DOCSLIB.ORG

Cottage Grove Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cottage Grove Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Prepared by: Cottage Grove Community Development Department Dianna C. Skelly-Cotter Amanda Ferguson & Natural Hazard Mitigation Advisory Committee Adopted by Cottage Grove City Council ________________ i | Page THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK ii | Page Table of Contents Chapter 1: Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan ............................................ 2 Section 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 2 What is Natural Hazard Mitigation? ..................................................................................................... 2 Why Develop a Mitigation Plan? .......................................................................................................... 3 Authorities: ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Policy Framework for Natural Hazard Mitigation in Oregon ................................................................ 5 Local Adoption ...................................................................................................................................... 6 Planning Process ................................................................................................................................... 6 Section 2: Community Profile ................................................................................................................... 8 Overview ............................................................................................................................................... 8 Future Expectations ............................................................................................................................ 15 Section 3: Mission, Goals, and Action Items ........................................................................................... 16 What are the Plan’s Missions and Goals ............................................................................................. 16 Mitigation Action Items ...................................................................................................................... 17 Section 4: Implementation, Maintenance and Public Participation ....................................................... 20 Plan Implementation .......................................................................................................................... 20 Implementation through Existing Programs ....................................................................................... 21 Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Efforts ................................................................................................... 21 Plan Maintenance ............................................................................................................................... 21 Project Prioritization Process .............................................................................................................. 22 Annual Meeting .................................................................................................................................. 25 Five Year Review of Plan ..................................................................................................................... 25 Continued Public Involvement and Participation ............................................................................... 26 Chapter 2: Hazard Assessment ............................................................. 28 Section 1: Hazard Assessment Overview ................................................................................................ 28 Definition of a Hazard Assessment ..................................................................................................... 28 Federal Requirements for a Hazard Assessment ................................................................................ 29 Hazard Quantification Categories ....................................................................................................... 30 Weight Factors, Scoring Guidelines .................................................................................................... 30 Hazard Assessment Mapping Methodology ....................................................................................... 32 Section 2: Local Hazard Assessment ....................................................................................................... 34 Relative Risk Assessment .................................................................................................................... 34 Vulnerability Assessment .................................................................................................................... 34 iii | Page Critical Facilities and Infrastructure .................................................................................................... 37 Section 3: Climate Change .................................................................................................................. 42 Chapter 3: Natural Hazards .................................................................... 44 Overview of Local Hazard Mitigation Mission and Goals ....................................................................... 44 Action Item Identification and Prioritization .......................................................................................... 46 Section 1: Flooding .................................................................................................................................. 48 Flooding Profile ................................................................................................................................... 48 Previous Occurrences ......................................................................................................................... 49 Flooding Hazard Assessment .............................................................................................................. 51 Repetitive Flood Loss .......................................................................................................................... 56 Existing Flood Mitigation Activities ..................................................................................................... 56 Flood Mitigation Projects .................................................................................................................... 57 Flood Mitigation Objectives and Action Items ................................................................................... 57 Section 2: Landslide ................................................................................................................................ 66 Landslide Profile .................................................................................................................................. 66 Landslide Hazard Assessment ............................................................................................................. 66 Existing Landslide Mitigation Activities .............................................................................................. 70 Landslide Mitigation Objectives and Action Items ............................................................................. 70 Section 3: Wildfire ................................................................................................................................... 74 Wildfire Profile .................................................................................................................................... 74 Wildfire Hazard Assessment ............................................................................................................... 74 Existing Wildfire Mitigation Activities ................................................................................................. 78 Wildfire Mitigation Objectives and Action Items................................................................................ 79 Section 4: Winter Storm .......................................................................................................................... 84 Winter Storm Profile ........................................................................................................................... 84 Winter Storm Hazard Assessment ...................................................................................................... 84 Existing Winter Storm Mitigation Activities ........................................................................................ 85 Winter and Severe Storm Mitigation Objectives and Action Items .................................................... 85 Section 5: Earthquake ............................................................................................................................. 88 Earthquake Profile .............................................................................................................................. 88 Earthquake Hazard Assessment ......................................................................................................... 90 Existing Earthquake Mitigation Activities ........................................................................................... 94 Earthquake Mitigation Action Items ................................................................................................... 94 Section 6: Drought .................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In Partial Fulfillment Of
    WATER UTILI AT'ION AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE 11ILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN by CAST" IR OLISZE "SKI A THESIS submitted to OREGON STATE COLLEGE in partialfulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE June 1954 School Graduate Committee Data thesis is presented_____________ Typed by Kate D. Humeston TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION Statement and History of the Problem........ 1 Historical Data............................. 3 Procedure Used to Explore the Data.......... 4 Organization of the Data.................... 8 II. THE WILLAMETTE RIVER WATERSHED Orientation................................. 10 Orography................................... 10 Geology................................. 11 Soil Types................................. 19 Climate ..................................... 20 Precipitation..*.,,,,,,,................... 21 Storms............'......................... 26 Physical Characteristics of the River....... 31 Physical Characteristics of the Major Tributaries............................ 32 Surface Water Supply ........................ 33 Run-off Characteristics..................... 38 Discharge Records........ 38 Ground Water Supply......................... 39 CHAPTER PAGE III. ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL UTILIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT.. .... .................... 44 Flood Characteristics ........................ 44 Flood History......... ....................... 45 Provisional Standard Project: Flood......... 45 Flood Plain......... ........................ 47 Flood Control................................ 48 Drainage............
