eliminates any
goals, but it establishes which action items to consider to implement first, should funding
become available. Below is a list of the plan goals:
Goal 1: Protect life and injury resulting from natural hazards.
Goal 2: Minimize the impact of natural hazards while protecting, restoring, and sustaining
environmental processes.
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 3-1
Goal 3: Minimize Tribal and private property damages and the disruption of essential
infrastructure and services from natural hazards.
Goal 4: Build and support local capacity to enable the public to prepare for, respond to, and
recover from disasters.
Goal 5: Increase the resilience of the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation and
their economy.
Goal 6: Minimize damage to historic and cultural resources.
Goal 7: Reduce development within mapped hazardous areas where the risks to people and
property cannot be mitigated.
Goal 8: Increase communication, collaboration, and coordination among agencies at all
levels of government and the private sector to mitigate natural hazards.
Goal 9: Integrate NHMP with the Peoples Plan and implementing measures.
(Note: although numbered the goals are not prioritized.)
Action Item Development Process
Development of action items was a multi-step, iterative process that involved
brainstorming, discussion, review, and revisions. Action items can be developed through a
number of sources. The figure below illustrates some of these sources.
Figure 3-1 Development of Action Items
Source: Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience, 2008.
Page 3-2
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
The majority of the action items were first created during the 2006 NHMP planning process.
During those processes, Peer Groups developed maps of local vulnerable populations,
facilities, and infrastructure in respect to each identified hazard. Review of these maps
generated discussion around potential actions to mitigate impacts to the vulnerable areas.
The URS provided guidance in the development of action items by presenting and discussing
actions that were used in other communities. During the update process OPDR took note of
ideas that came up in Peer Group meetings and drafted specific actions that met the intent
of the Peer Group. All actions were then reviewed by the Peer Group, discussed at length,
and revised as necessary before becoming a part of this document.
Priority Mitigation Actions (Action Plan)
Action items identified through the planning process are an important part of the
comprehensive mitigation Action Plan. Action items are detailed recommendations for
activities that local departments, tribal members, and others could engage in to reduce risk.
CTWS first prioritized actions in 2006 using a simplified Social, Technical, Administrative,
Political, Legal, Economic, and Environmental (STAPLE/E) evaluation criteria. During the
2015 update the Peer Group reviewed the status and applicability of the eight (8) previously
prioritized actions, revised them, and/ or added to the list of priority actions (See Appendix
A for more information). In discussing which actions to prioritize the Peer Group considered
the STAPLE/E approach (see Section 4 and Appendix C) and then voted on which actions to
include in the updated prioritized Action Plan. Below is the list of high priority actions that
the Peer Group will focus their mitigation efforts over the next five years; emphasizing
attention on an achievable, high leverage, activities.
Table 3-1 High Priority Mitigation Actions
2015 Action
Criteria
Number
Action Item:
Priority:
Votes:
Department/
Agency:
Potential Funding
Multi-Hazard Source:
#1
Implementation
Timeline:
Overall BenefitCosts:
Description
Integrate natural hazard mitigation efforts into the People's Plan, building
codes, development regulations, and Integrated Resources Management
Plan.
High (Revised and Prioritized in 2015)
Unanimous
Planning
Local funding resources
Mid-Term (3 to 5 years)
Integration creates a legal status for mitigation and guides local decisionmaking regarding land use and/ or capital expenditures.
Integration of natural hazard mitigation into the People's Plan, building
Contribution to
codes, development regulations, and the Integrated Resources
Overall Mitigation Management Plan will help to reduce vulnerability to natural hazards,
Strategy:
support mitigation activities, and help to increase the speed in which
action items are implemented.
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 3-3
2015 Action
Criteria
Number
Action Item:
Priority:
Votes:
Department/
Multi-Hazard
Agency:
#2
Potential Funding
Source:
Implementation
Timeline:
Overall BenefitCosts:
Description
Enhance and deliver education programs aimed at increasing awareness
and mitigating the risk posed by hazards. At least twice each year a)
provide information about the NHMP, b) describe progress toward
implementation, and c) collect feedback on the NHMP from audiences.
Accomplish these tasks by supporting Community Emergency Response
Team programs/ training events that also include a mitigation component.
