Coos Discovery Report - STARR Team · COOS DISCOVERY REPORT – AUGUST 2016 2 Project Area Description The Coos Discovery project area extends slightly over 1,800 square miles and

THE CITY OF COOS BAY IMPLEMENTING THE BLUE LINE TSUNAMI WARNING PROJECT – KCBY

Discovery Report FEMA Region X

Coos County (and all jurisdictions), the Confederated Tribes of Coos,

Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians, and the Coquille Indian Tribe,

Oregon

PREPARED BY

COOS DISCOVERY REPORT – AUGUST 2016 i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……….…………….…iii

Discovery and Risk MAP ............................................................................................................................................ 1

Project Area Description ........................................................................................................................................... 2

Project Description and Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 4

i. Discovery Phases ....................................................................................................................................................... 4

Risk MAP Needs ...................................................................................................................................................... 10

i. Coos County and Incorporated Communities .......................................................................................................... 10

ii. The Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians ................................................................. 10

iii. The Coquille Tribe .................................................................................................................................................... 10

iv. Resilience................................................................................................................................................................. 10

v. Floodplain Studies and Risk Assessment ................................................................................................................. 12

vi. Mitigation Projects .................................................................................................................................................. 19

vii. Training and Outreach ............................................................................................................................................ 29

viii. National Flood Insurance Program.......................................................................................................................... 32

ix. Communication ....................................................................................................................................................... 33

V. Close ........................................................................................................................................................................ 38

Appendix – Discovery Files ...................................................................................................................................... 39

Table of Illustrations

Figure 1: Risk MAP ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1

Figure 2: Fact Sheet for Coos County, Oregon (tabular data in Appendix C) .................................................................................... 5

Figure 3: Community Summary Sheet for North Bend ..................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 4: High surf along Bandon’s South Jetty in December 2015 - Julie Castelli / Worldlink.com ............................................... 31

Figure 5: Oregon counties (red) receiving a disaster declaration from December 2015 storms ..................................................... 31

Figure 6: Coos County Total Population 2000, 2010, and 2014 ...................................................................................................... 33

Figure 7: Population of Coos County Residents Under 18 and Over 65 in 2000, 2010, 2014 ......................................................... 34

Figure 8: Percent of Population Living with a Disability, 2014 ........................................................................................................ 34

Figure 9: Shift in Reported Ethnicity of County Residents, 2000-2010 ........................................................................................... 35

Figure 10: Percentage of County Residents with a High School Degree, Bachelor’s Degree, or Higher, 2014 ............................... 36

Figure 11: Median Household Income for the Coos County Project Area Residents and the State of Oregon, 2014 ..................... 36

Figure 12: Percent of Renters in the Coos County Project Area, State of Oregon, and the United States who Pay More Than 35 Percent of their Gross Income towards Rent, 2014 ................................................................................................................ 37

Figure 13: Percentage of Structures Built Per Year Group in Project Area Communities, 2014 ..................................................... 38

Map 1: Coos Project Area Map (See full size maps in Appendix E) ................................................................................................... 3

Map 2: Information Exchange Map for Coos Bay ............................................................................................................................. 6

Map 3: Discovery Meeting Map for Bandon ..................................................................................................................................... 7

Map 4: Final Discovery Map of the Coos Discovery Project Area ..................................................................................................... 9

Table 1: Data Sources for Region X Discovery ................................................................................................................................... 4

Table 2: Local Data Requests for Region X Communities .................................................................................................................. 4

Table 3: Community Representatives’ Contribution to Resilience ................................................................................................. 11

Table 4: Coos County Most Recent FIRM and FIS ........................................................................................................................... 12

COOS DISCOVERY REPORT – AUGUST 2016 ii

Table 5: Project Area Levees ........................................................................................................................................................... 13

Table 6: Coos Flood Mapping Needs............................................................................................................................................... 15

Table 7: Coos Hazard Risk Assessments .......................................................................................................................................... 17

Table 8: Discovery Identified Mitigation Opportunities in the Coos Project Area .......................................................................... 20

Table 9: Training and Outreach Needs in the Coos Project Area .................................................................................................... 29

Table 10: NFIP Compliance and CRS ............................................................................................................................................... 32

COOS DISCOVERY REPORT – AUGUST 2016 iii

Executive Summary Coos Project Area: Coos County and local jurisdictions, the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw

Indians, and the Coquille Indian Tribe, Oregon

This report discusses risks and needs identified during the Coos Discovery process. A Discovery Report has two goals: to inform communities of their risks related to natural hazards, and to enable communities to take actions to reduce their risk.

State and local officials can use the data provided here to make their communities more resilient by updating a variety of local plans, communicating risk, informing the modification of development standards, identifying mitigation projects, and ultimately, taking action to reduce risk. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will hold several meetings with the community to help them through this process.

By first gaining a better understanding of existing local risk and mitigation actions during the Discovery phase, FEMA intends to work with communities to identify new mitigation actions and strengthen existing actions throughout the watershed. As a result of the Discovery process coordination, FEMA may select areas in the Coos project area for advanced study, other products, or mitigation activities.

FEMA’s Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning (Risk MAP) projects begin with Discovery. The Coos Discovery Report provides users with a comprehensive understanding of historical flood risk, other natural hazards, and current mitigation activities within the watershed. The project area spans all of Coos County and includes the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians and the Coquille Indian Tribe. The two tribes, all incorporated jurisdictions, and county were invited to participate in the Discovery effort.

The Discovery process for the Coos project area involved working with participating communities to collect extensive data and initiate outreach efforts with local stakeholders. All communities in the project area had the opportunity to participate in the Discovery process. The data collected during these initial efforts were reviewed by the communities and other stakeholders during telephone interviews with the Risk MAP team (FEMA staff, consultants, and State representatives). These discussions with communities and other stakeholders included conversations about the local economy, floodplain mapping needs, desired mitigation projects, and the identification of areas vulnerable to other hazards.

FEMA presented the results of the data collection and interviews to a larger stakeholder group at the Discovery Meetings that took place May 12 and 13, 2016, and held discussions on key questions regarding current and future community resilience. The participants also discussed a variety of natural hazards. The conversations raised additional issues and situations to be considered under future Risk MAP projects. The Coos project area communities developed a list of desired potential mitigation projects related to multi-hazard risk, outreach, and training needs.

The overall goal of Risk MAP is to deliver quality data that increase public awareness and lead to action that reduces risk to life and property. The Discovery process is the first of many collaborative steps toward this goal. FEMA encourages stakeholders to remain involved and will continue to communicate with the Coos project area communities to identify potential partnership opportunities for achieving resilience through mitigation action.

COOS DISCOVERY REPORT – AUGUST 2016 1

Discovery and Risk MAP

The FEMA Risk MAP program helps make communities stronger by identifying actions they can take now to reduce their risk to natural hazards. Through Risk MAP, FEMA provides information to enhance local plans to reduce risk, improve outreach on actions communities can take to address that risk, and increase local resilience to hazards.

The Risk MAP program is implemented in coordination with State officials and identifies a community’s risk by collaborating with community officials and local stakeholders, and asking about their existing capabilities to manage those risks. The program is intended to fill gaps that communities may have in managing the variety of hazards to which they are exposed. This is done by supplementing or enhancing hazard data availability, providing quantifiable assessments to identify vulnerable populations and essential facilities at risk, and by strengthening hazard mitigation planning efforts. Risk MAP products inform the public and are a vital planning resource to better prioritize potential mitigation actions, assist with future funding, and allow a community to better prepare for future events. This preparation lessens the hardships experienced when disasters occur, and enables a quicker recovery.

Figure 1: Risk MAP

Discovery is the first stage of the Risk MAP program. During Discovery, FEMA:

gathers information about local hazards and hazard risks;

reviews mitigation plans to understand local mitigation capabilities, hazard risk assessments, and current or future mitigation activities;

captures training, outreach, and data needs;

supports communities within the watershed to develop a vision for the watershed’s future;

collects information from communities about their hazard history, development plans, daily operations, and hazard management activities;

provides an opportunity to expand upon past FEMA, State, and community projects; and

uses the information gathered to determine which areas of the watershed require mapping, risk assessment, or mitigation planning assistance through a Risk MAP project.