    [Show full text]
  • Coast Fork Willamette Action Plan 2019-2029
    Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Strategic Action Plan – Jan 2019 Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Strategic Action Plan – Jan 2019 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council thanks the many individuals and organizations who helped prepare this action plan. Partner organizations that contributed include U.S. Forest Service, City of Cottage Grove, City of Crewswell, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, McKenzie River Trust, and Weyerhaeuser Company. Plan Development Team Michael DeHart, City of Creswell Krista Farris, Cottage Grove River Ranger District, U.S. Forest Service Amanda Gilbert, Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council Reilly Newman, Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council Amada Ferguson, City of Cottage Grove Technical Advisory Group Steve Leibhart, Bureau of Land Management – Eugene/Salem District Krista Farris, Cottage Grove Ranger District, U.S. Forest Service Cameron Mitchell, Cottage Grove Ranger District, U.S. Forest Service Doug Garletts, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Christer Lebreque, McKenzie River Trust Daniel Dietz, McKenzie River Trust Meghan Tuttle, Weyerhaeuser Company Katherine Nordholm, Springfield Office, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Wes Messinger, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers i Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Strategic Action Plan – Jan 2019 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report
    Willamette Basin Annual Water Quality Report for 2015 Detroit Reservoir at Low Elevation (1202 feet) on November 6, due to 2015 Drought, North Santiam River, Oregon Final Report Page intentionally left blank Final Report, July 2016 i Table Of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 10 2.0 Introduction and Purpose ........................................................................................................ 12 3.0 Water Quality related Achievements ...................................................................................... 14 3.1 Corps Achievements in Meeting CWA-TMDL and EPA-BiOp Recommendations: ............. 14 4.0 Willamette Project Background .............................................................................................. 15 5.0 Description of the 2015 Water Year ....................................................................................... 19 5.1 Willamette Basin Hydrology .................................................................................................. 19 5.2 Willamette Mainstem Conditions ........................................................................................... 21 6.0 North Santiam Subbasin.......................................................................................................... 25 6.1 Water Quality Improvement Measures Conducted in 2015 .................................................... 25 6.2 Water Quality Monitoring and Results
    [Show full text]
  • Willamette River Instream Surrogate TSS-Thg Analysis
    Revised Willamette Basin Mercury TMDL Draft for Public Comment July 3, 2019 Watershed Management 700 NE Multnomah St. Suite 600 Portland, OR 97232 Phone: 503-229-5696 800-452-4011 Fax: 503-229-6762 Contact: Alex Liverman, Andrea Matzke, Kevin Brannan, Priscilla Woolverton www.oregon.gov/DEQ DEQ is a leader in restoring, maintaining and enhancing the quality of Oregon’s air, land and water. This report prepared by: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 700 NE Multnomah Street Portland, OR 97232 1-800-452-4011 www.oregon.gov/deq Contact: Kevin Brannan Alex Liverman Andrea Matzke Priscilla Woolverton 503-229-6629 503-229-5080 503-229-5350 541-687-7347 Alternative formats: DEQ can provide documents in an alternate format or in a language other than English upon request. Call DEQ at 800-452-4011 or email [email protected]. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ii Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 11 1. TMDL Introduction .......................................................................................................... 13 TMDL authority ..................................................................................................................... 13 General TMDL approach ....................................................................................................... 13 1.1. History of Willamette Basin Mercury TMDL ..................................................................... 16 1.2. Name
    [Show full text]
  • Source Water Assessment Report
    Source Water Assessment Report City of Cottage Grove, Oregon PWS #4100236 December 14, 2000 Prepared for City of Cottage Grove Prepared by � rt.: i •l :(•1 Slate of Oregon Departmentof Environmental Quality Water Quality Division Drinking Water Protection Program Department of Human Services Oregon Health Division Drinking Water Program Department of Environmental Quality regon 811 SW Sixth Avenue Portland, OR 97204-1390 John A. Kitzhaber, M.D., Governor (503) 229-5696 TDD (503) 229-6993 December '14, 2000 Mr. Ray Pardee, W.P. Superintendent City Of Cottage Grove 400 East Main Cottage Grove, Oregon 97424 RE: Source Water Assessment Report City of Cottage Grove PWS # 4100236 Dear Mr. Pardee: Enclosed is City of Cottage Grove's Source Water Assessment Report for your surface water intakes on Row River, Prather Creek, and Laying Creeks. A Source Water Assessment for the groundwater portion of your water supply will be addressed in a separate report. The assessment was prepared under the requirements and guidance of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act and the US Environmental Protection Agency, as well as a detailed Source Water Assessment Plan developed by a statewide citizen's advisory committee here in Oregon over the past two years. