The Mitigation Action Plan The City of Portland’s 2021 Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update

In order to fulfill the requirements of the DMA and be eligible for federal disaster funding grant programs, a local hazard mitigation plan must contain a set of information as outlined in the Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations. An explanation of how the MAP meets these requirements is in the appendix. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): Established in 1979, FEMA is an agen- cy in the United States Department of Homeland Security responsible for assisting states and local communities to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters. FEMA is the federal body responsible for oversight to ensure that Portland’s MAP meets the re- quirements of the DMA. Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (NHMP): The 2021 Mitigation Action Plan is the third comprehensive update to the City of Portland Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (NHMP), which was first developed in 2004. This update identifies resources, information, and strategies for reducing risk from natural hazards. Natural Hazard Mitigation Plans can re- duce damage to life and property by coordinating action through strategies that identify risks and foster resilience. Community Rating System (CRS): The CRS is a voluntary program under the National Flood Insurance Program that rewards participating communities (provides incentives) for exceeding the minimum requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program and completing activities that reduce flood hazard risk. Flood insurance premiums are dis- counted to reflect the reduced flood risk resulting from community actions meeting the following three goals of the CRS: reduce flood losses, facilitate accurate insurance rating, and promote awareness of flood insurance. Portland participates in the NFIP and CRS. More about Portland’s participation in the CRS and NFIP are included in the appendix. 5 MAP2021 Chapter 1 Introduction What’s new in 2021? The City of Portland responded to the DMA by developing the initial City of Portland Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (NHMP), which was approved on December 9, 2004. Since then it has been updated every five years in accordance with the DMA requirements. Over time the rec- ommended processes and requirements of what to include in the Plan have changed, as have the planning context and awareness of our risks. In 2016, this plan was re-named the Portland Mitigation Action Plan. This plan meets the requirements of a Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan and FEMA’s Community Rating System. The 2021 Portland MAP update (MAP) reflects chang- es that have taken place since 2016 as well as the unprecedented circumstances of 2020. While we were planning and writing the MAP, the City was in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, large-scale social unrest, and an unprecedented houselessness crisis. For the first time, the planning process was carried out almost exclusively online (except for a few in-per- son community engagement events). The changes presented in this update are outlined be- low. Changes in Development A critical task of the MAP update is to report on any changes in the built environment since the prior MAP was approved that would increase or decrease vulnerability, especially in haz- ard-prone areas. Since 2016, Portland’s population has increased, leading to new develop- ment (some of it in the hazard areas). But the Risk Assessment Team and stakeholders with technical backgrounds found that this new development did not increase vulnerability, as it is largely infill development pursuant with local programs and codes that reflect exposure to hazards that were described both in the 2016 MAP and in this 2021 Update. The City of Portland has adopted land use policies and building codes that help mitigate hazard risks identified in the 2016 Plan, and development is also guided by the City’s comprehensive plan. Nonetheless, in developing this update, we employed new data, maps, and reports to assess vulnerability for all hazards. More detail about changes in the City of Portland are included in Chapter 2, and the methodology for our vulnerability assessments is included in Chapter 3. Tilikum Crossing Bridge, ISS Portland State University 6 MAP2021 Chapter 1 Introduction Focus on Frontline and Underserved Communities The 2016 MAP built on the 2010 NHMP by not only meeting the federal requirements for community engagement and outreach, but including several events for public stakehold- ers that focused on building a dialogue between city government and the com- munity to further the City’s equity goals. The 2016 MAP employed an equity lens in developing projects for the MAP strat- egy for the first time. This community di- alogue and equity work has continued at the City, and since 2016, the Portland Bureau of Emergency Management has done extensive work to engage communities in developing their plans and priorities. The 2021 MAP reflects the work that has been done since 2016 and the current plan- ning context. Equity, community resilience, and social justice were at the forefront of our thinking in developing this plan, as these issues are closely tied to disaster mitigation. Frontline communities, or those most impacted by natural disasters, are most often also underserved communities that face barriers to maintaining secure housing, employment, and health care in normal times. Frontline communities often include Black, Indigenous, and other commu- nities of color; refugee and immigrant communities; the elderly; and people with disabilities. Natural disasters can exacerbate existing inequities. Mitigation work can protect these communities by preventing additional and disproportionate burdens, and can further equity by advancing projects and strategies that help to build resilience. The 2021 Mitigation Action Plan Update aimed to include the priorities of frontline and underserved communities in all parts of the plan. The Mitigation Action Strategy development used the equity lens developed in 2016, and included community considerations in priori- tizing the proposed actions. Community engagement efforts were less broad than in 2016 and specifically targeted frontline communities. The 2021 MAP also includes a “Community Voice” chapter that focuses on centering these voices in natural hazard mitigation. “Equity is achieved when one’s identity cannot predict the outcome.” From The City of Portland’s Office of Equity and Human Rights (OEHR) Native American Student and Community Center, ISS Portland State University 7 MAP2021 Chapter 1 Introduction Changes to the Natural Hazards Described in the Plan The set of hazards we addressed remains largely the same as in 2016: for example, earth- quakes and floods still have the greatest potential impact on the City. But in the past five years, the City has experienced increased impacts from hazards linked to climate change, including record severe winter storms, windstorms, impacts from wildfire smoke, and an extreme heat event that led to the largest loss of life from a natural hazard in Portland’s history. During each of these events, the same communities were hit the hardest. So while our risk assessments re- main largely the same, we’ve incorporated lessons learned from these experiences: extreme heat has been elevated to a hazard with its own analysis in the risk assessment chapter, and smoke impacts have been made central to our description of wildfire risks. New Data and Reports The 2021 MAP Updates was completed using updated data when available. One change that impacted many sections throughout the plan was the availability of new population and de- mographic data. Many of the population and demographic statistics located throughout the plan, in particular Chapter 2 and in the Chapter 3 risk assessments were updated using this newly available data. The MAP utilizes Risk Reporting Areas, which are neighborhood-scale geographies, to describe Portland and vulnerability to natural hazards. In this update we ad- justed the boundaries of the Risk Reporting Areas from 2016 to align with the census reporting boundaries so that we could better use census data as it is reported. This alteration resulted in little impact on our overall analysis. We also incorporated several new relevant studies and plans published since 2016, including: • The Fifth Oregon Climate Assessment (Oregon Climate Change Research Institute) • Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington Counties (DOGAMI) • Impacts of a Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake on the CEI Hub (Multnomah County Office of Sustainability and Portland Bureau of Emergency Management) Finally, key stakeholders and technical experts provided additional data and expertise. The 2021 MAP update reflects the information provided to us by the Steering Committee, re- viewers, and technical consultants whose work is cited when relevant. A full list of the data sources used for this update is included in the Appendix. Sources developed since 2016 are highlighted. Downtown Portland, ISS Portland State University 8 MAP2021 Chapter 1 Introduction Building on The City’s Resilience Work The City committed to a number of natural hazard mitigation actions in the 2016 MAP. These actions represented only a portion of the City’s work to build resilience. We created a status report for these actions, which is included in the Appendix. We also incorporated key lessons learned since 2016 into different parts of this update, including: The Mitigation Action Strategy: We revised our criteria for actions to include in the update. We added additional information to better describe how the action would be implement- ed, and created a more consolidated set of actions that references rather than repeats mitigation work captured in other City plans. The MAP Maintenance Strategy: Completing the status report also provided us with in- sights about how to improve the MAP update strategy. We knew that additional informa- tion should be collected beyond the specific actions outlined in the MAP to understand the full scope of mitigation work and needs in the City, and that we needed to adjust the structure in place for collecting and reviewing this information. These changes are ex- plained in the MAP Maintenance Strategy chapter of the plan. Since 2016, the City of Portland has completed other large-scale resilience initiatives that align with the MAP goals. In 2017 the City worked with the Institute for Sustainable Solu- tions at Portland State University to build infrastructure resilience in the face of a major natural disaster like an earthquake or flood. As part of this project, City staff completed surveys and participated in a workshop called the “Resilient Infrastructure Planning Exercise” to better un- derstand the interdependencies between different infrastructure systems and develop priori- ties for getting infrastructure assets back online as soon as possible following a disaster. This work highlighted the need for improved collaboration and coordination between and within bureaus in all resilience work, including mitigation. These lessons are reflected in the MAP strategy, which considered opportunities for collaboration and coordination as significant criteria in prioritizing mitigation projects. Farmer’s Market, ISS Portland State University 9 MAP2021 Chapter 1 Introduction Mitigation Action Plan Update 2021 Overview The Mitigation Action Plan is divided into six sections: 1. Mitigation Action Plan Introduction: This chapter details the regulations and requirements met by the Mitigation Action Plan update and the broad changes that have taken place since 2016. 2. Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning in Portland: This chapter describes the City of Portland and its characteristics, the City’s planning capabilities, and the process that was used to develop this plan. It also provides top level details about the plan, including the Vision, Mission and Goals. 3. Natural Hazard Risk Assessments: This chapter provides an assessment of the natural hazards and their associated risks covered in this plan. 4. Community Voice in Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning: This chapter outlines the priorities of frontline and underserved communities in natural hazard mitigation planning. 5. The Mitigation Action Strategy: The Mitigation Action Strategy builds on the previous three sections to describe the work that the City of Portland will do to reduce the harmful impacts of natural hazards ahead of an event. 6. The Plan Maintenance Strategy: This chapter explains how the plan will be evaluated and updated on a regular basis with input from key stakeholders and the community. Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning in Portland 11 MAP2021 Chapter 2 Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning in Portland Introduction Portland’s ability to mitigate and prepare for natural hazards revolves around the City’s geog- raphy, climate, population, economy, and community priorities. All of these set the context for updating the Mitigation Action Plan (MAP). This chapter describes Portland’s communities and the resources available for mitigation planning and projects. (Because this document is an update, some descriptions of geography and the community were taken from the 2016 Mitigation Action Plan.) In addition to describing Portland and its planning capabilities, this section relates the process we utilized to update the MAP: details the planning Vision, Mission and Goals; and sets the foundation for the chapters that follow. MAP Planning Area The planning area for the MAP is defined by Portland’s city limits. The City of Portland is locat- ed primarily in Multnomah County in northwest Oregon, with small portions of the City ex- tending into Washington and Clackamas counties (see Figure 2.1). The City covers 145 square miles, centered on the Willamette River and its confluence with the Columbia River. Portland is the center of commerce, industry, transportation, finance and services for a metropolitan area of more than 2 million people. It is the largest City in Oregon, the seat of Multnomah County and the second largest city in the Pacific Northwest (after Seattle). Figure 2.1. City of Portland 12 MAP2021 Chapter 2 Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning in Portland The Columbia River, which separates Oregon from Washington, is the City’s northern boundary. Major jurisdictions adjacent to the City are Beaverton, Tigard and unincorporated Washington County to the west; Lake Oswego, Milwaukie, Happy Valley and unincorporat- ed Clackamas County to the south; and Gresham, Fairview and unincorporated Multnomah County to the east. The small City of Maywood Park is an island within the Portland city limits, in the northeastern part of the City. Major transportation routes through the City are Interstates 5, 84, 205 and 405; U.S. Highways 26 and 30; the Willamette and Columbia Rivers, and several major railroad lines. Portland International Airport is located next to the Columbia River at the northern edge of the City. 10 vehicle bridges cross the Willamette River in Portland and two cross the Columbia River. Willamette River crossings also include a railroad-only bridge and a newer bridge serving only mass transit, bicycles and pedestrians. An aerial tram provides transportation from the South Waterfront area to the Marquam Hill neighborhood. The City’s park system includes almost 12,000 acres in developed parks, natural areas, and built acreage (Portland Parks & Recreation, 2016). This includes Forest Park, the largest urban forest in the United States, covering more than 5,000 acres (Forest Park Conservancy, n.d.). Geography and Natural Features Portland lies at the northern end of the Willamette River valley, at the Willamette’s confluence with the Columbia River. The valley rises to the Oregon Coast Range in the west and to the Cascade Range in the east. The Willamette River begins at Waldo Lake near Eugene, on the western slopes of the Cascade Mountains, almost 200 miles south of Portland. From Portland, the Columbia River flows northwest about 100 miles to the Pacific Ocean. Upstream and to the east of Portland, the Columbia flows through the Columbia River Gorge, a gap in the Cas- cade Range. Elevations in the City range from about 20 feet above sea level along the Willamette River to more than 1,000 feet in the Tualatin Mountains, more commonly called the West Hills (NHMP, 2010). The west side of the City is dominated by the West Hills, which rise from a narrow terrace along the Willamette River. The east side of the City is flat, with little elevation change except for a few volcanic buttes such as Mt. Tabor and Rocky Butte (BES, 2006). Soils on the west side of the Willamette River vary from clay loam (a kind of soil) with low permeability (that is, water does not easily flow through it) and relatively high erosion po- tential to gravelly loams, which are relatively well-drained and moderately permeable. The flat areas along the west bank of the Willamette River are urban, with highly disturbed soil (due to development) and unstable fill. On the east side of the Willamette River soils are highly vari- able, similar to the west side. Much of the area along the Columbia River has been filled with dredged (dug-up) sand, which drains very well. In undisturbed areas along the Columbia River, percolation (water flow through soil) rates are very slow. In the southeast areas of the City, soils vary from very high to low permeability (NHMP, 2010). 13 MAP2021 Chapter 2 Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning in Portland Seismic and Volcanic Features Most of the Pacific Northwest lies within the Cascadia Subduction Zone, where the Juan de Fuca and North American tectonic plates meet. The convergence of these plates puts most areas from western British Columbia to California at risk for a catastrophic earthquake with a potential magnitude of 9.0 or higher. Portland lies within this area of risk (NHMP, 2010). Three major crustal fault lines run through Portland: the Portland fault, the East Bank fault and the Oatfield fault. Each is capable of generating moderately large (6.8) earthquakes (NHMP, 2010). There are several active volcanoes near Portland, including Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Hood, Mt. Adams and Mt. Jefferson. Major eruptions of these volcanoes could cause significant ash fall in the Portland area (NHMP, 2010). Portland also lies on top of the Boring Volcanic Field, a collection of cones (land- forms) and lava flows formed during eruptions long ago. These include Mount Tabor, Rocky Butte, and Powell Butte in east Portland. All existing Boring Volcanic centers are extinct, and the probability of an eruption in the Portland Metro area is very low (USGS, n.d.-r). Mt. Hood From the City of Portland 14 MAP2021 Chapter 2 Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning in Portland Surface Waters Watersheds are areas of land that separate waters flowing to different rivers, basins, etc. The City of Portland lies within five primary watersheds: Columbia Slough: A ‘slough’ is a wetland, like a swamp or shallow lake. The Columbia Slough extends from Kelley Point Park in the west to Fairview Lake and Fairview Creek in the east. Its watershed drains an area of 51 square miles, and includes portions of Port- land, Troutdale, Fairview, Gresham, Maywood Park, Wood Village and unincorporated Multnomah County. Over the years, the watershed and waterway have been altered to accommodate industry and agriculture. Beginning in 1918, levees were built to provide flood protection. Wetlands and side channels were drained and filled to allow for devel- opment. Waterways were forced into channels, and dozens of streams were filled or di- verted to underground pipes (BES, 2006). Today, the Columbia Slough includes an 18-mile main channel, 30 miles of second- ary waterways and many ponds and lakes, including the Smith and Bybee Lakes complex near the Slough’s confluence with the Willamette. The Upper and Middle Slough water- ways are managed by the Multnomah County Drainage District. The watershed includes the Portland International Airport, the Portland Metropolitan Expo Center, Portland Inter- national Raceways and a large industrial area; nearly 60,000 people work in the water- shed. It is also home to nearly 160,000 people. Portland’s Columbia South Shore Well Field, which supplies supplemental drinking water to a large portion of the region, is also in the Columbia Slough Watershed (BES, n.d.-f). Johnson Creek: Johnson Creek originates in Clackamas County and flows west for 25 miles to its confluence with the Willamette River. The watershed covers 54 square miles and includes portions of the cities of Milwaukie, Portland, Gresham, and Happy Valley, and of Multnomah and Clackamas Counties. Crystal Springs Creek and Kelley Creek are Johnson Creek’s main tributaries and contribute the largest amount of water to the main stem. Crystal Springs Creek is fed mostly by cold, clean groundwater from springs on the north side of Johnson Creek. Smaller tributary streams such as Mitchell, Errol, Deardorf, and Wahoo Creeks still flow, but about 38% of the watershed’s historical tributaries are now piped or diverted to the combined sewer system. The northern watershed is char- acterized by large, flat floodplains, particularly in the Lents neighborhood. The land lying south of the main stem, where most of Johnson Creek’s tributaries are located, is steep and varied. Approximately 175,000 people live in the Johnson Creek Watershed (Johnson, n.d.). The watershed was significantly changed in the 1930s, when, in an effort to reduce flooding, the federal Works Progress Administration straightened and deepened the creek and lined it with rock, turning 15 of the Creek’s 25 miles into an artificial channel. Unfor- tunately, this reduced the creek’s ability to dissipate energy and absorb high winter flows, making it more likely to flood. Between 1940 and 2020, Johnson Creek flooded 44 times (BES, n.d.-g). In the last decade, the city’s Bureau of Environmental Services and others have worked to restore the floodplain by purchasing land and actively restoring the natu- ral flows of the Creek. Fanno Creek: Fanno Creek flows southwest for about 15 miles from its headwaters in Hillsdale to the Tualatin River near Durham. The Fanno Creek Watershed covers 32 square miles, 4,529 acres of which are within the City of Portland, and the remainder is mainly in Washington County. The Fanno Creek Watershed has steep slopes, steep stream gra- dients, and soils that are slow to absorb rain. These characteristics cause relatively high 15 MAP2021 Chapter 2 Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning in Portland stormwater volumes and velocities, stream bank instability and undercutting, erosion, in- stream sedimentation, and loss of stream bank vegetation. This means that during storms, more rainfall can enter the creek, making the creek larger and causing it to run faster, which in turn eats away at the bank, causing erosion and pulling soil and plants into the waterway. More than 80% of the watershed area in Portland is zoned for single-family res- idential development. Fanno Creek’s main stem floodplain area has been cleared of plants and grasses and developed, which reduces the ability of the floodplain to absorb extra water during storms and means there is less wildlife habitat too (BES, n.d.