Project Area Description

The Coos Discovery project area extends slightly over 1,800 square miles and encompasses seven incorporated jurisdictions in Coos County and portions of the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians and the Coquille Indian Tribe. Coos County is located in southwestern Oregon along the Pacific Ocean. It borders Douglas County to the north and east and Curry County to the south. The headquarters for both the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians and the Coquille Indian Tribe are located in Coos County, with service areas expanding into Curry, Douglas, Land, and Lincoln Counties. Of the approximately 60,000 Coos County residents, a near majority reside close to the coastline in Bandon, Coos Bay, Lakeside, and North Bend. Inland, the remaining incorporated communities of Coquille, Myrtle Point, and Powers are along the Coquille River.

Outside of a select few areas along the coastline and inland river basins, Coos County is predominately hilly terrain with several bridges linking its population centers. Eastward routes follow either the Coos or Coquille Rivers and its forks, as the terrain is dotted with steep hillsides. Along the coast, the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area stretches from the county’s northern boundary to Coos Bay. Other nationally protected areas include the Bandon Marsh National Wildlife Refuge, and portions of the Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge, Siskiyou National Forest, and Siuslaw National Forest. Numerous Oregon State Parks along the coast and inland areas drive the county’s tourist and recreation economy.

No interstate highways intersect Coos County, but the well-traveled U.S. Highway 101 (also known as the Oregon Coast Highway) links the county with other coastal counties to the north and south across the western seaboard. Other vital roadways include State Route 42, which connects U.S. Highway 101 to Coos County’s inland communities and continues as the only county route eastward into Douglas County. Additionally, State Route 542 is the only major route connecting Powers with the rest of the county.

Within the project area, there are seven incorporated communities, one county, and two tribes resulting in 10 governing bodies. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) participants include Coos County and eight incorporated communities. The Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians and the Coquille Indian Tribe do not participate in the NFIP.

Coos County, in coordination with Bandon, Coos Bay, Lakeside, North Bend, and Powers, is working to finalize and adopt its Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. The cities of Coquille and Myrtle Point did not participate in the most recent update. The Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians and the Coquille Indian Tribe have expired Natural Hazard Mitigation Plans.

Coos County has received 13 Presidential Disaster Declarations dating back to 1964. Disaster declarations include flood, fishing losses, severe storm, and tsunami. The most recent disaster declaration is DR-4258, which is presently active. Over $186,000 is obligated for Public Assistance Grants as a result of severe winter storms, straight-line winds, flooding, landslides, and mudslides that occurred between December 6 and 23, 2015. The official disaster declaration was declared on February 17, 2016. Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia, Curry, Douglas, Lane, Lincoln, Linn, Multnomah, Polk, Tillamook, Washington, and Yamhill counties are also included in the declaration. As a result of the disaster declaration, jurisdictions with a statewide adopted Hazard Mitigation Plan (by the application deadline) are also eligible for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funding. FEMA can fund up to 75 percent of the eligible costs of each eligible project.


Map 1: Coos Project Area Map (See full size maps in Appendix E)


Project Description and Methodology

FEMA Region X initiated the Discovery effort for Coos County in January 2016. Risk MAP Discovery is a process of data collection, mapmaking, and cooperative information exchange with community stakeholders to understand a watershed area, the risk to natural hazards, floodplain mapping needs, and other technical assistance that could be funded as part of this project. Risk MAP intends to integrate needs, gaps, and strategies identified in the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan and support with data and mitigation actions to be incorporated in future plan updates.

Discovery is a rich collaboration between FEMA, consultants, and elected and appointed leaders at the State and local levels of government, leading to a thorough understanding of the natural and manmade hazards that communities face. This understanding leads to long-term strategies for mitigating the risk from these hazards.

Table 1: Data Sources for Region X Discovery

City of Coos Bay GIS Department

ESRI

FEMA Community Information System (CIS)

FEMA Coordinated Needs Management System (CNMS)

FEMA Map Service Center

FEMA Publications

FEMA Regional Office

National Atlas of the United States

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

National Weather Service

Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI)

Oregon LiDAR Consortium (OLC)

Oregon Spatial Data Library

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers National Levee Database

U.S. Census Bureau

U.S. Department of Agriculture

U.S. Geological Survey

(See project-specific data sources in Appendix D)

i. Discovery Phases

The Discovery process includes four phases. The first is a comprehensive collection of tabular data (spreadsheets, databases) and spatial data (maps, GIS layers) from State and Federal sources for all communities in the Coos project area (see Table 1). Local data (Table 2) are then paired with State and Federal data through interviews with each community. Using this information, the Risk MAP team develops Community Fact Sheets and Discovery Maps (included in the appendices).

Table 2: Local Data Requests for Region X Communities

Areas of nuisance flooding

Historical local flooding mitigation activities and grant projects, ongoing and planned

Comprehensive plans

Local development and floodplain management plans

Stormwater management activities

Community ordinances

Infrastructure information, especially for levees and new bridges, dams, culverts, and road improvements

Building footprints or parcel data

Elevation data

Boundary, hydrography, and transportation layers

Flood study and risk assessment needs

Regional watershed plans

Details of the current hazard risk communication process


Figure 2: Fact Sheet for Coos County, Oregon (tabular data in Appendix C)


Map 2: Information Exchange Map for Coos Bay


Community officials receive copies of these materials prior to the Information Exchange and are asked to review and comment on this initial analysis during the pre-Discovery webinar with the Risk MAP team. Through their local knowledge and experience, community officials add tremendously to the overall understanding of the project area and its history, economy, hazards, and mitigation opportunities. Specific “Areas of Concern” are identified during Phase 2. These can include floodplain mapping needs, desired flood mitigation projects, and the identification of areas in the community that are vulnerable to particular hazards.

Phase 3 of the Discovery process is the Discovery Meeting, which is designed to facilitate discussion and build consensus about study and risk assessment needs, mitigation project needs, desired compliance support, and local flood risk awareness efforts. Attendees—including representatives from all project area communities and other stakeholders—cooperatively identify possible solutions for the “Areas of Concern” shown on the Discovery Meeting Map. These might include floodplain studies, flood mitigation projects, enforcement of various regulations, and training for community officials. New issues for further study might also be identified through this discussion. Additionally, using information from the Information Exchange in Phase 2 and the community’s hazard mitigation plan, the Risk MAP team developed Community Summary Sheets. These documents were used during the Discovery Meeting in Phase 3 to facilitate conversation and confirm each community’s hazard priorities, Risk MAP needs, and align mitigation opportunities as defined in the Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Map 3: Discovery Meeting Map for Bandon


Figure 3: Community Summary Sheet for North Bend


The fourth and final phase of the Discovery process integrates the ideas gathered from community interviews and Discovery Meetings with GIS mapping and data analysis to create a set of recommendations for further action. These recommendations could include specific risk-management projects, mitigation strategies for communities to consider, identification of funding sources, and suggested priorities. If a Risk MAP project is desired for this area, the Discovery process will develop project scope(s), subject to available funding, and project charters, indicating the roles and responsibilities of all affected stakeholders.