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Oregon Health Division (OHD) are conducting the assessments for all public water systems in Oregon. The purpose is to provide information so that the public water system staff/operator, consumers, and community citizens can begin developing strategies to protect your source of drinking water. As you know, the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act requires Consumer ConfidenceReports (CCR) by community water systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Creswell Comprehensive Plan List of Tables Table 1- Flood Profiles- Coast Fork Willamette River
    Creswell Comprehensive Land Use Plan September 13, 1982 Table of Contents Section I: Planning Programs and Objectives ............................................................................................... 1 A. Previous Community Planning .................................................................................................................. 1 B. Current Planning Platform .......................................................................................................................... 3 Section II: Resources Inventory .......................................................................................................................... 3 A. Community History ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Early Settlement .............................................................................................................................................. 3 Founding of Creswell ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Incorporation and Growth .......................................................................................................................... 4 B. Related Agency Planning and Programs ............................................................................................... 5 Federal ................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 65 Places to Go Fishing in Lane County
    62. Munsel Landing County Park, Munsel Lake Trout, yellow perch, bass If you have more time and a boat… Common Fish Popular for boating, swimming and fishing, this shore dune These trips are appropriate for drift boats, pontoons or lake offers varied fishing opportunities. Shoreline is mostly kayaks. Boaters are always responsible for knowing their privately owned; access at boat ramp. $ craft, the nature of the river and their own abilities. Scout 65 places before you go! 63. Siltcoos Lake 1. Middle Fork Willamette River-Pengra to Jasper Salmon, trout, yellow perch, catfish, crappie, bass or Clearwater: A few technical spots keep boaters alert to go fishing This large, somewhat shallow lake is well-used and has a wide on this classic fish-and-float for trout and the occasional Rainbow trout Brook trout Cutthroat variety of fish available, including coho salmon. salmon or steelhead. A close-in trip that feels like a in Lane County remote getaway. LANE COUNTY OFFERS SO MUCH TO EXPLORE — from coastal lakes and rivers to mountain lakes and 64. South Jetty County Park Crab, surf perch, rockfish 2. Willamette River-The Town Run: Put in at Island streams. The Willamette River runs through the Eugene-Springfield metro area and is fed by three major While you can fish for salmon or rockfish, the big draw here is Park in Springfield or Alton Baker Park in Eugene and rivers: the McKenzie, Middle Fork Willamette and Coast Fork Willamette. Florence is surrounded by large crabbing. Also provides beach and OHV access. Many local float to Beltline.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Support Document
    Mercury TMDL Development for the Willamette River Basin (Oregon) – Technical Support Document October 9, 2019 PREPARED FOR PREPARED BY Oregon Department of Environmental Tetra Tech Quality One Park Drive, Suite 200 and PO Box 14409 U.S. Environmental Protection Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Tel 919-485-8278 Agency, Region 10 Fax 919-485-8280 tetratech.com The primary authors of this report are: Jonathan Butcher, Michelle Schmidt, and Mark Fernandez, Tetra Tech, Inc., Research Triangle, NC Willamette Mercury TMDL TSD October 2019 CONTENTS CONTENTS.................................................................................................................................................... I TABLES ....................................................................................................................................................... III FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................................... IV ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................... VII 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Problem Definition ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Technical Approach .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation and Findings Report
