ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 State of Oregon Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Brad Avy, State Geologist OPEN-FILE REPORT O-18-02 EARTHQUAKE REGIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR CLACKAMAS, MULTNOMAH, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, OREGON by John M. Bauer1, William J. Burns1, and Ian P. Madin1 2018 1Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, 800 NE Oregon Street, Suite 965, Portland, OR 97232 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon DISCLAIMER This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. This publication cannot substitute for site-specific investigations by qualified practitioners. Site-specific data may give results that differ from the results shown in the publication. Cover Image: Perceived shaking for a simulated magnitude 9.0 Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake in Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon, using updated National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program site classifications and bedrock ground motion data developed for the 2013 Oregon Resilience Plan. See Appendix E, Plate 6. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 Published in conformance with ORS 516.030 For additional information: Administrative Offices 800 NE Oregon Street, Suite 965 Portland, OR 97232 Telephone (971) 673-1555 http://www.oregongeology.org http://oregon.gov/DOGAMI/ Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 ii ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Overview...........................................................................................................................................................3 1.2 Earthquake Scenarios and Earthquake Loss Estimation ...................................................................................4 1.3 Study Limitations ..............................................................................................................................................8 2.0 Asset Database Development ........................................................................................................................ 10 2.1 Building Database ...........................................................................................................................................10 2.2 Electric Power Transmission ...........................................................................................................................15 2.3 Emergency Transportation Routes .................................................................................................................15 3.0 Natural Hazard Data Development ................................................................................................................ 16 3.1 Bedrock Ground Motion .................................................................................................................................16 3.2 Site Ground Motion ........................................................................................................................................16 3.3 Liquefaction and Landslide Susceptibility .......................................................................................................17 3.4 Permanent Ground Deformation ...................................................................................................................18 4.0 Loss Estimation Methods ............................................................................................................................... 20 4.1 Impacts to Buildings and People ....................................................................................................................20 4.2 Electric Power Transmission ...........................................................................................................................23 4.3 Emergency Transportation Routes .................................................................................................................23 4.4 Model Limitations ...........................................................................................................................................23 5.0 Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 26 5.1 Population and Building Density ....................................................................................................................26 5.2 Building Statistics ............................................................................................................................................26 5.3 Building Damage, Casualties, and Displaced Population ................................................................................27 5.4 Electric Power Transmission ...........................................................................................................................32 5.5 Emergency Transportation Routes .................................................................................................................32 6.0 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................................... 33 6.1 Earthquake Impacts ........................................................................................................................................33 6.2 Seismic Design Level Improvements ..............................................................................................................35 6.3 Comparison with Previous Studies .................................................................................................................36 7.0 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................... 38 8.0 Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................................... 40 9.0 References ..................................................................................................................................................... 41 10.0 Appendix A: Building Database Development .............................................................................................. 48 10.1 Building Database Data Sources ...................................................................................................................48 10.2 Seismic Design Level Assignments ................................................................................................................50 10.3 Buildings by Geological Classification ...........................................................................................................52 10.4 Buildings by Primary Usage ..........................................................................................................................54 10.5 Building Type by Primary Usage ...................................................................................................................55 11.0 Appendix B: Site Ground Motion and Ground Deformation Map Development ........................................... 57 11.1 Site Ground Motion Maps ............................................................................................................................57 11.2 Ground Deformation Maps ..........................................................................................................................59 12.0 Appendix C: Building Damage Assessment and Impacts to Occupants ......................................................... 60 12.1 Number of Buildings by Damage State .........................................................................................................60 12.2 Number of Collapsed Buildings ....................................................................................................................61 12.3 Permanent Residents by Building Damage State .........................................................................................62 12.4 Loss Estimates by Jurisdiction ......................................................................................................................67 13.0 Appendix D: Geographic Information System (GIS) Database ...................................................................... 72 14.0 Appendix E: Map Plates ............................................................................................................................... 74 Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 iii ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Figure 1-2. Figure 1-3. Figure 1-4. Figure 3-1. Figure 5-1. Figure 5-2. Regional Disaster Preparedness Organization counties, spanning Oregon and Washington .................. 3 Cascadia Subduction Zone fault (left) and Portland Hills fault (right) locations ...................................... 6 Example of ground failure underneath a transmission tower ................................................................. 7 Damaged road due to liquefaction-induced lateral spreading ................................................................ 8 Example: Capturing the variability of landslide susceptibility within building footprints (magenta polygons)................................................................................................................................ 18 Building primary usage statistics by county ........................................................................................... 26 Example damage state descriptions for a light-frame wood building ................................................... 30 LIST OF MAP PLATES See Appendix E Plate 1. Plate 2. Plate 3. Plate 4. Plate 5. Plate 6. Plate 7. Plate 8. Plate 9. Plate 10. Plate 11. Plate 12. Plate 13. Plate 14. Plate 15. Plate 16. Population Density and Building Location – Clackamas County, Oregon .............................................. 75 Population Density and Building Location – Multnomah County, Oregon ............................................ 76 Population Density and Building Location – Washington County, Oregon ............................................ 77 Site Peak Ground Acceleration, Simulated Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake ............................................................................................................................................. 78 Site Peak Ground Acceleration, Simulated Portland Hills Fault Magnitude 6.8 Earthquake ................. 79 Perceived Shaking and Damage Potential, Simulated Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake ....................................................................................................................................... 80 Perceived Shaking and Damage Potential, Simulated Portland Hills Fault Magnitude 6.8 Earthquake ............................................................................................................................................. 81 Potential Permanent Ground Deformation Due to Earthquake-Induced Landslides or Liquefaction Lateral Spreading, Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake, “Wet” (Saturated) Soil Scenario ........................................................................................................................ 82 Probability of Earthquake-Induced Landslides or Liquefaction, Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake, “Wet” (Saturated) Soil Scenario ................................................................ 83 Potential Impact of Permanent Ground Deformation to Metro Emergency Transportation Route Segments, Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake, “Wet” (Saturated) Soil Scenario ........................................................................................................................................... 84 Potential Impact of Permanent Ground Deformation to Metro Emergency Transportation Route Segments, Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake, “Dry” Soil Scenario ............. 85 Potential Impact of Permanent Ground Deformation to Metro Emergency Transportation Routes, Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake, “Wet” (Saturated) Soil Scenario .................................................................................................................................................. 86 Potential Impact of Permanent Ground Deformation to Electrical Transmission Structures, Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake, “Wet” (Saturated) Soil Scenario ..................... 87 Injuries Requiring Hospitalization, Clackamas County, Oregon, Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake, “Wet” (Saturated) Soil Conditions, Daytime (“2 PM”) Scenario................ 88 Injuries Requiring Hospitalization, Multnomah County, Oregon, Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake, “Wet” (Saturated) Soil Conditions, Daytime (“2 PM”) Scenario................ 89 Injuries Requiring Hospitalization, Washington County, Oregon, Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake, “Wet” (Saturated) Soil Conditions, Daytime (“2 PM”) Scenario................ 90 Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 iv ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1. Table 2-2. Table 4-1. Table 5-1. Table 5-2. Table 5-3. Table 5-4. Table 10-1. Table 10-2. Table 10-3. Table 10-4. Table 10-5. Table 10-6. Table 10-7. Table 10-8. Table 11-1. Table 11-2. Table 11-3. Table 11-4. Table 12-1. Table 12-2. Table 12-3. Table 12-4. Table 12-5. Table 12-6. Table 12-7. Table 12-8. Table 12-9. Table 12-10. Table 12-11. Building information required by Hazus earthquake model .................................................................. 10 Population changes in the study area, 2010 to 2016 ............................................................................. 14 Hazus casualty level descriptions ........................................................................................................... 20 Residential buildings by building type.................................................................................................... 27 Occupancy by building type ................................................................................................................... 27 Damage to buildings by building category and by earthquake scenario ............................................... 29 Seismic design level improvement exercise, Cascadia Subduction Zone magnitude 9.0 earthquake ............................................................................................................................................. 31 Data sources used in construction of the building database ................................................................. 49 Oregon seismic design level benchmark years ...................................................................................... 50 Building statistics by seismic design level, per county ........................................................................... 51 Building statistics by NEHRP site classification, per county ................................................................... 52 Building statistics by Hazus-based liquefaction susceptibility rating, per county .................................. 53 Building statistics by Hazus-based earthquake-induced landslide susceptibility rating, per county .................................................................................................................................................... 53 Buildings statistics by primary usage, per county .................................................................................. 54 Building type by generalized building use .............................................................................................. 56 Site amplification coefficients for peak ground acceleration................................................................. 58 Site amplification coefficients for peak ground velocity ........................................................................ 58 Site amplification coefficients for spectral acceleration at 0.3 second.................................................. 58 Site amplification coefficients for spectral acceleration at 1.0 second.................................................. 58 Number of buildings per damage state, by county and by earthquake and soil moisture scenario .................................................................................................................................................. 60 Collapsed buildings by county and by earthquake and soil moisture conditions .................................. 61 Permanent residents per building damage state, by county and by earthquake and soil moisture conditions scenario ................................................................................................................. 62 Buildings and permanent residents per building damage state for Cascadia Subduction Zone magnitude 9.0 earthquake, “dry” soil conditions .................................................................................. 63 Buildings and permanent residents per building damage state for Cascadia Subduction Zone magnitude 9.0 earthquake, “wet” (saturated) soil conditions............................................................... 64 Buildings and permanent residents per building damage state for Portland Hills fault magnitude 6.8 earthquake, “dry” soil conditions .................................................................................. 65 Buildings and permanent residents per building damage state for Portland Hills fault magnitude 6.8 earthquake, “wet” (saturated) soil conditions............................................................... 66 Loss estimates by jurisdiction, Cascadia Subduction Zone magnitude 9.0 earthquake, “dry” soil conditions ........................................................................................................................................ 68 Loss estimates by jurisdiction, Cascadia Subduction Zone magnitude 9.0 earthquake, “wet” (saturated) soil conditions ..................................................................................................................... 69 Loss estimates by jurisdiction, Portland Hills fault magnitude 6.8 earthquake, “dry” soil conditions ............................................................................................................................................... 70 Loss estimates by jurisdiction, Portland Hills fault magnitude 6.8 earthquake, “wet” (saturated) soil conditions ..................................................................................................................... 71 Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 v ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) DATA See the digital publication folder for files. File geodatabase is Esri® version 10.1 format. Metadata is embedded in the geodatabase and is also provided as separate .xml format files. Metadata in .xml file format: Each feature class, table, and raster listed below has an associated, standalone xml file containing metadata in the Federal Geographic Data Committee Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata format. RDPO_Earthquake_Impact_Analysis_Phase1.gdb: Feature dataset: Phase1 Feature classes: Building_Footprints Electrical_Transmission_Structures Emergency_Transportation_Routes Jurisdictions Neighborhood_Units Population_and_Building_Density Tables: Loss_Jurisdiction_CSZ_M9p0_dry Loss_Jurisdiction_CSZ_M9p0_wet Loss_Jurisdiction_PHF_M6p8_dry Loss_Jurisdiction_PHF_M6p8_wet Loss_Neighborhood_Unit_CSZ_M9p0_dry Loss_Neighborhood_Unit_CSZ_M9p0_wet Loss_Neighborhood_Unit_PHF_M6p8_dry Loss_Neighborhood_Unit_PHF_M6p8_wet RDPO_GroundMotion_GroundFailure_Phase1.gdb: Feature class: PHF_M6p8_bedrock_groundmotion Rasters: CSZ_M9p0_pga_site PHF_M6p8_pga_site CSZ_M9p0_pgv_site PHF_M6p8_pgv_site CSZ_M9p0_sa03_site PHF_M6p8_sa03_site CSZ_M9p0_sa10_site PHF_M6p8_sa10_site CSZ_M9p0_PGD_landslide_dry PHF_M6p8_PGD_landslide_dry CSZ_M9p0_PGD_landslide_wet PHF_M6p8_PGD_landslide_wet CSZ_M9p0_PGD_liquefaction_wet PHF_M6p8_PGD_liquefaction_wet CSZ_M9p0_Prob_landslide_dry PHF_M6p8_Prob_landslide_dry CSZ_M9p0_Prob_landslide_wet PHF_M6p8_Prob_landslide_wet CSZ_M9p0_Prob_liquefaction_wet PHF_M6p8_Prob_liquefaction_wet Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 vi ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report was prepared for the Regional Disaster Preparedness Organization (RDPO), with funding provided by the Urban Areas Security Initiative Program. The report provides damage and casualty estimates to buildings, people, and key infrastructure sectors resulting from a major earthquake in the Portland metropolitan region by using updated local geologic information and recent advances in loss estimation methods. Damage and casualty estimates are tabulated at county, jurisdiction, and neighborhood levels, providing actionable information for further use in emergency planning, earthquake mitigation, public awareness, and post-earthquake response and recovery. The RDPO is a bi-state partnership of local and regional government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and private-sector stakeholders representing the Portland metropolitan region that collaborate to increase the region’s resiliency to disasters. The region spans Clackamas, Columbia, Multnomah, and Washington Counties in Oregon and Clark County in Washington. In 2016 the RDPO Steering Committee identified a need for updated, region-wide, detailed loss estimates from a major earthquake and engaged the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) to conduct this study. Previously, earthquake damage estimates in large portions of the Portland metropolitan region were limited to studies conducted in the 1990s, when understanding of the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) risk was nascent. Since then, advances have occurred in several areas, including loss estimation tool capabilities, subduction zone science, and local geologic mapping in the Portland metropolitan region. The RDPO commissioned this study to harness such advances, thereby enabling local, regional, state, and federal planners and policy makers to apply the results in their efforts to mitigate risk and building seismic resilience and to prepare for response and recovery. DOGAMI and RDPO divided the project into two phases, with the first phase focused on methodology refinement and application of those methods to evaluate impact of a major earthquake in Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties (Oregon). Phase 2 will apply the same methods in Columbia County, Oregon, and Clark County, Washington. The Portland metropolitan region is vulnerable to regional and local earthquakes. We modeled damage for two earthquake scenarios: a magnitude 9.0 CSZ earthquake, and a magnitude 6.8 Portland Hills fault earthquake, a local crustal fault situated at the foot of the Tualatin Mountains. In order to better understand the range of possible losses, our analysis quantified impacts during saturated and dry soil conditions — the former are more likely to have earthquake-induced landslides and liquefaction; the latter may have some earthquake-induced landslides, but little occurrence of liquefaction. We derived our damage estimates primarily from Hazus®, a geographic information system (GIS)-based tool and set of methods for loss estimation from natural hazards. Hazus is developed and supported by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Our project consisted of several major efforts: • Building and infrastructure databases: completion of a region-wide building footprint database, a building database containing detailed descriptions of each building, and an electric power transmission structure database • Geotechnical mapping updates: earthquake-induced landslide susceptibility, liquefaction susceptibility, and soil classification, using recently published high-resolution geologic mapping • Ground motion and ground deformation updates: local ground motion and ground failure data for two earthquake scenarios using the geotechnical mapping updates • Earthquake damage estimates: quantifying impacts to buildings and the people that occupy them, to the region’s designated emergency transportation routes, and to the electrical grid Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 1 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon A GIS database containing building footprints, population density grids, detailed casualty, debris, and building loss estimates by jurisdiction and neighborhood, key infrastructure sectors with loss estimates, and updated ground motion and ground deformation data accompanies this report. A separately published report describes the geologic mapping updates for the three-county area, consisting of National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) soil types, and earthquake-induced landslide and liquefaction susceptibility. A Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) magnitude 9.0 earthquake will have a severe impact on the threecounty area, with building repair costs amounting to between 23.5 and 36.7 billion dollars (9% and 14% of the total building replacement cost, Table ES-1). Although damage estimates vary widely throughout the study area, no community will be unharmed. Depending on the time of day an earthquake occurs, casualties may be in the thousands or low tens of thousands. The earthquake will generate several millions of tons of debris from damaged buildings. Damage and casualty estimates resulting from a magnitude 6.8 Portland Hills fault earthquake are more than twice compared to a CSZ earthquake, primarily because of the Portland Hills fault location below densely populated and heavily developed areas (Table ES-1). However, the likelihood of a Portland Hills fault earthquake is considerably less than a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake. Table ES-1. Loss estimate summary for two earthquake scenarios in the Portland metropolitan area. Lower value: dry soil conditions. Upper value: saturated soil conditions. U.S. Census Population Number Building Building Building Estimate of Loss Value Repair Cost (2010) Buildings ($ Billion) ($ Billion) Ratio County Clackamas Multnomah Washington Total Clackamas Multnomah Washington Total * Casualty Total Casualties* Long-Term Daytime Nighttime Displaced Debris Scenario (Millions Population Scenario of Tons) (Thousands) (Thousands) (Thousands) Cascadia Subduction Zone magnitude 9.0 earthquake 62.4 3.2–4.6 5%–7% 1.7–2.1 1.9–10.1 114.0 13.3–20.5 12%–18% 7.7–10.4 9.7–37.5 82.7 7.0–11.6 8%–14% 3.4–4.8 5.2–37.7 375,992 735,334 529,710 179,164 255,577 181,111 2.0–2.8 11.4–16.7 4.9–7.7 0.5–1.1 2.8–5.6 1.1–3.7 1,641,036 615,852 259.1 12.8–17.3 16.8–85.3 18.3–27.2 4.4–10.4 375,992 735,334 529,710 179,164 255,577 181,111 Portland Hills fault magnitude 6.8 earthquake 62.4 12.9–16.4 21%–26% 4.9–6.0 25.2–50.8 114.0 32.3–42.7 28%–37% 15.7–19.3 50.8–120 82.7 15.4–24.3 19%–29% 6.0–8.6 19.6–86.0 8.9–10.9 28.9–36.3 10.0–15.8 3.3–5.2 9.3–15.3 3.2–8.5 1,641,036 615,852 259.1 47.8–63.0 15.8–29.0 23.5–36.7 60.6–83.4 9%–14% 23%–32% 26.6–33.9 95.6–257 estimates include minor injuries, injuries requiring hospitalization, and fatalities. The damage estimates are significantly higher than those given in previously published studies for the area, primarily due to usage of an updated building inventory that more accurately reflects the region’s building code history with respect to seismic resiliency, and usage of updated soils and liquefaction susceptibility data. This study addressed a major need for consistent, updated earthquake damage estimates in the Portland metropolitan region. The data are intended not as an end in themselves, but as a platform for counties, jurisdictions, and communities to better understand their needs to prepare for, respond to, and recover from a major earthquake. We conclude our report with recommendations supported by findings in this study that can reduce the region’s vulnerability, shorten recovery time, and improve emergency operations. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 2 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Overview Casualty and loss estimates for a modeled earthquake provide planners with actionable data for preearthquake preparations and mitigation and for post-earthquake recovery efforts. The Regional Disaster Preparedness Organization (RDPO), a bi-state partnership of local and regional government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and private-sector stakeholders representing the Portland Metropolitan Region, collaborate to increase the region’s resiliency to disasters, including earthquakes. The Portland Metropolitan Region spans Clackamas, Columbia, Multnomah, and Washington Counties in Oregon, and Clark County in Washington (Figure 1-1). Figure 1-1. Regional Disaster Preparedness Organization counties, spanning Oregon and Washington. Phase 1 study area in tan, proposed Phase 2 study area in lavender. County seats shown as dots. One of RDPO’s guiding principles is ensuring equity and fairness in adopting regional policies, and from an earthquake planning perspective, that principle requires loss estimates that are developed using consistent methods and data across the region. Prior to this study, loss estimates from earthquakes in the Portland Metropolitan Region were derived from several studies, each done at different times, using different datasets (Wang, 1998; Hofmeister and others, 2003; FEMA, 2004; Tetra Tech, 2016a). Technologies and data available for earthquake impact analysis have improved since these studies. RDPO requested that Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) develop — using the best tools and methods, updated local geological data, and detailed building and infrastructure data — updated loss estimates from a major earthquake for the five-county RDPO area. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 3 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon We divided the project into two phases. Phase 1 focused on methodology refinement and application of those methods to evaluate impact of a major earthquake in Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties (Oregon) — the “study area.” Phase 2 will apply the same methods in Columbia County, Oregon, and Clark County, Washington. This report documents our Phase 1 work. The three-county study area is home to 44% of Oregon’s total population. It continues to experience significant growth, with population increasing from 1.45 million people in 2000, to 1.64 million people in 2010, to 1.78 million people in 2016 (Portland State University Population Research Center, 2016, https://www.pdx.edu/prc/population-reports-estimates). By 2030, the study area’s total population is projected at 2.10 million people (Oregon Office of Economic Analysis, 2013, http://www.oregon.gov/ das/OEA/Pages/forecastdemographic.aspx ). The area hosts 894,000 jobs, or 50% of all jobs in Oregon, with total annual wages estimated at $50.5 billion (Oregon Employment Department, 2016). The area includes an infrastructure hub that houses all of Oregon’s major liquid fuel port terminals, and Port of Portland facilities that include the state’s largest airport. Most of the population in the study area is concentrated in cities (76%), but all three counties contain large tracts of unincorporated suburban development. All three counties have broad areas of dispersed rural development. Geology in the 3,076-square-mile study area varies widely, influenced by local and regional processes (Evarts and others, 2009). It includes Columbia River basalts, alluvial deposits, volcanic outcrops, loess deposits, dredge and fill material placed on top of former riverine wetlands, and large areas of finegrained to coarse-grained Missoula flood deposits (Ma and others, 2012). The geological diversity creates significant local variations in earthquake ground motion and in ground failure from earthquakeinduced landslides and liquefaction. 1.2 Earthquake Scenarios and Earthquake Loss Estimation An earthquake scenario tells the story of a defined earthquake and its potential impacts to a community, presenting narratives and data that can help planners and community members better understand the earthquake and plan for the future (Earthquake Engineering Research Institute [EERI], 2006). Scenarios use the best scientific information available on fault placement, rupture frequency, and earthquake magnitude. Because the loss estimate data are used for planning purposes, scenarios incorporate the upper end of predicted magnitude when modeling a specific earthquake. Full earthquake scenario exercises incorporate experts from multiple backgrounds and responsibilities, such as transportation and utilities. Past examples include the Seattle Fault (EERI, 2005) and the Wasatch Fault (EERI, 2015) scenarios. Our study is more limited in scope compared to the two example scenarios; we focus on damage to buildings and the people that occupy them, and to two key infrastructure sectors. In this report, our use of the term scenario refers to a specific combination of a particular earthquake and one or more additional variables. In order to provide planners a more complete picture of the range of potential impacts from a large earthquake, we modeled two distinct earthquakes: a Cascadia Subduction Zone and a Portland Hills fault. Each earthquake was modeled with a wet (saturated) and a dry soil condition, and each earthquake was modeled at two different times of the day, at “2 AM” and at “2 PM.” In western Oregon and Washington, soil moisture conditions vary widely throughout the calendar year. Soil moisture conditions influence the likelihood of an earthquake-triggered landslide or liquefaction. An earthquake occurring during wet (saturated) soil conditions is much more likely to induce landslides and liquefaction. Some earthquake-induced landslides may occur in dry soil conditions, but liquefaction is much less likely. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 4 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon Throughout a typical day, people move between various buildings such as residences, schools, work facilities, and commercial facilities. Some buildings, due to their basic structural system, are more likely to sustain significant damage from an earthquake and, thus, depending on how many people are occupying the building at the time of the earthquake, cause more casualties. Past earthquakes along the 600-mile Cascadia Subduction Zone fault (Figure 1-1) have occurred at highly variable intervals, from decades to centuries, and have ranged widely in magnitude (Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission [OSSPAC], 2013). At least 40 large-magnitude earthquakes have occurred along the fault in the past 10,000 years. The most recent earthquake, estimated at magnitude 9.0, occurred on January 26, 1700 A.D. Studies of the geologic record suggest that a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake of magnitude 9.0 has a 10% to 14% chance of occurring within the next 50 years (Petersen and others, 2002; Goldfinger and others, 2012). For the central and northern Oregon coast, recent research suggests the chance of occurrence within the next 50 years may be 15% to 20% (Goldfinger and others, 2017). Although the Cascadia Subduction Zone fault has garnered significant attention, active local crustal faults should also be evaluated in an earthquake impact analysis. Wong and others (2001) concluded that the Portland Hills fault (Figure 1-2) might be seismogenic, with evidence suggesting two ruptures in the past 15,000 years (Liberty and others, 2003). Other active crustal faults exist in the Portland Metropolitan Region, but a rupture on the Portland Hills fault would be the most impactful, given its position directly underneath downtown Portland and the population centers of Clackamas County. Hazus is a nationally applicable standardized methodology that contains models for estimating potential losses from earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes. Hazus uses geographic information system (GIS) technology to estimate physical, economic, and social impacts of disasters (FEMA, 2011). FEMA developed the earthquake model in cooperation with the National Institute of Building Sciences (Schneider and Schauer, 2006). Hazus damage and loss functions for generic model building types are considered to be reliable predictors of earthquake effects for large groups of buildings (FEMA, 2010). However, good estimates require accurate, updated data inputs. The first Hazus-based study conducted in Oregon used a magnitude 8.5 model of a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake as it was understood at the time (Wang, 1998). The study was intended to provide an overall initial understanding of potential earthquake impacts across Oregon. Further, the Hazus tool at that time did not incorporate liquefaction or landslide information. Subsequent Hazusbased studies were limited to portions of the study area. The City of Portland had two Hazus-based studies (FEMA, 2004; Tetra Tech, 2016a), and Clackamas County had one Hazus-based study (Hofmeister and others, 2003). However, no studies have been conducted for Multnomah County (excluding the City of Portland) and Washington County since Wang (1998). All previous Hazus-based earthquake studies in the study area were conducted at the census tract level — a spatial unit designated by the U.S. Census Bureau (https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ gtc/gtc_ct.html) that was chosen in the formative days of Hazus tool development out of computational necessity, but one that oversimplifies the building, seismic, and geologic heterogeneity within the census tract (Price and others, 2010). In the past five years, advances in Hazus tools and methods have enabled modeling earthquake damage using detailed data that incorporate local geologic variations and individual building seismic design characteristics. The advancements in the tools and methods provide more accurate loss estimates and permit analysis at a finer, neighborhood-scale level, rather than at the coarser census tract level. The updated methods require that considerable effort be expended on dataset development, including building and infrastructure inventory and local geological data. In Section 2, we provide background on the asset development, which includes all buildings and key infrastructure Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 5 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon sectors in the study area. Further background on the key infrastructure sectors is in the following subsections. Figure 1-2. Cascadia Subduction Zone fault (left) and Portland Hills fault (right) locations. Blue rectangle in left figure is shown in right figure. 1.2.1 Critical Infrastructure Sectors The Cities of Eugene and Springfield Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (2014) identified three critical infrastructure sectors fundamental to the operation, maintenance, and restoration of all other infrastructure sectors — namely, electricity, transportation, and fossil fuels. Given the challenges of enumerating the numerous interdependencies among various sectors and of quantifying potential earthquake damage to the components of those sectors, we determined that by limiting our analysis to the key sectors identified in that plan, we could establish a basis upon which to build future infrastructure studies and interdependencies. In the Portland Metropolitan Region, fossil fuel supply seismic resiliency has been analyzed by Wang and others (2013), with a focus on the Critical Energy Infrastructure (CEI) Hub in northwest Portland. Tetra Tech (2016b) quantified damage estimates to the CEI Hub’s fuel storage structures for a Cascadia Subduction Zone and for a Portland Hills fault earthquake scenario, and DOGAMI provided a substantive review of the report. We did not see a need to revisit damage estimates to the nonbuilding structures contained in the CEI Hub. Nonbuilding structures include water towers, storage tanks, piers, dams, and carports, and where human occupancy is incidental (FEMA, 2012b). Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 6 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon A Hazus-based study of the City of Portland (FEMA, 2004) included an analysis of an earthquake impact to electric substations and the transportation network. Although it used best available liquefaction and landslide data, the study was limited to the City of Portland, and its spatial data were not made available for further analysis. 1.2.1.1 Electric Power Transmission Electric power infrastructure consists of power generation and distribution, including dams, substations, transmission network, and local transformers. Within the network, substation components are typically the most likely to fail given strong ground motion (Fujisaki and others, 2014). Transmission structures (towers and poles) generally perform well under strong ground motion but can fail due to lateral movement from liquefaction or earthquake-induced landslides (Good and others, 2009). Hazus provides a simplified damage model from ground motion and ground failure for substations as a whole unit, but the model may be overly conservative (Kongar and others, 2014), and a more accurate model should consider individual substation components. From our literature review we determined that our project should 1) provide updated ground motion and ground failure data for local utilities to better quantify their substation seismic resiliency, and 2) address the risk to the transmission network between substations by quantifying potential ground failure at the transmission structures. An example of earthquake-induced ground failure impact on a transmission structure is shown in Figure 1-3. Our approach builds on the previous exposure analysis of electric transmission structures to mapped landslides established by Burns and others (2011, 2013). Figure 1-3. Example of ground failure underneath a transmission tower, 1999 İzmit earthquake (Turkey). Photographic credit: University of California, Irvine Consortium of University for Research in Earthquake Engineering Archives. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 7 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon 1.2.1.2 Emergency Transportation Routes Functioning transportation networks are essential for emergency response and post-earthquake recovery. Regional planners have identified a subset of arterials in the study area as routes essential for providing emergency services. Understanding which routes may be impacted from an earthquake can permit planners to consider alternative routes or how to distribute services in a more dispersed manner. An example of earthquake-induced ground failure impact on a surface road is shown in Figure 1-4. A complete analysis would include a seismic analysis of the bridges and overpasses used by the emergency transportation routes, but such an analysis requires detailed field-gathered information (e.g., Wang, 2017) and was beyond the scope of this project. Figure 1-4. Damaged road due to liquefaction-induced lateral spreading, 2001 Nisqually, Washington earthquake. Photographic credit: DOGAMI Archives. 1.3 Study Limitations Hazus-based risk analyses often include damage estimates to various assets such as buildings, buried utilities, above ground utilities, and essential facilities. Such analyses typically use the inventory data that accompany Hazus. Out of necessity, the Hazus inventory data are constructed from readily available nationwide datasets, and often capture a portion of the non-building assets in an area. Users can supplant the inventory with more detailed information, but at significant development cost. Given the constraints on time and budget for this project, and the challenges of obtaining more detailed and accurate local data, we limited our analysis to buildings and the people that occupy them, and the two key infrastructure sectors previously discussed. Specifically, we did not analyze earthquake impacts to communication networks or towers, storage tanks, dams, levees, hazardous material facilities, and buried utilities conveying natural gas, potable water, oil, stormwater, and wastewater. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 8 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon We did not identify or individually analyze specific buildings that may be considered essential or critical facilities. As discussed in the Recommendations section (Section 7), we maintain that the identification of such facilities should be community driven, and that an earthquake impact analysis of such facilities should be done by using the Rapid Visual Screening method (FEMA, 2015a) rather than a Hazus-based method using generic building models. The Critical Energy Infrastructure (CEI) Hub along the Willamette River in northwest Portland was not analyzed in this report. A recent analysis conducted by Tetra Tech (2016b) provided a detailed damage assessment of the infrastructure from the same earthquake scenarios we used for this study. We did not include the hub’s nonbuilding structures, such as oil tanks, in our building database. Our economic loss estimates were limited to the direct cost of repairing a damaged building or replacing a severely damaged building with an equivalent structure. Our model assumes standard labor and material costs and availability of capital and credit. It does not factor in any demand surge. We did not model income losses such as wage and rental income, as we maintain that the impacts of a regional earthquake will fundamentally alter the local economy, rendering the basic assumptions used in the current Hazus model moot. Our study focused on loss to buildings, which includes damage from earthquake-induced landslides and liquefaction. We did not quantify permanent loss of use, and thus value, of the land due to the ground failure. Such loss of use can add to the overall indirect economic loss. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 9 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon 2.0 ASSET DATABASE DEVELOPMENT In this study we limited our analysis, and thus our asset database, to three components: buildings and the people occupying them, the electric power transmission infrastructure, and emergency transportation routes. A building is defined as a structure containing a roof and walls and occupied by people. Nonbuilding structures include water towers, storage tanks, piers, dams, and carports, and where human occupancy is incidental (FEMA, 2012b). We excluded nonbuilding structures from our building database. The electrical transmission network is limited to the towers and poles that supply power to the distribution substations (Appendix E, Plate 1). The surface transportation network is limited to a subset of highways, arterials, and roads identified as Emergency Transportation Routes (Appendix E, Plate 10). 2.1 Building Database A Hazus-compatible building database contains a record for each distinct building, with each record containing required information for estimating damage to the structure and potential harm to the building’s occupants (Table 2-1). Information associated with the building record, commonly referred to as attributes in a GIS context, is populated primarily from county assessor records or, where better data are available, from other ancillary datasets. Examples of such datasets are provided in Table 10-1. Table 2-1. Building information required by Hazus earthquake model. Hazus Attribute Example Purpose Location of building latitude, longitude Extract ground motion and ground deformation data Building usage Single-family Residential; Retail Commercial wood; steel 1968 2 2250 2.1 3.4 Repair/replacement cost; Number of people per building Response to ground motion; debris Seismic design level: response to ground motion Response to ground motion Repair/replacement cost; debris Casualty estimate Casualty estimate Building material Year built Number of stories Square footage Daytime occupancy+ Nighttime occupancy+ + Daytime and nighttime occupancy amounts at the individual building level are based on proration of aggregated population data using the building’s square footage, thus are typically fractional. 2.1.1 Building Footprint Development A building footprint is a GIS polygon representation outlining the shape of the building. It defines a record in the building database. The building footprint establishes the location of the building, thereby placing the building relative to a natural hazard. Because building footprints define the building record, our first task was to complete a building footprint database for the study area. Building footprints were obtained from Metro Regional Land Information System (http://rlisdiscovery.oregonmetro.gov/, downloaded February 2016) and from two DOGAMI publications (Burns and others, 2011, 2013). Large portions of western Washington County and southwestern Clackamas County had no building footprint data. In these areas we digitized building footprints following the methods described by Mickelson and Burns (2012, Section 3.2.3). Where lidar Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 10 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon data were not present, we used 2016 orthoimagery from the National Agricultural Imagery Program (https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/aerial-photography/imagery-programs/naipimagery/index). Our digitization effort included removing obsolete building footprints (teardowns) and modifying existing building footprints where additions had been made or other digitization errors were noted. We did not digitize structures less than 400 square feet in area, as such features are assumed to be non-building structures, such as kiosks, or are not reasonable to model within Hazus, such as portable storage sheds. Structures obtained from previous digitization efforts that were less than 400 square feet were retained in the building footprint database but were attributed as not modeled. Nonbuilding structures include developments such as water towers, billboards, docks, dams, piers, and hoop houses. Outlines of such structures are often included in a building footprint database. Our study focuses on estimating damage from an earthquake to buildings and the people that reside in them. Many of the nonbuilding structures have no damage model or an overly simplified damage model within the Hazus framework. We identified such structures using orthoimagery and tax lot database queries, and we attributed them as not modeled. Floating structures such as houseboats do not directly experience seismic shaking. We identified such structures using orthoimagery, attributed them as floating structures, and excluded them from our analysis. As with nonbuilding structures, we retained the building footprint of floating structures in the database. We note that floating structures may be damaged from seismic seiches (Jones and others, 2008). In the building footprint database obtained from Metro RLIS, building complexes that contain two or more distinct, contiguous buildings were commonly digitized as a single building. Such buildings typically occur in downtown areas and can be identified by several methods, including their spanning multiple tax lots with unique owners, and distinct building heights derived from lidar elevation models. Seismic design level, building usage, and construction material can vary between such contiguous buildings, each of which can influence the damage estimate. We determined that dividing such polygons into individual buildings would result in a more accurate representation of the built infrastructure. Orthoimagery and street-level imagery further clarified whether a building footprint needed further partition. Building footprints digitized as part of this project factored in the guidelines for contiguous buildings. Although parking garages are by definition nonbuilding structures, Hazus considers them as buildings in its occupancy class library (FEMA, 2011, Table 3.2). We retained that modest inconsistency in our building database by including parking garages in our damage assessment. 2.1.2 Assessor Database Processing County assessor databases form the basis for assigning Hazus-required information for individual buildings, as the databases have information for most to all of the tax lots in the study area. We obtained detailed tabular data from the three county assessor offices. We used the tax lot spatial data from the Metro RLIS database to associate assessor tabular data with specific buildings, and we extracted information from the assessor tabular data to assign values to the appropriate attributes (Table 2-1). For example, Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR 150-308.215) require that county assessors assign a 3digit property code for all tax lots in Oregon. We constructed a reference table to translate the tax lot property code into one of 36 Hazus occupancy classes, and we assigned that value to the particular buildings occupying that particular tax lot. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 11 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon Assessor tabular data provided direct or easily-derived information for the following attributes: year built, square footage, number of stories, and building usage. None of the three county assessor databases had consistent information on building type (e.g., wood, steel). 2.1.3 Usage of Ancillary Data We used a supersedence paradigm, overriding the assessor-derived data with more accurate data where available (Appendix A, Section 10.1). For example, Lewis (2007) provided detailed information on square footage and building type for public buildings, such as schools, in Oregon. Other examples include the Metro RLIS spatial data on single-family and multi-family residential buildings, and the locations of educational, fire, and police buildings. Appendix A, Section 10.1 provides a complete list of other datasets used to populate the building database. 2.1.4 Building Type The Hazus building type attribute specifies the basic structural system of a building. For example, a steel-framed building can be categorized as a steel light frame or a steel moment frame. The Hazus Advanced Engineering Building Module (AEBM) tool provides building damage functions for 36 generic building types (FEMA, 2010), and the FEMA Rapid Visual Screening handbook (FEMA, 2015a) provides qualitative descriptions of each building type. We classified all buildings in the study area into one of the 36 generic building types. Although Hazus AEBM permits one to create a unique performance model for individual buildings, such an effort was well outside of this project’s scope, given its three-county scale. We could not find any information in any of the three county assessor databases that provided consistent information on the building’s primary construction material. Building types for a portion of the buildings were available from several sources, and we incorporated these into our building database. Lewis (2007) provided building types for public schools, fire, and police buildings. The most valuable dataset was the Metro Area Disaster GIS (MADGIS) database (Metro, 1998), with 40,000 buildings spread across all counties in the study area, categorized into Hazus-compatible building types. For buildings that had no information on their primary construction material, we assigned a value based on the building’s occupancy class, year built, and number of stories. We used an in-house tool that implements the statistical distributions listed in Tables 3.A1–3.A10 of the Hazus Earthquake Technical Manual (FEMA, 2011). 2.1.5 Building Replacement Value We used the RSMeans valuation method for estimating a building’s replacement cost (Charest, 2017), multiplying the building square footage by a standard cost per square foot. We used values from Hazus SQL database tables ([dbo].[hzReplacementCost] and [dbo].[hzRes1ReplCost]) that incorporated the RSMeans valuation to compute the replacement cost. We made no inflation or regional adjustments to the tabular data, for the following reasons. The Hazus tables were based on 2014 RSMeans national values. Because the Consumer Price Index difference between 2014 and 2017 was minimal, we made no further adjustment. The RSMeans location factor adjusts for regional differences in labor and material costs. Portland area’s location factor of 0.98 for residential construction (Charest, 2017) was, for simplicity, rounded to 1.0, and thus we did not adjust cost; the commercial construction location factor at 1.0 also resulted in no adjustment. Building replacement cost is not the same as a property’s assessed value. For analysis purposes, we assume repair or replacement costs to damaged structures will be charged at standard construction rates and are independent of a building’s age or the land on which the building is placed. Assessed value Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 12 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon takes into account the land’s value, which may fluctuate greatly depending on real estate markets, and for improvements, assessors typically factor in the building’s depreciation into the assessed value. An abnormal shortage of skilled labor or materials can occur after a large-scale disaster. Demand surge is a process resulting in a higher cost to repair building damage after large disasters than to repair the same damage after a small disaster (Olsen and Porter, 2011). Adjusting repair/replacement costs due to a likely demand surge was beyond the scope of this project. 2.1.6 Design Level Assignment The design level assignment in the Hazus-MH earthquake model allows a user to specify, for the given building type, its seismic performance level. Oregon initially adopted seismic building codes in the mid1970s (Judson, 2012). The established benchmark years of code enforcement are used in determining a “design level” for individual buildings. The design level attributes (pre-code, low-code, moderate-code, and high-code) are then used in the Hazus earthquake model to determine what damage functions are applied to a given building. The year built and the year of the most recent seismic retrofit are the main considerations for an individual design level attribute. We used the benchmark years listed in Table 10-2 to assign a design level to each building. We are not aware of any building codes adopted at the local or county level that supersede, from a seismic design perspective, building codes established by the Oregon Building Codes Division. In the past 20 years, many property owners, including private, public, and institutional, have implemented building seismic retrofits — modifications that improve building’s seismic resilience. Ideally, we would obtain and incorporate such information into our database, instead of assigning a seismic design level based on the structure’s original year of construction. However, such information was not available in any centralized, usable form from any of the county’s permitting or assessor offices. The City Club of Portland’s analysis (2017) identified a lack of reliable data, in part because permits are not often filed with seismic upgrades, or the seismic upgrades to a building may be part of a larger renovation. We found only one source of data for such information — the Unreinforced Masonry Building database maintained by the City of Portland (2017). Buildings identified as upgraded, 290 total, were assigned Reinforced Masonry (RM1), moderate code building type and design level values, respectively. The dataset was limited to the City of Portland. City Club of Portland’s report (2017) found no other source of data for identifying locations of unreinforced masonry buildings in the region. 