Map 4: Final Discovery Map of the Coos Discovery Project Area


Risk MAP Needs

Discovery Meeting participants thoroughly discussed the results of the data collection and interviews at the community events held May 12 and 13, 2016. The following sections include issues and situations that exist in the Coos County project area that can be considered Risk MAP needs and to be addressed with Risk MAP projects. A list of the Discovery Meeting participants and background information on the issues discussed can be found in the interview notes, meeting notes, and other files included in Appendices A, B, C, D, and E.

i. Coos County and Incorporated Communities

The Discovery project team initiated pre-Discovery Information Exchange webinars in January and February 2016. Coos County and the cities of Bandon, Coos Bay, Coquille, North Bend, and Powers participated individually in the 2-hour time allotments. During the interviews, the Risk MAP team learned about existing data capabilities, mitigation planning efforts, hazard risk priorities, and communication and outreach needs. Following the Information Exchange webinars, an in-person Discovery Meeting was held at the Coos Bay Council Chambers on May 12, 2016, and was attended by Coos County and the cities of Coos Bay, Myrtle Point, and North Bend. FEMA and the State of Oregon presented the importance of resilience, how Risk MAP can support resiliency in communities, and the future Risk MAP efforts planned for Coos County. Following the Discovery Meeting, a Flood Risk Review Meeting was held to highlight the flood study updates.

ii. The Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians

The Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians did not have a pre-Discovery Information Exchange. The Risk MAP team met with tribal officials and staff on May 12, 2016, for an in-person overview of the Risk MAP program and the role of Discovery. The discussion with the Confederated Tribes focused on expanding Risk MAP opportunities outside of Coos County and into their five-county service area, which includes Coos, Curry, Douglas, Lane, and Lincoln Counties. Furthermore, the Confederated Tribes are interested in extending risk communications to members across the country. The Confederated Tribes also reviewed the Coos County flood study updates at this meeting.

iii. The Coquille Tribe

The Coquille Tribe did not have a pre-Discovery Information Exchange. The Risk MAP team met with tribal staff on May 13, 2016, for an in-person overview of the Risk MAP program and the role of Discovery. Similar to the Confederated Tribes, the Coquille Tribe would like to expand Risk MAP opportunities to their five-county service area, which includes Coos, Curry, Douglas, Lane, and Jackson Counties, with additional risk communications sent to members that reside in 48 of the 50 States. The Coquille Tribe also reviewed the Coos County flood study updates at this meeting.

iv. Resilience

During the Coos Discovery Meetings, community representatives were asked to introduce themselves and answer one of two questions:

1. How do you contribute to the resilience of your community? 2. How would you like to see resilience increased in your community?


Their responses are presented in Table 3:

Table 3: Community Representatives’ Contribution to Resilience

JURISDICTIONWAYS CURRENTLY CONTRIBUTING TO

RESILIENCE WAYS RESILIENCE CAN BE INCREASED

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians (CTCLUSI)

Robust outreach to tribal members across the country through newsletter and direct mailings.

Critical facilities data are regularly maintained.

Training to use existing risk and topographic datasets.

Focus on multiple hazards in a revised hazard mitigation plan.

Coos Bay

Managing floodplain ordinances.

Secured a seismic grant to retrofit City Hall.

Work with Planning and Zoning to move key infrastructure out of high earthquake and tsunami hazard areas.

Encourage economic development along the waterfront while focusing on resilience.

Maintaining and certifying private levees and dikes along the shoreline.

Coos County

Keeping plans updated and incorporating new actions into ordinances.

Emergency Management is integrated with other Coos County departments.

Bridge repair incorporates better seismic standards.

Increase the number of bridges that are seismically retrofitted.

Funding higher detailed hazard data sets to identify mitigation opportunities among critical facilities.

Coquille Tribe

Members living on the reservation area are aware of central meeting place during an emergency.

Working on more self-sufficient programs for tribal members.

Seismic retrofitting of critical facilities.

Myrtle Point

Seismic retrofit for high school.

Identifying areas of possible ground movement and liquefaction.

Protect existing water supply from an earthquake event.

Increased outreach efforts communicating earthquake risk and preparedness.

North Bend Residents are aware of hazard risks

and are engaged with the local government for support.

Individual ownership of the hazard risk with a comprehensive outreach plan to engage the public.

Coos Discovery Meeting participants are actively contributing to resilience. Several communities, especially those residing along the coastline, promote resilience through frequent outreach, generating public awareness of their risk, and in some cases, establishing pre-defined sanctuaries in the event of a natural disaster. The region has experience in applying for and securing grants for earthquake retrofits, promoting development outside of high-hazard zones, and prides itself with inter-department coordination. Resilience in the Coos project area is subject to areas of improvement as well, and staff has highlighted where it can be increased. The Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians and the Coquille Tribe want to be more self-reliant whether that’s increased training on available hazard data, hazard mitigation planning assistance and grant applications, or having more information to disseminate to members outside of their


respective tribal reservations and five-county service areas. Interior Coos County jurisdictions have needs to increase the messaging of earthquake impacts and the potential isolation that may be caused if transportation networks are cut off. Communities along the coastline deal with pressure to promote economic development along the shoreline and fight hazard-fatigue – where residents are aware of the risk but are unable to show eagerness to prepare and mitigate against it. All project participants are receptive to increase their resilience with better hazard data, reviewing the results of hazard risk assessments for better project prioritization, and are looking for new and creative ways to communicate risk and engage the public further.

v. Floodplain Studies and Risk Assessment

FEMA’s vision for the Risk MAP program is to deliver quality data that increase public awareness and lead to mitigation actions that reduce risk to life and property. Leveraging existing or ongoing spatial data, hazard studies, and risk assessments is also a main driver to communicate risk reduction. This section overviews existing data capabilities, flood study and risk assessment requests, and potential mitigation opportunities.

Topographic Data High quality topographic data, including the leveraging of existing (or acquiring additional) Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) topographic data, are essential in any future Risk MAP project. Existing LiDAR data captured by OLC in 2008 is available across most of Coos County (with the exception of portions of the county south of Powers). OLC is in the process of capturing additional LiDAR data east of Elliott State Forest in Coos County.

GIS Capabilities

Coos County, the cities of Coos Bay and North Bend, the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians, and the Coquille Indian Tribe have existing GIS capabilities and should be utilized for local data for any future Risk MAP projects. The remaining communities have no known GIS software capable of reviewing standard Risk MAP products. Any Risk MAP data distribution to project area communities should be sensitive to existing GIS capabilities and accommodate project participants without GIS software by hosting Risk MAP data online through either FEMA’s or the State’s web services. The Risk MAP team can also direct local officials to a county point of contact for local support.

Floodplain Studies

Table 4 lists the most recent Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) updates for each community, notes whether the study included detailed floodplain analyses, and provides the local FIRM or Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM) status. An ongoing flood study in Coos County to correct Zone A hydraulic modeling is projected for a draft Preliminary release in October 2016, with an effective FIRM release projected for late 2017 or early 2018.

Table 4: Coos County Most Recent FIRM and FIS

COUNTY /

TRIBE COMMUNITY LATEST FIRM LATEST FIS

BASE FLOOD

ELEVATIONS

(BFES)

FIRM/FHBM STATS

Coos Bandon, City of 3/17/2014 3/17/2014 Y Revised/Superseded by FIRM


COUNTY /

TRIBE COMMUNITY LATEST FIRM LATEST FIS

BASE FLOOD

ELEVATIONS

(BFES)

FIRM/FHBM STATS

Coos Coos Bay, City of 3/17/2014 3/17/2014 Y Revised/Superseded by FIRM

Coos Coos, County of 3/17/2014 3/17/2014 Y Revised/Superseded by FIRM

Coos Coquille, City of 3/17/2014 3/17/2014 Y Revised/Superseded by FIRM

Coos Lakeside, City of 3/17/2014 3/17/2014 Y Revised/Superseded by FIRM

Coos Myrtle Point, City of 3/17/2014 3/17/2014 Y Revised/Superseded by FIRM

Coos North Bend, City of 3/17/2014 3/17/2014 Y Revised/Superseded by FIRM

Coquille Tribe

--- 3/17/2014 3/17/2014 Y Revised/Superseded by FIRM

CTCLUSI --- 3/17/2014 3/17/2014 Y Revised/Superseded by FIRM

Reviewing levees is a critical component of any new flood study. Certified levees that comply with NFIP regulations may provide protection from a 1-percent-annual-chance flood. During the Discovery process, it was noted that Coos County has levees within its jurisdiction. The Libby Drainage and Englewood Diking districts maintain several dikes and levees in the county. Additionally, community levees were identified through a combination of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) National Levee Database, information obtained during the Community Interviews, as well as review of existing FIRMs and FIS reports. Table 5 identifies the levee or dike name, flood source, community, and levee data source. Additional levees or dikes that are not identified below may exist within the project area. Table 5: Project Area Levees

COUNTY /

TRIBE COMMUNITY LEVEE / DIKE

FLOOD

SOURCE SOURCE

INSPECTION

RATING*

PL 84-99

REHABILITATION

PROGRAM**

CoosUnincorporated

Areas

Beaver Slough Levee

(Coquille)