-c). Tryon Creek: The Tryon Creek Watershed covers about 6 square miles in southwest Portland. About 25% of the watershed lies outside the Portland city limits in Multnomah County, Clackamas County, and the City of Lake Oswego. It is divided into three sub-wa- tersheds: Tryon Creek, Arnold Creek, and Falling Creek. Arnold Creek and Falling Creek are Tryon Creek’s main tributaries. Other smaller tributaries from within and outside of Port- land’s city limits also flow into Tryon Creek. The main stem of Tryon Creek is about sev- en miles long from its headwaters near Multnomah Village (just north of Interstate 5 and Highway 99) to its confluence with the Willamette River in Lake Oswego at the Highway 43 crossing (BES, n.d.-d). Many homes and roadways have been built in the upper watershed above SW Boones Ferry Road, which has negatively impacted the watershed. In some places, this development has created steep slopes, since the soils there are slow to absorb water, this means that more water flows into the creek during storms. This makes the creek run faster, and those fast and higher flows eat away at the river’s edge, causing erosion and pulling soil and plants into the waterway. Additionally, this development has blocked the creek from its natural floodplain and decreased wildlife habitat. Tryon Creek State Natural Area is a preserved forested area in the lower watershed, off of Terwilliger Blvd. The natural area covers more than 650 acres and contains hiking and equestrian trails and provides wildlife habitat. (BES, n.d-d). Portland Watersheds from the City of Portland, Portland Plan 16 MAP2021 Chapter 2 Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning in Portland Willamette River: The Willamette River drainage basin covers more than 11,000 square miles, 69 of which are in Portland, including Forest Park, the downtown commercial core, industrial districts on both sides of the river, and Portland’s most densely-populated res- idential neighborhoods. The Willamette River watershed is the largest in the City and is divided into three parts: the mainstem; many miles of tributary streams on the West Side, including Stephens Creek, Black Creek and Tanner Creek; and East and Westside neigh- borhoods where most tributaries have been lost to development (BES, n.d.-e). The Portland portion is the most highly-developed area of the entire Willamette Riv- er watershed. The east side is almost completely developed, and the small streams that once crossed the area have been diverted into pipes that drain into the sewer system. The steeper slopes in the West Hills are less densely developed, and most of the watershed’s remaining open stream channels - that is, creeks that have not been piped, covered, and diverted - are on the west side. The watershed has been fundamentally changed by decades of development in the city, impacting how water moves through the area, how healthy it is, how well it can support plants and wildlife, and how likely it is to flood.(BES, 2006). Upstream of Portland, human activity has had great impacts on the river, including the building of dams and reservoirs and the dredging, diking, and channeling of the main stem Willamette and its tributaries. The main stem has also been narrowed and deepened for flood control and navigation. Within Portland, the river bank is lined with retaining walls and riprap (rock), which prevents the river from moving naturally and interacting with the land surrounding it (BES, 2006). Willamette River in Portland (Stuart Seeger) 17 MAP2021 Chapter 2 Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning in Portland Climate Portland is in the ‘marine west coast’ climate zone, which means our weather is typically mild. The Coast Range to the west helps to shield the Portland area from Pacific Ocean storms, while the Cascade Range to the east offers a steep slope over which moisture-laden westerly winds rise, resulting in moderate rainfall for the region. The City averages 155 days of measurable precipitation a year, which falls mostly as rain. Average annual rainfall varies across the metropolitan area, from 60 inches in the West Hills to about 36 inches at the Portland airport. Nearly 90% of Portland’s annual rainfall occurs between mid-October and mid-May; only about 3% occurs in July and August (NWS, 2019). Dry summers are common. Winters can be mild to chilly. Average temperatures range from 37°F -42°F during the day and 37-38°F at night. The Cascades generally block colder air from Canada, although cold air occasionally enters western Oregon through the Columbia River Gorge. Very cold temperatures are rare; it has dropped below 0°F only six times since 1871 (the lowest tem- perature on record is –3 °F in February 1950). Snow accumulations are rare; the average total snowfall is 4.3 inches. Snow is most likely to fall in areas above 500 feet elevation or near the Columbia Gorge on Portland’s east edge (NWS, 2019). At the same time, occasional and hazardous winter storms do happen. Since 2016 Portland has experienced three such storms, each of which caused large transportation shutdowns and widespread power outages. The winter storms of 2016-2017 and 2020-2021 were especially devastating. In January 2017 Portland was blanketed with 11 inches of snow in less than 12 hours, leaving more than 30,000 citizens without power and shutting down businesses for up to a week (Dean & Loikith, 2017). More recently, in February 2021, an ice storm that hit the tri-county region (Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington counties) left more than 300,000 people without power, some for as long as two to three weeks (Williams & Ramakrishnan, 2021). Thousands of power lines, trees, and houses were damaged during this storm. While the most severe damage occurred in Clackamas County southwest of Port- land, the event demonstrates the potential risk of winter storms. Spring is a transitional season. March and April are often damp and cool, with only a few warm dry days. During May and June the weather becomes warmer and drier; average high temperatures warm from 68°F in May to 73°F in June. These average temperatures have remained relatively stable since 2016, but hot weather seems to arrive sooner. Between 2016 and 2021, temperatures rose above 100°F in June in three separate years, and above 90°F in June in all years. Portland hit its highest recorded temperature of 116°F in June 2021 during a heatwave that lasted five days. In fact, Portland set a new record for high heat three times over three consecutive days of the June 2021 heat wave: 108°F on June 26, 112°F on June 27, and 116°F on June 28 (NOAA, n.d.). The previous highest recorded temperature was 107°F in August 1981 (NOAA, 2019). The June 2021 heat wave was responsible for 96 deaths statewide, 60 of whom were Portland residents (Templeton and Samayoa, 2021). Of Portland residents who died the average age was 71 years old, and most did not have air conditioning, suggesting that wealth inequality was a determinant for death. High pressure builds over the Pacific Ocean in the summer, with northwesterly winds prevailing in the afternoons and evenings. This high pressure prevents moisture from flowing into the area, so that summers are often dry and warm. The average temperature in August is 69.5°F. Afternoon highs in the 80s occur with regularity beginning in early July. Temperatures above 100°F are historically rare, usually occurring in July or August. As noted, in the last six years temperatures have risen to 90°F or higher during June. Temperatures also rose to over 100ºF during July in two of the last six years and during August in three of those years. By early to mid-October, fall arrives with an average high temperature of 63ºF. As the sun sets earlier, the valley cools more, allowing fog to form on clear nights. Fog can be thick during 18 MAP2021 Chapter 2 Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning in Portland late night and early morning hours and can stick around for several days (NOAA, 2019). Destructive storms are rare in Portland. Annual wind speeds average 7.5 mph and seldom exceed gale force (50 mph or greater). Thunderstorms can occur during any month but are not common. Thunderstorms in winter and spring are weak, producing small hail and brief, gusty winds, while summer thunderstorms can produce lightning, strong winds and large hail. Occasionally, thunderstorms will produce funnel clouds, but tornadoes are rare (NOAA, 2019). On average, the first frost occurs around October 21, and the final frost near April 26. This makes for a long growing season (NOAA, 2019). In summary, in the five years since the last MAP, the City of Portland has experienced increases in heat and cold extremes. Portland’s summer temperatures have been rising, with far more extreme heat events than is historically normal, while winter snows and ice-storms have become more frequent. Demographics and Population Growth The City of Portland is home to 654,394 people and has grown by almost 14% since 2010. While growth has slowed, the City has continued to see an increase in population every year. Population growth results from two factors: more births than deaths and more people moving here than mov- ing away. It is expected that population growth may slow as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the accompanying slowdown in the econo- my (PSU PRC, 2020). It is now well understood that underserved and frontline communities experience the first and worst impacts from disasters in our commu- nities and thus, natural hazard mitigation planning should focus on these demographic groups. They also often face the most barriers in receiving gov- ernment support following a disaster (Flavelle, 2021). FEMA has acknowledged the need to focus disaster preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery on these communities in order to “dras- tically improve” emergency management: “Disasters are often depicted as great levelers, victimizing rich and poor alike. The ef- fects of disasters on populations are anything but random... The disaster vulnerability of individuals and groups is associated with a number of socioeconomic factors that include income, poverty, and social class; race, ethnicity, and culture; physical abil- ity and disability; language competency; social networks and social capital; gender; household composition; homeownership; and age... The same factors that disad- vantage members of society on a daily basis also play out during disasters” (Kathleen Tierney quoted in FEMA, 2020c, p.12). Year Portland Population 2010 583,776 2011 591,678 2012 597,167 2013 600,930 2014 604,207 2015 607,920 2016 616,311 2017 627,303 2018 640,658 2019 653,961 2020 652,503 2021 654,394 Table 2.1 Overall Population Growth in Portland 19 MAP2021 Chapter 2 Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning in Portland Table 2.2 shows data related to frontline and underserved communities in Portland, but no single set of variables represents these communities or individuals. In the Risk Assessment Chapter of this plan, we provide a more detailed look at these communities and the risks they face from natural hazards. Total Population Percent % 652,503 100% Race White 504,864 77.37% Black 36,862 5.65% American Indian or Alaska Native 4985 0.76% Asian 53,265 8.16% Native Hawaiian or other Pa- cific Islander 2184 0.33% Some other race 14,216 2.18% Two or more