High (Revised and Prioritized in 2015)
Three, unanimously affirmed in 2015
Public Safety Branch
PDM grants, Lindbergh Grants Program
Short-Term (0-2 years)
This mitigation action is low cost, but has the potential to reach a larger
number of people.
Contribution to
A public outreach program will help build and support local capacity to
Overall Mitigation
enable the public to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters.
Strategy:
2015 Action
Criteria
Number
Action Item:
Priority:
Votes:
Department/
Agency:
Potential Funding
Multi-Hazard Source:
#3
Implementation
Timeline:
Overall BenefitCosts:
Description
Develop a plan and seek funding for backup electric and
telecommunications systems for critical facilities.
High (Prioritized in 2006, affirmed in 2015)
Three, unanimously affirmed in 2015
Public Utilities Branch
Department of Homeland Security Preparedness Technical Assistance
Program, PDM grants
Short-Term (0-2 years)
This mitigation action addresses high risk situations - it is imperative that
the tribal critical facilities can function during and after a disaster.
Contribution to
This program will help Tribal government agencies prepare for, respond to,
Overall Mitigation
and recover from disasters.
Strategy:
Page 3-4
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
2015 Action
Criteria
Number
Action Item:
Description
Develop a community evacuation plan to address multiple hazards.
Develop routes, consistent advanced warning notification system, and
community awareness plan.
High (Revised and Prioritized in 2015)
Unanimous
Priority:
Votes:
Department/
Emergency Management
Agency:
Potential Funding
Local funding resources
Source:
Implementation
Short-Term (0-2 years)
Timeline:
Multi-Hazard
There is not currently a designated and widely known evacuation plan for
#4
mass evacuation needs, including dam safety and wildfire. Designated
routes, a notification system, and community awareness are all required.
Overall Benefit- There are many isoloated areas within the tribal lands that do not have cell
Costs:
coverage. Residents in these areas may not receive alerts when a natural
disaster occurs (dam, wildfire, etc.). A robust warning system, coordinated
amongst emergency services, may include reverse 911 and/ or other
technologies designed to reach residents in rural areas.
Contribution to
A robust warning system ensures that the community is capable of
Overall Mitigation receiving notifications and alerts of natural hazards, warning at-risk
Strategy:
populations, and acting on alert.
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 3-5
2015 Action
Criteria
Number
Action Item:
Priority:
Votes:
Department/
Multi-Hazard Agency:
#5
Potential Funding
Source:
Implementation
Timeline:
Overall BenefitCosts:
Description
Over the next five years, a) develop a prioritized list of critical public
facilities, consistent with the Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources
developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), such as
underground wastewater and stormwater collection and conveyance
systems, radio communication systems, fire stations, schools and other
buildings to be inspected for hazard vulnerability, b) develop a prioritization
of facilities to be evaluated for hazard risk, c) seek funding for evaluations,
d) develop a prioritized list of facilities/ services to be retrofitted,
relocated, or replaced, e) secure funding for 2-3 retrofit projects per year.
High (Revised and Prioritized in 2015)
Unanimous
Emergency Management/ Public Utilities
Local funding resources, PDM, HMGP, Risk MAP
Mid-Term (3 to 5 years)
Many critical facilities have not been evaluated for natural hazard
vulnerability (seismic, flood, wildfire, etc.). A large-scale hazard event has
the potential to severely damage local critical facilities, which can inhibit
response and recovery efforts. Some funding sources may not be available
unless they have already developed a prioritized list of critical
facilities/services to be retrofitted, replaced, or relocated.
Contribution to
The identification and mitigation of critical facilities will reduce potential
Overall Mitigation losses due to natural hazards and allow uninterupted response and
Strategy:
recovery effots.
Page 3-6
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
2015 Action
Criteria
Number
Action Item:
Priority:
Votes:
Department/
Agency:
Multi-Hazard Potential Funding
#6
Source:
Implementation
Timeline:
Overall BenefitCosts:
Description
Over the next five years, a) identify critical transportation corridors
(including primary emergency, evacuation, and access routes) and electric
distribution routes b) develop a list of key backbone transmission and
distribution routes that serve critical customers and enable efficient
restoration to the broader distribution system c) develop a long-term plan
to underground, relocate, or “harden” key electric distribution lines along
critical corridors (including feasibility assessment and prioritization) d)
seek funds and opportunities to relocate power poles and power lines, or
harden existing facilities, where feasible and appropriate, to reduce
interruption to the transportation system and to reduce risk of outages from
severe winter storms, windstorms, or earthquakes.