Beaver Slough

National Levee

Database --- Inactive

CoosUnincorporated

Areas Catching

Slough Levee Catching

Creek

National Levee

Database

Minimally Acceptable

Active

CoosCoos Bay, City

of

Englewood – Coalbank

Slough Levee

Coalbank Slough

National Levee



COUNTY /

TRIBE COMMUNITY LEVEE / DIKE

FLOOD

SOURCE SOURCE

INSPECTION

RATING*

PL 84-99

REHABILITATION

PROGRAM**

Coos Coos Bay, City

of Englewood - Cross Levee

Coalbank Slough

National Levee


Coos Coos Bay, City

of Isthmus

Slough Levee Isthmus Slough

Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map

--- ---

Coos Unincorporated

Areas

Larson Inlet – Right Bank

Levee Larson Inlet

National Levee

Database Unacceptable ---

Coos Coos Bay, City

of

Libby – Right Bank

Mitigation Area Levee

Coalbank Slough

National Levee


Coos Unincorporated

Areas

Libby – Snedden

Area – Coalbank

Slough Levee

Coalbank Slough

National Levee


Coos Unincorporated

Areas

Libby – Snedden

Area – Snedden

Creek Levee

Snedden Creek

National Levee


Coos Unincorporated

Areas Libby Dike

Coalbank Slough

National Levee


Coos Unincorporated

Areas

Pourie Ranch Training

Structure

Coquille River

National Levee


*Definitions for Levee System Inspection Ratings are available here: http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/LeveeSafetyProgram/LeveeInspections.aspx **Under the authority of the Flood Control and Coastal Emergency Act (PL 84-99), an eligible flood protection system can be rehabilitated if damaged by a flood event.

The final Discovery Map should be referenced to view spatial data that may indicate flood study needs. FEMA’s Coordinated Needs Management Strategy (CNMS) identifies and tracks the lifecycle of mapping requests and needs for the flood hazard mapping program. Based on CNMS data for Coos County, there are approximately 23 miles of detailed riverine flood zones and 500 miles of approximate riverine flood zones subject to inundation by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event. Mapped areas along the coastline are also subject to inundation and include additional hazards associated with storm-induced waves. In populated areas, detailed coastal hydraulic analyses are available and BFEs are listed on the FIRM. In rural coastline locations, detailed hydraulic analyses have not been performed and no BFEs are shown on the FIRM at these locations.

https://msc.fema.gov/cnms/

http://http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/LeveeSafetyProgram/LeveeInspections.aspx


Coos County is undergoing a countywide Zone A flood study update, and factoring in the most recent flood mapping update in 2014, few requests for flood study were captured during Discovery. Flood study requests focused on upgrading from approximate Zone A to detailed Zone AE (especially near the existing limits of detailed study), or revising existing detailed Zone AE flood studies. Coastal flood study requests were not presented during Discovery. These flood study requests are summarized in Table 6. Depending on available funding, further prioritization outside of the identified areas in Table 6 should be considered with local stakeholders and community officials.

Table 6: Coos Flood Mapping Needs

COUNTY /

TRIBE COMMUNITY

STUDY

LENGTH

(MILES)

LOCATION DESCRIPTION FLOOD STUDY TYPE

Coos Coos Bay, City of 0.27 MI BFEs are based on 1970s data. Hydrology needs to be updated for all Zone AE areas within the city limits.

Detailed (Updated)

Coos Coquille, City of 0.47 MI Redelineate the Coquille River south of Coquille, from the limit of detailed study upstream 0.47 miles.

Detailed (Redelineation)

Coos Unincorporated

Areas 33.51 MI

New detailed study with floodways requested along existing Zone A areas of the Millicoma River.

Detailed (New)

Coos Unincorporated

Areas 5.95 MI

New detailed study with floodways requested along existing Zone A areas of the Coquille River.

Detailed (New)

Coos Unincorporated

Areas 1.37 MI

Redelineate the Coquille River detailed area. Flood hazard boundaries do not match the true ground elevations.


Coos Unincorporated

Areas 2.07 MI

Redelineate the West Fork Millicoma River, from the Millicoma River to the limit of detailed study.


Risk Assessments FEMA’s Risk MAP program provides additional support with identifying, and potentially funding, supplemental risk products and assessments focused on a variety of natural hazards. During Discovery, potential Risk MAP products and risk assessments are identified based on areas of concern expressed by State and local officials and are geographically focused on critical facilities, vulnerable populations, transportation routes, and cultural and economic priorities. Earthquake, dam failure, riverine and coastal flooding, landslides, levee failure, liquefaction, severe weather, tsunami, and wildfire drove the hazard discussion in one or more communities during Discovery. Below is DOGAMI’s existing hazard assessment inventory that is applicable for Coos County. Data are available at: http://www.oregongeology.org/pubs/index.htm:

Landslide inventory for western Coos County (OFR O-11-01)

http://www.oregongeology.org/pubs/index.htm


In 2009-2010, FEMA funded DOGAMI to prepare a multi-hazard study of Coos County, Oregon. The hazards included riverine and coastal flooding, river channel migration, tsunami inundation, earthquake hazards, and landslide hazards. This report describes the methods used to map the landslide deposits and includes a digital database of mapped landslide deposits.

Tsunami inundation mapping (TIM-Coos series, 2012)

This digital data release is for seven tsunami inundation scenarios for the entire Oregon coast in the form of polygons. These scenarios are depicted on published DOGAMI tsunami inundation maps (TIM series). The hydrodynamic computer model SELFE is used to simulate tsunami generation, propagation, and maximum inundation for five Cascadia subduction zone (CSZ) earthquake sources (SM1, M1, L1, XL1, XXL1) and two Mw (moment magnitude) 9.2 Alaska earthquake sources: the historical maximum that struck in 1964 (AK64) and a hypothetical maximum (AKMax) with highly efficient focusing of tsunami energy at the Oregon coast.

Channel migration for Coos and Coquille rivers (OFR O-2011-09)

Conventional flood hazard maps, like FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMs), examine only hazards posed by standing floodwaters on a given floodplain. However, damage from bank erosion as river channels naturally migrate may be far greater locally and may occur even in the absence of major flooding. To address this hazard, this channel migration hazard study identifies areas susceptible to future channel movement and erosion. Following the methodology of Rapp and Abbe (2003), DOGAMI examined LiDAR derived digital elevation models and serial aerial photographs to map the positions of channels over time. From this data, DOGAMI calculated local erosion rates and identified potential avulsion sites, areas where infrastructure may prevent erosion, and areas where infrastructure is at risk from erosion. The resulting channel migration zone (CMZ) and its subzones represent DOGAMI’s best estimate of the likely hazard projected 100 years into the future. The analysis is restricted to the geologic floodplain of the river, with no attempt to address hazards on valley walls.

Geologic mapping for southwestern Coos County (OFR O-2015-04)

This report, digital geodatabase, and the accompanying set of plottable geologic maps were prepared to provide an updated and spatially accurate geologic framework for the southern Oregon coast between Bandon, Coquille, and Sunset Bay in western Coos County. Geologic mapping summarized here represents one part of a multi-year project to map the Oregon coast from the California border north to Coos Bay. The project is a high priority of the Oregon Geologic Map Advisory Committee (OGMAC) and was supported in part during 2014 and 2015 by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) STATEMAP component of the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program under assistance award G14AC00165.

DOGAMI is also tasked with a variety of upcoming hazard risk assessments centered on Coos County. A list of currently scoped projects, project descriptions, and projected completion dates is provided below:

Liquefaction susceptibility mapping (estimated completion – early 2017)


LiDAR-based mapping of surface geology, classified by its likelihood to liquefy. Liquefaction is induced by earthquake shaking and causes soils to lose their strength.

Natural hazard risk assessment for flood, earthquake, landslide, tsunami, coastal erosion, channel migration, and wildfire (estimated completion – early 2017)

The risk assessment will result in a multi-hazard risk report that quantifies each jurisdiction’s risk to the hazards mentioned above. Data in this report can be incorporated into future Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan updates by utilizing portions of the vulnerability assessment and suggested mitigation strategies.

Windstorm risk pilot project: determining susceptibility of the PacifiCorp distribution network to treefall (estimated completion – late 2016)

During the most recent statewide natural hazard mitigation planning cycle the state of Oregon identified a lack of local-level windstorm hazard data that communities can utilize for future mitigation action. Windstorms are regional events and can affect vast areas. Due to the nature of the hazard, it is difficult to determine which areas may be more or less susceptible to high winds. Instead of attempting to predict where high winds will occur, DOGAMI proposes to develop a hazard identification methodology that focuses on potential impacts. The approach will determine potential tree fall extent from LiDAR and compare proximity to critical infrastructure. For this pilot project DOGAMI will consult with a local utility district to identify key electrical corridors, representing critical infrastructure. DOGAMI will capture the results of the pilot in a summary report.