races 37,091 5.68% Hispanic or Latino 63,142 9.68% Median Household Income $76,231 Poverty 79,044 12.30% Renters 13,3915 46.60% Adults with Less than 12th Grade Education 5.70% Limited English Proficiency 22,548 3.45% Disability 78,300 12% Age over 65 88,689 13.59% Age under 5 32,761 5.02% Table 2.2 2019 ACS Data related to Frontline and Underserved Communities 20 MAP2021 Chapter 2 Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning in Portland Figure 2.2. Population Growth in Portland by Risk Reporting Area 21 MAP2021 Chapter 2 Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning in Portland Development Since 2016, the City of Portland has continued to grow. It remains committed to the vision of growing ‘up not out’, focusing on building within the Metro Urban Growth Boundary. This means that most growth within the City has and will continue to take place in existing neigh- borhoods. State land use laws require that the City dedicate land uses in accordance with predictions of future growth in the City. The table below shows how land within the City is mostly used. This information is used in the Risk Assessment Chapter for each hazard that can impact the built environment. Table 2.3 Categories of Land Use in Portland Land Use Acres % Of Total Residential 5,456 54.8 Commercial 3,168 31.8 Industrial 659 6.6 Religious 116 1.2 Government 159 1.6 Education 404 3.1 Total 9,962 100 Table 2.4 .Number of Structures by Risk Reporting Area Table 2.5. Area of Structures by Risk Reporting Area Number of Structures RRA Residential Commercial Industrial Religion Government Education Total Airport 580 842 203 8 78 8 1,719 Central City 2,780 1,823 205 98 48 121 5,075 Central Northeast 16,668 579 44 32 19 66 17,408 East 43,558 1,278 60 164 56 193 45,309 North 24,577 1,449 417 93 92 134 26,762 Northeast 21,840 679 35 87 38 133 22,812 Southeast 53,465 1,896 163 201 71 225 56,021 Southwest 22,985 544 53 63 56 128 23,829 Northwest 6,111 675 244 24 55 36 7,145 Total 192,564 9,765 1,424 770 513 1,044 206,080 Area of Structures (Acres) Airport Central City Central NE East North NE SE SW NW Total Residential 73 981 608 1,842 927 1,025 2,137 1,354 505 5,456 Commercial 577 1,282 105 269 744 191 376 253 282 3,168 Industrial 155 76 16 17 379 16 54 13 164 659 Religious 11 40 10 28 14 13 37 12 4 116 Government 24 97 3 9 11 16 10 4 19 159 Education 3 149 24 114 58 56 114 85 10 404 Total 843 2,623 766 2,280 2,134 1,316 2,727 1,721 984 9,962 22 MAP2021 Chapter 2 Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning in Portland Figure 2.3. Current Land Use Within Portland Data Source(s): NLCD, 2019 Legend N miles 0 2 4 NLCD 2019 Land Cover in Portland Current land uses were derived from the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) 23 MAP2021 Chapter 2 Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning in Portland Critical Facilities As part of the City’s resilience goals, the City has worked to identify critical buildings and in- frastructure - that is, those structures, such as hospitals or water and sewer systems, that are especially important to protect during a disaster and/or restore as soon as possible afterward, as damage to them could cause harm to many. Figure 2.4 shows the general location of critical facilities and infrastructure in the fol- lowing categories (due to the sensitivity of this information, a detailed list of facilities is not provided): • Public Health & Safety: Medical Facilities, Fire Stations, Police Stations, Emergency Op- erations Centers, Eldercare Facilities • High Potential Loss: Schools, City Facilities, Military Facilities, Prison Facilities, Hazard- ous Materials, Nuclear Power Plants, Zoo • Infrastructure: Wastewater, Potable Water, Oil, Natural Gas, Electrical, Communication, Dams • Transportation: Airports, Bus Facilities, Rail Facilities, Light Rail Facilities, Highway Facili- ties, Port Facilities Critical Facilities Data Source(s): City of Portland, Metro RLIS 8/2021 City of Portland Legend N miles 0 2 4 Risk Reporting Areas Waterbodies Critical Facilities Public Health & Safety High Potential Loss Transportation Infrastructure Figure 2.4 Map of Critical Facilities There are also 75 critical facilities located outside of the city limits. These are facilities owned or operated by the Portland Water Bureau and are associated with the Bull Run Reservoir, which provides Portland’s drinking water. These include three high potential loss facilities and 72 potable water facilities. Critical facilities and infrastructure are discussed in the Risk Assess- ments Chapter where relevant. 24 MAP2021 Chapter 2 Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning in Portland Economy The City of Portland experienced 126 straight months of significant economic expansion prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. By 2018, the City had the third highest Median Household Income (MHI) growth in the U.S., rising from 26th to 13th overall, which is comparable to top cities such as Austin and Salt Lake City. In 2019, job growth increased by 2%, outpacing the national average of 1.6%. While corporate giants such as Nike and Intel cemented their economic influence in the region, Portland’s manufacturing sector also grew substantially, surpassing national growth statistics. This prolonged period of economic expansion increased domestic and global de- mand for products manufactured or designed in Portland, generating a GDP worth $164.4 billion and adding 2,587 manufacturing jobs in Portland. In total, 23,617 jobs were created in the City and 31,100 jobs were created in the Portland Metro by 2019 (PBA, 2020 & OED, 2019). Industries such as Transportation and Warehousing saw the most growth (11.3%) followed by Construction (6.2%) and Information (3.6%). Leisure and Hospitality and Financial Activities rounded out the bottom two industries. Despite increased prosperity and productivity, the City still experienced an unequal distribution of incomes, specifically in the higher income percentiles (PBA, 2020). Portland also had the lowest share of total population employed at 48% (PBA,2020). Although the City continues to raise the minimum wage (to correspond with inflation by 2023), the cost of living is becoming more expensive and wages have not kept pace with rising housing prices. The region’s growing population has put a strain on the housing stock as more long-time residents, often non-white populations, are displaced from their communities. From 2010 to 2018, communities of color have seen gradual economic traction but overall, they are still left behind in MHI, especially Black and Hispanic/Latinx households (PBA, 2020). Table 2.4 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) One-year Estimates for Portland Income Data Median Household Income $76,231 Per Capita Income $43,035 Income of $100,000 or more 38.2% Income below $50,000 32.5% Families 2018-2019 below poverty level 6% Residents 2018-2019 below poverty level 12.3% 25 MAP2021 Chapter 2 Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning in Portland Current Context and Future Outlook Portland’s natural and built environments, demographics, and economy remain similar to what was described in the 2016 MAP, and some of the changes we have experienced since 2016 were predicted in that plan. But some unique circumstances provide additional context for this MAP update, and present some uncertainties about the future outlook. This includes the COVID-19 pandemic, a housing and houselessness emergency, a racial justice move- ment, and social unrest. COVID-19 Pandemic: The 2021 MAP update was completed during the COVID-19 pan- demic. The City’s rate of COVID infections was comparatively low, thanks to public safety measures put in place. These measures saved an estimated 2,000 lives, but also nega- tively impacted our economy (PBA, 2021). The Portland Business Alliance’s (PBA) “State of the Economy” report, released in February 2021, describes how the “COVID-19 pandemic shut down our economy and a massive recession followed” (PBA, 2021, n.p.). In the first days of April 2020, at the start of the pandemic, Portland and the State of Oregon re- ported a 40% decrease in consumer spending and a nearly 15% spike in unemployment, which affected every sector, but especially retail and food services (PBA, 2021). In August 2021, the State of Oregon’s Employment Department reported that Portland and the Met- ro region’s unemployment rate was now at 4.9%, up from around 3% before the pandem- ic. Consumer spending has largely recovered, although people are still spending less on dining out, hotel stays, recreation, and entertainment. The economic outcomes of the COVID-19 pandemic in Oregon disproportionately affect women, people of color, and people with lower incomes. Oregon’s unemployment rate is 2% higher for women than men (PBA, 2021). Nationwide, the unemployment rate was higher for men (7%) than women (6.1%) in February 2021 (Kochhar & Bennett, 2021), suggesting that recovery for women may be more difficult in Oregon. Additionally, na- tional unemployment rates are higher for Black and Hispanic men and women compared to their White counterparts (Kochhar & Bennett, 2021). Based on national samples, Asian, Black, and Hispanic or Latino households experienced “difficulty paying usual monthly ex- penses” at 10%-15% higher rates than White households (PBA, 2021). Finally, national sam- ples show that pandemic-related job loss was four times worse for low-wage employees compared to middle-wage employees, and that high-wage employees saw almost no increase in unemployment by the end of 2021 (PBA, 2021). Housing and homelessness emergency: While we prepared this plan, Portland has been experiencing an ongoing housing and houselessness emergency. This reminded us of the importance of considering the impacts of natural hazards on houseless individuals. The City of Portland declared a ‘state of emergency’ on housing and homelessness in 2015 (Vespa, 2019), which has been renewed annually and is in place through April 2022 (Ellis, 2021). Every two years, the City of Portland and Multnomah County perform a ‘Point in Time’ count of houseless people. In January 2019, the number of people living on the streets was 4,015, a small decrease from 4,177 in 2017 (City of Portland, 2019). Due to health and safety risks relating to the pandemic, the City has delayed the 2021 count to January of 2022 (Vespa, 2021). At the start of the pandemic, Portland’s City Council adopted ordinances to limit the eviction of homeless encampments throughout the City. Thus, the number of houseless encampments has grown considerably throughout the City (Hayden, 2021b). Portland’s City Council is now actively assessing and updating guidelines to reduce the number of encampments, especially around schools and public property (Hayden, 2021a). At the 26 MAP2021 Chapter 2 Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning in Portland same time, federal and state eviction moratoriums have protected renters in Portland from eviction due to financial hardship stemming from the pandemic. From April 2020 through July 2021 renters were able to defer rent payments to February 28, 2022, and a host of other eviction limitations were also in effect (PHB, n.d.). According to Dr. Marisa Zapata, the Director of Portland State University’s Homelessness Research & Action Collabora- tive (HRAC), the eviction moratoriums likely helped to keep more people from becoming houseless (Arden, 2021). Now that the eviction moratoriums have expired and the deadline for delayed rent payment approaches, researchers expect that the City of Portland and the State of Or- egon will see a surge in evictions (Bates et al., 2021). HRAC