High (Revised and Prioritized in 2015)
Unanimous
Infrastructure Planning & Engineering, Utility providers
Local funding resources, PDM, HMGP
Short-Term (0-2 years)
Downed power lines result in power failures and block critical
transportation routes. The loss of electric power for a long period of time
(more than 72 hours) can lead to failures of multiple critical systems
including health care, water filtration, wastewater treatment,
communications, transportation, and others. Impassable roadways from
downed lines also inhibit emergency response and restoration of critical
services, such as drinking water and health care, and is particularly
problematic if fuel for backup generators cannot be delivered.
The hazards most likely to impair surface transportation and disrupt electric
Contribution to
service are severe winter storm (snow, ice, wind, downed trees, utility pole
Overall Mitigation
and wire failures) and earthquake (downed trees, utility pole and wire
Strategy:
failures).
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 3-7
2015 Action
Criteria
Number
Action Item:
Priority:
Votes:
Department/
Agency:
Potential Funding
Multi-Hazard
Source:
#7
Implementation
Timeline:
Overall BenefitCosts:
Description
Utilize the final multi-hazard risk report and assessment currently being
developed by FEMA through the Risk MAP program to update the CTWS
Hazard Analysis.
High (Added and Prioritized in 2015)
Unanimous
Emergency Management, Public Utilities, Planning, Natural Resources
FEMA Risk MAP, Local funding resources
Short-Term (0-2 years)
This mitigation action is low cost, but has the potential to reach a larger
number of people.
Updating the hazard vulnerability assessment with data and analysis
Contribution to
provided by Risk MAP will help to identify vulnerability to earthquakes,
Overall Mitigation
floods, landslides, and wildfires, support mitigation activities, and help to
Strategy:
increase the Reservations resiliency.
2015 Action
Criteria
Number
Action Item:
Flood #1
Priority:
Votes:
Department/
Agency:
Potential Funding
Source:
Implementation
Timeline:
Overall BenefitCosts:
Description
Update the stormwater management plan to include regulations to control
runoff; both for flood reduction and to minimize saturated soils on steep
slopes that can cause landslides.
High (Revised and Prioritized in 2015)
Unanimous
Public Utilities, Planning, Natural Resources
Local funding resources
Short-Term (0-2 years)
This mitigation action is low cost, but has the potential to reach a larger
number of people.
Contribution to
Updating the stormwater management plan will help to reduce vulnerability
Overall Mitigation to landslides, support mitigation activities, and help to increase the speed
Strategy:
in which action items are implemented.
Page 3-8
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
2015 Action
Criteria
Number
Action Item:
Flood #2
Priority:
Votes:
Department/
Agency:
Potential Funding
Source:
Implementation
Timeline:
Overall BenefitCosts:
Description
Identify and analyze repetitively flooded structures and infrastructure.
Explore mitigation opportunities for repetitively flooded properties and, if
necessary, carry out acquisition, relocation, elevation, and flood- proofing
measures to protect these properties.
High (Prioritized in 2006, affirmed in 2015)
One, unanimously affirmed in 2015
Infrastructure Planning & Engineering, Building Inspections & Permits
HMGP, PDM, and FMA grants, Risk MAP, local funding resources
Short Term (0-2 years) for the FEMA Risk MAP work/ Long Term (5+ years)
for projects
The probability of future damage to repetitively damaged properties is high
if this mitigation action is not implemented.
Contribution to
The identification and mitigation of repetitively flooded properties and
Overall Mitigation
infrastructure will reduce potential losses due to floods.
Strategy:
2015 Action
Criteria
Number
Action Item:
Flood #3
Priority:
Votes:
Department/
Agency:
Potential Funding
Source:
Implementation
Timeline:
Overall BenefitCosts:
Description
Update the Flood Insurance Study, Flood Insurance Rate Maps, and revisit
development codes to determine if floodplain standards are still adequate.