2.1.7 Daytime and Nighttime Population In order to calculate casualties and displaced persons, we estimated the number of people occupying each building under two commonly implemented temporal scenarios: daytime and nighttime, commonly referred in a Hazus context as a “2 PM” and a “2 AM” scenario. The nighttime population assignment assumes that at least 95% of the people are in their primary residences and that nonresidential buildings have some level of occupancy, depending on their function. Fire stations, for example, are occupied by a nighttime shift. The daytime scenario assumes a typical weekday in a school year, with population distributed across schools, work facilities, and homes. The population assignments are primary driven by U.S. Census population data, the building’s specific usage (i.e., its Hazus-designated occupancy class), and the building’s square footage. We did not implement a “5 PM” scenario, as that requires assumptions on road occupancy and bridge failure models, and an evaluation of bridge and overpass seismic design performance was beyond the scope of this project. For assigning permanent resident population quantities to residential buildings, we pro-rated the U.S. Census Bureau 2010 permanent population value for a given U.S. Census Bureau-defined census block group across the residential buildings, excepting the RES4 (hotel/motel) type, on a square footage Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 13 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon basis. We determined that the census block geometries are often imprecise relative to building footprints, creating frequent scenarios where a census block has one or more residential buildings and zero permanent residents, or zero residential buildings and one or more permanent residents. The census block group’s geometries are generally along arterials or physiographic features. Although prorating at the census tract was a possible alternative, we decided the finer resolution of the census block group provided the best estimate of residential building occupancy, one that reflected varying demographics within a larger census tract. We retained a permanent resident population field, and we populated the nighttime population for residential buildings by multiplying the permanent resident population by 0.95 — slightly less than the 99% suggested by FEMA (2011, Table 13.2), and one that accounts for night shift employment and recreational and business travel. For daytime population in nonresidential buildings, we considered the suggested peak population density numbers published in the Hazus Tsunami Model Technical Guidance (FEMA, 2017c, Table 3.14), but we observed that the daytime population was at least 3 times the permanent population of the study area. We determined that such a ratio was unreasonably high, as we assume that at least 75% of the working population in the study area reside within the study area. Instead, we computed people-persquare-footage (ppsf) values by using the estimated commercial, industrial, and educational population estimates by Census Tract in the Hazus SQL database table [dbo].[hzDemographicsT], and our own building stock square footage summaries, and then used the ppsf values and the individual building’s square footage to assign people per building. We assigned daytime populations for residential buildings and nighttime populations for nonresidential buildings by using the Day to Night ratios provided by FEMA (2017c, Table 3.14). Permanent resident figures per residential building were based on the April 1, 2010 U.S. Census numbers and the 2010 U.S. Census Block Group boundaries. The study area has seen significant growth since then, with the most recent estimate (July 1, 2016 Certified Population Estimates, Portland State University Population Research Center, https://www.pdx.edu/prc/population-reports-estimates) showing an 8.4% increase from 2010. Several jurisdictions have had boundary adjustments via annexations since 2010. Planners may wish to adjust the displaced population and nighttime casualty estimates using the percentages shown in Table 2-2. Given the larger uncertainty with the daytime population assignments compared to nighttime population assignments, we do not recommend adjusting daytime casualty numbers. Table 2-2. Population changes in the study area, 2010 to 2016. Limited to cities with 2010 population of 20,000 or more people and with no to minimal annexations between 2010 and 2016. Certified Population Estimate: Portland State University Population Research Center. County or Jurisdiction Study Area Clackamas County Multnomah County Washington County Portland Gresham Lake Oswego Oregon City Tualatin West Linn 2010 U.S. Census Population 1,641,036 375,992 735,334 529,710 583,776 105,594 36,619 31,859 26,054 25,109 Certified Population Estimate July 1, 2016 1,779,245 404,980 790,670 583,595 627,395 108,150 37,425 34,240 26,840 25,615 Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 Percentage Increase 8.4% 7.7% 7.5% 10.2% 7.5% 2.4% 2.2% 7.5% 3.0% 2.0% 14 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon 2.2 Electric Power Transmission We constructed a transmission pole and tower point file database from several data sources, including Burns and others (2011, 2013), spatial data obtained from Portland General Electric Company (PGE, written communication, 2016), and where large gaps occurred, from our own digitization. Gaps in the transmission network were highlighted using the transmission line corridors and substations dataset downloaded from the Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD; U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2017). The linear corridor data were used as a backdrop to digitize additional poles and towers, following the method established by Burns and others (2011). We did not distinguish between the type of structure (e.g., lattice tower or wood) or the voltage carried on the wires. To keep the problem tractable, we limited our analysis to the high-voltage network from power generation facilities up to the neighborhood distribution substations. We identified a total of 18,098 poles and tower locations. The transmission network is incomplete, however, as we did not complete digitization of poles and towers in portions of North Portland, and data were not made available from the local utility. Electric power transmission distribution in North Portland is typically conveyed on single poles, which are difficult to distinguish using lidar-derived imagery or orthoimagery. 2.3 Emergency Transportation Routes We obtained a GIS shapefile representing the Metro Emergency Transportation Routes (ETR) from Portland Bureau of Emergency Management (L. Bruno, written communication, 2017). Though the Metro Data Resource Center has not maintained the dataset for at least 10 years (S. Erickson, written communication, 2017), it is still considered operative at the regional level. The ETR extends into all five counties within the RPDO (Figure 1-1), but our analysis was limited to our three-county study area (Appendix E, Plate 10). Multiple transportation agencies have responsibility for various components of the ETR, and as outlined in a 2005 Memorandum of Understanding (Emergency Transportation Route Post-Earthquake Damage Assessment and Coordination Portland, Oregon/Vancouver, Washington Regional Area; State of Oregon Misc. Contracts & Agreements No. 21,273): (Terms of Agreement #1): ODOT, WSDOT and Agencies have identified the ETR. […] The ETR have been identified as “critical infrastructure” by the parties to the Memorandum of Understanding. ODOT, WSDOT and Agencies would give their jurisdictional ETR the highest priority for assessment of road and bridge conditions during an earthquake emergency […] (Exhibit A, I. Purpose [p. 8]): An Emergency Transportation Route or ETR is defined as a route needed during a major regional emergency or disaster to move response resources such as personnel, supplies, and equipment to heavily damaged areas. The road network consists of GIS polylines placed at the road centerline and includes highway ramp and detailed highway intersection information. For our analysis purposes, polylines are not as useful as polygons, as we need to quantify the amount of ground deformation to a road that has some width. In order to prepare the road network for analysis, we first buffered the road centerlines by 50 foot, and then we dissolved the geometries. This typically generalizes highway areas, such as the I-5 corridor, into a single polygon. The dissolved polygon file was then manually edited to create a segment/node model, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 15 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon with segments beginning and ending at intersections. However, major intersections, such as the I-5—I205 intersection, were treated as a single segment instead of a node. We identified 238 road segments and gave each a unique key for analysis purposes. 3.0 NATURAL HAZARD DATA DEVELOPMENT 3.1 Bedrock Ground Motion The Hazus model requires four descriptors of ground motion at a building’s location: peak ground acceleration (pga), peak ground velocity (pgv), spectral acceleration at 1.0 second (sa10), and spectral acceleration at 0.3 second (sa03). Peak ground acceleration and peak ground velocity are the largest acceleration and velocity that can be expected at a particular site due to an earthquake. Peak ground acceleration is a widely used measure of ground shaking for a range of geotechnical and structural engineering applications. Spectral acceleration definitions and usage are given by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) at https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/learn/technical.php. For the Cascadia Subduction Zone magnitude 9.0 earthquake, Madin and Burns (2013) obtained synthetic bedrock ground motions from Arthur Frankel (USGS, written communication, 2012); we used the same bedrock ground motion data for this project. Bedrock ground motions for a synthetic Portland Hills fault magnitude 6.8 earthquake (firm rock conditions, Vs30 = 760 m/s) were provided by Arthur Frankel (written communication, 2016) of the USGS at 0.01 degree intervals and are included in the accompanying geodatabase. 3.2 Site Ground Motion The intensity of ground shaking during an earthquake depends on the geotechnical properties of the soil or bedrock at a particular site. The National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) provisions (FEMA, 2015b) specify, for each ground motion descriptor, level of bedrock ground motion, and NEHRP soil classification, a multiplication factor for calculating the ground motion at the surface (also known as the site) where buildings and infrastructure are placed. The NEHRP soil classification for a site is based on the average shear wave velocity within 30 meters of the ground surface. NEHRP classifications and general descriptions of the bedrock and soil material are as follows: • site class A — hard rock • site class B — rock • site class C — very dense soil and soft rock • site class D — stiff soil • site class E —  soft soil • site class F — soils susceptible to potential failure For our site ground motion data, we used updated NEHRP soil classification mapping that we completed as part of this project (Appleby and others, in preparation). Sites classified as “F” were, for amplification purposes, reclassified as “E”. This is a conservative but commonly implemented assumption for loss estimation purposes. We overlaid the bedrock ground motion data with the NEHRP soil classification polygons, and we applied the appropriate amplification to derive the site ground motion. Further details on the site ground motion dataset development are provided in Appendix B. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 16 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon The site ground motion from the synthetic earthquakes in our two scenarios differ dramatically across the study area, with the Portland Hills fault exhibiting significantly higher ground motion proximal to the fault (Appendix E, Plate 5). The technical descriptions of earthquake ground motion, such as depicted on Plates 4 and 5 (Appendix E), can be challenging to interpret, so we developed damage potential maps using the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale (Appendix E, Plates 6 and 7). The MMI scale is an empirical scale that describes the building damage and felt effects experienced from ground shaking in an earthquake. For the MMI categories, we used our site peak ground velocity ground motion data and the relationships used by USGS ShakeMap products (Wald and others, 2006, Figure 2.5). What is not depicted in such maps is the duration of the earthquake. A local crustal fault will likely result in strong ground motion for up to 60 seconds, whereas a megathrust earthquake typically results in strong ground motion for 3 to 5 minutes. The Hazus building damage model uses the magnitude of the earthquake as a surrogate for duration, categorizing the earthquake as short, medium, or long duration (FEMA, 2011, Section 5.4), with a longer duration producing more building damage for a given ground motion. The Cascadia Subduction Zone magnitude 9.0 earthquake was modeled in Hazus as long duration, and the Portland Hills fault magnitude 6.8 earthquake was modeled in Hazus as medium duration. 3.3 Liquefaction and Landslide Susceptibility For our Hazus building damage model, we provided a liquefaction and landslide susceptibility value for each building record, thereby allowing the Hazus model to calculate the amount of ground deformation and probability of ground deformation. The Hazus building loss model incorporates that calculated information into its overall building damage estimate. A Hazus-based liquefaction susceptibility rating for each building record was obtained by using a simple overlay of the liquefaction susceptibility polygons developed for this project (Appleby and others, in preparation). Because the liquefaction susceptibility polygons are at a coarser scale relative to the building footprints, we determined that assigning the liquefaction susceptibility value at the building centroid was sufficient. We developed a high-resolution, 10-foot Hazus-based landslide susceptibility grid for this project (Appleby and others, in preparation), following the methods specified in the Hazus®-MH 2.1 Technical manual, Earthquake model (FEMA, 2011, Chapter 4), for both a wet (saturated) and a dry scenario. We calculated landslide susceptibility zonal statistics for each building footprint by using the Esri® Spatial Analyst Zonal Statistics as Table tool. The arithmetic mean of the landslide susceptibility, rounded to the nearest integer, was then assigned to the building record. Such an assignment more accurately captures the earthquake-induced landslide hazard across the entire building footprint area, compared to a simple building centroid sampling approach (Figure 3-1). Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 17 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon Figure 3-1. Example: Capturing the variability of landslide susceptibility within building footprints (magenta polygons). Landslide susceptibility values use the Hazus landslide susceptibility 0 through 10 scale. Areas of no shading: minimal to no landslide susceptibility. Earthquake-induced landslide susceptibility data from Appleby and others (in preparation). Liquefaction requires saturated soil conditions. Hazus permits a user to specify, on a per-building basis, the depth of the water table, and adjusts the ground failure estimates accordingly. However, there currently exists no region-wide groundwater mapping information. Water tables vary significantly throughout the year, and even if such information were available, the use of an average water table level could significantly underestimate liquefaction occurrence during peak moisture conditions. We were aware of a regional groundwater study (Snyder, 2008) but noted that it covered only a portion of the study area. We chose to mimic the “wet” (saturated soil) and “dry” landslide scenarios by setting water depth to two distinct values: 0 feet and 1,000 feet, respectively. Thus, each of the two synthetic earthquakes was run with “wet” and “dry” soil moisture conditions, for a total of four unique scenarios. 3.4 Permanent Ground Deformation Permanent ground deformation (PGD) data include an estimate of the amount of lateral spreading due to liquefaction and ground failure due to earthquake-induced landslide, along with a probability of their occurrences. We provided the liquefaction and landslide susceptibility data from Appleby and others (in preparation) and the site ground motion data for both earthquakes developed in Section 3.2 as input to the tool developed by Sharifi-Mood and others (M. Sharifi-Mood, M. J. Olsen, D. T. Gillens, and I. P. Madin, Complementary ground motion, ground deformation, and damage potential maps for deterministic scenarios of Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake events, manuscript in preparation). The tool implements the methods for ground deformation estimation described by Madin and Burns (2013, Section 4), and provides raster grids describing the PGD amount and probability of occurrence, using the Hazus ground deformation models described in the Hazus-MH 2.1 Technical manual (FEMA, 2011). Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 18 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon Because the tool is currently constrained to calculating liquefaction lateral spreading at a fixed water depth, we generated liquefaction ground deformation (lateral spreading) data for only the “wet” (saturated soil) scenario. We calculated earthquake-induced landslide ground failure data for both wet and dry soil condition. The PGD and probability of occurrence data are in the accompanying geodatabase. Further details on the dataset development are documented in Appendix B, Section 11.2. To quantify impacts to infrastructure, we combined the grids from the two ground failure mechanisms, obtaining the maximum PGD and maximum probability of occurrence across the area for a given earthquake and soil moisture scenario. Although liquefaction and landslide are two distinct physical mechanisms, the specific cause of the ground failure is not important for our key infrastructure sector analysis purposes. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 19 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon 4.0 LOSS ESTIMATION METHODS 4.1 Impacts to Buildings and People 4.1.1 Building Repair Cost and Casualties We used the Hazus Advanced Engineering Building Module (AEBM) (FEMA, 2010) included in HazusMH v4.0 to calculate individual building repair costs and casualties and to obtain parameters needed to calculate debris and displaced population. Although the AEBM permits a user to specify unique building profiles, including adjusted individual capacity curve or fragility curve parameters, we instead used the generic building profiles provided in the Hazus SQL database table [dbo].[eqAebmProfile]. The particular AEBM profile for an individual building in the building database is constructed from its occupancy class, building type, and seismic design level. The building’s square footage, replacement cost, daytime occupants, and nighttime occupants were also supplied to the Hazus AEBM model. The Hazus AEBM model was run for a given user-supplied seismic scenario, with site ground motions supplied in polygon form. The model returns a building repair cost and casualty estimate for each building, along with five probability of damage state (PDS) values, each, for the structural, nonstructural drift, and nonstructural acceleration components. We used the PDS values to calculate debris and displaced population and to estimate the total number of red-tagged and yellow-tagged buildings. The Hazus AEBM model first calculates a building’s structural and nonstructural probability of damage state values from the ground motion and liquefaction/landslide data provided to the model. It then uses the PDS values to calculate casualties, based on the number of user-specified people occupying the building and the building type. The methodology is based on the assumption of a strong correlation between building damage and number and severity of casualties (FEMA, 2011). Casualties are classified into four levels (Table 4-1). Levels 2 and 3 are generally interpreted as “injuries requiring hospitalization.” Table 4-1. Hazus casualty level descriptions (taken from FEMA, 2011). The broad description of each category is shown in boldface. Injury Severity Level Injury Level Description Level 1: Minor Injuries Injuries requiring basic medical aid that could be administered by paraprofessionals. These types of injuries would require bandages or observation. Some examples are: a sprain, a severe cut requiring stitches, a minor burn (first degree or second degree on a small part of the body), or a bump on the head without loss of consciousness. Injuries of lesser severity that could be self-treated are not estimated by Hazus. Level 2: Injuries Requiring Hospitalization Injuries requiring a greater degree of medical care and use of medical technology such as xrays or surgery, but not expected to progress to a life threatening status. Some examples are third degree burns or second degree burns over large parts of the body, a bump on the head that causes loss of consciousness, fractured bone, dehydration, or exposure. Level 3: Life-Threatening Injuries Injuries that pose an immediate life-threatening condition if not treated adequately and expeditiously. Some examples are: uncontrolled bleeding, punctured organ, other internal injuries, spinal column injuries, or crush syndrome. Level 4: Deaths Instantaneously killed or mortally injured. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 20 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon 4.1.2 Building Debris Estimation The Hazus AEBM does not provide a debris estimate for a damaged building. We manually calculated debris by first calculating the total weight of each building, in tons, using the total square footage of the building, the type of building (e.g., steel frame or wood frame), and the per-square-footage weight estimates listed in the Hazus SQL database table [dbo].[eqDebrisAnalParms]. Debris was then calculated based on the methods outlined in the Hazus Earthquake Technical Manual (FEMA, 2011, Equation 12-3), by using the structural and nonstructural drift probability of damage states obtained for the individual building from the Hazus AEBM. The debris estimate is limited to buildings. We did not estimate debris tonnage from landslides, damaged bridges, buckled roads, sand and silt ejecta caused by liquefaction (Villemure and others, 2012), or damaged nonbuilding structures. 4.1.3 Displaced Population and Shelter Needs Unlike the Hazus General Building Stock tool, Hazus AEBM does not calculate displaced households or displaced population. We adapted the methods outlined in the Hazus Earthquake Technical Manual (FEMA, 2011, Chapter 14), but instead of calculating displaced households we calculated displaced population. Displaced population is more direct to calculate given the methods discussed previously for assigning people, and not households, to distinct multi-family and single-family residential buildings (Section 2.1.7). We followed the guidance provided by FEMA (2011, Table 14.1) that was based on the work of Perkins and Chuaqui (1998), but we altered the weight factor for multi-family residential building type, WMFE, by setting it to zero. The displaced population then becomes a simple computation: the number of permanent residents in the building times the building’s probability of complete structural damage state, with the latter factor directly obtained from the Hazus AEBM output. We equated the red tag term used in a post-earthquake building safety evaluation context (ATC, 1989) with the Hazus “complete” structural damage state, following the guidance of FEMA (2010, Table 6.1). Similarly, yellow tag was associated with “extensive” damage state, and green tag with buildings in a none, slight, or moderate damage state. We recognize that alternate mappings of Hazus damage states or repair costs to ATC-20 tag levels exist (e.g., MMI Engineering [2012] presents two such definitions). The Hazus displaced population computation assumes the building has been categorized into one of the three ATC-20 tags. In practice, the post-earthquake building inspection process is estimated to take weeks, if not months (EERI, 2015; p. 25). Thus, what is being computed is an estimation of postinspection, longer-term displaced population. Our summary tables use the term Long-term Displaced Population to emphasize the point. The topic of displaced population and shelter needs is involved, and estimates can vary throughout the response and recovery phases based on numerous factors, including psychological, sociological, and economic considerations. For example, some portion of the population may occupy a damaged building until it is officially inspected and red tagged, at which point they must vacate. An owner of a moderately damaged (green-tagged) apartment building may decide to replace the structure rather than repair it. For this project, we provide detailed information on permanent residents per building damage state, thereby allowing a basis from which to estimate Day 1, Day 7, and Day 30 displaced population and shelter needs (Appendix C, Table 12-4 through Table 12-7). A portion of the displaced population may need long-term publicly provided shelter while residences are repaired or replaced (FEMA, 2011, Section 14.3). We determined that the ethnic, racial, and income level factors listed in Hazus Earthquake Technical Manual (FEMA, 2011, Equation 14.2) were too assumption-laden, and thus we did not calculate shelter requirements with such factors. For reference purposes, past Hazus runs for a Cascadia Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 21 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon Subduction Zone earthquake that used these assumptions calculated the portion of displaced population needing temporary shelter/housing solutions between 20% and 30% (Wang, 1998; Hofmeister and others, 2003; EERI, 2015, p. 34). 4.1.4 Aggregation Unit Although the inputs into the Hazus model are individual buildings with occupants, loss estimates from the model are statistically meaningful only at an aggregated level. As Pinter and others (2016) emphasized, Hazus-calculated damages are estimates appropriate for comparison and planning purposes, particularly when pooled among a group of structures. Hazus-calculated damages are not appropriate for individual building analysis. We considered various aggregation units, including city neighborhoods and fire districts. Several jurisdictions in the study area have well-defined neighborhoods, but most do not. Further, unincorporated areas have no formal or usable neighborhood definitions. For example, we considered fire districts in unincorporated areas, but we determined they were too coarse to be useful for community level planning. We chose the census block group (CBG), a U.S. Census Bureau-designated geographical unit that is between the census tract and the census block, as the basic mapping aggregation unit for damage estimates. Census block groups typically have between 600 and 3,000 people, but the number of buildings can vary widely, depending on the type of buildings and the number of multi-family residential structures within a CBG. Where warranted, we combined contiguous CBGs to create a larger unit encompassing at least 300 buildings. The process resulted in reducing the study area’s 1,041 CBGs into 876 neighborhood units. To provide a larger-scale perspective across the study area, we also aggregated loss at the jurisdictional level, with all buildings associated with a particular city, designated community, or unincorporated county. The jurisdiction layer combined city jurisdictional boundaries published by Metro RLIS (Metro, 2016), along with hamlet and village designations by Clackamas County (2017). Given the City of Portland’s size relative to surrounding cities, we used the Portland Bureau of Emergency Management’s (PBEM) Risk Reporting Areas (Tetra Tech, 2016a, Section 4.4, Table 4.4) as subdivisions for aggregation. All buildings not associated with a jurisdiction were designated as unincorporated. 