estimates that as many as 125,000 households in Oregon are at risk of eviction, with potential costs for the State estimated to range from $720 million to $4.7 billion (Bates et al., 2021). It is unclear how many of these at-risk households are located in Portland. If the distribution of these at- risk households matches the population distribution in the State, then as many as 18,750 households may be at risk of eviction in the City of Portland alone. Bates et al. (2021) rec- ommends quick and decisive action to curb this potential disaster. Racial Equity: Readers can find comprehensive information on the status and history of residents of color in Multnomah County and the City of Portland in a series of six reports from the Coalition of Communities of Color and Portland State University, each subtitled An Unsettling Profile (Curry-Stevens et al., 2010). While these reports examine multiple rac- es and identities, in this MAP update, we combine all people of color into a single group to compare against their White counterparts. There is no single experience for people of color and some races face different and greater barriers than others. When compared to the White population, however, there are many examples of inequalities between these two groups. The State of Oregon, Multnomah County, and the City of Portland’s histories are filled with colonialist and racist policies and practices. For example, a report from the City of Portland (BPS,2019) states: “Portland, like many U.S. cities, has a longstanding history of racist housing and land use practices that created and reinforced racial segregation and inequities. Exclu- sionary zoning, racially restrictive covenants, and redlining are examples of this, with their effects still visible today. These discriminatory practices have all played a role in shaping the city’s urban form—and in exacerbating inequities along lines of race and class (p. 4).” Throughout Portland’s history a select few neighborhoods have been treated by pol- icy makers to be of greater importance than other areas of the City. The neighborhoods of most importance were overwhelmingly White and affluent, while the least important neighborhoods contained most of the City’s population of people of color. In the 1980s and 1990s, the City of Portland faced problems of abandonment and exceedingly high poverty rates in many of its long-neglected urban neighborhoods (Gibson, 2008). Efforts to reinvest in these so-called “blighted” communities resulted in large-scale gentrification and displacement, as investments increased property values, which forced existing resi- dents out and brought in more affluent White families (Gibson, 2007). More than 26% of Multnomah County’s population are people of color. These people and their communities face disproportionate rates of poverty, unemployment, education- al disparities, healthcare disparities, higher rates of juvenile detention and adult imprison- ment. 27 MAP2021 Chapter 2 Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning in Portland As of 2008, communities of color in Portland face poverty rates double those of Whites and child poverty rates over 20% higher than White children (Curry-Stevens et al., 2010). More recent census data shows that in Multnomah County, poverty rates overall have decreased from an average of 18.5% of people in poverty from 2010-2014 to an av- erage of 13.8% of people in poverty from 2015-2019 (Portland State Population Research Center, 2020). However, statewide data shows that despite this overall decrease, adults and children of color fare much less well than White residents. Around 13% of White adults in Oregon are in poverty compared to 27% of Black adults, 19% of Hispanic or Latino adults, and 24% of Native American adults. 13% of White children in Oregon are in poverty compared to 34% of Black children, 29% for Hispanic or Latino children, and 27% for Na- tive American children. Economic inequalities compound with educational inequities that begin with lack of access to preschool programs and persist into high school. 7% of White students and 30% of students of color do not graduate high school. For a more complete examination of existing disparities and the historical and contemporary factors contribut- ing to them, see Communities of Color in Multnomah County: An Unsettling Profile. The authors of that report argue that the disparities experienced by citizens of Multnomah County are significantly worse than national averages and the comparable King County in Washington state, home to Seattle. As it pertains to this MAP update, Portland is home to a sizable population of people of color, and due to historical discrimination and contemporary inequities, these popula- tions are at higher risk of harm to natural hazards. Systematically disadvantaged commu- nities face greater challenges in accessing resources in times of crisis, and a lack of wealth in these communities and families makes recovery following a disaster more difficult. Fur- thermore, decades of racist and discriminatory policies undermines trust between these communities and city officials. It is imperative that resilience work in the City of Portland fosters relationships with communities of color to develop trust and supports those com- munities at highest risk of harm. Civil Unrest: Beginning in the final days of May 2020, with the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, the City of Portland experienced a wave of civil unrest, with large marches and demonstrations occurring daily for four months through the end of September 2020. Sporadic demonstrations have continued since. During the summer of 2020, anger over racial inequities combined with anxieties over the COVID-19 pandemic and large-scale job loss. The ongoing and often destructive effects of this civil unrest has impacted the econ- omy and public perception of Portland. Most demonstrators in the summer of 2020 were peaceful. Many heartfelt moments inspired empathy and brought Portland residents together in solidarity, as when thousands of demonstrators laid down on Portland’s Burnside bridge for nine minutes to symbolize the time that George Floyd was restrained before he died. As citizens called for systemic change in the City, new social movement networks developed and a some policy chang- es occurred at the City, including a reallocation of funds from the Portland Police Bureau to the new, un-armed Portland Street Response team (Dooris, 2020). Some protesters had less peaceful intentions, and a culture of violent opposition per- sisted throughout the protests. The Portland Police Bureau (PPB,2020) reported a total of 30 riots within the City from May through November, half of which occurred in the month of August. Over this time period, hundreds of instances of vandalism were reported, dozens of fires were started, hundreds of illegal fireworks and mortars were set off, and hundreds of projectiles were thrown at police officers. In total, the Portland Police Bureau arrested 960 people in association with the riots and illegal activities. The City of Portland and the Portland Police Bureau have been criticized by protesters for excessive use of 28 MAP2021 Chapter 2 Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning in Portland force and other illegal activities during the protests. The Multnomah County District Attor- ney’s Office has opened 21 cases for review about alleged police use of excessive force, one of which has resulted in an indictment at this time (Wilson & Levinson, 2021). The long-term costs of the civil unrest remain unknown, but the damage to Port- land’s national and local profile, especially its downtown core, will certainly have an economic impact. At the local level, the City of Portland allocated more than $1 million to assist businesses in making repairs and cleaning up graffiti (Goodwin, 2021). In a sur- vey conducted by The Oregonian, residents described downtown Portland as “unsafe,” “trashed,” or “destroyed,” and said they avoided visiting it (Goldberg and Rogoway, 2021). National indicators are similarly gloomy. In a survey of tourists in the United States in 2021, for the first time more people considered Portland an unappealing destination than ap- pealing, and from the beginning of 2020, the percentage of tourists who considered Port- land an appealing destination dropped from 54% to 32% (Goldberg, 2020). These surveys suggest a difficult path to recovery for the City of Portland, especially for the downtown area and the hotel and hospitality sectors of the economy. The 2021 Portland MAP update is taking place during a time of unprecedented chal- lenges for the City of Portland. Compared to peer regions, the City of Portland has a higher unemployment rate and is experiencing more dramatic decreases in apartment construction rates and a sharp drop in real estate market ranking (PBA, 2021). The Portland Metro area, and the Central City in particular, have seen a significant decline in the number of apartments being rented compared to surrounding cities and smaller neighborhoods (PBA, 2021). These indicators suggest that fewer people are moving to Portland compared to pre-pandemic lev- els. At the same time, many of the standard economic, development, and growth indicators used to describe the City in this plan appear stable; it’s uncertain how this context will impact the City in the next five years. In the coming years, mitigation planning and all resilience work will need to address recovery from these crises. 29 MAP2021 Chapter 2 Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning in Portland Planning Capabilities and Strengths The City of Portland operates under a commission form of government that was established in 1913. An elected mayor and four commissioners make up the City Council and have both legislative and administrative duties. City Council approves budgets, establishes laws and reg- ulations, and oversees City bureaus and departments. The Mitigation Action Plan is adopted by the City Council as a coordinating document that brings together the work of many of the City’s Bureaus. The City of Portland has extensive resources for completing this type of plan- ning. A list of City resources that add to Portland’s capabilities in completing the MAP is in the appendix. This list was developed as part of the 2016 MAP and updated for this plan. The Portland Bureau of Emergency Management leads the planning, programs, and policies that advance the City’s mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery capabilities. Their work supports ongoing programs that facilitate planning for the MAP and further the work described in the Mitigation Action Strategy chapter of this plan. This includes communi- ty engagement related to disaster resilience and emergency response, supporting continuity of operations planning (COOP) for the City of Portland and local businesses and community organizations, and working with regional partners and across City bureaus to support the col- laborations necessary for hazard mitigation work. Collaboration is an essential component to natural hazard mitigation. City Bureaus that deal with infrastructure (e.g., water, transportation, environmental services, parks and rec- reation), planning and development (e.g., Planning and Sustainability, and Development Ser- vices), emergency response (Emergency Management, Police and Fire), and social services (Community and Civic Life) are all engaged in their own resilience work on a regular basis. Due to Portland’s form of government and the specialized nature of each bureau, there are groups that foster cross-bureau collaboration to work on issues related to disaster resilience. The following list is a few of the most notable collaborative groups: The Disaster Policy Council is a cross-bureau leadership group that promotes inter bu- reau cooperation to further the City’s emergency management goals. The group advises the mayor on policy matters during an emergency, approves plans related to emergency management, and monitors ongoing work and plan. Regional Disaster Preparedness Organization: The City of Portland participates in this regional, five county partnership of government, non governmental organizations, and pri- vate-sector stakeholders to increase disaster resilience. The Climate Change Preparation Team is a group of staff from several City bureaus who collaborate on climate preparation, adaptation and resilience. The group was founded around the City’s 2015 Climate Change Preparation Strategy, and continues to meet reg- ularly during the year to share lessons learned and identify cross-bureau actions for city- wide climate resilience. The Disaster Resilience and Recovery Action Group (DRRAG) provides a forum for cross-bureau collaboration around building resilient infrastructure and coordinating resil- ience and recovery planning among infrastructure bureaus. 