Table 7 identifies additional hazard risk assessments that were acquired during the community information exchanges and the Discovery Meetings. Table 7: Coos Hazard Risk Assessments

COUNTY /

TRIBE COMMUNITY LOCATION DESCRIPTION STUDY TYPE

Coos Coos Bay, City of;

North Bend, City of Lower Pony Creek Dam failure vulnerability assessment requested.

Dam Failure Analysis

Coos Coos Bay, City of;

North Bend, City of Upper Pony Creek Dam failure vulnerability assessment requested.

Dam Failure Analysis

Coos Coos Bay, City of LiDAR-based landslide mapping. Landslide Identification

Coos Coos Bay, City of LiDAR-based liquefaction mapping (especially for downtown area).

Liquefaction Identification

Coos Coos Bay, City of Depth and Analysis Grids requested. Water-Surface Elevation / Depth Grids


COUNTY /

TRIBE COMMUNITY LOCATION DESCRIPTION STUDY TYPE

Coos Myrtle Point, City of Earthquake risk assessment. Earthquake Risk Assessment

Coos Myrtle Point, City of Depth and Analysis Grids requested. Water-Surface Elevation / Depth Grids

Coos North Bend, City of LiDAR-based landslide mapping. Landslide Identification

Coos North Bend, City of LiDAR-based liquefaction mapping. Liquefaction Identification

Coos Unincorporated

Areas Earthquake risk assessment (tax lot level).

Earthquake Risk Assessment

Coos Unincorporated

Areas Analysis of potential Evacuation Routes across major transportation arteries.

Evacuation Route Analysis

Coos Unincorporated

Areas Landslide risk assessment (tax lot level).

Landslide Risk Assessment

Coos Unincorporated

Areas Tsunami risk assessment (tax lot level).

Tsunami Risk Assessment

Coos Unincorporated

Areas Wildfire risk assessment (tax lot level).

Wildfire Risk Assessment

CTCLUSI --- Flood Risk Assessment that overlays addresses of tribal members that reside in flood hazard areas.

Flood Risk Assessment

CTCLUSI --- Earthquake risk assessment for structures within tribal boundaries in the five county service area.

Earthquake Risk Assessment

CTCLUSI --- Landslide risk assessment for structures within tribal boundaries in the five county service area.

Landslide Risk Assessment

CTCLUSI --- Tsunami risk assessment for structures within tribal boundaries in the five county service area.

Tsunami Risk Assessment

DOGAMI’s multi-hazard risk assessment will address a majority of the identified risk assessment needs. The analysis, which will quantify the potential impacts of flood, earthquake, landslide, tsunami, coastal erosion, channel migration, and wildfire to the county, will help project participants strategize and


prioritize mitigation projects that protect basic infrastructure from the variety of hazards that pose a risk to inhabitants.

The Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians and the Coquille Indian Tribe would also like to be part of the risk assessment and, if possible, extend the assessments to their respective five-county service areas, which will cover a greater number of their members.

Outside of existing DOGAMI projects, the need for understanding the impacts of dam failure in Coos Bay at both Pony Creek Dams and developing multi-frequency water-surface elevation and depth grids would be useful in populated and expected growth areas. The results from DOGAMI’s multi-hazard risk assessment and, if funding is available, dam failure and flood risk studies will help quantify risk to project stakeholders, assist in project prioritization, and empower communities to take action to reduce their overall risk.

vi. Mitigation Projects

There is one pending Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan in the Coos County project area awaiting adoption from participating jurisdictions. The Coos County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan includes Coos County and the cities of Bandon, Coos Bay, Lakeside, North Bend and Powers. The cities of Coquille and Myrtle Point did not participate in the most recent county plan update. The Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians and the Coquille Indian Tribe do not have adopted Natural Hazard Mitigation Plans, but both did express interest at the Discovery Meetings in initiating the hazard mitigation planning process in the near future.

The pending Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan for Coos County and participating jurisdictions outlines six high priority mitigation actions:

Participate in the FEMA Risk MAP Discovery, hazard study, and resilience meeting processes.

Utilize the final multi-hazard risk report and assessment developed by DOGAMI through FEMA's Risk MAP program to update the Coos County Hazard Analysis.

Utilize the final multi-hazard risk report and assessment currently being developed by DOGAMI through FEMA's Risk MAP program to update local risk assessment maps to show areas at risk for all hazards.

Reduce risk of coastal erosion through hazard mapping and regulation.

Complete a risk analysis for flood hazards using newly acquired LiDAR data.

Through multi-agency coordination, implement abatement efforts to control noxious weeds, specifically gorse, scotch broom, and butterfly brush.

Discovery provides an opportunity for jurisdictions to link potential hazard mitigation activities to goals outlined in the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. Table 8 provides an overview of mitigation activities discussed during the Discovery process and, if available, links to action items defined in the pending 2016 Coos County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan:


Table 8: Discovery Identified Mitigation Opportunities in the Coos Project Area

COUNTY

/ TRIBE COMMUNITY

MITIGATION

OPPORTUNITY

EA

RTH

QU

AK

E

ER

OS

ION

FLO

OD

LAN

DS

LID

E

SE

VE

RE

WE

ATH

ER

WIL

DFI

RE

TSU

NA

MI

LINKED AND / OR SUGGESTED

MITIGATION ACTION

Coos Bandon

Coastal erosion has compromised two structures and place others at risk.

X Explore mitigation options for buy-out or structural retrofitting.

Coos Bandon Currently seeking bridge replacement. In application phase.

X X

If information needed, a city-wide analysis of seismic preparedness for critical facilities and infrastructure could help prioritize retrofitting and community outreach efforts.

Coos Bandon

Seawall needs replacement. Quoted for $2.4M to replace. Vulnerable properties with degraded seawall.

X X X

Explore non-structural options within the watershed, such as green infrastructure, that may reduce flooding on properties behind the seawall.

Coos Bandon

Senior facility at risk with failing seawall. 60 full time residents live there.

X X X Explore mitigation assistance to secure seawall or buy-out or move structure.

Coos Bandon Subdivision is at risk to high tide and high rain events.

X X

Identify the single listed Repetitive Loss Building and periodically explore opportunities to complete a property buy-out in collaboration with State and Federal partners.

Coos Bandon

Undersized culvert. Limited by topography to mitigate.

X X

Explore non-structural options within the watershed, such as green infrastructure, that may relieve pressure on this specific culvert

Coos Bandon

Water tank seismic retrofit desired. Need additional $100k in funding.

X Seek mitigation assistance for retrofitting critical infrastructure

Coos Coos Bay Development possible in landslide areas.

X

Evaluate current and high hazard slide areas for mitigation prioritization and explore mitigation possibilities; including


COUNTY

/ TRIBE COMMUNITY

MITIGATION

OPPORTUNITY

EA

RTH

QU

AK

E

ER

OS

ION

FLO

OD

LAN

DS

LID

E

SE

VE

RE

WE

ATH

ER

WIL

DFI

RE

TSU

NA

MI


MITIGATION ACTION

updating codes and ordinances.

Coos Coos Bay Developed areas are at risk to landslide.

X

Evaluate current and high hazard slide areas for mitigation prioritization and explore mitigation possibilities; including updating codes and ordinances. Explore mitigation, buy-out, and moving options for critical facilities, critical infrastructure, and most at-risk homes.

Coos Coos Bay Community Comprehensive Plan needs to be updated.

X X X X X X X

Use information from RiskMAP to address Goal 7 and further integrating natural hazard planning into land use planning.

Coos Coos Bay Culvert is susceptible to flooding and washout.

X X

Explore alternative actions to mitigate flooding in Libby Drainage and Englewood Diking Districts.

Coos Coos Bay

Hillside slipping poses risk to major transportation route and several homes.

X

Evaluate current and high hazard slide areas for mitigation prioritization and explore mitigation possibilities.

Coos Coos Bay

Identify funding resources to retrofit more properties instead of moving to higher ground.