4.1.5 Seismic Design Level Improvement Modeling Exercise Most of the buildings in the study area were constructed with minimal consideration given to seismic resilience (Table 10-3). Seismic retrofits to more vulnerable buildings can reduce damage to the building and casualties to the building occupants when an earthquake occurs. Our Hazus model can be used to generate an overall benefit estimate for seismic retrofitting. Levi and others (2015) performed such an analysis for Israeli building inventory, where at least 25% of the building inventory was designed with minimal resistance to earthquakes. We ran two alternative loss scenarios, wherein we upwardly adjusted seismic design levels within our building database. For the moderate scenario, all buildings with a seismic design level of pre code or low code were updated to moderate code, and all unreinforced masonry buildings were altered to RM1 (reinforced masonry) building type. Buildings with high code were left unchanged. For the high scenario, the seismic design level was set to high code for all buildings, with all unreinforced masonry buildings altered to RM1 (reinforced masonry) building type. We then ran Hazus AEBM, using the same ground motion, liquefaction/landslide susceptibility, and building population occupancy, and tabulated loss estimates (see Section 5.3.1). Our analysis was limited to the Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake scenario, and run for both wet (saturated) and dry soil conditions. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 22 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon 4.2 Electric Power Transmission Using the ground deformation estimates, we calculated the mean lateral spread within a 10-meter buffer of each transmission structure for the Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake and Portland Hills fault earthquake, for wet (saturated) and dry soil moisture conditions. The mean permanent ground deformation at each point was then classified into three categories: less than 1 meter, 1 to 2 meters, and greater than 2 meters. For all points with greater than 1-meter permanent ground deformation, the probability of occurrence is between 20% and 30% (Appendix E, Plate 13). 4.3 Emergency Transportation Routes The Hazus tool provides an analysis of linear features such as roads, but we determined it inadequately captures the range of variability of permanent ground deformation throughout the length of the segment. Currently, the tool samples only at the linear feature segment’s endpoints and at its midpoint. We take a conservative approach in our evaluation of earthquake impact on surface transportation by considering the possibility of permanent ground deformation across the entire length of the road segment. A road segment is considered failed if any portion of that road segment exceeds an amount of ground deformation and a probability of occurrence. Ground deformation and probability estimates were available in a 10-foot raster grid format (Section 3.4). We combined the landslide and liquefaction PGD grids using Esri Spatial Analyst Cell Statistics function to obtain the maximum value per pixel. For our analysis purposes, the mechanism of the ground failure is not relevant; the amount and probability of lateral spread is of primary concern. Following the methods outlined by Mahalingam and others (2015), we then generated a new grid based on focal statistics of the ground deformation within a 100-foot window (10 pixel × 10 pixel; a pixel is 10 ft). Inclusion of surrounding areas adjacent to the road segment is a more conservative approach, because we wanted to include potential landslides slightly distant from the road. We then classified the maximum value of the ground deformation within each road segment into four bins, using Esri Spatial Analyst Zonal Statistics as Table tool: less than 0.5 meters, 0.5 to 1.0 meters, 1.0 to 2.0 meters, and greater than 2.0 meters. The process was repeated for the CSZ dry soil conditions scenario and the PHF wet (saturated) and dry soil conditions scenarios, with the results stored in the accompanying geodatabase. Appendix E, Plates 10 and 11 represent the impacts of ground failure per segment under a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake, given the two soil moisture scenarios. For another perspective, Appendix E, Plate 12 highlights the maximum potential permanent ground deformation at specific locations throughout the segment. 4.4 Model Limitations Our damage estimates were primarily derived from the Hazus AEBM. Limitations and uncertainties are inherent in any loss estimation methodology. They arise in part from incomplete scientific knowledge concerning earthquakes and their effects on buildings and facilities. 4.4.1 Geological Models An actual earthquake may vary significantly in ground motion and site amplification compared to the synthetic data we provided the model in this study. Our analysis used the best available information for a subduction zone fault and a local crustal fault. We used the upper bound for the earthquake magnitude, recognizing that an actual earthquake may rupture on only a portion of its fault. Further, the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 23 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon NEHRP site classification is a simplification of complex surficial geology, and local site amplification effects within a given NEHRP site class may be at significant variance with the standard ground motion amplification model. We did not model damage from aftershocks. Wein and others (2017) presented scenario examples and the consequences of such earthquakes. The impact of aftershocks on slightly damaged buildings has be modeled in a Hazus context (Seligson and others, 2015), but we did not have aftershock scenarios available, nor was such modeling within the scope of our project. Although our loss model includes the impact of earthquake-induced landslides on buildings, we do not model the impact of large landslide flows on structures downhill from the source. Such flow can wreak significant damage to buildings and people (Daniell and others, 2017), but such modeling capability is not available with existing tools. 4.4.2 Building Damage Models Limitations and uncertainties also result from the approximations and simplifications that are necessary for comprehensive analyses. Although we gave extensive effort to correctly attributing each of the 615,852 individual buildings in this study, we recognize that misclassifications are present, and we made statistical distribution assumptions on building type when attribution information was not otherwise available. We used the generic building damage models provided by the Hazus tool. These models simplify the vast variability present in existing building construction, such as vertical irregularities, plan irregularities, usage of cripple walls, hybrid construction techniques, and pounding from adjacent buildings (FEMA, 2015b). The Hazus AEBM allows a user to specify individual building-specific parameters, but it is not possible to conduct a study at this regional scale that incorporates such detail. The Hazus generic building damage model captures the average building response to an earthquake  —  the primary reason we present loss estimates not at the individual building level but at a minimum aggregation unit (Section 4.1.4). The duration of a subduction zone earthquake is significantly longer than for other types of earthquakes, including those generated from local crustal faults. Although the Hazus tool provides a method to distinguish short, medium, and long shaking duration (FEMA, 2011, Equation 5-10), the damage functions are expert- and model-driven. The most recent long-duration earthquake to impact the United States was Alaska’s Good Friday earthquake in 1964, which was approximately 4.5 minutes long. Post-earthquake damage assessment protocols were not in place at the time. Hazus modelers do not have USA-construction-based empirical data for long-duration earthquakes from which to calibrate the model. The current Hazus model may be underestimating the damage to tall buildings and other large structures in response to great subduction zone earthquakes. Gomberg and others (2017) have identified this as an important research need. In Tables 12.8 through Table 12.11, we present Hazus damages and casualty estimates as single value. Such representations can be misleading, as they suggest a high level of precision that is not warranted, in part by the uncertainties of the data that were provided to the Hazus model (Remo and Pinter, 2012). One reason we chose to model both wet (saturated) and dry soil condition scenarios for a given earthquake is to better communicate our damage estimates as a range of values (Table ES-1). 4.4.3 Casualty Estimates Casualty estimates are dependent on several assumptions and may underestimate the true impact from an earthquake. Daytime occupancy values use people-per-square-footage assumptions, which may be reasonable in the aggregate, but building occupancy density can vary significantly across businesses that Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 24 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon are grouped for our modeling purposes into a fixed classification, such as “Commercial-Retail.” Running Hazus with a large number of alternate point-in-time population models may assist in better understanding the uncertainty in daytime casualties (FEMA, 2012a, Section 3.4). In the Hazus AEBM, the casualty calculations do not include injuries to people outside of and proximal to a building. During strong ground motion, fascias can fall off buildings, masonry walls can collapse, and windows can shatter, sending shards of glass down to the pavement. Other casualties, such as from heart attacks, loss of power to medical devices such as respirators, electrocutions, collapsing bridges, exposure to released hazardous materials, and car accidents are not quantified in the Hazus model. Further, we did not model fire following earthquake, which can result in additional casualties. 4.4.4 Other Model Limitations Fires typically follow a major earthquake and are exacerbated by compromised transportation networks and broken buried utilities. Fire following earthquake can be a major contributor to building loss and displaced population (Scawthorn and others, 2005). Early versions of the Hazus tool modeled “fire following earthquake” as an induced damage; however, due to significant bugs producing erroneous damage estimates, the option had been disabled in recent versions of the tool. The Hazus v4.2 release (FEMA, 2018) restored the Fire Following functionality, but the tool release was not available in time for this project, which used Hazus v4.0. Several other sources may contribute to road damage, none of which we modeled in this project, and thus may lead to an underestimate of road damage. Our road damage model does not include debris generated by taller buildings that may block road access, or a road cordoned off due to a proximal building that is in danger of collapse (City Club of Portland, 2017). Our Hazus-based landslide ground deformation model does not incorporate deposits from distant earthquake-induced landslides that may block road access. Past Hazus-based studies typically attached standardized reports generated by the Hazus tool that summarize casualties and losses in a convenient format. Such reports are currently available only with Hazus analyses using General Building Stock data, which are modeled at the census tract level. Users analyzing loss on a per-building basis, such as what we have done in this study, cannot obtain such summary reports from Hazus; thus, none are attached to this report. Instead, we present such information as tables in Appendices A and C, in graphical form in Appendix E, and in electronic form in the accompanying GIS database (Appendix D). Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 25 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon 5.0 RESULTS 5.1 Population and Building Density We developed a 20-acre hexagonal grid, then overlaid the grid on our building database, totaling the number of individual buildings, the number of residential buildings, and the number of permanent residents associated with the buildings within each hexagonal cell. Cells with no buildings were removed from the dataset. Cells with at least one building yet no permanent residents frequently occur in commercial/industrial corridors or predominantly agricultural areas (Appendix E, Plates 1–3). The hexagon layer provides a convenient overlay to explore population and building exposure relative to a particular natural hazard. The layer can also be useful in focusing the areas of building loss or casualties in neighborhood units with large tracts of undeveloped areas. 5.2 Building Statistics Single-family residential buildings dominate the building inventory in all three counties (Figure 5-1). Wood frame construction dominates the residential buildings (Table 5-1). The number of masonry buildings in Table 5-1 is due primarily to the Hazus building type statistical distribution described in Section 2.1.4. Table 10-8 in Appendix A contains a complete breakdown of building type for all generalized building use categories. Figure 5-1. Building primary usage statistics by county. Tabular summary is in Table 10-7. Single-family residential combines Hazus occupancy classes RES1 and RES2 (manufactured housing). Institutional combines Hazus occupancy classes REL1, GOV1, GOV2, EDU1, and EDU2. Commercial combines all Hazus COM occupancy classes and RES4. Multi-family residential combines Hazus occupancy classes RES3, RES5, and RES6. 100% Clackamas County Multnomah County Washington County 90% 80% Institutional Industrial 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Commercial Agricultural Multi-family Residential Single-family Residential 0% Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 26 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon Table 5-1. Residential buildings by building type. Square Footage Percent Permanent Residents Permanent Residents Percent 914,096 20,966 7,349 2,298 377 96.7% 2.2% 0.8% 0.2% 0.0% 1,182,770 32,969 9,321 3,277 581 96.3% 2.7% 0.8% 0.3% 0.0% 91.1% 204,253 73.0% 316,575 76.8% 2.6% 0.8% 3.2% 2.3% 16,026 5,380 22,913 31,277 5.7% 1.9% 8.2% 11.2% 24,203 8,139 24,051 39,150 5.9% 2.0% 5.8% 9.5% Building Type Number of Buildings Building Percent Square Footage (Thousand) SingleFamily Residential Wood Manufactured Housing Reinforced Masonry Unreinforced Masonry Other 471,926 16,852 3,549 1,455 138 95.5% 3.4% 0.7% 0.3% 0.0% MultiFamily Residential Wood 47,055 1,331 403 1,636 1,206 Occupancy Type Reinforced Masonry Unreinforced Masonry Steel Concrete* *Concrete includes the precast concrete building type. Building occupancy within the different building types varies significantly between the daytime and nighttime scenario (Table 5-2). In the 2 AM scenario, most (87%) of the population is within wood frame construction. The daytime and nighttime occupancy models assume people from outlying counties commute into the study area; thus, daytime occupancy totals are generally higher than permanent resident population totals. Table 5-2. Occupancy by building type. Night Time Percent Number of Buildings “2 PM” Daytime Occupancy Daytime Percent “2 AM” Nighttime Occupancy 8,599 17,295 314,378 11,221 19% 1% 60,383 31,387 4% 2% 35,679 32,969 2% 2% 6,603 195,438 12% 12,539 1% 3,811 0% Reinforced Masonry Steel Unreinforced Masonry Wood 16,125 16,487 5,092 545,651 205,964 213,478 52,271 697,336 12% 13% 3% 41% 43,218 49,246 13,766 1,442,287 3% 3% 1% 87% 33,525 24,291 11,416 1,499,345 2% 1% 1% 91% All building types 615,852 1,690,086 Building Type Concrete Manufactured Housing Precast Concrete 1,652,825 Permanent Residents Percent 1,641,036 5.3 Building Damage, Casualties, and Displaced Population We tabulated the impacts to buildings and people at the county and jurisdictional level (Appendix C, Table 12-8 through Table 12-11) and at the neighborhood unit level for all earthquake scenarios. Jurisdictional and neighborhood unit level summaries are available in tabular form in the accompanying GIS database. Building damage results were also expressed as a loss ratio — the total repair cost estimate for all buildings in a given spatial unit divided by the total replacement cost for all buildings. Building debris tonnage was summarized at the given spatial unit. Casualties were summarized for the given spatial unit at the individual casualty level, and a total casualty level for daytime and nighttime was calculated. The tables in the GIS database enable one to express graphically the damage estimates in any Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 27 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon number of ways, such as displaying Level 2 casualties per 10,000 people. For demonstration purposes, we present the total injuries requiring hospitalization per neighborhood unit, daytime scenario, CSZ earthquake with saturated soil conditions, in Appendix E, Plates 14–16. Damage estimates vary widely across the study area, depending on local geology, soil moisture conditions, type of building stock, and distance from the fault. In the Cascadia Subduction Zone scenario, damage is generally greater in the western portion of the study area than in the eastern portion. Yet local geology variations can result in significant damage even well east of the Willamette River, such as the neighborhood of North Troutdale (Appendix E, Plate 15). The 9% (“dry” soil conditions) to 14% (“wet”) overall estimated loss from a CSZ magnitude 9.0 earthquake includes all buildings in the study area (Table 12-8 and Table 12-9). The damage is not equally distributed across all building uses or building types, as seen in the referenced tables. Many high-value commercial and industrial buildings exist on areas of high to very high liquefaction hazard. The average loss ratio for wood-framed single-family residential buildings ranges from 2% to 7% (for “dry” and “wet” soil conditions, respectively; Table 5-3). Although the timing of an earthquake has no impact on building damage or displaced population, more people will experience casualties during a workday earthquake scenario than if the earthquake occurred at night (Appendix C, Table 12-8 through Table 12-11). During the daytime scenario, most people are occupying non-wood structures (Table 5-2), which typically fare worse in an earthquake than wood-frame construction. Even though a Portland Hills fault earthquake is of shorter duration than a CSZ earthquake, its placement relative to significant assets in the region would result in much higher damage overall (Appendix C, Table 12-10 and Table 12-11). At distances beyond 15 miles from the Portland Hills fault zone, damages from a Cascadia Subduction Zone scenario generally exceed a Portland Hills fault scenario, which can be visualized by comparing the ground motion data in Appendix E, Plates 4 and 5. Soil moisture conditions significantly influence loss estimates, with overall building loss ratios of 9% versus 14% for the Cascadia earthquake between the “dry” soil conditions and “wet” (saturated) soil conditions (Appendix C, Table 12-8 and Table 12-9). The large percentage of buildings in moderately liquefiable zones, such as the Tualatin Basin in Washington County, combined with the high-value buildings in very high liquefiable zones in the Columbia Slough, downtown Portland near the Willamette River, and the northwest industrial area of Portland account for much of the increase in the wet scenario loss. Several smaller jurisdictions exhibit higher or lower loss ratios compared to other jurisdictions, due to unique situations. Johnson City in Clackamas County is almost exclusively composed of manufactured housing — a building type that experiences significantly more damage for a given ground motion than does a wood frame house (Kircher and others, 1997). The city of Barlow in Clackamas County is situated entirely on soft soils (Section 3.2) that amplify the ground motion, on potentially liquefiable soils, and much of its building value is contained in four storage facilities constructed of a more fragile building type compared to wood-frame construction. Although the City of Sandy’s boundaries span multiple soil types and liquefaction susceptibility categories, nearly all of its assets are on firm, non-liquefiable soils, and thus its loss ratio is comparatively low (1%, Table 12-8). Building damage is higher in non–single-family residential structures (Table 5-3). Single-family residential is dominated by light-frame wood construction (Table 5-1), the most resilient of the 36 generic building types available in the Hazus AEBM. Multi-family residential is a mixture of wood frame construction and less resilient building types. “Single-family residential: manufactured housing” was broken out to highlight its relative seismic vulnerability. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 28 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon Table 5-3. Damage to buildings by building category and by earthquake scenario. Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake “Dry” Conditions “Wet” (Saturated) Conditions “Wet” (Saturated) Conditions Building Repair Cost Loss ($ Million) Ratio Building Repair Cost Loss ($ Million) Ratio Agricultural 947 10% 1,347 15% 1,271 Commercial 57,134 10,381 18% 14,133 25% Industrial 18,485 3,651 20% 4,888 26% Institutional 17,609 2,438 14% 3,114 Multi-family residential Single-family residential Single-family residential: manufactured housing 44,391 3,288 7% 111,408 2,695 879 259,169 Total Building Repair Cost Loss ($ Million) Ratio “Dry” Conditions Building Value ($ Million) 9,263 Building Category Building Repair Cost Loss ($ Million) Ratio Portland Hills Fault Magnitude 6.8 Earthquake 14% 1,796 19% 22,240 39% 27,326 48% 6,578 36% 8,216 44% 18% 5,871 33% 7,089 40% 5,621 13% 10,118 23% 14,423 32% 2% 7,421 7% 14,234 13% 24,254 22% 158 18% 186 21% 257 29% 307 35% 23,558 9% 36,710 14% 60,569 23% 83,411 32% Institutional combines Hazus occupancy classes REL1, GOV1, GOV2, EDU1, and EDU2. Commercial combines all Hazus COM occupancy classes and RES4. Multi-family residential combines Hazus occupancy classes RES3, RES5, and RES6. The Hazus AEBM model estimates each building’s probability of being in one of five damage states: None, Slight, Moderate, Extensive, and Complete. The five individual probabilities sum to 1.0. General descriptions for the structural damage states of 16 common building types are provided by FEMA (2011, Section 5.3); Figure 5-2 shows an example. We obtained the total number of buildings in a particular spatial unit by summarizing all buildings’ individual structural probability of damage state values, per the guidance provided by FEMA (2017a). The data in Appendix C, Table 12-3 can be used to estimate the number of red-tagged and yellow-tagged buildings, and the number of buildings needing structural inspection after an earthquake. In addition, we summarized all permanent residents per building damage state, by generalized building types: single family residential (excluding manufactured housing); single family residential in manufactured housing, and multi-family residential. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 29 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon Figure 5-2. Example damage state descriptions for a light-frame wood building (FEMA, 2010). The “None” damage state is not provided. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 30 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon 5.3.1 Seismic Design Level Improvement Exercise Modeling adjustments to the building inventory seismic design level results in much lower amounts across all categories of loss (Table 5-4), although the effect is muted in the “wet” (saturated) soil condition scenario. The Hazus building damage model assumes damage due to ground shaking is independent of damage due to ground failure (FEMA, 2011, Section 5.6.3). In the Hazus model, improved seismic design levels will reduce damage estimates from ground shaking but not from ground failure. In our study area, more than half of the building inventory is situated on sites with a moderate or higher liquefaction susceptibility rating (Table 10-5). Thus, the reduction in loss in the “wet” (saturated) soil conditions is muted, due primarily to liquefaction probability being incorporated into the damage estimate. The reduction in loss estimates is more dramatic in the “dry” soil conditions scenario, where liquefaction and earthquake-induced landslide impacts are minimal. Table 5-4. Seismic design level improvement exercise, Cascadia Subduction Zone magnitude 9.0 earthquake. See Section 4.1.5 for scenario definitions. “Dry” Soil Conditions Seismic Design Level Scenario Building Repair Cost ($ million) Building Loss Ratio Debris (thousands of tons) Long-term Displaced Population Total Casualties Level 1 Casualties Level 2 Casualties Level 3 Casualties Level 4 Casualties Total Casualties Level 1 Casualties Level 2 Casualties Level 3 Casualties Level 4 Casualties Unchanged Moderate High 23,558 6,466 4,230 9% 2% 2% 12,794 2,512 1,304 16,852 2,438 1,664 Casualties — Daytime Scenario 18,286 2,032 987 13,342 1,681 839 3,518 278 118 484 25 10 942 48 20 Casualties — Nighttime Scenario 4,334 902 596 3,338 775 525 739 106 60 87 7 4 169 14 7 “Wet” (Saturated) Soil Conditions Unchanged 36,710 14% 17,292 85,211 Moderate 20,988 8% 8,148 72,329 High 18,979 7% 7,121 71,617 27,175 19,489 5,454 758 1,473 12,606 9,005 2,567 352 682 11,711 8,281 2,431 340 659 10,400 7,838 1,979 203 380 7,259 5,484 1,404 131 240 6,989 5,262 1,364 129 235 Loss estimates for unchanged scenario are taken from Table 12-8 and Table 12-9, and provided for reference. Casualty Level definitions are provided in Table 4-1. Total building replacement costs used for building loss ratio taken from Table 5-3. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 31 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon 5.4 Electric Power Transmission Of the 18,098 poles and towers in our database, 921 (5%) have a 20% to 30% chance of experiencing between 1 and 2 meters of ground deformation, and 2,203 (12%) have a 20% to 30% chance of experiencing more than 1 meter during a Cascadia magnitude 9.0 earthquake with “wet” (saturated) soil conditions (Appendix E, Plate 13). In the “dry” soil conditions, only 6 poles and towers have a 20% to 30% chance of experiencing between 1 and 2 meters of ground deformation, with none experiencing more than 2 meters of deformation. In the “dry” soil conditions scenario, permanent ground deformation is due exclusively to earthquake-induced landslides. In the “wet” (saturated) soil conditions scenario, liquefaction is a significant contributor to permanent ground deformation proximal to the power pole or tower. Similar potential impact is observed for the Portland Hills fault magnitude 6.8 earthquake scenario. Of the 18,098 poles and towers in our database, 2,367 (13%) have a 20% to 30% chance of experiencing between 1 and 2 meters of ground deformation, and 3,687 (20%) have a 20% to 30% chance of experiencing more than 1 meter during “wet” (saturated) soil conditions. In the “dry” soil conditions scenario, 100 (0.5%) poles and towers have a 20% to 30% chance of experiencing between 1 and 2 meters of ground deformation, and 8 poles and towers have a 20% to 30% chance of experiencing more than 2 meters. 5.5 Emergency Transportation Routes In the Cascadia magnitude 9.0 earthquake, “wet” (saturated) scenario, most (177 out of 238, or 74%) route segments will have a 20% to 30% chance of experiencing significant ground deformation along some portion of the segment (Appendix E, Plate 10). Although the regional post-earthquake road conditions significantly improve under the “dry” soil conditions scenario, (Appendix E, Plate 11), several road segments (6 out of 238, or 3%) may still be impacted. In the “dry” soil conditions scenario, the road segments that have a chance of failure are due to their placement on 1) existing landslides, 2) areas of elevated landslide susceptibility based on slope and geology, or 3) fill material that includes a significant slope proximal to the road segment. The 20% to 30% probability of failure on a per segment basis may sound modest when taken in isolation, but when individual location probabilities of failure are combined in a binomial distribution statistical method (probability of failure = (1 – p)n), the overall failure estimate for the segment can increase significantly. For mapping and planning purposes, we categorized road segments into distinct bins, even though only a fraction of a given road segment may experience significant ground deformation. An example of this effect can be observed in Washington County, where emergency transportation routes commonly cross alluvial deposits that may fail due to liquefaction (inset map in Appendix E, Plate 12). Although only a portion of the road may be impacted by ground failure, the road segment is considered impassable in its entirety until repairs are made. Plate 12 (Appendix E) shows the portions of the segments that may experience significant ground failure in a Cascadia magnitude 9.0 earthquake. For a Portland Hills fault magnitude 6.8 earthquake, 66 out of 238 (28%), and 205 of 238 (95%) of segments have a 20% to 30% chance of experiencing significant ground deformation along some portion of the segment, in the “dry” and “wet” soil condition scenarios, respectively. The increase in percentage compared to the CSZ can be explained by the significant difference in ground motion between the two earthquake scenarios (Plates 4 and 5). Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 32 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon 6.0 DISCUSSION This study is the first conducted in the three-county area that provides damage estimates at levels useful for both regional and local planning. It presents loss estimates as a range for two building occupancy scenarios and two soil moisture scenarios. By doing so, planners can get a better sense of the range of damages and casualties that may occur with a major earthquake: Which areas may have experienced more damage, given the potential for liquefaction and local site amplification? Where were people when the earthquake occurred? How many casualties might that produce? A magnitude 9.0 Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake will result in significant damage to buildings, with concomitant casualties, throughout the three-county area. Transportation networks may be severely impaired, compromising emergency response. Millions of tons of debris will need removal to staging areas for sorting and eventual permanent disposal. Hundreds of thousands of buildings will need timely safety inspections, and thousands to tens of thousands of people will need to find other permanent housing arrangements. In comparison, a magnitude 6.8 Portland Hills fault earthquake will be devastating, primarily due to its position relative to the study area’s major assets and population centers, with losses more than double those from a magnitude 9.0 Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake. 6.1 Earthquake Impacts 6.1.1 Geographic Variations Damage and casualty estimates vary widely throughout the three-county area. Primary reasons for the variation include the seismology, local geology, and building development history. In a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake, ground motion will be less in eastern part of the study area compared to the western part. Local geological characteristics can produce significant variations in ground motion (Appendix E, Plates 4 and 5). Such variation should not be interpreted to suggest that some areas within the three counties are unaffected. The City of Sandy, for example, has a relatively low building loss ratio, at 1% (Appendix C, Table 12-9), yet the Cascadia earthquake is estimated to generate $12 million in damage within the city boundaries. 6.1.2 Casualties For both the Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake and the Portland Hills fault earthquake, and in both “dry” and “wet” (saturated) soil condition scenarios, casualty estimates for a daytime earthquake are at least double in quantity compared to a nighttime earthquake. During nighttime most, but not all, of the population are in more resilient wood-frame construction (Table 5-1, Table 5-2), while during the daytime, much of the population is dispersed among non-wood frame construction buildings, such as offices, schools, and factories. This temporal pattern has been observed in past earthquakes, most recently in Christchurch, New Zealand, where two earthquakes struck, one at 4:35 AM on September 4, 2010, and one at 12:51 PM on February 22, 2011 (EERI, 2011). No deaths occurred from the early morning earthquake, whereas the afternoon earthquake resulted in the deaths of 185 people. We emphasize that our daytime building occupancy model used as a basis for generating daytime casualty numbers is a simplification of the dynamic and complex human environment, but it is still useful for planning purposes. Post-earthquake emergency operations can be enhanced by having an awareness of the types of population shifts between buildings throughout the day and week, and the seismic resiliency of those buildings. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 33 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon 6.1.3 Building Damage Inspection and Displaced Population After a major earthquake, at least 200,000 buildings in the Portland Metropolitan Region will need timely ATC-20-based safety inspection by qualified personnel (ATC, 1989). Our estimate includes all buildings with slight to complete damage (Appendix C, Table 12-3), following the quantification method outlined by EERI (2015), which assumed a rate of four to five buildings per day per inspector. Assuming a goal of completing the task in 30 days, our results identify a need for 1,600 to 2,000 certified inspectors for a Cascadia Subduction Zone magnitude 9.0 earthquake. A Portland Hills fault earthquake would require twice the number of inspectors. Many out-of-area inspectors can be brought into an affected area after an earthquake, as discussed in the Oregon Resilience Plan (OSSPAC, 2013, Section 2). Inspection may displace some portion of building occupants who assumed buildings were structurally sound. In other cases, inspection may restore confidence in the building’s structural integrity. We can only speculate on such dynamics, but we can provide permanent resident occupancy counts per building damage state (Appendix C, Table 12-4 through Table 12-7). 6.1.4 Debris Debris removal will require local staging areas for storing, sorting, and eventual transfer to a permanent disposal location. Assuming 25 tons per truckload, 400,000 to 680,000 truckloads of building debris would be generated by a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake (“wet” [saturated] soil scenario). We did not estimate other types of debris, such as buckled roads, collapsed overpasses, and landslide flows. Identifying staging areas is partly a GIS exercise that uses the debris-per-neighborhood estimates supplied with this report, along with information on potential long-term compromises to the local transportation network such as bridge collapse. In addition, debris staging site selection should be informed by other emergency or recovery planning efforts that may identify the same areas for other operational needs. 6.1.5 Infrastructure Our emergency transportation route analysis graphically shows the likelihood of a fragmented emergency transportation route network, one where distribution of goods and services may be significantly affected. It is intended to inform the planning process, emphasizing the need for adaptability and consideration of alternative routes. Our analysis did not consider other potential route blockages, such as collapsed buildings and failed bridges and overpasses. Engineering judgment from transportation sectors can be applied to determine which segments may be quickly restored and which segments may be out for longer periods. Together, such information and perspectives can be used as a basis for establishing, prior to an earthquake, local points of distribution, including food, water, and fuel for emergency operations. Portions of the electric distribution network may be significantly impacted due to ground failure compromising the integrity of transmission structures. As with the emergency transportation route analysis, our work is intended to inform the planning process. Engineering judgment from electrical utilities sectors can be applied to determine if some areas will be impacted for longer durations, and if additional capacity or redundancy is warranted. During the Christchurch, New Zealand, earthquake sequences of 2010-2011, electric poles and towers generally fared well in the presence of liquefaction (Kwasinksi and others, 2014). Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 34 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon 6.1.6 Alternative Earthquake Scenarios For planning purposes, we chose to model an earthquake at the upper end of its estimated potential energy release. The Cascadia Subduction Zone magnitude 9.0 earthquake scenario assumes a full margin rupture. Partial ruptures along the CSZ have been inferred from the geologic record, with the most frequent occurrences along the southern portion of the CSZ (summarized by Priest and others, 2014). The Oregon State University Hazard Explorer for Lifelines Program maintains a web-GIS tool that displays a full CSZ rupture and three partial rupture CSZ scenarios (http://ohelp.oregonstate.edu/). We obtained the same synthetic bedrock ground motion data used in the OHELP tool from A. Frankel (written communication, 2016) of the USGS. In the Portland Metropolitan Region, the synthetic CSZ magnitude 8.7 bedrock ground motion data averages about 85% of CSZ 9.0 bedrock ground motion data, and the synthetic CSZ magnitude 8.4 bedrock ground motion, with its northern rupture extent west of Waldport, Oregon, is about 40% of the full rupture CSZ magnitude 9.0 earthquake. Damage estimates do not scale linearly with bedrock ground motion, and one should not assume damage from a CSZ magnitude 8.4 earthquake would be 40% of the CSZ magnitude 9.0 earthquake damage estimate. Yet significant damage could still occur in the study area, primarily due to the seismic site effect where the bedrock ground motion is strongly amplified by soft soils (Section 3.2). The most dramatic consequence of the seismic site effect observed to date is from the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, where a relatively distant rupture produced devastating building damage within the historic lakebed (Singh and others, 1988). Future studies could quantify the influence of the site effect on damage estimates across lower magnitude CSZ earthquake scenarios. The Portland Hills fault was modeled at the upper end of its estimated magnitude range (M 6.8); it could rupture at lower magnitude. Buildings above the rupture zone will likely experience the same damage as estimated in this report. Buildings more distant from the rupture zone but situated on softer soils would experience more damage than nearby buildings situated on stiffer soils. The Portland Hills fault is part of a fault zone that includes the Oatfield fault and the East Bank fault (Wong and others, 2001). Other seismogenic faults exist in the study area (Personius and others, 2003; USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold Database: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/). Again, buildings above the fault will experience the most damage, but buildings distant from the fault situated on soft soils may be significantly damaged. 6.2 Seismic Design Level Improvements Our seismic design level improvement modeling exercise (Section 5.3.1) provides strong support to the suggestion that seismic upgrades to buildings, or replacement of older buildings, can significantly reduce loss and casualties. Levi and others (2015) provided a case for a wide-scale retrofitting program to poor quality buildings throughout Israel, by using Hazus-generated loss estimates based on existing building inventory and a hypothetically retrofitted building inventory. The study assumed an average estimate of US$100/per square meter (US$9.30 per square foot) to upgrade older buildings to limit extensive or complete damage. Yet any proposed improvement should take site-specific conditions into account. In the “wet” (saturated) soil scenario, ground failure due to liquefaction reduces the benefits of retrofitting, as seismic upgrades do little to prevent foundation rupture, but mitigation techniques such as compaction grouting can minimize the ground failure impact, albeit at additional cost. We urge caution in interpreting the results of Table 5-4. Although it offers a hypothetical upper bound of what could be achieved from seismic retrofitting, it should not be used to support the proposed retrofitting or replacement of a particular building. A building-specific analysis incorporates individual Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 35 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon characteristics of the structure, specifying parameters such as its yield point (FEMA, 2010). We used generic building type models in our Hazus AEBM (Section 2.1.4), which in the particular case, may overor underestimate the loss (Lu and others, 2017). Further, the exercise did not incorporate building foundation depth or other local site conditions that may mitigate the effects of ground failure from liquefaction. In the Moderate scenario, our modeling exercise assumed a retrofit brings buildings up to moderate or high seismic design standards. In practice, the decision to retrofit or replace an older structure is complex (Williams and others, 2009; City Club of Portland, 2017; Paxton and others, 2017), and one that we cannot address directly in this report. 6.3 Comparison with Previous Studies Wang (1998), using an early version of Hazus, quantified the impact of a magnitude 8.5 Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake scenario across the state of Oregon, reporting losses by individual county. Liquefaction and landslide information were not regionally available, nor was it possible to incorporate such information in the Hazus model at that time. Hofmeister and others (2003) used Hazus to estimate impact of a magnitude 6.8 Portland Hills fault and a magnitude 9.0 Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake scenario to buildings and bridges in Clackamas County, Oregon. The study incorporated building data from the Metro (1998) inventory, and updated soil classification and liquefaction and landslide susceptibility. Local building data were aggregated into the Hazus-MH model’s General Building Stock (GBS) inventory, a census track-based unit, with loss estimates derived at the GBS level. Excluding building content, the building repair cost, expressed as a percentage of the building replacement cost, was 13.3% for the Portland Hills fault and 3.4% for the Cascadia Subduction zone earthquake. More recently, Tetra Tech (2016a) updated General Building Stock inventory data for the City of Portland, using ground motion and ground failure data from Madin and Burns (2013), and estimated loss ratios of 4.3% for a Cascadia Subduction Zone scenario and 14.3% for a Portland Hills fault magnitude 6.5 scenario, using USGS ShakeMap data. Our building loss ratio estimates of 9% to 14% for a Cascadia Subduction Zone magnitude 9.0 earthquake, and 23% to 32% for a Portland Hills fault magnitude 6.8 earthquake are higher than the loss ratios published in the aforementioned studies. We account for this increase due to several factors. The largest contributor to the difference is the method by which the two Hazus tools (General Building Stock [GBS] and Advanced Engineering Building Module [AEBM]) factor the probability of ground failure from liquefaction or from earthquake-induced landslide into the building damage model. In the GBS model, the Hazus tool distributes the ground failure probability across the Moderate, Extensive, and Complete damage states (FEMA, 2011, Equation 5-16), with most of the ground failure probability assigned to the Moderate and Extensive states and a small (<10%) portion assigned to the Complete state. In the AEBM model, the Hazus tool assigns the ground failure probability in its entirety to the Complete damage state. The effect is that AEBM-derived building loss, casualty, and debris estimates will be larger than GBSderived estimates when all other model inputs are equal, local geological conditions are set to moderate or higher liquefaction and/or landslide susceptibility levels, and sufficient ground motion is present to induce landslides or liquefaction. Other contributors to the difference are as follows. In our AEBM building database, our seismic design levels (Section 10.1) were more conservative than the seismic design level distributions embedded within the GBS database, sometimes referred to as the default Hazus mapping scheme. Our review of that scheme suggested it was primarily based on California benchmark years and thus overly optimistic, as California building codes through the twentieth century were more stringent than Oregon Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 36 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon building codes (Olson, 2003; Judson, 2012, FEMA, 2017c, Table 3.5). Although it is possible to alter the Hazus mapping scheme in the General Building Stock (e.g., Seligson, 2008), to our knowledge, such manipulations were not done in the aforementioned GBS-based studies. A higher level of seismic design assignment to building inventory will result in reduced loss estimates (Table 5-4). Within large portions of the developed areas in the study area, our updated liquefaction susceptibility ratings were higher than the liquefaction susceptibility ratings used in the aforementioned studies (primarily Mabey and others, 1997). Appleby and others (in preparation), using the guidelines provided by FEMA (2011, Table 4.10), classified large areas containing high-value building assets with a Very High and High rating compared to the rating of High and Moderate assigned by Mabey and others (1997), particularly in the Columbia Slough, northwest industrial Portland, and eastern downtown Portland. A large portion of the developed area in Washington County was assigned a Moderate liquefaction rating by Appleby and others, which also contributed to the increased loss estimates observed in our study. We could not directly compare our loss estimates to the losses published by FEMA (2017b), due to their usage of a probabilistic model that did not include a 500-year earthquake, which most closely resembles the Cascadia Subduction Zone scenario modeled in our study. Their debris estimate for the state of Oregon (2.1 to 21.6 million tons) is smaller than our estimate of 12 to 17 million tons, after adjusting for our study’s area. (We assume our study includes about 44% of the building assets in the state, based on the area’s population ratio compared to the state of Oregon.) The FEMA report used the GBS model and a simplified NEHRP “D” assignment. To our knowledge, the study did not incorporate any liquefaction susceptibility data. Further, default Hazus building inventories, such as were used in the FEMA study, commonly underestimate the square footage for nonresidential buildings, which are generally more sensitive to ground motion. Although that study provided a good nationwide comparative perspective on earthquake hazards, it is too generalized to use for county loss estimation purposes. We examined the geological updates and the updated ground motions within the Critical Energy Infrastructure (CEI) Hub, and we compared them to the datasets used by Tetra Tech (2016b). Although some increases were observed in the updated ground motion data, we determined that the changes were not large enough to significantly alter the overall damage estimates and recommendations made in the Tetra Tech study. We note that the Hazus GBS tool was not used to generate the damage estimates in that study; damage estimates to the infrastructure were obtained from a Hazus tool that incorporates the ground failure in a manner equivalent to the Hazus AEBM. Our Portland Hills fault results are similar to what was estimated for a magnitude 7.0 Wasatch fault earthquake in the Salt Lake City area (EERI, 2015, p. 26). The Salt Lake City area has approximately 775,000 buildings, compared to 616,000 buildings in our study area. The two faults have significant assets constructed on top of, and near to, the fault. Both areas have major assets on moderate to high liquefaction potential soils. The key difference between the two faults is the frequency of occurrence  —  at least 22 large earthquakes have ruptured along the central segments of the Wasatch Fault in the past 6,000 years, whereas evidence suggests the Portland Hills fault has had two ruptures in the past 15,000 years (Liberty and others, 2003). Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 37 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS This study provides detailed, actionable earthquake loss estimation data for the Portland metropolitan region at a range of scales. Communities, counties, businesses, non-governmental organizations, and regional agencies can use the accompanying data to better plan for, respond to, and recover from a major earthquake. Many of these recommendations build upon those listed in the Oregon Resilience Plan (OSSPAC, 2013). Planning for, responding to, and recovering from a major earthquake is a multifaceted, multi-disciplinary effort. The scope of this project was limited to estimating damage to buildings and the people that occupy them, and to two key infrastructure sectors. Our recommendations below are directly supported by the findings in this study, and they should not be considered comprehensive. Our recommendations build on the efforts done to date by agencies, institutions, businesses, and private homeowners to improve the region’s seismic resilience. The Oregon Seismic Rehabilitation Grant Program, in place since 2007, has funded upgrades to more than 50 schools and emergency service buildings (http://www.oregongeology.org/sub/projects/rvs/). Bonneville Power Administration has identified seismic vulnerability of its transmission system and has taken several actions to improve its resiliency (Scruggs, 2014). Modifications to the Oregon statewide building code have, through time, increased the seismic resiliency of newer construction (Judson, 2012). The City of Portland’s current building code requires owners of unreinforced masonry buildings to seismically retrofit their buildings on the basis of certain triggers (PBEM, 2017). The Great Oregon Shakeout program, managed by Oregon Office of Emergency Management, has more than 580,000 participants, elevating public awareness of the earthquake hazard; the program suggests actions individuals can take to minimize casualties and preparation for post-earthquake disruption of services. Planning We encourage regional and local planners, each who have their own questions and needs, to explore the accompanying GIS data. Static maps, such as in Appendix E, Plates 14–16, are just one representation of the loss estimates. We suggest that a primary value of the database is the spatial component: in addition to asking how many or how much, we can ask where  — where might we expect casualties to be higher, given the time of day of the earthquake? Where can we plan staging areas for debris? At the same time, we caution against over-interpreting the loss estimates, as the data and methods used in this project contain large uncertainties. Casualty estimates supplied in this report can be used to compare with the region’s existing medical facility capacity, including trained, available personnel. The spatial nature of the data supplied with this report can be used to better understand the potential demands on specific facilities, and to quantify emergency care coordination needs at a regional level. Counties and jurisdictions updating their natural hazard mitigation plans (NHMPs) can use the earthquake damage estimates provided in this report. Recovery Hundreds of thousands of buildings in the study area will need safety inspections after a major earthquake. The state can sponsor annual Applied Technology Council (ATC)-20 training to qualified engineers, and negotiate mutual aid agreements with other neighboring states. Timely inspection of damaged buildings will reduce pressure on temporary shelters. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 38 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon Resiliency: Buildings The majority of buildings in the study area do not meet current seismic building code standards, although the buildings did meet code standards in place at time of construction. The state and counties can consider incentives and other options that encourage building owners to seismically upgrade their buildings. Such upgrades will reduce casualties and building repair costs and will minimize potential loss of businesses and workforce housing. Jurisdictions can consider triggers that require seismic upgrades, such as a major building renovation. Resiliency: Infrastructure Improvements We cannot overstate the need for a secure, regional liquid fuel supply that supports emergency response and recovery. The emergency transportation route analysis provided in this study suggests the need to identify strategically placed local fuel points of distribution. We encourage counties to work with the Oregon Department of Energy in implementing the Oregon Fuel Action Plan (ODOE, 2017), specifically, identifying priority lifeline routes and fuel points of distribution. Electric utilities can use this study’s updated ground motions and ground failure to evaluate the potential threat to their infrastructure, such as substations. Electric system resiliency analysis can incorporate the transmission structure information provided in our geodatabase to determine if additional capacity or redundancy is needed. Resiliency: Essential and Critical Facilities Our project did not explicitly identify or evaluate essential facilities, such as fire stations, in the study area. We encourage all communities and planners to clearly define such facilities and evaluate their seismic resilience by using the updated ground motion and ground failure data accompanying this report along with updated Rapid Visual Screening surveys (FEMA, 2015a; Lewis, 2007). Such facilities include emergency shelters and community points of distribution. Enhanced Emergency Management Tools Building footprints developed for this project can be incorporated into regional and statewide databases. Location and number of buildings, especially on larger rural lots, are essential information during emergency operations such as wildfire fighting. A rapid earthquake loss assessment tool could be developed for Oregon by building on methods established in this study and other research such as that of Erdik and others (2011). Each earthquake presents scientists with new information. The synthetic earthquake ground motion data used for this project is the best estimate available from a full rupture subduction zone and a local crustal fault earthquake. In practice, the magnitude and location of an earthquake and the ground motions and ground deformation will likely vary from what was anticipated. In addition to the Portland Hills fault, several other active local crustal faults, such as the Gales Creek fault zone, exist in the study area (Personius and others, 2003). The USGS ShakeMap program (https://earthquake.usgs.gov/ data/shakemap/) provides near-real-time maps of ground motion data following significant earthquakes. Having a building database and tools in place to estimate response to a particular earthquake with its own unique ground motions can provide emergency planners with a rapid postearthquake assessment of the situation. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 39 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon Database Improvements County and city databases could be improved with information on seismic retrofits and upgrades to individual buildings. Currently, such information is not readily available for analysis or to potential buyers of a property. At present, only one jurisdiction in the study area maintains the basics of such a database (City of Portland [2017], Unreinforced Masonry buildings). Public Awareness The technical information contained in this report can be used to develop practical tools and materials aimed at increasing public awareness of regional earthquake risks and encouraging preparedness actions. Examples of such tools include the Seattle and King County Ready disaster preparedness website, https://hazardready.org/seattle/ (which incorporates other natural hazards), and the report developed by the Utah Chapter of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute describing the Wasatch Fault in Salt Lake City (EERI, 2015). Public awareness efforts should strive to reach underserved communities and communities whose primary language is other than English, as well as community members with disabilities and access or functional needs. Future Studies Our study was primarily focused on direct physical impacts from a major earthquake, including building repair or replacement costs. It did not consider other direct and indirect economic losses, such as lost wages. We recommend incorporating the detailed loss information from this report into a more sophisticated economic analysis, one that factors in other items such as availability of investment capital and a trained labor force, and willingness of businesses to return to the area after a damaging earthquake. We aggregated loss data at census block groups, which is often the same aggregation unit used when social vulnerability indices are constructed (e.g., Toké and others, 2015). Schmidtlein and others (2011) compared census tract Hazus-based earthquake loss estimates with their social vulnerability indices. A similar type of an analysis could be conducted in our study area at the census block group level. The methods developed for this project could facilitate similar earthquake impact analyses for other urbanized areas of Oregon that have known earthquake hazards, such as Klamath Falls/Altamont, Salem/Keizer, Albany/Corvallis, and Eugene/Springfield. Although our analysis focused on impacts from an earthquake, the underlying building database can be used to quantify potential loss due to other natural hazards, such as floods, landslides, or wildfires. 