30 MAP2021 Chapter 2 Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning in Portland The City Asset Managers Group (CAMG) includes representatives from infrastructure, de- velopment permitting, financial, and planning bureaus. They meet regularly to share best practices, policy, and approaches to maintain city assets. The Emergency Management Steering Committee (EMSC) is established by City Code to advise PBEM on programs and plans. It includes emergency management representatives of all the public safety and infrastructure bureaus, plus some other critical functions like IT and HR. The group meets monthly, and representatives from outside agencies like the County, hospitals, and the Port of Portland often attend. The groups mentioned above are actively engaged with work related to hazard mitigation in Portland. These groups and the City bureaus they bring together are engaged in ongoing work to build resilience and have created plans, programs and policies to mitigate risk from natural hazards. Many of these plans are mentioned in more detail as part of the Mitigation Action Strategy chapter of this plan. 31 MAP2021 Chapter 2 Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning in Portland Plan Update Approach The official kick-off to the Mitigation Action Plan update began in January of 2021. The City of Portland selected the Institute for Sustainable Solutions to lead and collaborate with the Port- land Bureau of Emergency Management (PBEM) on the planning process. With the 2016 MAP expiring in November 2021, the planning process took place on an expedited time frame, which required a unique and diligent approach to completing the MAP update. During this time, COVID-19 still loomed large—the City and most key stakeholders were working remotely and dealing, in real time, with response and recovery efforts related to the pandemic, regional wildfires, and other contextual challenges described elsewhere in this plan. The planning pro- cess was organized according to four teams that led different pieces of the update: The Planning Team: The Planning Team served as central organizing unit leading the planning process. The planning team managed the project, brought together research and deliverables produced by the other teams, conducted public outreach and outreach to stakeholders outside the City, and drafted the Plan. The Planning Team consisted of Jonna Papefthimiou, Interim Director of PBEM, and Beth Gilden and Rica Perez from the Institute for Sustainable Solutions. This team had worked together over the last several years to further disaster resilience in the City of Portland, and this experience served as the foundation for collaborating on the 2021 MAP update. The Steering Committee: The Steering Committee brought together stakeholders from the City of Portland and neighboring jurisdictions whose work aligns with the Mitigation Action Plan. Participants included emergency managers, asset managers, planners, and policy makers. The role of the Steering Committee was to make key decisions related to the Plan update. They established geographies for analysis; set the Vision, Mission, and Goals; and developed the Mitigation Action Plan Strategy. The Steering Committee met regularly during the planning process to review work done by other teams; provide updat- ed resources, data, and information; and acted as ambassadors of the Plan to the people they work with by sharing plan updates and soliciting feedback. The Risk Assessment Team: The Risk Assessment Team focused on the hazard analysis and vulnerability assessment. They updated the 2016 hazard profiles to reflect new data/ research, changes in the development of the built environment, and to add in new ex- periences from recent natural hazards. In addition to these updates, the Risk Assessment Team also improved on the 2016 plan by better describing risks to frontline populations, integrating climate change into their description of the hazards, and improving the read- ability of the hazard descriptions and accompanying maps. The Community Engagement Team: The Community Engagement Team identified community needs and priorities to be reflected in the Plan. They focused on frontline and underserved communities who may be left out of typical public involvement activities yet who would be most impacted by many of the natural hazards described in this plan. A description of each team, and the focus of their work is in the figure below. Once each team had been established, work plans were developed to coordinate across teams. Each team started their work in January or February and came together regularly at Steering Com- mittee meetings to make key decisions. 32 MAP2021 Chapter 2 Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning in Portland Team Members and Represented Organizations Stakeholder Engage- ment Planning Team Planning, coordination, collaboration, final decision making, information sharing and document preparation Jonna Papefthimiou. Planning Manager and Interim Exec- utive Director of Portland Bureau of Emergency Manage- ment Beth Gilden, Collaborative Projects Manager, Institute for Sustainable Solutions, Portland State University Rica Perez, Graduate Research Assistant Institute for Sus- tainable Solutions, Portland State University Public information Neighboring jurisdictions and regional partners Agencies and individuals in- volved with mitigation plan- ning Key external stakeholders in- cluding those involved with the 2016 MAP Steering Committee Key decision making to guide the plan, advisory and review of other team’s work, provide new data and reports, professional ambassadors of the plan, develop MAP strategy Portland Bureau of Emergency Management Jonna Papefthimiou, Interim Director and Aaron Fox, Op- erations Specialist Bureau of Environmental Services Nishant Parulekar, Resilience Team Lead and Kate Carone, Enviornmental Program Coordinator Portland Parks and Recreation Chris Silkie, Asset Management Program Manager and Laura Lehman, Senior Environmental Planner Bureau of Planning and Sustainability Sallie Edmonds, Environmental Planning Manager and Mindy Brooks, Enviornmental Planner Office of Equity and Human Rights Nickole Cheron, ADA Title II and Disability Equity Manager Portland Police Edina Na Songkhla, Operations Specialist Portland Water Bureau Kim Anderson, Emergency Manager Portland Bureau of Transportation Emily Tritsch, Asset Manager and Courtney Duke, Senior Transportation Planner Bureau of Development Services Ericka Koss, Geotechnical Engineer and Anne Castelton, Emergency Management Project Manager Portland Fire Kim Kosmas, Senior Public Education Officer Louisa Jones, Emergency Management Liaison and Steve Breg- man, Emergency Operations Chief Clackamas County Jay Wilson, Resilience Coordinator Multnomah County David Lentzner, Senior Emergency Management Analyst Colleagues in mitigation work City leadership Technical experts who could provide updated information and data related to the plan Table 2.5 MAP Roles and Responsibilities Table continued on next page 33 MAP2021 Chapter 2 Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning in Portland Reviewing the 2016 Plan The first task for the Planning Team was to review the 2016 MAP with the Steering Committee and other key stakeholders. The Steering Committee and key technical stakeholders were asked to provide new research and data that should be incorporated in the update. Some of the new research that the reviewers thought should be included in the plan were: • The Fifth Oregon Climate Assessment (Oregon Climate Change Research Institute) • Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington Counties (DOGAMI) They also provided contacts for obtaining updated growth and land use information. These new reports and data were incorporated into the relevant sections of the plan--in par- ticular the Risk Assessment. Reviewers also provided feedback on the overall plan, how it could be improved and what major changes they would like to see. They suggested that the update should be more readable, that it goes further to center equity and community, and that the plan should increase focus on more frequent but less catastrophic hazards like heat and ice storms. During this review period, the Planning Team collected notes and status reports on all projects listed in the 2016 Mitigation Action Strategy and developed a summary report. Some of the key findings from the Mitigation Action Strategy evaluation included: • Stakeholder opposition, lack of political will, or low staff capacity and resources caused projects to stall or be discontinued. • Implementation actions were grouped by lead agency which led to multiple cross-bu- reau projects with unstandardized language and heavy overlap. A disaggregated list of actions hindered inter-bureau collaboration and communication. • The Mitigation Action Strategy contained passive language such as encourage, support, and advocate this made it difficult to assess progress for many actions. • Community engagement projects and programs progressed incrementally. There is an opportunity to reassess the Strategy’s equity perspective which may help determine culturally appropriate actions and foster trust with frontline and underserved communi- ties. The suggested changes described above influenced the 2021 MAP Update and can be seen throughout the rest of this plan. Team Members and Represented Organizations Stakeholder Engage- ment Risk Assessment Team Reviewing natural hazards risk, incor- porating new data and reports into risk assessment, completing vulnerability analysis, creating relevant maps and figures Dr. Peter Dusicka, Professor of Civil and Environmental En- gineering at Portland State University Dr. Yu Xiao, Associate Professor in the Toulan School of Ur- ban Studies and Planning at Portland State University Zachary Boyce, Risk Assessment Student Researcher Technical experts Community Engagement Team Identifying priorities of frontline and un- derserved communities, direct outreach to community Dr. Amy Lubitow, Professor Sociology at Portland State University Rica Perez, Graduate Research Assistant Institute for Sus- tainable Solutions, Portland State University City staff and community leaders working with front- line and underserved com- munities Direct outreach to commu- nity in Portland Parks Table 2.5 MAP Roles and Responsibilities continued 34 MAP2021 Chapter 2 Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning in Portland Engaging