    Evaluation and Findings Report on the Application for Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act Submitted by Symbiotics, LLC for the Dorena Dam Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 11945) Pursuant to Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 340, Division 48 Prepared by: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 1102 Lincoln Street, Suite 210 Eugene, Oregon 97401 January 18, 2008 This page intentionally left blank Table of Contents Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 General..............................................................................................................1 1.2 Project Location.................................................................................................1 2.0 REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATION .................................................................. 3 2.1 Applicable Federal and State Law ..........................................................................3 2.2 General Application of State Water Quality Standards ...........................................4 2.2.1 Beneficial Uses ................................................................................................4 2.2.2 Narrative and Numeric Criteria.........................................................................5 2.2.3 Antidegradation Policy .....................................................................................5 2.2.4 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) ..............................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Non-Motorized Boater Participation and Priorities
    Oregon Non-Motorized Boater Participation and Priorities Report in support of the 2015-2024 Oregon Trails Plan May 27, 2015 By Kreg Lindberg and Tyson Bertone-Riggs Contact: [email protected] Conducted by Oregon State University for the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department Acknowledgments This project was funded by the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD, Oregon State Parks) and the Oregon State Marine Board (OSMB). OPRD and OSMB staff made significant contributions in the development of the questionnaire and provision of associated maps. We thank the project planning advisory committee (see footnote on page 6) for their input during questionnaire development. We also thank Mark Needham and Eric White of Oregon State University for their input during questionnaire development and reporting. Lastly, we thank all the non-motorized boaters who completed the questionnaire. 1 Table of contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1. Background ............................................................................................................................ 5 1.2. Data presentation .................................................................................................................. 5 1.3. Survey methodology .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Flood-Inundation Maps for a 9.1-Mile Reach of the Coast Fork Willamette River Near Creswell and Goshen, Lane County, Oregon: U.S
    Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District Flood-Inundation Maps for a 9.1–Mile Reach of the Coast Fork Willamette River near Creswell and Goshen, Lane County, Oregon Scientific Investigations Report 2016–5029 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Photograph showing Coast Fork Willamette River and gage house at State Highway 58 near Goshen, Oregon, on December 18, 2015, when measured streamflow was 11,700 cubic feet per second. Photograph credit: U.S. Geological Survey. Flood-Inundation Maps for a 9.1–Mile Reach of the Coast Fork Willamette River near Creswell and Goshen, Lane County, Oregon By Glen W. Hess and Tana L. Haluska Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District Scientific Investigations Report 2016–5029 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2016 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Coast Fork Willamette River, Oregon: Surplus Water Letter Report
    Coast Fork Willamette River, Oregon Surplus Water Letter Report December 18, 2013 Final Draft Surplus Water Letter Report Coast Fork Willamette River Surplus Water Letter Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Creswell (City), a small bedroom community in Lane County, Oregon, has expressed an interest in purchasing surplus storage for water supply to support municipal and industrial needs from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The City requested water from Dorena and Cottage Grove Reservoirs, both of which are operated as part of the Willamette Valley Project, a system of 11 dams and reservoirs and 2 reregulating dams located in the Willamette River Basin, Oregon. To meet the immediate needs of the City of Creswell, the Corps initiated a general investigation study in the Coast Fork Willamette River sub-basin. The Oregon Water Resources Department acted as the non- federal, cost-share sponsor for this study. The purpose of the study was to identify whether a quantity of joint-use storage, up to 437 acre-feet, is available as surplus for municipal and industrial (M&I) use. A major outcome of the study was determining the price charged to municipal and industrial entities for Willamette Valley Project storage space. This report, titled Coast Fork Willamette River, Oregon Surplus Water Letter Report, outlines the study purpose and authority, including a description of the study’s relationship to the Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study, which was placed on hold in 2000 to allow for Endangered Species Act consultation among federal agencies. The City of Creswell’s water supply needs and potential alternatives are also discussed in this report.
    [Show full text]