8.0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Regional Disaster Preparedness Organization (RDPO), Portland, Oregon, provided funding for this project through an Urban Areas Security Initiative grant (UASI) 15-170 from U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Funding Opportunity [NOFO] #DHS-15-GPD-067-000-01; Federal Award Identification Number [FAIN] EMW-2015-SS-0004-S01). Oregon Office of Emergency Management administered the grant on behalf of RDPO. Many people contributed to this report at various levels, ranging from data creation, literature research, methods, information technology, tool development, and technical review. From the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries: Ken Aaro, Christina Appleby, Lowell Anthony, Quinn Butler, Robert Hairston-Porter, Robert Houston, Lina Ma, Gustavo Monteverde, Jesse Schaefer, Deb Schueller, Yumei Wang, Rudie Watzig, and Matthew Williams. From the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 40 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon Regional Disaster Preparedness Organization: Emma Stocker, Laura Bruno, and Denise Barrett. From FEMA: Doug Bausch and the Hazus Support Team. From USGS: Art Frankel, who provided custom ground motion simulations for the Portland Hills fault. County and city emergency leads reviewed a draft copy of this document and provided helpful comments: Lisa Corbly, Carmen Merlo, Chris Voss, John Wheeler, and Jay Wilson. 9.0 REFERENCES Applied Technology Council (ATC), 1989, Procedures for postearthquake safety evaluation of buildings: Redwood City, Calif., ATC-20 field manual, 114 p. Bauer, J., 2016, Adapting Hazus-MH methods for large-scale risk assessments in Oregon, paper presented at the 9th Annual Hazus User Group Conference, Charleston, S.C., November 7–9, 2016, http://www.hazusconference.com/agenda/papers/Tuesday-1615.pdf Burns, W. J., Hughes, K. L. B., Olson, K. V., McClaughry, J. D., Mickelson, K. A., Coe, D. E., English, J. T., Roberts, J. T., Smith, R. R. L., and Madin, I. P., 2011, Multi-hazard and risk study for the Mount Hood region, Multnomah, Clackamas, and Hood River counties, Oregon: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-11-16, 179 p., 7 pl. http://www.oregongeology.org/ pubs/ofr/p-O-11-16.htm Burns, W. J., Mickelson, K. A., Jones, C. B., Pickner, S. G., Hughes, K. L. B., and Sleeter, R., 2013, Landslide hazard and risk study of northwestern Clackamas County, Oregon: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-13-08, 38 p., 74 pl., GIS data. http://www.oregongeology.org/pubs/ofr/p-O-13-08.htm Business Oregon, 2015, Oregon benefit-cost analysis tool for evaluation of seismic rehabilitation grant program applications  —  User’s guide appendices: Salem, Oreg., Business Oregon Infrastructure Finance Authority Division, 31 p. http://www.orinfrastructure.org/assets/apps/IFA/2015OregonSRGP/BCAusersGuideAppend.pdf Charest, A. C. (ed.), 2017, Square foot costs with RSMeans data (38th annual edition): Rockland, Md., Gordian Group, Inc., 563 p. https://www.rsmeans.com/products/books/2017-cost-databooks/2017-square-foot-costs-book.aspx Cities of Eugene and Springfield, Oregon, 2014, Eugene-Springfield multi-jurisdictional natural hazards mitigation plan, prepared for City of Eugene, Oregon, and City of Springfield, Oregon, 256 p. https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/31563 City Club of Portland, 2017, Big steps before the Big One: how the Portland area can bounce back after a major earthquake: City Club of Portland Bulletin, v. 99, no. 2, 86 p. Access PDF report from http://members.pdxcityclub.com/library/reportarchive/viewreportresolution?DocumentKey=883 dee38-91ae-4d58-9bda-49ae7afcc021. City of Portland, 2012, Development Capacity Analysis GIS model, Appendix A of Buildable Lands Inventory  —  summary of future development capacity: Portland, Oreg., City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, October 3, 2012. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/408232 City of Portland, Oregon, 2017, Development Services, Unreinforced masonry (URM) Building database as of January 6, 2017. Downloaded March 3, 2017. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bds/70766 Clackamas County, 2017, Clackamas County GIS data portal, Hamlets dataset and Villages dataset, downloaded April 29, 2017. http://www.clackamas.us/gis/dataportal.html Daniell, J. E., Schaefer, A. M., and Wenzel, F., 2017, Losses associated with secondary effects in earthquakes: Frontiers in Built Environment, v. 3, no. 30. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2017.00030 Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 41 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), 2005. Scenario for a magnitude 6.7 earthquake on the Seattle Fault: Oakland, Calif., report prepared in cooperation with the Washington Military Department, Emergency Management Division, Camp Murray, Wash.. 162 p., 2 app. https://www.eeri.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/seattscen_full_book.pdf Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), 2006, Guidelines for developing an earthquake scenario: Oakland, Calif., EERI Publication No. EF2006-01, 20 p. https://mitigation.eeri.org/files/ Developing.a.Scenario.pdf Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), 2011, Learnings from earthquakes: The M 6.3 Christchurch, New Zealand, earthquake of February 22, 2011: Oakland, Calif., EERI Special Earthquake Report, May 2011, 16 p. https://www.eeri.org/site/images/eeri_newsletter/2011_pdf/ EERI_NewZealand_EQRpt_web.pdf Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), 2015, Scenario for a magnitude 7.0 earthquake on the Wasatch Fault  —  Salt Lake City segment: Hazards and loss estimates: Salt Lake City, Utah, EERI Utah chapter, 53 p. https://dem.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2015/03/RS1058_EERI_ SLC_EQ_Scenario.pdf Erdik, M., Şeşetyan, K., Demircioğlu, M. B., Hancılar, U., and Zülfikar, C., 2011, Rapid earthquake loss assessment after damaging earthquakes: Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, v. 31, no. 2, p. 247–266, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.03.009 Evarts, R. C., O’Connor, J. E., Wells, R. E., and Madin, I. P., 2009, The Portland Basin: a (big) river runs through it: GSA Today, v. 19, no. 9, p. 4–10. http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/19/9/ pdf/i1052-5173-19-9-4.pdf Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2004, HAZUS®-MH and DMA 2000 Pilot Project—City of Portland, Oregon: HAZUS®-MH Risk Assessment and User Group Series, FEMA Publication 436, 64 p. https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=785063 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2010, Hazus-MH MR5 Advanced Engineering Building Module (AEBM) technical and user’s manual: Washington, D.C., 119 p. https://www.hsdl.org/ ?abstract&did=12756 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2011, Hazus®-MH 2.1 Technical manual, Earthquake Model: Washington, D.C., 718 p. https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-182025045-6286/hzmh2_1_eq_tm.pdf Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2012a, Seismic performance assessment of buildings, Vol. 1—Methodology: Redwood City, Calif., Applied Technology Council, FEMA P-58-1, 150 p. 11 app. https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/90380 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2012b, Nonbuilding structure design, chap. 13 in 2009 NEHRP recommended seismic provisions: design examples: Washington, D.C., National Institute of Building Sciences, Building Seismic Safety Council, FEMA P-751, 916 p. https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1393877415270-d563663961c9f40e88ce3ad673377 362/FEMA_P-751.pdf Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2015a, Rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards: supporting documentation, 3rd ed.: Redwood City, Calif., Applied Technology Council, FEMA P-155, 206 p. https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1426210 695613-d9a280e72b32872161efab26a602283b/FEMAP-155_508.pdf Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 42 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2015b, 2015 NEHRP recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and other structures, Vol. I: Part 1 Provisions, Part 2 Commentary: Washington, D.C., Building Seismic Safety Council of the National Institute of Building Sciences, FEMA P-1050-1, 555 p. https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1440422982611-3b5aa529 affd883a41fbdc89c5ddb7d3/fema_p-1050-1.pdf Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2017a, Risk MAP CDS Hazus 4.0 user release notes, Ver. 1.0, 12 p. https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1493315287435-68e5171cc8856bf 36651f1ce9ba2e6fe/Hazus.4.0.User.Release.Notes.pdf Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2017b, Hazus® estimated annualized earthquake losses for the United States: Washington, D.C., FEMA P-366, 75 p. https://www.fema.gov/medialibrary/assets/documents/132305 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2017c, Hazus tsunami model: technical guidance [for Hazus version 4.0], 1st ed.: Herndon, Va., NiyamIT, Inc., contract no. HSFE60-17-P-0004. https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1511284000276-4f18206fb0c7bab3c5ecbbbdf504b9 fd/Hazus_40_Tsunami_Tech_Manual.pdf Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2018, Risk MAP CDS Hazus® 4.2 user release notes, ver. 1.0, January 29, 2018, 16 p. Available as part of Hazus 4.2 software package. Fujisaki, E., Takhirov, S., Xie, Q., and Mosalam, K. M., 2014, Seismic vulnerability of power supply: lessons learned from recent earthquakes and future horizons of research, in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2014, Porto, Portugal, 30 June – 2 July 2014 p. 345–350. https://paginas.fe.up.pt/~eurodyn2014/CD/papers/046_MS01_ABS_2043.pdf Goldfinger, C., Nelson, C. H., Morey, A. E., Johnson, J. E., Patton, J. R., Karabanov, E., Gutiérrez-Pastor, J., Eriksson, A. T., Gràcia, E., Dunhill, G., Enkin, R. J., Dallimore, A., and Vallier, T., 2012, Turbidite event history  —  Methods and implications for Holocene paleoseismicity of the Cascadia subduction zone: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1661–F, 170 p. https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1661f/ Goldfinger, C., Galer, S., Beeson, J., Hamilton, T., Black, B., Romos, C., Patton, J., Elson, H. C., Hausmann, R., and Morey, A., 2017, The importance of site selection, sediment supply, and hydrodynamics: a case study of submarine paeloseismology on the northern Cascadia margin, Washington, USA: Marine Geology, v. 384, p. 4–16, 17, 24–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2016.06.008 Gomberg, J. S., and others, 2017, Reducing risk where tectonic plates collide  —  U.S. Geological Survey subduction zone science plan: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1428, 45 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1428. Good, B., Toth, J. C., and Gilpin-Jackson, A., 2009, Transmission tower seismic risk mitigation for British Columbia, in TCLEE 2009: lifeline earthquake engineering in a multihazard environment, Proceedings of the 2009 ASCE Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering Conference, June 28–July 1, 2009, Oakland, Calif. p. 335–346. Hofmeister, R. J., Hasenberg, C. S., Madin, I. P., and Wang, Y., 2003, Earthquake and landslide hazard maps and future earthquake damage estimates for Clackamas County, Oregon: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-03-10, 95 p., 1 pl. http:// www.oregongeology.org/pubs/ofr/O-03-10.zip U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2017, Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD), electric power transmission lines. Downloaded March 17, 2017. https://hifld-geoplatform.opendata .arcgis.com/datasets/electric-power-transmission-lines Jones, L. M., and others, The ShakeOut Scenario: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1150 and California Geological Survey Preliminary Report 25. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1150/ Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 43 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon Judson, S., 2012, Earthquake design history: A summary of requirements in the State of Oregon: Slaem, Oreg., State of Oregon, Building Codes Division, Feb. 7, 2012, 7 p. http://www.oregon.gov/bcd/ codes-stand/Documents/inform-2012-oregon-sesmic-codes-history.pdf Kircher, C. A., Reitherman, R. K., Whitman, R., V., and Arnold, C., 1997, Estimation of earthquake losses to buildings: Earthquake Spectra, v. 13, no. 4, p. 703–720. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585976 Kongar, I., Rossetto, T., and Siovinazzi, S., 2014, The effectiveness of existing methodologies for predicting electrical substation damage due to earthquakes in New Zealand, in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Vulnerability and Risk Analysis and Management (ICVRAM) and the Sixth International Symposium on Uncertainty, Modeling, and Analysis (ISUMA), July 13–16, 2014, Liverpool, UK, American Society of Civil Engineers, p. 752–761. https://doi.org/10.1061/ 9780784413609.077 Kwasinski, A., Eidinger, J., Tang, A., and Tudo-Bornarel, C., 2014, Performance of electric power systems in the 2010-2011 Christchurch, New Zealand, earthquake sequence: Earthquake Spectra, v. 30, no. 1, p.205–230. https://doi.org/10.1193/022813EQS056M Levi, T., Bausch, D., Katz, O., Rozelle, J., and Salamon, A., 2015, Insights from Hazus loss estimation in Israel for Dead Sea Transform earthquakes: Natural Hazards, v. 75, no. 1, p. 365–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1325-y Lewis, D., 2007, Statewide seismic needs assessment: Implementation of Oregon 2005 Senate Bill 2 relating to public safety, earthquakes, and seismic rehabilitation of public buildings: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-07-02, 140 p. Available from http://www.oregongeology.org/sub/projects/rvs/ Liberty, L. M., Hemphill-Haley, M. A., and Madin, I. P., 2003, The Portland Hills Fault: uncovering a hidden fault in Portland, Oregon using high-resolution geophysical methods: Tectonophysics, v. 368, no. 1– 4, 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1951(03)00152-5 Lu, X., Tian Y., Guan H., and Xiong C., 2017, Parametric sensitivity study on regional seismic damage prediction of reinforced masonry buildings based on time-history analysis: Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, v. 15, no. 11, p. 4791–4820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0168-9 Ma, L., Madin, I. P., Suplantis, S., and Williams, K. J., 2012, Lidar-based surficial geologic map and database of the greater Portland, Oregon, area, Clackamas, Columbia, Marion, Multnomah, Washington, and Yamhill Counties, Oregon, and Clark County, Washington: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-12-02, 30 p., 1 pl., http:// www.oregongeology.org/pubs/ofr/p-O-12-02.htm Mabey, M., Black, G. L., Madin, I. P., Meier, D. B., Youd, T. L., Jones, C. F., and Rice, J. B., 1997, Relative earthquake hazard map of the Portland Metro Region, Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Interpretive Map 1, 1 pl., GIS data. http://www.oregongeology.org/pubs/ims/IMS-001.zip Madin, I. P., and Burns, W. J., 2013, Ground motion, ground deformation, tsunami inundation, coseismic subsidence, and damage potential maps for the 2012 Oregon Resilience Plan for Cascadia subduction zone earthquakes: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-13-06, 36 p., 38 pl., GIS data. Available from http://www.oregongeology.org/pubs/ofr/pO-13-06.htm Mahalingam, R., Olsen, M. J., Sharifi-Mood, M., and Gillins, D. T., 2015, Landslide susceptibility analysis of lifeline routes in the Oregon Coast Range: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-15-01, 1 pl., GIS data, model. Available from http://www.oregongeology.org/ pubs/ofr/p-O-15-01.htm Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 44 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon Metro, 1998, Evaluation of non-residential and multi-family residential buildings for seismic risk: Portland, Oreg., Report prepared by Metro with assistance from Portland State University, Civil Engineering Department, FEMA Contract No. EMS-96-CA-0055, 32 p. with accompanying GIS data. Metro, 2016, Metro Regional Land Information System (RLIS) City limits as of February 6, 2016. Accessed March 7, 2016. http://rlisdiscovery.oregonmetro.gov Mickelson, K. A., and Burns, W. J., 2012, Landslide hazard and risk study of the U.S. Highway 30 (Oregon State Highway 92) corridor, Clatsop and Columbia Counties, Oregon: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-12-06, 105 p. 4 pl., GIS data. http:// www.oregongeology.org/pubs/ofr/p-O-12-06.htm MMI Engineering, 2012, Hazus (HAZards United States) analysis for the City and County of San Francisco’s high priority city-owned buildings: Report prepared for the City and County of San Francisco’s Capital Planning Program: Huntington Beach, Calif., MMI Engineering Document MMHB043-003, February 14, 2012, 41 p., 3 app. http://onesanfrancisco.org/sites/default/files/ inline-files/CCSF-HAZUS-Project-Report-FINAL-2-14-20122.pdf Olsen, A. H., and Porter, K. A., 2011, What we know about demand surge: brief summary: Natural Hazards Review, v. 12, no. 2, p. 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000028 Olson, R. A., 2003, Legislative politics and seismic safety: California’s earth years and the “Field Act,” 1925–1933: Earthquake Spectra, v. 19, no. 1, p. 111–131. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1542890 Oregon Building Codes Division, 2002, Oregon manufactured dwelling and park specialty code, 2002 ed.: Salem, Oreg., Oregon Manufactured Housing Association and Oregon Building Codes Division, Department of Consumer and Business Services, 176 p. http://www.oregon.gov/bcd/codesstand/Documents/md-2002-mdparks-code.pdf Oregon Building Codes Division, 2010, 2010 Oregon manufactured dwelling installation specialty code: Salem, Oreg., Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services, Building Codes Division, 67 p. http://www.oregon.gov/bcd/codes-stand/Documents/md-2010omdisc-codebook.pdf Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE), 2017, Oregon fuel action plan: Plan, repair, respond, and recover from sever fuel shortages: Salem, Oreg., October 2017, rev. 1, 92 p. http://www.oregon.gov/energy/ facilities-safety/safety/Documents/Oregon-Fuel-Action-Plan.pdf Oregon Employment Department (OED), 2016, Quarterly census of employment and wages. Obtained October 16, 2016. Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission (OSSPAC), 2013, The Oregon Resilience Plan: Reducing risk and improving recovery for the next Cascadia earthquake and tsunami. Report to the 77th Legislative Assembly, Salem, Oregon, 242 p. with 4 app. http://www.oregon.gov/ oem/Documents/Oregon_Resilience_Plan_Final.pdf Paxton, B., Elwood, K. J., and Ingham, J. M., 2017, Empirical damage relationships and benefit-cost analysis for seismic retrofit of URM buildings: Earthquake Spectra, v. 33, no. 3, p. 1053–1074. https://doi.org/10.1193/091816EQS153M Perkins, J. B., and Chuaqui, B., 1998, Impact of the earthquake on habitability of housing units, in Çelebi,, M., ed., The Loma Prieta, California, earthquake of October 17, 1989  —  Chapter C, Building Structures: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1552-C, p. C169-C186, https://pubs.usgs.gov/ pp/pp1552/pp1552c/pp1552c.pdf Personius, S. F., Dart, R. L., Bradley, L.-A. , and Haller, K. M., 2003, Map and data for Quaternary faults and folds in Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-095, 550 p. https://pubs.usgs.gov/ of/2003/ofr-03-095/ Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 45 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon Petersen, M. D., Cramer, C. H., and Frankel, A. D., 2002, Simulations of seismic hazard for the Pacific Northwest of the United States from earthquakes associated with the Cascadia subduction zone: Pure and Applied Geophysics, v. 159, no. 9, 2147–2168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-002-87285 Pinter, N., Huthoff, F., Dierauer, J., Remo, J. W. F., and Damptz, A., 2016, Modeling residual flood risk behind levees, Upper Mississippi River, USA, Environmental Science & Policy, v. 58, p. 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.003 Portland Bureau of Emergency Management (PBEM), 2017, Unreinforced masonry (URM) building policy committee report (draft), November 2017, 37 p. Final, December 2017, report available at https://www.portlandoregon.gov/pbem/article/661773 Price, J. G., Hastings, J. T., Goar, L. D., Armeno, H., Johnson, G., Depolo, C. M., Hess, R. H., and Ballard, C. M., 2010, Sensitivity analysis of loss estimation modeling using uncertainties in earthquake parameters: Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, v. 16, no. 4, p. 357–367. https://doi.org/10.2113/ gseegeosci.16.4.357 Priest, G. R., Zhang, Y., Witter, R. C., Wang, K., Goldfinger, C., and Stimely, L., 2014, Tsunami impact to Washington and northern Oregon from segment ruptures on the southern Cascadia subduction zone: Natural Hazards, v. 72, no. 2, p. 849–870. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1041-7 Remo, J. W. F., and Pinter, N., 2012, Hazus-MH earthquake modeling in the central USA: Natural Hazards, v. 63, no. 2, p. 1055–1081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0206-5 Scawthorn, C., Eidinger, J. M., and Schiff, A. J., eds., 2005, Fire following earthquake: Reston, Va., American Society of Civil Engineers, Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering (TCLEE) Monograph 26, 352 p. Schmidtlein, M. C., Shafer, J. M., Berry, M., and Cutter, S. L., 2011, Modeled earthquake losses and social vulnerability in Charleston, South Carolina: Applied Geography, v. 31, no. 1, p. 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.06.001 Schneider, P. J., and Schauer, B. A., 2006, HAZUS  —  its development and its future: Natural Hazards Review, v. 7, no. 2, p. 40–44. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2006)7:2(40) Scruggs, J., 2014, BPA preps the power grid for the “big one”: Northwest Public Power Association Bulletin, v. 68, no. 1, p. 27–29. https://www.nwppa.org/wp-content/uploads/January-2014Bulletin.pdf Seligson, H. A., 2008, HAZUS® enhancements and implementation for the ShakeOut Scenario earthquake: supplemental study for the ShakeOut Scenario: Huntington Beach, Calif., MMI Engineering, Inc., report prepared for the U.S. Geological Survey and the California Geological Survey, to accompany U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2008-1150 (California Geological Survey Preliminary Report 25, ver. 1.0), 40 p. Seligson, H., Bausch, D., and Wein, A., 2015, Hazus analysis of aftershocks for the HayWired scenario, paper presented at the 8th Annual Hazus User Group Conference, Atlanta, Ga., December 9–11, 2015. http://www.hazusconference.com/agenda/pdfs-2015/Seligson2015HazusConference.pdf Singh, S. K., Mena, E., and Castro, R., 1988, Some aspects of source characteristics of the 19 September 1985 Michoacán earthquake and ground motion amplification in and near Mexico City from strong motion data: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 78, no. 2, p. 451–477. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-abstract/78/2/451/119036/ Snyder, D. T., 2008, Estimated depth to ground water and configuration of the water table in the Portland, Oregon area: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5059, 39 p., https: //pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5059/pdf/sir20085059.pdf Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 46 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon Tetra Tech, 2016a, The Mitigation Action Plan: The City of Portland’s Path to Resilience, agency review draft: Portland, Oreg., report to City of Portland Bureau of Emergency Management, September 2016, 868 p. ftp://ftp02.portlandoregon.gov/pbem/MitigationActionPlan-FullText/2016_Portland MAP_AgencyReviewDraft_2016-09-29.pdf Tetra Tech, 2016b, 2016 Critical Energy Infrastructure Hub study, draft: Portland, Oreg., prepared for City of Portland Bureau of Emergency Management, 68 p. Toké, N. A., Boone, C.G., and Arrowsmith, J. R., 2014, Fault zone regulation, seismic hazard, and social vulnerability in Los Angeles, California: Hazard or urban amenity?: Earth’s Future, v. 2, p. 440–457, doi:10.1002/2014EF000241, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014EF000241/pdf U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) database: Oregon census block: United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger.html Villemure, M., Wilson, T. M., Bristow, D., Gallagher, M., Giovinazzi, S., and Brown, C., 2012, Liquefaction ejecta clean-up in Christchurch during the 2010-2011 earthquake sequence: New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Annual Technical Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand, April 13-15, 2012, Paper 131. http://www.nzsee.org.nz/db/2012/Paper131.pdf Wald, D. J., Worden, B. C., Quitoriano, V., and Pankow, K. L., 2006, ShakeMap® manual: technical manual, user’s guide, and software guide: U.S. Geological Survey, Techniques and Methods TM12-A1, 156 p. Web: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/tm12A1 Wang, Y., 1998, Earthquake damage and loss estimate for Oregon: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-98-3, 10 p., 2 app. http://www.oregongeology.org/pubs/ ofr/O-98-03.pdf Wang, Y., 2017, Oregon hospital and water system earthquake risk evaluation pilot study: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-17-01, 69 p., 7 app. http://www.oregongeology.org/pubs/ofr/p-O-17-01.htm Wang, Y., Bartlett, S. F., and Miles, S. B., 2013, Earthquake risk study for Oregon’s Critical Energy Infrastructure Hub: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-1309, 157 p. http://www.oregongeology.org/pubs/ofr/p-O-13-09.htm Wein, A., Rose, A., Sue Wing, I., and Wei, D., 2013, Economic impacts of the SAFRR tsunami scenario in California, chap. H of Ross, S. L., and Jones, L. M., eds., The SAFRR (Science Application for Risk Reduction) Tsunami Scenario: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013–1170, 50 p. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1170/h/ Wein, A. M., Felzer, K. R., Jones, J., and Porter, K. A., 2017, chap. G of Detweiler, S. T., and Wein, A. M., eds., HayWired scenario aftershock sequence: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2017-5013-A–H, p. 91–112. https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20175013 Williams, R. J., Gardoni, P., and Bracci, J. M., 2009, Decision analysis for seismic retrofit of structures: Structural Safety, v. 31, no. 2, p. 188–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2008.06.017 Wong, I. G., Hemphill-Haley, M. A., Liberty, L. M., and Madin, I. P., 2001, The Portland Hills fault: An earthquake generator or just another old fault?: Oregon Geology, v. 63, no. 2, p. 39–50. http://www.oregongeology.org/pubs/OG/OGv63n02.pdf Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 47 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon 10.0 APPENDIX A: BUILDING DATABASE DEVELOPMENT 10.1 Building Database Data Sources Table 10.1 lists the several data sources used for constructing the building asset database. The table is organized as follows: the most general data source for a particular attribute is listed first, then, where available, the source of more specific and accurate data. For example, the Regional Land Information System tax lot database had an Oregon Department of Revenue-based Property Class designation assigned to each tax lot. A lookup table provided a Hazus-based occupancy class mapping for most Property Class values. All buildings on the tax lot are given that occupancy class assignment. If better information on occupancy class was available, such as the Metro Fire/Police/School/Hospital spatial dataset, we updated the attribute with that information. More detailed datasets are typically restricted to a small subset of the buildings. The Year Built attribute is not directly consumed by Hazus AEBM, but this attribute is used to establish the seismic design level (Section 10.2). Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 48 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon Table 10-1. Data sources used in construction of the building database. Table uses Hazus occupancy class names (FEMA, 2011, Table 3.2). Dataset Owner/Distributor Metro, Portland, Oregon Clackamas County Assessor, Oregon City, Oregon Multnomah County Assessor, Portland, Oregon Washington County Assessor, Hillsboro, Oregon Oregon Dept. of Geology and Mineral Industries Metro, Portland, Oregon Metro, Portland, Oregon City of Portland Oregon Employment Department Metro, Portland, Oregon Oregon Dept. of Geology and Mineral Industries Metro, Portland, Oregon Oregon Dept. of Geology and Mineral Industries City of Portland Oregon Dept. of Geology and Mineral Industries Metro, Portland, Oregon Tetra Tech, Portland, Oregon U.S. Census Bureau + Date of Publication or Acquisition Occupancy Class Regional Land Information System: Tax Lots February 2016  Clackamas County Assessor Database (tabular) June 2016     (RES2)+ Multnomah County Assessor Database (tabular) March 2016     (RES2)+ Washington County Assessor Database (tabular) March 2016     (RES2)+ December 2016  Dataset Building footprint digitization Metro Area Disaster GIS (MADGIS) Database Multi-family housing inventory Unreinforced Masonry Building Database North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Regional Land Information System: Fire, Police, School, Hospital Buildings Oregon Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment (Lewis, 2007) Regional Land Information System: Building footprints Building footprints (Burns and others, 2011, 2013) Development Capacity Analysis GIS Model (City of Portland, 2012) Lidar compilation: bare earth and highest hit models Regional Land Information System: County and City Boundaries City of Portland Risk Reporting Areas (Tetra Tech, 2016a) 2010 Census Block Groups Year Built Square Footage Number of Stories Building Type  Detailed information on individual structures. Detailed information on individual structures. Square footage not available for governmental or institutional buildings. Year Built information variable. Assigned occupancy class during heads-up digitization with NAIP and oblique imagery. Limited to building footprint digitized for this project. Building construction type based on field visits and identification for ~40,000 non-single family residential buildings. Refined the distinction between single-family and multi-family residential buildings.   