Stakeholders and Public Involvement Each MAP update team was responsible for engaging with different types of stakeholders. The Planning Team took on outreach to neighboring communities, local, and regional agen- cies involved in hazard mitigation; regulators; special interest groups; and community-based organizations. Due to COVID-19 all engagements were done virtually. Since many of these stakeholders were engaged in response and recovery work related to the pandemic and other crisis, the engagement strategy emphasized bringing planning questions and updates to ex- isting meetings. The Planning Team also met individually with stakeholders who represented important parts of the community or held specific technical information. The 2021 Plan Update benefited from many concurrent planning efforts. The Mult- nomah County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan update provided a forum for the Planning Team to collaborate and coordinate with the County, where the majority of Portland sits. A Metro-led effort to develop a “Social Vulnerability Tool” for the region allowed the Plan- ning Team to connect with organizations and technical experts who were assessing social risks from Natural Hazards. And finally, a regular meeting organized by the Regional Disaster Preparedness Organization of a “Mitigation and Recovery Committee” allowed the Planning Team to connect with regional partners engaged in resilience work throughout the planning process. A full list of the stakeholders the Planning Team engaged with is located in the ap- pendix. The Planning Team also took on some of the basic functions of public outreach. The Team created an “opt-in” email list for plan updates. They sent out a survey to 500 community members who had participated in or shown interest in the 2016 MAP. They posted meeting notes, plan updates, and draft plan sections for comment on the plan website, and presented information about the plan and planning process at industry and community groups. Support- ing documents that detail these outreach activities are included in the appendix. Targeted outreach was done by the Risk Assessment and Community Engagement Teams. The Risk Assessment Team worked with technical experts to provide information and feedback for their analysis. A full list of the technical experts who consulted on the risk assess- ment is included in the appendix along with the data sources used for the risk assessments. The Community Engagement Team focused on engaging frontline and underserved com- munities who may have been missed by other public outreach. A complete description of their work is included in the “community voice” chapter and their activities are detailed in the appendix. 35 MAP2021 Chapter 2 Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning in Portland Key Decisions The Steering Committee was responsible for making the key decisions for the plan. This in- volved setting the Vision, Mission, and Goals of the plan; the geography used for analysis; the hazards to be considered and prioritized; and the development of the Mitigation Action Strategy. Establishing the Vision, Mission, and Goals: Early in the planning process, the Steer- ing Committee established the Vision, Mission, and Goals for the 2021 MAP update. The Vision, Mission, and Goals combined what was established in the 2016 MAP with more recent resilience work. The Vision, Mission, and Goals were revisited at the start of every Steering Committee meeting to ensure they still reflected the priorities and information learned through the planning process. Vision: “Portland is a prosperous, healthy, equitable and resilient city where everyone has access to opportunity and is engaged in shaping de- cisions that affect their lives” (BPS, 2020). Mission: To equitably reduce risk and the adverse impacts of natural haz- ards by building community resilience through collaborative, cost-effec- tive actions and strategies. Goals • Protect life and reduce injuries. • Engage and build capacity for the whole community. • Minimize public and private property damage. • Protect, restore, and sustain natural systems. • Minimize the disruption of essential infrastructure and services. • Integrate mitigation strategies into existing plans and programs. • Prioritize multi-objective actions that can further sustainability and equity goals during “ordinary times” • Build on collaborations and lessons learned from resilience work that has occurred since 2016 • Incorporate community voice and reflect the priorities of frontline and underserved communities 36 MAP2021 Chapter 2 Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning in Portland Defining the Geography: The Steering Committee was also tasked with defining the ge- ography of the MAP. This included establishing not only the planning area—which is the area within Portland’s political boundary, but to also identify other geographical units to be used in the MAP. In 2016, City Budget areas were used to present local-level informa- tion about development, people, hazards, risks and mitigation projects. These areas are referred to as “Risk Reporting Areas” The Steering Committee felt that using these smaller geographies was a helpful tool for communication, but wanted to ensure that the geog- raphies would also be useful for analysis. For the plan update,the City-budget area bound- aries were moved slightly to reflect updated census geographies. A map of the “Risk Re- porting Areas” is below. Figure 2.6 MAP Risk Reporting Areas Risk Reporting Areas Data Source(s): City of Portland City of Portland Legend N miles 0 2 4 Risk Reporting Areas 37 MAP2021 Chapter 2 Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning in Portland Prioritizing the Natural Hazards to Include: The Steering Committee identified and prior- itized the Natural Hazards to include in the plan. They drew from the lists of hazards in the 2016 MAP, reviewed the Oregon Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, and considered personal experiences with recent natural hazards in Portland. The Steering Committee selected the following list of hazards. • Earthquake • Flooding and Dam Failure • Wildfires and Smoke • Landslides • Extreme Heat • Winter Storms (Snow, Ice, Cold) • Drought • Volcanoes • Windstorms Some of the weather-related hazards were disaggregated from their format in the 2016 MAP for the plan update. The impact of smoke was added to assessment of wild- fires, and extreme heat was prioritized after the City experienced multiple heat waves in recent years. The Steering Committee revisited this list throughout the planning process as the Risk Assessment Team presented them with results from their analysis. Midway through the planning process, the Steering Committee was asked to rank which hazards were of most concern. The hazards were ranked according to the average score assigned by Steering Committee members. Earthquake was selected as the most concerning hazard by more than half of the Steering Committee, while others selected Flood, Wildfire and Smoke, and Extreme Heat as the hazard they were most concerned about. Windstorms and Volcanoes were universally ranked as hazards of least concern. 1. Earthquake 2. Flood 3. Wildfire and Smoke 4. Extreme Heat 5. Winter Weather 6. Landslide 7. Drought 8. Windstorms 9. Volcano Steering Committee members selected earthquakes as the most concerning due to the potential scale of impacts the Cascadia Earthquake could cause, while flood, wildfire and smoke, and extreme heat were ranked highly due to the frequency of occurrence and impacts on marginalized communities. These rankings are reflected in the level of anal- ysis completed for each hazard and their reasons for concern are addressed in the Risk Assessment chapter. Risk Assessment 39 Chapter 3: Risk Assessment Figure 3.1 Components of risk diagram Natural Hazards Location Extent Probability People Environment Economy Community Assets Risk Risk Assessment Risk assessment is the process of measuring the potential loss of life, personal injury, economic injury, and property damage that can result from natural haz- ards. It allows emergency management personnel to establish planning and response priorities by identifying potential hazards and vulnerable assets. The process focuses on the following elements: • Vulnerability identification—Identify the people, property, environment, economic assets, and lands of Portland that could experience loss from natural hazard events. • Cost evaluation—Estimate the cost of potential damage or the cost that could be avoided by taking steps to mitigate the risk. The full range of natural hazards that could impact the city of Portland were considered for this chapter. The Steering Committee identified those hazards that present the greatest concern. The process incorporated a review of state and local hazard planning documents and information on the frequency, mag- nitude, and costs associated with hazards that have impacted or could impact the city. The MAP Steering Committee selected the following hazards for fur- ther consideration: • Earthquake • Flood • Wildfire & Wildfire Smoke • Landslides • Winter Storms • Extreme Heat • Drought • Volcanic Activity • Windstorms MAP2021 40 Chapter 3: Risk Assessment MAP2021 For the 2021 update, we wanted to improve the readability of the hazard de- scriptions and their potential impacts, so we have reduced technical descrip- tions and defined some terms that may not be familiar to the average reader. The MAP Steering Committee, in consultation with issue experts, re-prioritized the natural hazards considered in the 2016 plan. In that plan, various weath- er-related hazards were combined as one, ‘severe weather.’ Since 2016 Port- land has experienced worsening impacts from extreme heat, wind, and winter storms, so those hazards are treated individually in the 2021 MAP. A discussion on wildfire smoke impacts was added to the wildfire hazard, as episodes of smoke-related poor air quality in Portland from fires outside Portland’s bound- aries have increased in recent years. Similarly, impacts of climate change have been integrated into all relevant hazards. Impacts on Frontline & Underserved Communities In our discussion of potential impacts, we have highlighted the effects on frontline and underserved communities, as these communities tend to suf- fer more negative and lasting impacts from natural hazard events. The term ‘social vulnerability’ is still frequently used to describe the uneven impacts of natural hazards on different groups and extensive research has been done to develop indices and identify demographic data to describe social vulnerability. But the 2021 MAP Steering Committee, based on feedback from impacted communities, has rejected this term. The phrase ‘social vulnerability’ implies a negative quality that is in some way innate to a community. In fact, com- munity resiliency is impacted greatly by external pressures, such as structural racism (including the history of redlining), fragmentation and displacement of communities resulting from gentrification, historical economic inequalities, and public services and infrastructure that often don’t reflect or respond to the needs of communities with different abilities, ages, and cultures even in blue- sky (non-disaster) times. Additionally, communities that are often referred to as ‘vulnerable’ may in fact have a high level of social resilience due to cultural and community resources. For these reasons, we refer instead to ‘frontline and underserved’ communities. Communities that experience the worst and most impacts are referred to as frontline communities. Communities that are under- served with resources and information