High (Revised and Prioritized in 2015)
Unanimous
Emergency Management, Infrastructure Planning and Engineering,
Planning, Natural Resources
FEMA Risk MAP, local funding resources, Oregon Silver Jackets
Short-Term (0-2 years)
The local flood maps are based on data that is approximately 40 years old.
FEMA will update maps as resources allow but will prioritize communities
that a) indicate an interest in updating local flood maps, and b) provide
funding or other resources to support the updating of flood maps. FEMA is
initiating a Risk MAP process which will include flood. Table 4 of the
Middle Columbia-Hood River Discovery Report provides a list of flood
mapping needs.
Contribution to
The availability of LIDAR data and other technologies offers superior ability
Overall Mitigation
to project and map riverine flooding in the area.
Strategy:
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 3-9
2015 Action
Criteria
Number
Action Item:
Description
Create comprehensive geological mapping to areas prone to landslides and
rockslides.
High (Revised and Prioritized in 2015)
Unanimous
Priority:
Votes:
Department/
Emergency Management
Agency:
Potential Funding
FEMA Risk MAP, local funding resources, Oregon Silver Jackets
Source:
Landslide #1 Implementation
Short-Term (0-2 years)
Timeline:
Current landslide risk maps fare based on dated topographic maps. LIDAR
Overall Benefitdata can provide substanially better information about landslide risk in the
Costs:
region.
Contribution to
This effort will help reduce the possibility of damage and losses due to
Overall Mitigation
landslides.
Strategy:
2015 Action
Criteria
Number
Action Item:
Description
Use available data to determine areas and buildings at risk to landslides
and propose Peoples Plan and land use policies accordingly.
High (Revised and Prioritized in 2015)
Unanimous
Priority:
Votes:
Department/
Planning, Public Utilities, Natural Resources
Agency:
Potential Funding
Local funding resources
Source:
Implementation
Mid-Term (3-5 years)
Landslide #2 Timeline:
Integration of natural hazard mitigation into the People's Plan, building
codes, development regulations, and Integrated Resources Management
Overall BenefitPlan will help to reduce vulnerability to natural hazards, support mitigation
Costs:
activities, and help to increase the speed in which action items are
implemented.
Contribution to
This effort will help reduce the possibility of damage and losses due to
Overall Mitigation
landslides.
Strategy:
Page 3-10
July 2016
CTWS NHMP
2015 Action
Criteria
Number
Action Item:
Priority:
Votes:
Department/
Agency:
Potential Funding
Source:
Landslide #3
Implementation
Timeline:
Overall BenefitCosts:
Description
Develop a vegetation management plan. Proper vegetation can supply
slope- stabilizing root strength, and facilitate in intercepting precipitation.
High (Revised and Prioritized in 2015)
Unanimous
Natural Resources, Planning
Local funding resources
Short-Term (0-2 years)
Establishing and maintaining appropriate vegetation of areas above the
bluff slope may be the single most important and cost-effective mitigation
measure available.
Contribution to
This effort will help reduce the possibility of damage and losses due to
Overall Mitigation
erosion/ landslides.
Strategy:
2015 Action
Criteria
Number
Action Item:
Priority:
Votes:
Department/
Agency:
Potential Funding
Source:
Landslide #4
Implementation
Timeline:
Overall BenefitCosts:
Description
Identify problem areas and implement stream stabilization measures to
reduce the effects of erosion.
High (Revised and Prioritized in 2015)
Unanimous
Natural Resources, Planning
Local funding resources
Short-Term (0-2 years)
Establishing and maintaining appropriate stream stabilization measures is
cost-effective.
Contribution to
This effort will help reduce the possibility of damage and losses due to
Overall Mitigation erosion/ landslides. The Risk MAP process may help to determine the
Strategy:
appropriate stabilization techniques.
CTWS NHMP
July 2016
Page 3-11
2015 Action
Criteria
Number
Action Item:
Description
Continue to conduct current fuel management programs and investigate
and apply new and emerging fuel management techniques.
High (Prioritized in 2006, affirmed in 2015)
One, unanimously affirmed in 2015
Priority:
Votes:
Department/
Fire Management
Agency:
Potential Fund
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.