X X

Continue public education for earthquake and tsunami preparedness; Adopt a Tsunami Land Use Overlay Zone.

Coos Coos Bay

Lagoon is a critical area that would cause trouble in a flood event.

X X

Ensure continued compliance in the NFIP through enforcement of local floodplain management ordinances.

Coos Coos Bay

Landslide in December 2015 that still has shut down one lane of traffic.

X

Evaluate current and high hazard slide areas for landslide prioritization and explore mitigation


COUNTY

/ TRIBE COMMUNITY

MITIGATION

OPPORTUNITY

EA

RTH

QU

AK

E

ER

OS

ION

FLO

OD

LAN

DS

LID

E

SE

VE

RE

WE

ATH

ER

WIL

DFI

RE

TSU

NA

MI


MITIGATION ACTION

possibilities for highest risk areas. Seek hazard mitigation assistance for immediate need as well as encourage communication with public works, DOT, or responsible authority.

Coos Coos Bay

Levees are in disrepair and pose a risk to Coos Bay residents.

X

Explore alternative actions to mitigate flooding in Libby Drainage and Englewood Diking Districts. Conduct a levee analysis to determine quality of levees, weaknesses in the system, and alternative forms of mitigation to help protected assets.

Coos Coos Bay

Retrofit sewer and potable water lines to withstand earthquake.

X Seek mitigation assistance for retrofitting critical infrastructure.

Coos Coquille

A dam failure would prevent water treatment plant functionality.

X

Analyze dam integrity and seek mitigation assistance for improvements or retrofitting based on needs.

Coos Coquille Areas of landslide concern.

X

Evaluate current and high hazard slide areas for mitigation prioritization and explore mitigation possibilities.

Coos Coquille Beavers flood the culvert. County responds to calls.

X Monitor and maintain consistent debris removal schedule.

Coos Coquille Check valves are needed for water plant.

X Explore mitigation assistance available for retrofitting critical facilities.

Coos Coquille City Hall would be compromised during an earthquake event.



COUNTY

/ TRIBE COMMUNITY

MITIGATION

OPPORTUNITY

EA

RTH

QU

AK

E

ER

OS

ION

FLO

OD

LAN

DS

LID

E

SE

VE

RE

WE

ATH

ER

WIL

DFI

RE

TSU

NA

MI


MITIGATION ACTION

Coos Coquille

Community facility would be compromised during an earthquake event.


Coos Coquille Landslide blocked culverts and left deposits.

X X

Enhance strategies for debris management relating to severe wind and winter storm events.

Coos Coquille Potable water is vulnerable to earthquake event.

X Assess feasibility of emergency caches or reserves of potable water.

Coos Myrtle Point Back-up generator needed for water intake.

X

Seek mitigation assistance for purchasing back-up generators for critical facilities.

Coos Myrtle Point

Seismic retrofits and evaluation for critical facilities including water plant, city buildings, and fire hall.


Coos North Bend New bridge development.

X X

Seek funding to retrofit buildings and/or infrastructure at risk of damage in a high magnitude earthquake. Adopt a Tsunami Land Use Overlay Zone to help add a level of review for infrastructure in areas at risk to earthquakes and tsunami.

Coos North Bend Retrofit critical facilities and historic structures

X

Seek funding to retrofit buildings and/or infrastructure at risk of damage in a high magnitude earthquake. Explore pilots in other cities where historic structures are mitigated while maintaining historic designation.


COUNTY

/ TRIBE COMMUNITY

MITIGATION

OPPORTUNITY

EA

RTH

QU

AK

E

ER

OS

ION

FLO

OD

LAN

DS

LID

E

SE

VE

RE

WE

ATH

ER

WIL

DFI

RE

TSU

NA

MI


MITIGATION ACTION

Coos North Bend Sheet flow off of hill onto Hwy 101 and into Coos Bay.

X

Explore watershed-scale mitigation strategies, such as green infrastructure, that could address specific sheet-flow issues.

Coos North Bend

Shopping center, community's local economic driver, is at risk to tsunami.

X X

Adopt a Tsunami Land Use Overlay Zone to better prepare future development. Seek funding to retrofit buildings and/or infrastructure at risk of damage in a high magnitude earthquake.

Coos North Bend Undersized culvert near Kinney Road and Newmark Street.

X

Review current stormwater capabilities to determine necessity for new or additional mitigation actions. Explore alternative mitigation strategies, such as watershed-scale green infrastructure or actions that restore natural floodplain functions to relieve pressure on the culvert.

Coos Powers

Area could be compromised by landslide or treefall after earthquake.

X X

Work with DOGAMI to identify and map high risk slide areas to create an accurate logistical assessment. Conduct awareness and education outreach with home and business owners who may be impacted; coordinate debris removal strategies post-event.

Coos Powers

Area of past flooding. Area may be mitigated with a new culvert.

X


Coos Powers

Possible undersized culvert may cause flooding along Powers Hwy.

X Explore non-structural options within the watershed, such as green infrastructure,


COUNTY

/ TRIBE COMMUNITY

MITIGATION

OPPORTUNITY

EA

RTH

QU

AK

E

ER

OS

ION

FLO

OD

LAN

DS

LID

E

SE

VE

RE

WE

ATH

ER

WIL

DFI

RE

TSU

NA

MI


MITIGATION ACTION

that may relieve pressure on this specific culvert.

Coos Powers

Debris clogs drains. Culverts aren't adequately sized. Ditches need to be resized.

X


Coos Powers

Flooded yards from sheet flow from highway down to the river. Culverts are absent.

X

Ensure continued compliance in the NFIP through enforcement of local floodplain management ordinances. Explore alternative mitigation strategies, such as watershed-scale green infrastructure or actions that restore natural floodplain functions to relieve sheet flow and pressure on culverts.

Coos Powers

High School, elementary school, health clinic, and water tanks at risk to landslide and wildfire.

X X

Through multi-agency coordination, implement plan for control of noxious weeds. Identify and map all roads and private drives to increase the ability of firefighters to locate and gain access to provide services/evacuations. Work with DOGAMI to identify and map high risk slide areas to create an accurate logistical assessment. Evaluate current and high hazard slide areas for mitigation prioritization and explore mitigation possibilities.

Coos Powers

Improper drainage from hillside needs to be deflected from neighborhood.

X

Continue to review city comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance for the need to update hazard specific section to reflect the


COUNTY

/ TRIBE COMMUNITY

MITIGATION

OPPORTUNITY

EA

RTH

QU

AK

E

ER

OS

ION

FLO

OD

LAN

DS

LID

E

SE

VE

RE

WE

ATH

ER

WIL

DFI

RE

TSU

NA

MI


MITIGATION ACTION

latest information on natural hazards. Explore watershed-scale approaches to address drainage issues including green infrastructure (rain gardens, bioswales, rain barrels, bio retention) and structural options.

Coos Powers Senior Center and low income housing at risk to wildfire.

X

Through multi-agency coordination, implement plan for control of noxious weeds. Identify and map all roads and private drives to increase the ability of firefighters to locate and gain access to provide services/evacuations. Conduct outreach and awareness programs at the senior center and in low-income neighborhoods so people know evacuation procedures and preparedness.

Coos Powers

Waterline extends across bridge connecting the community's water supply.

X

Seek funding to retrofit buildings and/or infrastructure at risk of damage in a high magnitude earthquake. Assess status of waterline and bridge to ensure that it will withstand an earthquake.

Coos Unincorporated

Areas

Airstrip in Curry County might survive Cascadia event. County would rely on it.

X

Conduct regular earthquake safety drills. Retrofit critical facilities to withstand earthquake.

Coos Unincorporated

Areas

Areas of channel migration and erosion exist along riverine areas.

X X

Monitor rates of coastal erosion in areas zoned for development and reassess development standards to prevent damage to future buildings and infrastructure.


COUNTY

/ TRIBE COMMUNITY

MITIGATION

OPPORTUNITY

EA

RTH

QU

AK

E

ER

OS

ION

FLO

OD

LAN

DS

LID

E

SE

VE

RE

WE

ATH

ER

WIL

DFI

RE

TSU

NA

MI


MITIGATION ACTION

Consult with property owners and explore mitigation actions for repetitive flood loss properties.