that could protect them from these im- pacts are referred to as underserved communities. There is no one single set of demographic variables that has been agreed upon to identify these com- munities, but the following are some of the characteristics that we want to especially consider in natural hazard planning: Poverty and income: A person’s financial situation can impact their abil- ity to prepare for and adapt to the impacts of natural hazards. Individuals with more resources may be able to complete seismic upgrades on their homes in advance of an earthquake, purchase air filters ahead of a smoke event, or turn on the heat during a winter storm. Financial security also allows people to rebuild when their home is damaged or live through periods of unemployment resulting from a natural disaster. Additionally, research has shown that natural hazards also exacerbate inequality; people 41 Chapter 3: Risk Assessment with resources can afford to move from areas with repeated natural haz- ards while the poor are forced to stay, with a resulting increase in poverty (Boustan, 2017). Race: Black, indigenous, and other people of color (BIPOC) experience more and worse impacts from natural hazards due to historical and exist- ing systemic racism. Institutional racism has prevented many BIPOC from accumulating wealth and property that provides a safety net during natural disasters. Government has failed to provide the same level of services to these communities—investing less in the infrastructure and programs that could mitigate disaster risk in the areas where many BIPOC communities live (Norwood, 2021). Finally, emerging research shows that Black and Lati- no families receive less disaster aid following an event. In addition to wid- ening the wealth gap as described above, natural disasters are contributing to disparities between BIPOC and White communities (Flavelle, 2021). Language: Limited English proficiency can make it difficult for individuals to access public information and properly prepare for natural disasters. Linguistic isolation may make it difficult to assert labor and housing rights, access insurance, and/or interact with aid workers following a disaster. Transportation: People unable to use or access a car may experience greater hardship during a natural hazard event. Winter storms and other hazards can disrupt public transportation and make sidewalks and bike lanes impassable, making it difficult to get to work, school, childcare, the grocery store, or other essential services. It may be more difficult to evac- uate due to a fire, earthquake, or flood. Extreme heat may impact public transportation, making it difficult for people to travel to cooling centers. Age, and existing health conditions: Children, elderly people, and those living with chronic illnesses may be more severely impacted by natural hazards. Elderly and ill adults may have a harder time preparing for natu- ral disasters or moving out of harm’s way when one occurs. Exposure to wildfire smoke, while dangerous for all, can especially impact the health of children and people with respiratory illnesses, while extreme heat can be more dangerous for older adults. Additionally, older people and those with chronic illnesses often rely on support from external services, such as medical care or home aides. Access to these services may be disrupted as result of a natural hazard event. Disability: Disability. People with disabilities face additional challenges during natural hazard events, especially when evacuations are necessary. Those with vision or hearing challenges may not be able to access emer- gency information; those with intellectual abilities may not comprehend or act on the information in the expected way; while those with mobility needs may need additional assistance to evacuate. In an emergency situa- tion, it may be difficult to meet these additional needs. MAP2021 42 Chapter 3: Risk Assessment Housing type and tenure: The type of structure a person lives in, its loca- tion, and whether they own or rent it can influence their exposure to and ability to prepare for and recover from natural hazards. In Portland, some homes are built with unreinforced masonry (brick buildings), and/or have insufficient insulation, airflow, or heating and cooling options, which can leave individuals exposed to greater risk from earthquake, weather ex- tremes, and poor air quality from wildfire smoke. Where a home is located and how it is built can impact its risk of flooding or ability to withstand a windstorm. Renters are less able to make improvements to their homes that could mitigate their risk, are often displaced after a disaster, and are not eligible for aid to rebuild their housing (Hersher and Benincasa, 2019). People experiencing houselessness are the most at risk, as they face direct exposure during any event. Family composition: Families of different sizes and types have different needs related to natural disasters. Homes headed by single mothers have been shown to receive the least support for natural hazard mitigation and recovery. These families generally face extra challenges that may make it more difficult to prepare for and recover from a natural disaster (Hersher and Benincasa, 2019). MAP2021 Figure 3.2. FEMA Social Vulnerability (SoVI) map for Portland 43 Chapter 3: Risk Assessment MAP2021 In addition to these categories, there are other characteristics that can influence how people and communities experience the shock of natural haz- ards and how they adapt to them, including education, culture and social iso- lation. FEMA uses a ‘social vulnerability index’ (SoVI) developed at the University of South Carolina to help us identify areas where the populations we need to plan for live and to visualize how this corresponds with natural hazard impacts. The index is a well-researched composite of many of the indicators described above. Figure 3.2 shows a map of the SoVI in Portland with our risk reporting areas highlighted. While the SoVI can help us understand where some frontline and un- derserved communities align with natural hazard exposure, it is not a perfect tool. The data behind the SoVI is based on the US Census, which undercounts many of these at-risk populations (Ordway, 2019). The index is also general- ized to every hazard regardless of geography and situation, but as we know from our engagement with communities through this process, planning for underserved and frontline communities requires a more targeted approach. In our assessment of the hazards of greatest concern to Portland, the list above and the SoVI provide a general picture of the communities of highest concern, but we also point out when and how hazards may have worse impacts on a specific community or demographic group. Methodology The risk assessments evaluate the risk of all key hazards of concern to Portland. Each chapter describes the hazard, Portland’s exposure and vulner- ability, and probable event scenarios and/or summaries of past events. The planning team reviewed existing studies, reports, and technical information to determine the best available data to use in the risk assessment. Information from these sources was incorporated into the hazard profiles and forms the basis of the exposure and vulnerability assessment. The following steps were used to assess the risk of each hazard: 1. Profile each hazard—The following information is given for each hazard: • Definition and characteristics • Geographic area most affected • Frequency (estimates of how frequently the event is likely to occur) • A discussion of the possible severity of the hazard event • Warning time likely to be available for response • Impacts on underserved and frontline communities • Event scenario and/or summary of past events • Key issues related to mitigation of the hazard in Portland • Secondary hazards or compounding factors associated with or result- ing from the hazard of concern 2. Determine exposure to each hazard—Exposure was determined by overlaying hazard maps with demographic information and an inventory of structures, facilities, and systems to determine which would be exposed to each hazard. The best available data was used to delineate the area of 44 Chapter 3: Risk Assessment MAP2021 effect for each hazard. Data available in a Geographic Information System (GIS)-compatible format, with coverage of the full extent of Portland, was used when available. 3. Assess the vulnerability of exposed assets—Vulnerability of exposed structures and infrastructure was determined by interpreting the probability of occurrence of each event and assessing the potential level of damage to structures, facilities, and systems exposed to each hazard. Vulnerability of populations is generally discussed qualitatively, although some model outputs are used to describe quantitatively the number of people vulnera- ble to the hazard event. FEMA’s hazard-modeling program, Hazus-MH, was used to perform this assessment for some hazards; GIS-based spatial anal- yses or qualitative assessments were used for others. National, state, and local spatial databases were reviewed for this plan- ning effort. Maps were produced using GIS software to show the spatial extent of identified hazards when such data was available. These maps are included in the corresponding hazard profiles in this chapter. Additional maps that show more detailed geographic data are included in the appendix. Assessing Earthquake & Flood Flood: The Hazus Flood Assessment Structure Tool (FAST) calculates build- ing-level flood impacts with user-provided building and flood depth data. FAST uses the Hazus Flood model methodology to assign depth damage functions to buildings according to their occupancy type, first floor eleva- tion, foundation type, and number of stories. Flood depth is then extract- ed at every building and used as a depth damage function parameter to calculate flood losses in dollars. Flood-generated debris is estimated using building area in square feet. For more information about how FAST cal- culates flood impacts, please refer to the Hazus Flood Technical Manual (FEMA 2020). Earthquake: Earthquake analysis relied on DOGAMI’s 2018 study, O-18-02 (DOGAMI, 2018), which used Hazus-MH with user specified inputs. A point-level building file was used to re-aggregate model outputs to align with the smaller neighborhood-scale geographies we used in our analysis (Risk Reporting Areas or RRA) using GIS software. Results were ex- ported and summarized for inclusion in the report. Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning in Portland Earthquake Problem Statements ∞ An earthquake can happen in Portland at any time. Portland has several faults within the city and faces a major threat of earth- quake from the nearby Cascadia Subduction Zone. A Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) earthquake event over magnitude 8.0 has a 16-22% chance of occurring within the next 50 years (Goldfinger et al., 2017). ∞ A CSZ earthquake would severely disrupt the physical environment and economic systems of the city of Portland and throughout the region (ECONorthwest, 2020). ∞ A major earthquake would lead to extensive building destruction and damage throughout the city, especially to the estimated 1,600 unreinforced masonry buildings in the city that have not been retrofitted (BDS, n.d.). ∞ A major earthquake would lead to extensive building destruction and damage throughout the city, especially to the estimated 1,600 unreinforced masonry buildings in the city that have not been retrofitted (BDS, n.d.). ∞ Transportation systems and infrastructure, including utilities, may be severely damaged or destroyed as the result of an earthquake. 47 Chapter 3: Ris