# Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation (2016) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/tribal%3Aconfederated_warm_springs%3A0856760a4a525239 ## Record - **Collection:** Tribal code - **Document type:** Tribal code ## 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 [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/tribal%3Aconfederated_warm_springs%3A0856760a4a525239. Public record. Not legal advice.