Coos Unincorporated

Areas Areas of coastal erosion exist.

X X X

Monitor rates of coastal erosion in areas zoned for development and reassess development standards to prevent damage to future buildings and infrastructure. Conduct an analysis of flooding issues in the Libby Drainage District and Englewood Diking District, and develop mitigation strategies to prevent future floods from damaging property in the area.

Coos Unincorporated

Areas

Areas of landslide concern. New development potential alongside those areas.

X

Continue to track landslide events along major roadways and develop appropriate mitigation measures.

Coos Unincorporated

Areas

Mountains continue to shift and could cut off transportation networks.

X

Identify and disseminate information regarding alternate transportation routes.

Coos Unincorporated

Areas

Bridges could be compromised during a seismic event.

X

Local emergency responders continue to take bridge assessment classes. Retrofit critical facilities to withstand seismic activity.

Coos Unincorporated

Areas

Develop Bandon airstrip for Earthquake resilience.

X Retrofit critical facilities to withstand seismic activity.

CTCLUSI --- Do a gap analysis of resource availability (food, water, shelter).

X X Results of study could lead to designated caches for resources after a disaster.

CTCLUSI ---

Develop a health clinic for low to moderate income members.

X Ensure that healthcare is accessible post-event and that residents are aware of


COUNTY

/ TRIBE COMMUNITY

MITIGATION

OPPORTUNITY

EA

RTH

QU

AK

E

ER

OS

ION

FLO

OD

LAN

DS

LID

E

SE

VE

RE

WE

ATH

ER

WIL

DFI

RE

TSU

NA

MI


MITIGATION ACTION

preparedness strategies (at-home emergency kits, etc.).

CTCLUSI --- Update Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan.

X X X X X X X ---

Coquille Tribe

--- Update Emergency Operations Plan.

X X X X X X X ---

Coquille Tribe

--- Update Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan.

X X X X X X X ---

Coquille Tribe

--- Seismic evaluation of homes and critical facilities.

X

Seek funding to study the seismic vulnerability of buildings and infrastructure and retrofit those that are vulnerable to seismic hazards.

Coquille Tribe

--- Do a gap analysis of resource availability (food, water, shelter).

X X Results of study could lead to designated caches for resources after a disaster.

Coquille Tribe

--- Assess earthquake and tsunami risk to local casino.

X X

Retrofit schools, fire departments, and other critical facilities to withstand seismic activity.

Coquille Tribe

---

Develop continuity of operations plan if casino is out of operation to support tribal members.

X X

Conduct regular earthquake safety drills. Educate and encourage major businesses, service providers, schools, and governmental organizations to develop continuity of operations plans.

Coquille Tribe

---

Develop a communication strategy during an earthquake event to connect with separate parties.

X Conduct regular earthquake safety drills.

Coquille Tribe

--- Develop plan to assess maximum capacity of the casino

X X ---


COUNTY

/ TRIBE COMMUNITY

MITIGATION

OPPORTUNITY

EA

RTH

QU

AK

E

ER

OS

ION

FLO

OD

LAN

DS

LID

E

SE

VE

RE

WE

ATH

ER

WIL

DFI

RE

TSU

NA

MI


MITIGATION ACTION

and plank house if shelters are needed during a hazard event.

vii. Training and Outreach

Training and outreach opportunities provide communities the capacity to communicate risk to their constituents, establish trust between partners, and ultimately empower communities to take action to reduce their risk. During Discovery, FEMA captures training and outreach needs to strategize how to communicate the results of future Risk MAP projects to local leaders and the community at-large to build their understanding of that risk. The training and outreach needs in Table 9 were requested during Discovery in the Coos project area.

Table 9: Training and Outreach Needs in the Coos Project Area

COUNTY /

TRIBE COMMUNITY TRAINING / OUTREACH OPPORTUNITY

Coos Coos Bay, City of Public workshops and education needed to highlight earthquake risk.

Coos North Bend, City of Education needed for officials and decision makers about risk of development in high risk areas.

Coos North Bend, City of Education on retrofitting and maintaining the city’s historical character.

Coos North Bend, City of Technical support to acquire low income housing in the floodplain.

Coos North Bend, City of Technical support to update zoning codes and ordinances.

Coos Unincorporated

Areas Develop data viewer to display risk assessment data results.

Coos Unincorporated

Areas Develop outreach simulator to motivate communities to accept risk and take action to reduce it.

CTCLUSI --- Training in the fundamental concepts of LiDAR and its functionality towards natural and cultural resource management.


COUNTY /

TRIBE COMMUNITY TRAINING / OUTREACH OPPORTUNITY

CTCLUSI --- Training for all Risk MAP-funded, supplemental projects.

CTCLUSI --- Training to identify sensitive plant species. FEMA Region IX is currently working on a project in coordination with the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service.

CTCLUSI --- Training and support for updating the Tribe’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan to get back into compliance and expanding beyond tsunami to additional natural hazards.

CTCLUSI --- Training to support building inspections to determine if seismic retrofitting is necessary.

CTCLUSI --- Develop outreach materials to promote individual emergency kits and tribal support for individual disaster preparation.

CTCLUSI --- Develop an outreach campaign centered on acquiring reverse 911 and promoting tribal member participation.

Coquille Tribe

--- Training on available mitigation, preparedness, and response grant programs.


HAZARD IMPACT

Figure 4: High surf along Bandon’s South Jetty in December 2015 - Julie Castelli / Worldlink.com

Figure 5: Oregon counties (red) receiving a disaster declaration from December 2015 storms

DECLARED ON FEBRUARY 17, 2016 AND AMENDED THE FOLLOWING MONTH,

14 OF OREGON’S 36 COUNTIES RECEIVED A MAJOR DISASTER DECLARATION

DUE TO SEVERE STORMS THAT OCCURRED DECEMBER 6 – 23, 2015. WINTER

STORMS CAUSED STRONG STRAIGHT-LINE WINDS, FLOODING, LANDSLIDES,

AND MUDSLIDES ALONG THE OREGON COAST. FUNDING FOR EMERGENCY

REPAIRS AND REPLACING FACILITIES IMPACTED BY THE STORMS WAS MADE

POSSIBLE BY THE PRESIDENTIAL DISASTER DECLARATION. THE DECLARATION

PROVIDED PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TO ELIGIBLE STATE AND LOCAL

GOVERNMENTS AND CERTAIN NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.

IN TOTAL, ALMOST 900 RESIDENCES WERE IMPACTED, WITH 11 DESTROYED

AND 75 RECEIVING MAJOR DAMAGE. ROADS AND BRIDGES WERE THE

HARDEST HIT PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE. DOLLARS OBLIGATED TO SUPPORT

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE GRANTS TOTALED JUST ABOVE OF $1.1 MILLION.

http://Worldlink.com


viii. National Flood Insurance Program

Program Compliance Communities that participate in the NFIP may be subject to Community Assistance Contacts (CAC) or Community Assistance Visits (CAV). These two processes assist FEMA with identifying potential floodplain management deficiencies and violations, and provide technical assistance to resolve these issues. A CAC or CAV can be triggered with high rates of growth within the SFHA and/or if issues arise regarding local floodplain management practices.

FEMA CAC data collected from FEMA’s Community Information System (CIS) shows that the only CAC occurred in 1990 in the city of Powers. The CAC is a telephone call or brief visit to an NFIP community for the purpose of establishing or re-establishing contact to determine if any program-related problems exist and to offer assistance.

Community Assistance Visits (CAVs) took place in the project area as recently as 2002 for Coos County, while the earliest CAV occurred in Myrtle Point in 1989. The CAV is a scheduled visit to an NFIP community for the purpose of conducting a comprehensive assessment of the community’s floodplain management program and its knowledge and understanding of the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP. The city of Powers has never had a CAV.

Community Rating System Coos County and its local jurisdictions do not participate in the Community Rating System (CRS). The CRS is a voluntary incentive program that recognizes and encourages community floodplain management activities that exceed the minimum NFIP requirements. Flood insurance premium rates are discounted community-wide to reflect the reduced flood risk resulting from the community’s actions. Increased actions completed by communities results in greater flood insurance premium discounts.

Table 10: NFIP Compliance and CRS

COUNTY / TRIBE JURISDICTION CAC CAV CRS

Coos Bandon, City of --- 9/20/2001 No

Coos Coos Bay, City of --- 9/30/1999 No

Coos Coos, County of --- 9/25/2002 No

Coos Coquille, City of --- 4/1/1992 No

Coos Lakeside, City of --- 3/29/1993 No

Coos Myrtle Point, City of --- 10/1/1989 No

Coos North Bend, City of --- 9/30/1999 No

Coos Powers, City of 9/12/1990 --- No

CTCLUSI --- --- --- N/A

Coquille Tribe --- --- --- N/A


ix. Communication

Identifying the hazard risk in a community is one component of Risk MAP. When communicating Risk MAP results, data, and mitigation strategies, it is also crucial that one understands the evolving demographics of the community. Understanding the population of each project area and how that population is changing over time is necessary in effectively improving current communication programs that target individuals at risk from the variety of natural hazards that affect the project area.

Demographic data are obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau and are searchable through the American Fact Finder advanced search. Data from 2000 and 2010 are provided through their respective year’s census counts. Statistics provided in 2014 are from the American Community Survey, which is an ongoing statistical survey done by the U.S. Census Bureau. The Coquille Indian Tribe and the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians were omitted from this demographic review due to the variability of the demographic data. The estimated margin of error associated with each tribe was too great, and thus, an accurate statistical analysis could not be provided.

The Coos County project area has a total estimated population of 62,678 residents as of 2014. Most of the project area is rural and sparsely populated, especially heading eastward away from the coastline. The urban core of the project area is settled around Coos Bay. The largest city, Coos Bay, has a population of 16,022. North Bend is the second largest community, with 9,591 residents. No other project area community has a population more than 4,000 people. Of the seven incorporated communities, Lakeside and Powers are experiencing the highest population growth. Between 2010 and 2014, the population in these communities increased by 15 percent. In contrast, Myrtle Point and Coquille have declining populations during that same period, at -4.2 percent and -2.9 percent, respectively. Below is a demographic summary showing the total population changes between 2010 and 2014 at the individual jurisdiction level.

Figure 6: Coos County Total Population 2000, 2010, and 2014

Between 2000 and 2014, there was a substantial shift between growth in elderly populations and growth in residents under 18 years of age at the county level. Between 2000 and 2010, individuals under age 18 declined by 15 percent, while residents over the age of 65 increased by 19 percent. Alternatively, during the time period between 2010 and 2014, residents under the age of 18 increased by 5 percent, and the


population over the age of 65 declined by 8 percent. Between 2010 and 2014, the individual jurisdictions of the city of Bandon experienced the largest increase in individuals under the age of 18, while the city of Powers showed the greatest decreases in this younger age group. All individual jurisdictions, except for the city of Coquille, showed decreases in elderly residents during this time frame.

Figure 7: Population of Coos County Residents Under 18 and Over 65 in 2000, 2010, 2014

In 2014, 23 percent of Coos County residents reported having a disability, compared to the statewide and United States percentages of 14 percent and 12 percent, respectively. Thirty percent of the residents in the city of Lakeside reported living with a disability, and both Coquille and Myrtle Point reported 29 percent of their residents having disability status. The remaining jurisdictions in the Coos County project area report 18 percent to 23 percent of their population having a disability. The areas with the highest percentage of individuals living with disability status and limited mobility will have more residents that are unable to relocate in the event of an evacuation.

Figure 8: Percent of Population Living with a Disability, 2014


In the Coos County project area, almost 90 percent of the population identifies as White, with significant populations of Black or African American, American Indian, and individuals identifying with two or more races accounting for the remaining population. Between 2000 and 2010 there was a minor shift away from identifying as White, and a major shift away from identifying as Hispanic or Latino. Populations identifying with Black or African American and those identifying with two or more races increased the most over the 10-year period, while American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander increased only slightly.

Figure 9: Shift in Reported Ethnicity of County Residents, 2000-2010

Within the project area, the city of North Bend has the highest percentage of residents who have a high school diploma or higher (93.8 percent), while residents in the city of Bandon obtained the highest percentage of bachelor degrees or higher (26.7 percent). The remaining communities have varying percentages of high school degree completion (81 percent to 90.4 percent) and bachelor’s degree or higher (10.1 percent to 22.4 percent). For comparison, the countywide average of people who have a high school degree or higher is 88.6 percent, while the average of those who have a bachelor’s degree or higher is 18.8 percent. Additionally, the statewide average of individuals with a high school degree or higher is at 89.5 percent, and the average of those obtaining a bachelor’s degree or higher is 30.1 percent.


Figure 10: Percentage of County Residents with a High School Degree, Bachelor’s Degree, or Higher, 2014

Median household incomes vary between cities. In the Coos County project area, no jurisdiction exceeds the statewide median household income of $50,521 per year. The city of North Bend has the highest median household income ($43,097). The city of Powers has the lowest median household income ($25,500).

Figure 11: Median Household Income for the Coos County Project Area Residents and the State of Oregon, 2014

In 2014, 18 percent of Coos County residents lived below the Federal poverty line, while the State of Oregon and the United States reported 17percent and 16percent, respectively. Of the project area communities, 31 percent of the residents in the City of Powers live below the poverty line. In Coos County, 48 percent of renting households spend more than 35 percent of their income towards rent. In Coquille, 70 percent of residents pay 35 percent of their income towards rent. Given the high percentage


of residents who are cost‐burdened, financial assistance may be needed to encourage homeowners to mitigate against natural hazards.

Figure 12: Percent of Renters in the Coos County Project Area, State of Oregon, and the United States who Pay More Than 35 Percent of their Gross Income towards Rent, 2014

The majority of structures built within the Coos County project area date from between 1960 and 1979, with 22 percent of the buildings in Coos County built after 1990. The cities of Powers and Myrtle Point have the lowest percentage of buildings built after 1990 (11 percent). Building codes that provide measures to resist the impact of seismic events were gradually adopted over time. Older housing stock is more vulnerable to earthquakes as seismic code standards may not have been in place or were limited in nature. Of the project area jurisdictions, the cities of Lakeside and Bandon may have a more structurally resilient housing stock than the county as a whole due to their more recent development. A seismic risk assessment, currently underway by DOGAMI, will provide more conclusive results of the effects of an earthquake event on the existing building stock.


Figure 13: Percentage of Structures Built Per Year Group in Project Area Communities, 2014

Learning more about how to provide and effectively communicate multi-hazard risk information to residents is crucial when implementing hazard mitigation strategies. With the available demographic information, FEMA can assist community representatives in establishing better connections and delivery methods to keep the public informed, engaged, and aware of the risks presented by multiple hazards in the area, while understanding the audience the Agency wishes to reach.

V. Close

Local officials within the Coos Risk MAP project area were engaged in the stages of the Discovery process. Coos County, local jurisdictions, and both the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians and the Coquille Indian Tribe were open to learning more about how they can begin to develop resilience to flood, seismic, wildfire, severe storm, landslide, and tsunami events. They identified areas for future map updates and areas where they could use additional FEMA technical support. It is recommended that existing mitigation strategies be reviewed as DOGAMI releases Risk MAP projects in the coming months. Additional Risk MAP projects that result from Discovery should be closely intertwined with the goal of achieving mitigation action. Additionally, local officials would benefit from the implementation of Risk MAP projects outside of the standard regulatory products for future planning, as well as risk communication and engagement.


Appendix – Discovery Files

The Discovery Report appendices are stored electronically in their respective folders that accompany the Discovery Report.

Appendix A – Project Team Contact Information

Appendix B – Stakeholder Contact Information

Community Stakeholder Contact Information

Appendix C – Discovery Interviews/Meetings

Information Exchange Fact Sheets

Information Exchange Maps

Information Exchange Notes

Appendix D – Discovery Meeting

Discovery Meeting Materials

Provided Materials – FEMA

Provided Materials – State

Provided Materials – Local

Provided Materials – Other

Appendix E – Discovery Report

Areas of Mitigation Interest Database

Discovery Geodatabase

Final Discovery Figures

Final Discovery Map

Project Area Map

Documents

Coos Discovery Report - STARR Team · COOS DISCOVERY REPORT – AUGUST 2016 2 Project Area Description The Coos Discovery project area extends slightly over 1,800 square miles and