September 2016  February 2016  2007   Includes information on seismic retrofits to URMs. Limited to City of Portland. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bds/70767 Refinement of occupancy class designation for commercial and industrial buildings, building on methods described by Wein and others (2013). Data obtained under terms of a confidentiality agreement; information from dataset can be shared only in aggregate, non-individually identifiable, form. Refinement of occupancy class designation for educational and certain governmental buildings.   February 2016  2011, 2013  October 2012 2009−2014 Detailed information on individual structures. Square footage available only for residential properties.  January 2017 Notes Spatial association of building footprint with assessor tabular information. 1999 February 2017 Summarization Unit  Most detailed information; limited to 777 public schools and government agency buildings.  Combined with other building footprint databases; see Section 2.1.1. Previously digitized building footprints for portions of Multnomah and Clackamas counties. Established number of stories attribute for buildings in City of Portland. Used to establish building height to number of stories relationship for buildings where number of stories data were not available.    February 2016  September 2016  April 2010  Used for building footprint (BF) development in areas where no BFs existed, and to refine existing BF database. Building height derived from lidar elevation models (highest_hit minus the bare_earth) and converted to Number of Stories using relationships established by analysis of data from City of Portland Development Capacity Analysis GIS Model. Lidar acquisition dates vary, depending on area. https://gis.dogami.oregon.gov/lidarviewer/ Building spatial associations with particular jurisdictions and counties, including county unincorporated areas. Building spatial associations with one of nine Risk Reporting Areas within the City of Portland. U.S. Census Block Group (CBG) 2010 boundaries, with contiguous CBGs combined by DOGAMI where needed, to establish neighborhood units. Buildings spatially associated with neighborhood units. Population numbers used to assign residential building population. https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/gtc/gtc_bg.html RES2 (Single-Family Manufactured Housing) available from Assessor records and, by definition, a Manufactured House building type. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 49 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon 10.2 Seismic Design Level Assignments We assigned a Hazus seismic design level based on the building’s construction year and type. Seismic design codes have evolved with time, with more stringent requirements developing as the natural hazard threat is better understood. We interpreted the relevant state building code histories as described by Judson (2012), Oregon Building Code Division (2002, 2010), and Business Oregon (2015) and developed a seismic design level categorization table (Table 10-2). The design level assignment is one of the parameters used by the Hazus tool to derive a damage estimate. Once the seismic design level was assigned to each building, we summarized the number of buildings, square footage, and replacement cost per seismic design level (Table 10-3). We did not have sufficient information to further classify buildings into the Hazus-supported Low-Special, Moderate-Special, and High-Special seismic design levels. Table 10-2. Oregon seismic design level benchmark years. Building Type Year Built Design Level Basis Single Family Dwelling (includes Duplexes) prior to 1976 1976 – 1991 1992 – 2003 2004 – present Pre Code Low Code Moderate Code High Code Interpretation of Judson (2012) Manufactured Housing prior to 2003 2003 – 2010 Pre Code Low Code Interpretation of Oregon Manufactured Dwelling Special Codes (Oregon Building Codes Division, 2002) 2011 – present Moderate Code Interpretation of Oregon Manufactured Dwelling Special Codes Update (Oregon Building Codes Division, 2010) prior to 1976 Pre Code 1976 – 1990 Low Code Interpretation of Oregon Benefit-Cost Analysis Tool (Business Oregon, 2015, p. 24) 1991 – present Moderate Code All other buildings Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 50 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon Table 10-3. Building statistics by seismic design level, per county. County Seismic Design Level Number of Buildings Building Percent Square Footage (Thousand) Square Footage Percent Building Value ($ Million) Building Cost Percent Clackamas Pre Code Low Code Moderate Code High Code 89,647 43,530 30,638 15,349 50% 24% 17% 9% 202,323 146,754 88,682 48,363 42% 30% 18% 10% 24,922 19,523 11,550 6,394 40% 31% 19% 10% Multnomah Pre Code Low Code Moderate Code High Code 184,704 28,280 26,383 16,210 72% 11% 10% 6% 489,280 111,783 101,405 107,620 60% 14% 13% 13% 67,497 15,884 14,248 16,418 59% 14% 12% 14% Washington Pre Code Low Code Moderate Code High Code 55,806 46,556 55,092 23,657 31% 26% 30% 13% 145,812 215,049 147,174 94,936 24% 36% 24% 16% 19,341 31,128 18,728 13,534 23% 38% 23% 16% Total Study Area Pre Code Low Code Moderate Code High Code 330,157 118,366 112,113 55,216 54% 19% 18% 9% 837,415 473,586 337,261 250,918 44% 25% 18% 13% 111,760 66,535 44,526 36,347 43% 26% 17% 14% Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 51 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon 10.3 Buildings by Geological Classification To better understand the potential influence of local geology on the damage estimates, we summarized building information by National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) site classification and landslide and liquefaction susceptibility. The NEHRP site classification bins a soil column’s average shear wave velocity (Vs30), measured between 0 (surface) and 30 meters depth, into one of six categories. The site classification can be used to estimate the amplification of bedrock ground motion that may be experienced at the surface during an earthquake. Lower ratings, such as “B” and “C,” minimally amplify the bedrock ground motion. Softer soil columns with lower Vs30 values experience more surface ground motion due to the soil column’s amplifying the bedrock ground motion. NEHRP site class “F” is assigned to soil columns primarily composed of fill material or certain types of clays or peat. For building seismic design purposes, such soils generally require site-specific investigations. For Hazus modeling purposes, we take a conservative approach by reclassifying NEHRP site class “F” into NEHRP site class “E” — the classification with the highest site amplification (Section 11.1). Summary statistics in Table 10-4 show that while a relatively small percentage of buildings are placed on NEHRP Site Classification “E” and “F” soils, their proportional building value in Multnomah County is large. Table 10-4. Building statistics by NEHRP site classification, per county. Square Footage Percent Building Value ($ Million) Building Value Percent NEHRP Site Classification Number of Buildings Building Percent Square Footage (Thousand) Clackamas B C D E, F 367 109,012 58,301 11,484 0% 61% 33% 6% 746 278,528 178,653 28,195 0% 57% 37% 6% 84 35,172 23,616 3,518 0% 56% 38% 6% Multnomah B 32 118,487 126,550 10,508 0% 46% 50% 4% 63 251,404 403,956 154,665 0% 31% 50% 19% 8 32,828 58,160 23,050 0% 29% 51% 20% D E, F 21,724 154,153 5,234 12% 85% 3% 63,586 525,041 14,343 11% 87% 2% 8,484 72,507 1,741 10% 88% 2% B C D E, F 399 249,223 339,004 27,226 0% 40% 55% 4% 808 593,519 1,107,651 197,202 0% 31% 58% 10% 92 76,483 154,284 28,310 0% 30% 60% 11% County C D E, F Washington Total Study Area C The liquefaction and earthquake-induced landslide susceptibility rating is a description of a site’s characteristics; it is not descriptive of an earthquake-induced landslide or liquefaction occurrence for a particular earthquake scenario. The susceptibility ratings are a generalization of the Hazus-based classifications, obtained from Appleby and others (in preparation), with the groupings listed at the bottom of each table (Table 10-5 and Table 10-6). In all three counties, relatively few buildings are in high landslide susceptibility areas. In Washington County, at least 80% of the building value is on moderate liquefaction susceptibility soils. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 52 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon Table 10-5. Building statistics by Hazus-based liquefaction susceptibility rating, per county. Building Value Percent Liquefaction Susceptibility Number of Buildings Building Percent Square Footage (Thousand) Square Footage Percent Building Value ($ Million) Clackamas None to Low Moderate High Very High 113,010 58,905 746 6,503 63% 33% 0% 4% 288,505 179,466 2,279 15,873 59% 37% 0% 3% 36,392 23,738 276 1,984 58% 38% 0% 3% Multnomah None to Low Moderate High Very High 118,909 115,200 13,713 7,755 47% 45% 5% 3% 252,600 377,721 34,224 145,543 31% 47% 4% 18% 32,990 54,990 4,295 21,772 29% 48% 4% 19% Washington None to Low Moderate High Very High 23,685 149,053 6,005 2,368 13% 82% 3% 1% 67,804 510,591 17,204 7,371 11% 85% 3% 1% 8,964 70,625 2,239 903 11% 85% 3% 1% Total Study Area None to Low Moderate High Very High 255,604 323,158 20,464 16,626 42% 52% 3% 3% 608,909 1,067,777 53,707 168,787 32% 56% 3% 9% 78,346 149,354 6,810 24,659 30% 58% 3% 10% County Hazus-based liquefaction scale mapping: 0–2: none to low; 3: moderate; 4: high; 5: very high. Table 10-6. Building statistics by Hazus-based earthquake-induced landslide susceptibility rating, per county. Building Value ($ Million) 440,935 37,445 7,742 91% 8% 2% 56,485 4,890 1,015 91% 8% 2% 88% 9% 3% 614,891 167,945 27,251 76% 21% 3% 84,347 25,449 4,250 74% 22% 4% 164,795 13,364 2,952 91% 7% 2% 548,657 44,242 10,071 91% 7% 2% 75,370 6,012 1,351 91% 7% 2% 551,054 51,584 13,214 89% 8% 2% 1,604,483 249,632 45,064 84% 13% 2% 216,202 36,351 6,616 83% 14% 3% Number of Buildings Building Percent Clackamas Low Moderate High to Very High 161,505 14,582 3,077 90% 8% 2% Multnomah Low Moderate High to Very High 224,754 23,638 7,185 Washington Low Moderate High to Very High Total Study Area Low Moderate High to Very High County Building Value Percent Square Footage Percent Landslide Susceptibility Square Footage (Thousand) Hazus-based landslide scale mapping: 0–5: none to low; 6–7: moderate; 8–10: high to very high. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 53 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon 10.4 Buildings by Primary Usage We summarized the number of buildings on a generalized Hazus occupancy class basis, which is a classification of a building’s dominant use (Table 10-7). In the case of mixed-use buildings, such as retail stores on the first floor and residential quarters on the upper floors, we assigned the occupancy class based on the largest square foot usage. Table 10-7. Buildings statistics by primary usage, per county. County Building Use Number of Buildings Building Percent Square Footage (Thousand) Square Footage Percent Building Value ($ Million) Building Value Percent Clackamas Agricultural Commercial Industrial Institutional Multi-family Residential Single-family Residential 22,768 4,593 1,573 2,558 8,959 138,713 13% 3% 1% 1% 5% 77% 52,063 54,616 20,621 23,264 40,880 294,677 11% 11% 4% 5% 8% 61% 5,541 7,929 3,063 3,940 6,293 35,624 9% 13% 5% 6% 10% 57% Multnomah Agricultural Commercial Industrial Institutional Multi-family Residential Single-family Residential 2,540 11,544 1,685 3,094 24,197 212,517 1% 5% 1% 1% 9% 83% 8,146 210,231 45,292 50,145 140,585 355,689 1% 26% 6% 6% 17% 44% 867 33,390 6,874 8,812 22,428 41,675 1% 29% 6% 8% 20% 37% Washington Agricultural Commercial Industrial Institutional Multi-family Residential Single-family Residential 10,753 5,863 1,399 1,931 18,475 142,690 6% 3% 1% 1% 10% 79% 26,823 104,377 50,567 28,098 98,385 294,721 4% 17% 8% 5% 16% 49% 2,855 15,815 8,548 4,856 15,671 34,987 3% 19% 10% 6% 19% 42% Commercial includes the Hazus RES4 class. Institutional combines the Hazus GOV1, GOV2, EDU1, EDU2, and REL1 classes. Single-family residential combine the Hazus RES1 and RES2 classes. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 54 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon 10.5 Building Type by Primary Usage We summarized the number of buildings by their generalized basic structural system (in Hazus, referred to as the building type), by generalized occupancy class (Table 10-8). Although several ancillary datasets informed our assignments (Section 2.1.4), most (563,583 out of 615,852, or 92%) were based on the statistical distributions listed in the Hazus Earthquake Technical Manual (FEMA, 2011, Tables 3.A1–3.A.10). Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 55 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon Table 10-8. Building type by generalized building use. Building Use Agricultural Building Type Concrete Precast Concrete Reinforced Masonry Steel Trailers Unreinforced Masonry Wood Commercial Concrete Precast Concrete Reinforced Masonry Steel Trailers Unreinforced Masonry Wood Industrial Concrete Precast Concrete Reinforced Masonry Steel Trailers Unreinforced Masonry Wood Institutional Concrete Precast Concrete Reinforced Masonry Steel Trailers Unreinforced Masonry Wood Multi-Family Concrete Residential Precast Concrete Reinforced Masonry Steel Unreinforced Masonry Wood Single-Family Other Residential Reinforced Masonry Unreinforced Masonry Wood Single-Family Res. – Manuf. Housing Square Square Number of Building Footage Footage Buildings Percent (Thousand) Percent 1,650 5% 4,032 5% 2,921 8% 7,130 8% 4,327 12% 10,973 13% 8,772 24% 20,635 24% 365 1% 588 1% 1,097 3% 2,896 3% 16,929 47% 40,778 47% 3,530 16% 78,946 21% 2,304 10% 82,355 22% 4,660 21% 58,567 16% 3,143 14% 74,659 20% 7 0% 36 0% 1,654 8% 14,842 4% 6,702 30% 59,819 16% 579 12% 17,557 15% 904 19% 40,200 35% 569 12% 13,527 12% 1,649 35% 33,406 29% 51 1% 179 0% 155 3% 1,939 2% 750 16% 9,672 8% 1,685 22% 29,392 29% 347 5% 7,989 8% 1,689 22% 21,678 21% 1,225 16% 14,277 14% 9 0% 30 0% 328 4% 4,861 5% 2,300 30% 23,279 23% 1,091 2% 28,476 10% 115 0% 2,801 1% 1,331 3% 16,026 6% 1,636 3% 22,913 8% 403 1% 5,380 2% 47,055 91% 204,253 73% 138 0% 377 0% 3,549 1% 7,349 1% 1,455 0% 2,298 0% 471,926 99% 914,096 99% 16,852 100% 20,966 100% Cost ($ Million) 429 759 1,168 2,196 63 308 4,340 13,635 10,624 8,729 12,263 7 2,271 9,606 2,840 6,557 2,332 5,206 21 259 1,270 5,130 1,337 3,751 2,483 5 853 4,050 5,114 509 2,876 4,011 947 30,934 44 893 268 110,199 882 Cost Percent 5% 8% 13% 24% 1% 3% 47% 24% 19% 15% 21% 0% 4% 17% 15% 35% 13% 28% 0% 1% 7% 29% 8% 21% 14% 0% 5% 23% 12% 1% 6% 9% 2% 70% 0% 1% 0% 99% 100% Commercial combines all Hazus COM occupancy classes and RES4. Institutional combines Hazus occupancy classes REL1, GOV1, EDU1, and EDU2. Multi-family residential is limited to RES3, RES5, and RES6 types. SingleFamily Residential – Manuf. Housing is the Hazus occupancy class RES2, and is broken out separately, given the building type’s heightened sensitivity to ground shaking. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 56 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon 11.0 APPENDIX B: SITE GROUND MOTION AND GROUND DEFORMATION MAP DEVELOPMENT 11.1 Site Ground Motion Maps We converted the bedrock ground motion data referenced in Section 3.1 to a 30-foot grid limited in extent to the three-county study area. For the Portland Hills fault magnitude 6.8 earthquake, we used the Nearest Neighbor tool in the Esri Spatial Analyst. For the Cascadia Subduction Zone magnitude 9.0 earthquake, we used the bedrock data published by Madin and Burns (2013). The NEHRP site classification polygons from Appleby and others (in preparation) were converted to a 30-foot grid. Sites classified as NEHRP “F” were re-assigned to NEHRP “E,” a conservative and commonly implemented assumption for loss estimation purposes. We used the revised Fa , Fv , and FPGA site coefficients as published by FEMA (2015b, Tables 11.4-1, 11.4-2, 11.8-1) to derive site ground motion. For completeness, we include the NEHRP “A” class (Vs30 > 1,500 m/s), even though such stiff material is not present in the study area. We note the coefficients are identical to what is used by the Hazus 4.0 model for probabilistic and arbitrary earthquake events available in the Hazus SQL database tables as: [dbo].[eqPGASoilAmpFact], [dbo].[eqPGVSoilAmpFact] , [dbo].[eqSa03SoilAmpFact] , and [dbo].[eqSa10SoilAmpFact]. The coefficients applied directly will result in a non-monotonic site amplification function. To overcome the problem, we implemented the straight-line interpolation guidance given by FEMA (2015b) for intermediate values, and we added a y-intercept to the amplification function and adjusted the slope factor, so that the end point of the interval matches the specified amplification. We note the Hazus tool implements a similar piecewise linear function for probabilistic and arbitrary earthquakes. The functions listed in Table 11-1 through Table 11-4 were then implemented using the Esri Spatial Analyst raster calculator as a series of conditional statements. For Hazus purposes, the raster data were converted to the requisite polygon data format by first discretizing the continuous site ground motion data into integer percent g bins, then converting the integer raster data to polygon format. The pgv was rounded to the nearest integer inches/second category, and then converted to polygon format. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 57 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon Table 11-1. Site amplification coefficients for peak ground acceleration (pga, in g). Piecewise Linear Representation NEHRP Site Classification Site Multiplication Coefficients NEHRP Site Classification pga_bedrock 0.0–0.1 0.1–0.2 0.2–0.3 0.3–0.4 0.4–0.5 > 0.5 A B C D E A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 2.4 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.2 0.8*x + 0 0.8*x + 0 0.8*x + 0 0.8*x + 0 0.8*x + 0 0.8*x + 0 B 0.9*x + 0 0.9*x + 0 0.9*x + 0 0.9*x + 0 0.9*x + 0 0.9*x + 0 C D 1.3*x + 0 1.1*x + 0.02 1.2*x + 0 1.2*x + 0 1.2*x + 0 1.2*x + 0 1.6*x + 0 1.2*x + 0.04 1.1*x + 0..06 0.9*x + 0.12 0.7*x + 0.2 1.1*x + 0 E 2.4*x + 0 1.4*x + 0.1 1.0*x + 0.18 0.8*x + 0.24 0.4*x + 0.4 1.1*x + 0.05 Table 11-2. Site amplification coefficients for peak ground velocity (pgv, in inches/second). Piecewise Linear Representation NEHRP Site Classification Site Multiplication Coefficients NEHRP Site Classification pgv_bedrock A B C D E A 0–3.75 3.75–7.5 7.5–11.25 11.25–15 15–18.75 > 18.75 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.5 3.5 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.0 2.0 0.8*x + 0 0.8*x + 0 0.8*x + 0 0.8*x + 0 0.8*x + 0 0.8*x + 0 B 1.0*x + 0 1.0*x + 0 1.0*x + 0 1.0*x + 0 1.0*x + 0 1.0*x + 0 C D 1.7*x + 0 1.5*x + 0.75 1.3*x + 2.25 1.1*x + 4.5 0.9*x + 7.5 1.3*x + 0 2.4*x + 0 1.6*x + 3 1.4*x + 4.5 1.0*x + 9 1.1*x + 7.5 1.5*x + 0 E 3.5*x + 0 2.9*x + 2.25 2.0*x + 9.0 1.2*x + 18 0.4*x + 30 2.0*x + 0 Table 11-3. Site amplification coefficients for spectral acceleration at 0.3 second (sa03, in g). Piecewise Linear Representation NEHRP Site Classification Site Multiplication Coefficients NEHRP Site Classification sa03_bedrock A B C D E A 0–0.25 0.25–0.50 0.50–0.75 0.75–1.00 1.00–1.25 > 1.25 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 2.4 1.7 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8*x + 0 0.8*x + 0 0.8*x + 0 0.8*x + 0 0.8*x + 0 0.8*x + 0 B 0.9*x + 0 0.9*x + 0 0.9*x + 0 0.9*x + 0 0.9*x + 0 0.9*x + 0 C D 1.3*x + 0 1.3*x + 0 1.0*x + 0.15 1.2*x + 0 1.2*x + 0 1.2*x + 0 1.6*x + 0 1.2*x + 0.1 0.8*x + 0.3 0.8*x + 0.3 0.6*x + 0.5 1.0*x + 0 E 2.4*x + 0 1.0*x + 0.35 0.5*x + 0.6 0.5*x + 0.6 1.0*x + 1 0.9*x + 0 Table 11-4. Site amplification coefficients for spectral acceleration at 1.0 second (sa10, in g). Piecewise Linear Representation NEHRP Site Classification Site Multiplication Coefficients NEHRP Site Classification sa10_bedrock A B C D E A 0–0.1 0.1–0.2 0.2–0.3 0.3–0.4 0.4–0.5 > 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 4.2 3.3 2.8 2.4 2.2 2.0 0.8*x + 0 0.8*x + 0 0.8*x + 0 0.8*x + 0 0.8*x + 0 0.8*x + 0 B 0.8*x + 0 0.8*x + 0 0.8*x + 0 0.8*x + 0 0.8*x + 0 0.8*x + 0 Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 C D 1.5*x + 0 1.5*x + 0 1.5*x + 0 1.5*x + 0 1.5*x + 0 1.4*x + 0.05 2.4*x + 0 2.0*x + 0.04 1.6*x + 0.12 1.6*x + 0.12 1.4*x + 0.2 1.7*x + 0.05 E 4.2*x + 0 2.4*x + 0.18 1.8*x + 0.3 1.2*x + 0.48 1.4*x + 0.4 2.0*x + 0.1 58 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon 11.2 Ground Deformation Maps We provided the liquefaction and landslide susceptibility data from Appleby and others (in preparation) and the site peak ground acceleration data for both earthquake scenarios developed in Section 3.2 as input to the tool developed by Sharifi-Mood and others (in preparation). The tool implements the methods for permanent ground deformation (PGD) estimation described by Madin and Burns (2013, Section 4), which implemented the Hazus ground failure models described in the Hazus Earthquake Technical Manual (FEMA, 2011). The tool generates raster grids describing the amount and probability of PGD resulting from liquefaction lateral spreading and earthquake-induced landslides. The tool is currently limited to modeling lateral spread from liquefaction in “wet” (saturated) soil conditions. For earthquake-induced landslide modeling, it implements the WET portion of Table 4.15 in the Hazus Earthquake Technical Manual (FEMA, 2011). For liquefaction, it assumes a water depth of 5.0 feet. The tool provides PGD and probability of occurrence estimates for liquefaction lateral spreading and for earthquake-induced landslides. The data are provided in the accompanying geodatabase for the CSZ and the Portland Hills fault simulated earthquakes. To aid in interpretation, Appendix E, Plates 8 and 9 combine the PGD and probability occurrence from the two mechanisms (earthquake-induced landslides and lateral spread resulting from liquefaction). For a given raster cell, the plates represent the maximum PGD and maximum probability from the two mechanisms. Our “dry” soil conditions scenario assumes non-saturated soils, thus ground failure due to liquefaction does not occur. However, earthquake-induced landslides may still occur, depending on the ground shaking intensity and local geologic conditions (FEMA, 2011, Table 4.15(A)). To overcome the current limitation of the tool, we developed a “dry” soil conditions scenario ground failure model due to earthquake-induced landslides as follows. As part of a statewide multi-hazard risk assessment effort for Oregon, we developed a lookup table method for rapid loss estimation from a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake (Bauer, 2016). All combinations of ground motion, at discrete intervals, and all combinations of liquefaction and landslide susceptibility values, were run through the Hazus model. Building loss ratios, along with ground failure probabilities and lateral spread amount, were captured in a lookup table. Of the four site ground motion parameters (Section 11.1), the Hazus ground failure model uses only the site peak ground acceleration. A Hazus-based ground failure layer can then be created by associating the local landslide susceptibility rating and the site peak ground acceleration with the lookup table. We repeated the lookup table process for the Portland Hills fault “dry” soil conditions scenario. The “dry” soil conditions scenario ground failure and probability values are included in the accompanying geodatabase. The lookup table method used the discretized peak ground acceleration (pga) intervals described in Section 11.1 and while it is not as continuous as what is available via the tool developed by Sharifi-Mood and others (in preparation), we determined it is a reasonable representation of the Hazus ground failure model for earthquake-induced landslides in the “dry” soil conditions scenario. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 59 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon 12.0 APPENDIX C: BUILDING DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AND IMPACTS TO OCCUPANTS 12.1 Number of Buildings by Damage State We summarized the number of buildings in each damage state, by county (Table 12-1), using the structural damage states (StrPDS) obtained from the Hazus AEBM output. The quantification of buildings in each damage state follows the methods discussed by FEMA (2017a). The information can inform the planning process for post-earthquake building inspection needs. Table 12-1. Number of buildings per damage state, by county and by earthquake and soil moisture scenario. Numbers for buildings in the None damage state are not included. Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake County (Number of Buildings) Building Damage State Clackamas (179,164) Slight Moderate “Dry” Soil Building Percent “Wet” Saturated Soil Portland Hills Fault Magnitude 6.8 Earthquake Building Percent “Dry” Soil Building Percent “Wet” Saturated Soil Building Percent 24% 24% 12% 13% 19% 9% 3% 1% 33,133 15,386 5,228 6,267 18% 9% 3% 3% 46,152 47,122 26% 26% Extensive Complete 34,145 15,936 5,390 2,265 22,526 12,898 13% 7% 42,988 43,417 20,761 24,008 Multnomah (255,577) Slight Moderate Extensive Complete 54,660 25,194 7,478 3,536 21% 10% 3% 1% 52,362 23,946 7,017 13,039 20% 9% 3% 5% 72,471 69,876 28,338 14,843 28% 27% 11% 6% 64,772 61,556 25,590 39,970 25% 24% 10% 16% Washington (181,111) Slight Moderate Extensive Complete 44,673 20,381 6,303 2,784 25% 11% 3% 2% 41,807 19,012 5,892 14,026 23% 11% 3% 8% 57,184 44,766 15,892 6,492 32% 25% 9% 4% 49,602 38,807 14,519 28,194 27% 21% 8% 16% Study Area Total (615,852) Slight Moderate Extensive Complete 133,478 61,512 19,171 8,585 22% 10% 3% 1% 127,301 58,344 18,137 33,331 21% 9% 3% 5% 175,807 161,765 66,756 34,233 29% 26% 11% 6% 157,363 143,781 60,870 92,171 26% 23% 10% 15% 232,811 38% 237,113 39% 438,560 71% 454,185 74% Total number of damaged buildings Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 60 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon 12.2 Number of Collapsed Buildings We used the collapse percentage rates listed in the Hazus Earthquake Technical Manual (FEMA, 2011, Table 13.8), together with probability of Complete structural damage state from the Hazus AEBM output, to estimate the number of collapsed buildings by county and earthquake scenario (Table 12-2). The casualty calculations built into Hazus AEBM factor in an assumption that a percentage of completely damaged buildings will collapse, which varies based on building type. For example, the Hazus methods estimate 15% of completely damaged unreinforced masonry buildings will collapse, whereas completely damaged manufactured housing and single family wood frame construction buildings have only a 3% chance of collapse. Table 12-2. Collapsed buildings by county and by earthquake and soil moisture conditions Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake County Clackamas Multnomah Washington Total Total Number of Buildings 179,164 255,577 181,111 615,852 “Dry” Soils 158 302 209 668 “Wet” (Saturated) Soils 313 677 619 1,609 Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 Portland Hills Fault Magnitude 6.8 Earthquake “Dry” Soil 666 1,001 387 2,054 “Wet” (Saturated) Soils 1,066 1,876 1,155 4,097 61 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon 12.3 Permanent Residents by Building Damage State We assigned permanent residents to individual residential buildings based on the building’s square footage, the total square footage of residential buildings for a census block group, and the U.S. Census 2010 population amount for that census block group (Section 2.1.7). Using the Hazus AEBM output, we multiplied the individual building’s permanent residential population by each structural probability of damage state. Summary statistics by county and earthquake scenario are provided in Table 12-3. Note the figures in the Complete state are the same as the long-term displaced population figures in Table 12-4 through Table 12-7. The Hazus Complete damage state equates to the ATC-20 red-tag designation (ATC, 1989), and the Extensive damage state equates to the ATC-20 yellow-tag designation. All other building damage states are considered green-tagged (FEMA, 2010, Table 6.1). Qualitative descriptions of the building damage states as relates to the characteristics of the building, per building type (such as Steel Moment Frame), are provided by FEMA (2011, Section 5.3). Table 12-3. Permanent residents per building damage state, by county and by earthquake and soil moisture conditions scenario.Numbers for permanent residents occupying buildings in the None damage state are not included. Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake County Clackamas Multnomah Washington Total Building Damage State “Dry” Soil Slight Moderate Extensive Complete Slight Moderate Extensive Complete Slight Moderate Extensive Complete Slight Moderate Extensive Complete 75,828 31,559 6,644 1,931 158,506 84,462 24,258 9,736 133,418 66,488 16,055 5,185 367,752 182,509 46,957 16,852 “Wet” (Saturated) Soil 73,670 30,471 6,580 10,093 151,736 79,688 22,643 37,461 125,169 62,313 15,165 37,657 350,575 172,471 44,387 85,211 Portland Hills Fault Magnitude 6.8 Earthquake “Dry” Soil 101,881 105,523 47,996 25,152 203,333 190,409 81,131 50,842 168,428 137,364 48,269 19,582 473,642 433,296 177,396 95,577 “Wet” (Saturated) Soil 94,448 96,722 44,065 50,802 182,865 167,696 72,394 120,124 145,320 118,446 43,868 86,010 422,632 382,865 160,328 256,936 We recognize that planning for short-term and long-term shelter needs throughout the response and recovery phases is a complex task requiring many assumptions, but at its base the planning requires underlying data on demographics as relates to predicted building damage. Table 12-4 through Table 12-7 quantify the number of buildings and permanent residents by generalized occupancy, per county and per building damage state, for the four earthquake scenarios. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 62 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon Table 12-4. Buildings and permanent residents per building damage state for Cascadia Subduction Zone magnitude 9.0 earthquake, “dry” soil conditions. Dash (—): not applicable Building Category Total Number of Buildings Building Square Footage (Thousand) Building Value ($ Million) Building Repair Cost ($ Million) Building Loss Ratio Number of Collapsed Buildings Number of Buildings Slight Damage Number Percent Number of Permanent Residents Moderate Damage Extensive Damage Complete Damage Number Number Number Percent Percent Percent Slight Damage Total Number Percent Moderate Damage Extensive Damage Complete Damage Number Number Number Percent Percent Percent Clackamas County Agricultural 22,768 52,063 5,541 465 8% 78 3,882 17% 3,276 14% 1,818 8% 992 4% — — — — — — — — — Commercial 4,593 54,616 7,929 927 12% 24 823 18% 894 19% 544 12% 248 5% — — — — — — — — — Industrial 1,573 20,621 3,063 396 13% 11 246 16% 372 24% 278 18% 145 9% — — — — — — — — — Institutional 2,558 23,264 3,940 391 10% 17 448 17% 530 21% 335 13% 162 6% — — — — — — — — — Multi-family residential 8,959 40,880 6,293 305 5% 3 1,964 22% 975 11% 190 2% 50 1% 55,042 13,571 25% 9,036 Single-family residential 16% 1,965 4% 563 1% 132,641 286,514 35,282 672 2% 9 25,687 19% 8,226 6% 1,002 1% 167 0% 309,744 60,191 19% 19,412 6% 2,477 1% 501 0% Manufactured housing 6,072 8,163 343 51 15% 15 1,096 18% 1,662 27% 1,223 20% 502 8% 11,206 2,067 18% 3,111 28% 2,202 20% 868 8% Agricultural 2,540 8,146 867 114 13% 16 455 18% 403 10% 188 7% — — Commercial Multnomah County 16% 252 — — — — — — — 11,544 210,231 33,390 7,144 21% 158 1,878 16% 2,387 21% 1,915 17% 1,433 12% — — — — — — — — — Industrial 1,685 45,292 6,874 1,905 28% 39 204 12% 341 20% 374 22% 398 24% — — — — — — — — — Institutional 3,094 50,145 8,812 1,257 14% 25 555 18% 664 21% 438 14% 229 7% — — — — — — — — — Multi-family residential 24,197 140,585 22,428 1,829 8% 22 5,078 21% 2,539 10% 655 3% 248 1% 215,232 46,355 22% 39,385 18% 15,311 7% 7,328 3% Single-family residential 206,322 348,436 41,371 1,034 2% 23 45,563 22% 16,840 8% 2,203 1% 373 0% 507,022 110,112 22% 40,851 8% 5,648 1% 1,126 0% 6,195 7,253 304 57 19% 20 927 15% 2,020 33% 1,641 26% 667 11% 13,080 2,039 16% 4,226 32% 3,299 25% 1,282 10% Manufactured housing Washington County Agricultural 10,753 26,823 2,855 368 13% 76 2,305 21% 1,808 17% 1,120 10% 884 8% — — — — — — — — — Commercial 5,863 104,377 15,815 2,310 15% 47 1,083 18% 1,321 23% 948 16% 460 8% — — — — — — — — — Industrial 1,399 50,567 8,548 1,350 16% 13 234 17% 341 24% 276 20% 143 10% — — — — — — — — — Institutional 1,931 28,098 4,856 790 16% 21 333 17% 438 23% 338 18% 189 10% — — — — — — — — — Multi-family residential 18,475 98,385 15,671 1,155 7% 20 4,588 25% 2,754 15% 811 4% 305 2% 141,844 35,337 25% 29,225 Single-family residential 138,117 289,198 34,755 990 3% 18 35,281 26% 12,139 9% 1,637 1% 308 0% 379,323 96,542 25% 4,573 5,523 232 49 21% 15 850 19% 1,582 35% 1,173 26% 495 11% 8,543 1,539 18% Agricultural 36,061 87,033 9,263 947 10% 170 6,642 18% 5,487 15% 3,190 9% 2,063 6% — — — — — — — — — Commercial 22,000 369,224 57,134 10,381 18% 229 3,783 17% 4,603 21% 3,407 15% 2,141 10% — — — — — — — — — 4,657 116,480 18,485 3,651 20% 63 683 15% 1,054 23% 928 20% 685 15% — — — — — — — — — — — — — Manufactured housing 21% 8,879 6% 3,169 34,321 9% 2,943 34% 2% 4,916 1% 1,047 0% 2,260 26% 969 11% Study Area (All Three Counties) Industrial 7,583 101,507 17,609 2,438 14% 62 1,336 18% 1,632 22% 1,112 15% 580 8% — — Multi-family residential Institutional 51,631 279,849 44,391 3,288 7% 45 11,630 23% 6,267 12% 1,656 3% 604 1% 412,118 95,262 23% 77,646 19% 26,155 6% 11,060 3% Single-family residential 477,080 924,147 111,408 2,695 2% 50 106,532 22% 37,205 8% 4,843 1% 848 0% 1,196,089 266,845 22% 94,583 8% 13,041 1% 2,674 0% Manufactured housing Total 16,840 20,940 879 158 18% 50 2,872 17% 5,263 31% 4,036 24% 1,664 10% 32,829 615,852 1,899,180 259,169 23,558 9% 668 133,478 22% 61,512 10% 19,171 3% 8,585 1% 1,641,036 — — — 5,645 17% 10,280 31% 7,762 24% 3,119 10% 367,752 22% 182,509 11% 46,957 3% 16,852 1% Number of buildings estimates are derived using the Hazus Advanced Engineering Building Module (AEBM) structural probability of damage states (FEMA, 2010). Institutional combines Hazus occupancy classes REL1, GOV1, GOV2, EDU1, and EDU2. Commercial combines all Hazus COM occupancy classes and RES4. Multi-family residential combines the Hazus occupancy classes RES3, RES5, and RES6 categories. Permanent resident values are based on U.S. Census 2010 population data. Permanent residents are assigned only to buildings designated as Hazus occupancy class RES1, RES2, RES3, RES5, and RES6. Manufactured housing building category is limited to Hazus occupancy class RES2, and does not include modular construction that may be present in other Hazus occupancy classes. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 63 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon Table 12-5. Buildings and permanent residents per building damage state for Cascadia Subduction Zone magnitude 9.0 earthquake, “wet” (saturated) soil conditions. Dash (—): not applicable Building Category Total Number of Buildings Building Square Footage (Thousand) Building Value ($ Million) Building Repair Cost ($ Million) Building Loss Ratio Number of Collapsed Buildings Number of Buildings Slight Damage Number Percent Number of Permanent Residents Moderate Damage Extensive Damage Complete Damage Number Number Percent Number Percent 8% 1,570 7% — — — — — — — — — Percent Clackamas County 3,159 14% 1,733 Slight Damage Total Number Percent Moderate Damage Extensive Damage Complete Damage Number Number Number Percent Percent Percent Agricultural 22,768 52,063 5,541 598 11% 114 3,747 16% Commercial 4,593 54,616 7,929 1,124 14% 34 801 17% 864 19% 516 11% 367 8% — — — — — — — — — Industrial 1,573 20,621 3,063 476 16% 15 240 15% 360 23% 263 17% 188 12% — — — — — — — — — Institutional 2,558 23,264 3,940 461 12% 23 437 17% 511 20% 314 12% 229 9% — — — — — — — — — Multi-family residential 8,959 40,880 6,293 426 7% 9 1,919 21% 946 11% 186 2% 223 2% 55,042 13,269 24% 8,746 16% 1,906 3% 1,663 3% Single-family residential 132,641 286,514 35,282 1,431 4% 99 24,909 19% 7,924 6% 1,038 1% 3,075 2% 309,744 58,361 19% 18,680 6% 2,548 1% 7,377 2% Manufactured housing 6,072 8,163 343 57 17% 18 1,080 18% 1,622 27% 1,177 19% 614 10% 11,206 2,040 18% 3,045 27% 2,126 19% 1,053 9% Agricultural 2,540 8,146 867 191 22% 30 408 16% 9% 408 16% — — — — — — — — — Commercial 11,544 210,231 33,390 9,977 30% 226 1,747 15% 2,196 19% 1,713 15% 2,150 19% — — — — — — — — — Industrial 1,685 45,292 6,874 2,613 38% 53 183 11% 300 18% 317 19% 542 32% — — — — — — — — — Institutional 3,094 50,145 8,812 1,614 18% 37 530 17% 628 20% 406 13% 364 12% — — — — — — — — — Multnomah County 358 14% 219 Multi-family residential 24,197 140,585 22,428 3,180 14% 56 4,868 20% 2,408 10% 621 3% 1,109 5% 215,232 44,050 20% 36,542 17% 13,911 6% 17,065 8% Single-family residential 206,322 348,436 41,371 2,846 7% 247 43,729 21% 16,126 8% 2,217 1% 7,543 4% 507,022 105,712 21% 39,101 8% 5,664 1% 18,591 4% 6,195 7,253 304 68 22% 28 896 14% 1,930 31% 1,523 25% 924 15% 13,080 1,974 15% 4,044 31% 3,068 23% 1,806 14% — Manufactured housing Agricultural 10,753 26,823 2,855 558 20% 123 2,126 20% Washington County 1,657 15% 1,016 9% 1,601 15% — — — — — — — — Commercial 5,863 104,377 15,815 3,031 19% 76 1,016 17% 1,242 21% 891 15% 784 13% — — — — — — — — — Industrial 1,399 50,567 8,548 1,799 21% 21 218 16% 318 23% 257 18% 225 16% — — — — — — — — — Institutional 1,931 28,098 4,856 1,039 21% 31 312 16% 410 21% 315 16% 298 15% — — — — — — — — — Multi-family residential 18,475 98,385 15,671 2,016 13% 59 4,319 23% 2,592 14% 766 4% 1,367 7% 141,844 33,289 23% 27,529 19% 8,377 6% 11,319 8% Single-family residential 138,117 289,198 34,755 3,144 9% 287 33,018 24% 11,313 8% 1,556 1% 8,993 7% 379,323 90,437 24% 32,039 8% 4,695 1% 24,858 7% 4,573 5,523 232 61 26% 23 798 17% 1,480 32% 1,089 24% 758 17% 8,543 1,442 17% 2,745 32% 2,092 24% 1,480 17% Agricultural 36,061 87,033 9,263 1,347 15% 268 6,281 17% Commercial 22,000 369,224 57,134 14,133 25% 337 3,564 16% Industrial 4,657 116,480 18,485 4,888 26% 89 641 Institutional 7,583 101,507 17,609 3,114 18% 91 1,278 Multi-family residential 51,631 279,849 44,391 5,621 13% 124 11,106 Single-family residential 477,080 924,147 111,408 7,421 7% 632 101,656 Manufactured housing Manufactured housing Total Study Area (All Three Counties) 5,174 14% 2,969 8% 3,579 10% — — — — — — — — — 3,121 14% 3,301 15% — — — — — — — — — 21% 837 18% 955 21% — — — — — — — — — 20% 1,036 14% 891 12% — — — — — — — — — 5,946 12% 1,573 3% 2,698 5% 412,118 90,608 22% 72,818 18% 24,195 6% 30,047 7% 35,363 7% 4,812 1% 19,611 4% 1,196,089 254,510 21% 89,820 8% 12,906 1% 50,826 4% 4,302 20% 14% 979 17% 1,549 22% 21% 16,840 20,940 879 186 21% 69 2,774 16% 5,031 30% 3,789 22% 2,296 14% 32,829 5,457 17% 9,833 30% 7,286 22% 4,338 13% 615,852 1,899,180 259,169 36,710 14% 1,609 127,301 21% 58,344 9% 18,137 3% 33,331 5% 1,641,036 350,575 21% 172,471 11% 44,387 3% 85,211 5% Number of buildings estimates are derived using the Hazus Advanced Engineering Building Module (AEBM) structural probability of damage states (FEMA, 2010). Institutional combines Hazus occupancy classes REL1, GOV1, GOV2, EDU1, and EDU2. Commercial combines all Hazus COM occupancy classes and RES4. Multi-family residential combines the Hazus occupancy classes RES3, RES5, and RES6 categories. Permanent resident values are based on U.S. Census 2010 population data. Permanent residents are assigned only to buildings designated as Hazus occupancy class RES1, RES2, RES3, RES5, and RES6. Manufactured housing building category is limited to Hazus occupancy class RES2, and does not include modular construction that may be present in other Hazus occupancy classes. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 64 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon Table 12-6. Buildings and permanent residents per building damage state for Portland Hills fault magnitude 6.8 earthquake, “dry” soil conditions. Dash (—): not applicable Building Category Total Number of Buildings Building Square Footage (Thousand) Building Value ($ Million) Building Repair Cost ($ Million) Building Loss Ratio Number of Collapsed Buildings Number of Buildings Slight Damage Number Percent Number of Permanent Residents Moderate Damage Extensive Damage Complete Damage Number Number Percent Slight Damage Total Number Percent Moderate Damage Extensive Damage Complete Damage Number Number Number Percent Number Percent Percent Percent Percent 12% 1,718 8% — — — — — — — — — Agricultural 22,768 52,063 5,541 787 14% 145 4,935 22% Clackamas County 4,949 22% 2,794 Commercial 4,593 54,616 7,929 3,054 39% 111 641 14% 1,042 23% 933 20% 1,096 24% — — — — — — — — — Industrial 1,573 20,621 3,063 1,141 37% 37 191 12% 342 22% 342 22% 438 28% — — — — — — — — — Institutional 2,558 23,264 3,940 1,339 34% 58 360 14% 579 23% 514 20% 573 22% — — Multi-family residential 8,959 40,880 6,293 1,483 24% 33 2,269 25% 2,742 31% 1,360 15% 723 8% 55,042 12,101 22% 17,230 31% 9,877 18% 6,365 12% Single-family residential 132,641 286,514 35,282 4,975 14% 219 37,211 28% 36,264 27% 14,899 11% 6,267 5% 309,744 88,733 29% 85,978 28% 34,980 11% 15,010 5% 6,072 8,163 343 142 41% 63 545 9% 1,205 20% 1,683 28% 2,083 34% 11,206 1,047 9% 2,315 21% 3,139 28% 3,778 34% Manufactured housing — — — — — — — Multnomah County Agricultural 2,540 8,146 867 175 20% 27 476 19% 463 18% 272 11% 313 12% — — — — — — — — — Commercial 11,544 210,231 33,390 14,269 43% 400 1,614 14% 2,374 21% 2,237 19% 3,470 30% — — — — — — — — — Industrial 1,685 45,292 6,874 3,025 44% 76 156 9% 272 16% 337 20% 724 43% — — — — — — — — — Institutional 3,094 50,145 8,812 3,274 37% 75 496 16% 687 22% 565 18% 683 22% — — — — — — — — — Multi-family residential 24,197 140,585 22,428 5,805 26% 102 6,897 29% 5,714 24% 2,338 10% 1,501 6% 215,232 48,640 23% 48,949 23% 29,097 14% 31,396 15% Single-family residential 206,322 348,436 41,371 5,677 14% 298 61,845 30% 58,400 28% 21,082 10% 7,363 4% 507,022 152,533 30% 137,314 27% 48,933 10% 17,893 4% 6,195 7,253 304 63 21% 24 987 16% 1,966 32% 1,508 24% 789 13% 13,080 2,160 17% 4,145 32% 3,101 24% 1,553 12% Manufactured housing Washington County Agricultural 10,753 26,823 2,855 309 11% 51 2,526 23% 2,057 19% 1,011 9% 593 6% — — — — — — — — — Commercial 5,863 104,377 15,815 4,917 31% 100 1,062 18% 1,537 26% 1,245 21% 937 16% — — — — — — — — — Industrial 1,399 50,567 8,548 2,412 28% 22 225 16% 357 26% 317 23% 216 15% — — — — — — — — — — — 1,931 28,098 4,856 1,258 26% 34 342 18% 490 25% 396 21% 316 16% — — Multi-family residential Institutional 18,475 98,385 15,671 2,831 18% 55 5,664 31% 5,085 28% 2,085 11% 1,016 6% 141,844 38,908 Single-family residential 138,117 289,198 34,755 3,582 10% 109 46,643 34% 33,685 24% 9,504 7% 2,888 2% 379,323 4,573 5,523 232 52 23% 16 722 16% 1,556 34% 1,335 29% 527 12% 8,543 Agricultural 36,061 87,033 9,263 1,271 14% 222 7,937 22% 7,469 21% 4,076 11% 2,624 7% — — — — — — — — — Commercial 22,000 369,224 57,134 22,240 39% 611 3,317 15% 4,953 23% 4,415 20% 5,503 25% — — — — — — — — — 4,657 116,480 18,485 6,578 36% 135 571 12% 971 21% 996 21% 1,377 30% — — — — — — — — — Manufactured housing — — 27% 41,465 128,109 34% 1,411 17% — — 29% 19,438 92,956 25% 2,943 34% — 14% 10,404 7% 26,404 7% 8,275 2% 2,427 28% 903 11% Study Area (All Three Counties) Industrial 7,583 101,507 17,609 5,871 33% 167 1,198 16% 1,756 23% 1,475 19% 1,572 21% — — Multi-family residential Institutional 51,631 279,849 44,391 10,118 23% 190 14,831 29% 13,541 26% 5,784 11% 3,241 6% 412,118 99,648 24% 107,645 26% 58,413 14% 48,165 12% Single-family residential 477,080 924,147 111,408 14,234 13% 626 145,699 31% 128,349 27% 45,485 10% 16,518 3% 1,196,089 369,376 31% 316,249 26% 110,317 9% 41,177 3% Manufactured housing Total — — — — — — — 16,840 20,940 879 257 29% 102 2,254 13% 4,726 28% 4,526 27% 3,399 20% 32,829 4,618 14% 9,403 29% 8,666 26% 6,234 19% 615,852 1,899,180 259,169 60,569 23% 2,054 175,807 29% 161,765 26% 66,756 11% 34,233 6% 1,641,036 473,642 29% 433,296 26% 177,396 11% 95,577 6% Number of buildings estimates are derived using the Hazus Advanced Engineering Building Module (AEBM) structural probability of damage states (FEMA, 2010). Institutional combines Hazus occupancy classes REL1, GOV1, GOV2, EDU1, and EDU2. Commercial combines all Hazus COM occupancy classes and RES4. Multi-family residential combines the Hazus occupancy classes RES3, RES5, and RES6 categories. Permanent resident values are based on U.S. Census 2010 population data. Permanent residents are assigned only to buildings designated as Hazus occupancy class RES1, RES2, RES3, RES5, and RES6. Manufactured housing building category is limited to Hazus occupancy class RES2, and does not include modular construction that may be present in other Hazus occupancy classes. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 65 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon Table 12-7. Buildings and permanent residents per building damage state for Portland Hills fault magnitude 6.8 earthquake, “wet” (saturated) soil conditions. Dash (—): not applicable. Building Category Total Number of Buildings Building Square Footage (Thousand) Building Value ($ Million) Building Repair Cost ($ Million) Building Loss Ratio Number of Collapsed Buildings Number of Buildings Slight Damage Number Percent Number of Permanent Residents Moderate Damage Extensive Damage Complete Damage Number Number Percent Number Percent Percent Slight Damage Total Number Percent Moderate Damage Extensive Damage Complete Damage Number Number Number Percent Percent Percent Clackamas County Agricultural 22,768 52,063 5,541 1,009 18% 204 4,691 21% 4,671 21% 2,624 12% 2,678 12% — — — — — — — — — Commercial 4,593 54,616 7,929 3,578 45% 134 589 13% 936 20% 826 18% 1,401 30% — — — — — — — — — — Industrial 1,573 20,621 3,063 1,332 44% 46 176 11% 308 20% 301 19% 541 34% — — — — — — — — Institutional 2,558 23,264 3,940 1,520 39% 71 336 13% 529 21% 464 18% 719 28% — — — — — — — — Multi-family residential 8,959 40,880 6,293 1,879 30% 57 2,083 23% 2,482 28% 1,229 14% 1,425 16% 55,042 11,141 20% 15,542 Single-family residential 28% 8,861 16% 10,644 — 19% 132,641 286,514 35,282 6,890 20% 482 34,598 26% 33,393 25% 13,819 10% 14,830 11% 309,744 82,316 27% 79,066 26% 32,402 10% 35,761 12% Manufactured housing 6,072 8,163 343 158 46% 72 516 9% 1,099 18% 1,498 25% 2,414 40% 11,206 991 9% 2,114 19% 2,803 25% 4,397 39% Agricultural 2,540 8,146 867 262 30% 44 413 16% 388 Commercial Multnomah County 15% 221 9% 577 23% — — — — — — — — — 11,544 210,231 33,390 17,324 52% 489 1,427 12% 2,064 18% 1,927 17% 4,464 39% — — — — — — — — — Industrial 1,685 45,292 6,874 3,614 53% 89 135 8% 231 14% 279 17% 863 51% — — — — — — — — — Institutional 3,094 50,145 8,812 3,862 44% 95 450 15% 610 20% 497 16% 922 30% — — — — — — — — — Multi-family residential 24,197 140,585 22,428 7,857 35% 183 6,207 26% 5,009 21% 2,075 9% 3,764 16% 215,232 44,235 21% 42,709 20% 24,932 12% 50,070 23% Single-family residential 206,322 348,436 41,371 9,750 24% 941 55,202 27% 51,428 25% 19,246 9% 28,205 14% 507,022 136,577 27% 121,130 24% 44,695 9% 67,697 13% 6,195 7,253 304 79 26% 35 937 15% 1,827 29% 1,344 22% 1,174 19% 13,080 2,053 16% 3,857 29% 2,767 21% 2,357 18% Manufactured housing Washington County Agricultural 10,753 26,823 2,855 525 18% 104 2,309 21% 1,858 17% 914 8% 1,386 13% — — — — — — — — — Commercial 5,863 104,377 15,815 6,424 41% 157 922 16% 1,328 23% 1,085 19% 1,580 27% — — — — — — — — — Industrial 1,399 50,567 8,548 3,270 38% 36 198 14% 312 22% 278 20% 355 25% — — — — — — — — — Institutional 1,931 28,098 4,856 1,707 35% 52 300 16% 426 22% 346 18% 514 27% — — — — — — — — Multi-family residential 18,475 98,385 15,671 4,687 30% 142 4,846 26% 4,372 24% 1,876 10% 3,418 19% 141,844 33,220 Single-family residential 138,117 289,198 34,755 7,614 22% 637 40,371 29% 29,117 21% 8,833 6% 20,009 14% 379,323 4,573 5,523 232 70 30% 28 656 14% 1,394 30% 1,188 26% 932 20% 8,543 Agricultural 36,061 87,033 9,263 1,796 19% 352 7,413 21% 6,916 19% 3,758 10% 4,641 13% — — — — — — — — — Commercial 22,000 369,224 57,134 27,326 48% 780 2,938 13% 4,328 20% 3,838 17% 7,445 34% — — — — — — — — — 4,657 116,480 18,485 8,216 44% 171 510 11% 850 18% 858 18% 1,759 38% — — — — — — — — — Manufactured housing 23% 35,496 25% 17,208 110,815 29% 1,285 15% 80,303 21% 2,647 31% — 12% 28,812 20% 24,493 6% 55,551 15% 2,168 25% 1,647 19% Study Area (All Three Counties) Industrial 7,583 101,507 17,609 7,089 40% 217 1,086 14% 1,566 21% 1,307 17% 2,155 28% — — Multi-family residential Institutional 51,631 279,849 44,391 14,423 32% 383 13,136 25% 11,863 23% 5,180 10% 8,607 17% 412,118 88,596 21% 93,747 23% 51,000 12% 89,526 22% Single-family residential 477,080 924,147 111,408 24,254 22% 2,059 130,171 27% 113,938 24% 41,899 9% 63,043 13% 1,196,089 329,708 28% 280,500 23% 101,590 8% 159,009 13% Manufactured housing Total — — — — — — — 16,840 20,940 879 307 35% 136 2,109 13% 4,320 26% 4,030 24% 4,520 27% 32,829 4,329 13% 8,618 26% 7,737 24% 8,401 26% 615,852 1,899,180 259,169 83,411 32% 4,097 157,363 26% 143,781 23% 60,870 10% 92,171 15% 1,641,036 422,632 26% 382,865 23% 160,328 10% 256,936 16% Number of buildings estimates are derived using the Hazus Advanced Engineering Building Module (AEBM) structural probability of damage states (FEMA, 2010). Institutional combines Hazus occupancy classes REL1, GOV1, GOV2, EDU1, and EDU2. Commercial combines all Hazus COM occupancy classes and RES4. Multi-family residential combines the Hazus occupancy classes RES3, RES5, and RES6 categories. Permanent resident values are based on U.S. Census 2010 population data. Permanent residents are assigned only to buildings designated as Hazus occupancy class RES1, RES2, RES3, RES5, and RES6. Manufactured housing building category is limited to Hazus occupancy class RES2, and does not include modular construction that may be present in other Hazus occupancy classes. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 66 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon 12.4 Loss Estimates by Jurisdiction Table 12-8 through Table 12-11 provide county-level and jurisdictional level building inventory and building loss estimates, along with casualty estimate for the daytime and nighttime earthquake scenarios. The jurisdictional data are available electronically in the accompanying geodatabase. Casualty and displaced population estimates are based on 2010 U.S. Census data and Hazus population distribution models across business types (Section 2.1.7). The estimates for jurisdictions include all buildings within their 2016 jurisdictional boundaries, as defined by the Metro (2016) Regional Land Information System city boundary layer, dated February 2016. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 67 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon Table 12-8. Loss estimates by jurisdiction, Cascadia Subduction Zone magnitude 9.0 earthquake, “dry” soil conditions. Study area total U.S. Census Population 2010 Number of Buildings Square Footage (Thousand) Building Value ($ Million) 1,641,036 615,852 1,899,180 259,169 Building Repair Cost ($ Million) Casualties: Daytime Scenario Total Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Casualties: Nighttime Scenario Level 4 Total Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 13,342 3,518 484 942 4,334 3,338 739 87 169 1,931 1 78 12 63 8 88 220 93 8 8 10 102 1 4 6 7 96 147 952 1,006 2,034 3 38 29 48 41 2 174 294 12 19 20 258 0 5 21 5 68 199 1,238 778 1,530 2 31 22 35 31 2 132 218 9 15 14 187 0 4 15 4 51 155 926 594 368 1 6 5 9 7 0 31 56 2 3 4 50 0 1 4 1 13 34 225 137 46 0 1 1 1 1 0 4 7 0 0 1 7 0 0 1 0 2 4 29 16 90 0 1 2 3 2 0 8 14 0 1 1 14 0 0 1 0 4 7 57 31 461 1 14 3 13 5 9 50 34 3 3 3 38 0 2 1 3 19 38 238 216 373 0 12 3 10 4 7 39 27 3 2 2 30 0 2 1 2 16 30 191 176 70 0 2 0 2 1 2 8 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 3 6 36 32 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 3 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 5 7,724 12 143 1 9,736 71 399 1 11,418 10 235 4 8,231 8 181 3 2,248 1 39 1 318 0 5 0 621 0 9 0 2,762 11 81 0 2,085 9 68 0 493 2 11 0 62 0 1 0 122 0 1 0 439 2,615 372 388 1,043 1,292 235 603 418 7,405 39 6 7,606 117 6 3,535 434 658 1,414 794 342 978 712 8,872 12 55 9,410 335 452 3,333 575 543 1,588 2,039 520 991 966 11,008 56 5 11,319 95 308 2,373 432 416 1,123 1,472 374 721 698 7,917 43 5 8,157 70 97 666 109 96 328 408 100 187 186 2,177 10 1 2,230 18 16 99 12 11 47 54 15 28 28 310 1 0 316 2 31 195 22 20 91 105 31 55 55 604 2 0 616 5 64 1,054 121 182 318 268 96 278 228 2,610 8 9 2,720 44 44 771 94 147 230 204 75 217 175 1,958 6 7 2,050 36 13 201 21 28 62 48 15 45 39 472 1 1 487 7 2 28 2 3 9 6 2 5 5 61 0 0 62 1 4 54 4 5 17 11 4 11 9 119 0 0 121 1 Washington County total 529,710 181,111 602,970 82,732 7,011 8% 3,399 5,185 4,834 3,581 903 119 231 1,110 881 Banks 1,777 646 1,491 194 20 10% 10 7 37 27 7 1 2 3 2 Beaverton 89,803 24,005 96,327 13,813 1,230 9% 548 1,227 845 635 154 19 37 223 175 Cornelius 11,869 3,517 7,844 963 80 8% 36 118 57 44 10 1 2 21 18 Durham 1,351 399 1,887 277 20 7% 6 24 5 4 1 0 0 4 3 Forest Grove 21,083 7,267 19,462 2,617 303 12% 159 492 381 272 76 11 22 74 58 Gaston* 637 312 618 79 8 10% 4 4 9 7 2 0 1 1 1 Hillsboro 91,611 26,846 116,113 17,603 1,810 10% 946 938 1,339 983 253 35 68 262 203 King City 3,111 1,610 3,702 494 33 7% 11 44 8 6 1 0 0 8 6 North Plains 1,947 952 2,602 328 38 12% 24 7 38 27 8 1 2 3 2 Sherwood 18,194 5,873 17,792 2,335 140 6% 87 27 132 97 25 3 7 12 10 Tigard 48,035 16,004 62,578 8,490 756 9% 405 329 448 337 82 10 19 85 68 Tualatin 26,054 7,535 41,411 5,751 521 9% 290 147 381 291 67 8 15 65 51 315,472 94,966 371,828 52,943 4,958 2,526 3,361 3,680 2,728 686 90 175 760 598 Washington County Jurisdictions total+ 9% Washington County Unincorporated total — 86,501 228,783 29,512 2,025 7% 847 1,788 1,178 868 222 30 58 357 287 + The jurisdiction is associated with the county it occupies most by area. Figures are for the entire jurisdiction and may include building data from neighboring counties. Summaries by all jurisdictions and unincorporated area for a given county will vary slightly with the county total. * Gaston census numbers are for entire jurisdiction. Gaston loss figures limited to buildings and residences in Washington County and do not include buildings, casualties, debris, and displaced population in Yamhill County. Casualty level definitions are provided in Table 4-1 and are based on U.S. Census 2010 population figures. 176 1 36 3 1 12 0 44 1 0 2 13 11 123 54 18 0 4 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 1 1 13 5 35 0 8 0 0 2 0 10 0 0 0 2 2 26 10 179,164 60 5,559 1,309 4,022 5,856 275 13,770 7,891 3,176 4,165 2,021 12,641 196 3,734 1,206 3,795 9,170 5,492 84,338 94,481 486,122 124 14,978 3,361 8,749 19,882 249 47,252 21,596 6,827 10,102 4,178 31,984 539 8,551 3,543 7,268 28,162 31,168 248,512 240,494 62,390 15 1,890 448 1,129 2,692 11 6,805 2,890 854 1,137 491 4,190 70 1,077 477 886 3,817 4,410 33,289 29,470 3,207 4 58 23 51 59 3 337 295 21 62 41 277 2 11 23 18 117 291 1,695 1,539 5% 29% 3% 5% 5% 2% 33% 5% 10% 2% 5% 8% 7% 3% 1% 5% 2% 3% 7% 5% 5% Multnomah County total 735,334 255,577 Fairview 8,920 2,611 Gresham 105,594 29,043 Maywood Park 752 339 Portland (by Bureau of Emergency Management Risk Reporting Areas): Airport — 284 Central City — 2,809 Central Northeast Neighborhoods — 19,883 East Portland Neighborhood Office — 46,301 Neighbors West/Northwest — 7,663 North Portland Neighborhood Services — 25,468 Northeast Coalition — 22,178 Southeast Uplift Neighborhood Program — 57,291 Southwest Neighborhoods — 24,288 Portland (total) 583,776 206,165 Troutdale 15,962 5,161 Wood Village 3,878 1,194 718,882 244,513 Multnomah County Jurisdictions total+ Multnomah County Unincorporated total — 11,053 810,087 7,976 83,478 627 114,046 1,061 11,160 74 13,340 24 314 3 12% 2% 3% 4% 12,971 108,884 47,310 114,853 50,308 87,894 52,444 124,011 72,458 671,134 13,481 3,507 780,203 29,359 1,898 18,436 6,226 15,359 7,320 12,076 6,994 16,652 10,945 95,906 1,730 408 110,339 3,614 678 3,952 741 758 1,685 2,331 434 1,134 952 12,666 77 9 13,092 249 36% 21% 12% 5% 23% 19% 6% 7% 9% 13% 4% 2% 12% 7% Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 12,794 Long-Term Displaced Population 18,286 375,992 135 15,829 2,695 11,497 13,903 566 36,619 20,291 8,108 — — 31,859 289 9,570 — — 25,109 19,509 195,979 — 9% Debris (Thousands of Tons) 16,852 Clackamas County total Barlow Canby Estacada Gladstone Happy Valley Johnson City Lake Oswego Milwaukie Molalla Molalla Prairie Hamlet Mulino Hamlet Oregon City Rivergrove Sandy Stafford Hamlet The Villages at Mt Hood West Linn Wilsonville Clackamas County Jurisdictions total+ Clackamas County Unincorporated total 23,558 Building Loss Ratio Clackamas County 1,671 2 34 17 27 28 5 134 162 11 38 22 148 0 5 10 7 39 155 844 854 Multnomah County Washington County 68 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon Table 12-9. Loss estimates by jurisdiction, Cascadia Subduction Zone magnitude 9.0 earthquake, “wet” (saturated) soil conditions. Study area total U.S. Census Population 2010 Number of Buildings Square Footage (Thousand) Building Value ($ Million) 1,641,036 615,852 1,899,180 259,169 Building Repair Cost ($ Million) Building Loss Ratio 36,710 14% Debris (Thousands of Tons) Casualties: Daytime Scenario Total Level 1 Casualties: Nighttime Scenario Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Total Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 85,211 27,175 19,489 5,454 758 1,473 10,400 7,838 1,979 203 380 10,093 28 159 27 235 89 97 1,207 830 8 133 151 307 40 6 68 411 797 894 5,488 4,652 2,757 5 40 33 61 50 3 258 380 12 29 28 318 1 5 33 15 99 315 1,686 1,058 2,038 4 33 24 44 38 2 191 278 9 22 20 228 1 4 23 11 73 235 1,239 793 523 1 6 6 12 9 0 49 74 2 6 6 63 0 1 7 3 19 59 322 197 67 0 1 1 2 1 0 6 10 0 1 1 9 0 0 1 0 3 7 43 23 129 0 1 2 3 2 0 12 19 0 1 2 18 0 0 2 1 5 14 82 45 1,115 3 20 5 26 11 9 130 92 3 12 14 57 3 2 6 34 72 100 601 508 866 2 16 4 21 9 7 99 71 3 10 10 44 3 2 5 26 56 77 465 397 202 1 3 1 5 2 2 24 17 0 2 3 10 1 0 1 7 13 19 109 91 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 9 7 30 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 3 17 13 10,395 29 279 1 37,461 335 4,244 2 16,660 51 549 5 11,824 36 400 3 3,397 11 107 1 487 2 14 0 950 3 27 0 5,558 32 382 0 4,126 25 296 0 1,072 6 72 0 124 0 5 0 236 1 10 0 565 3,369 459 576 1,285 1,770 308 786 658 9,776 83 6 10,175 216 14 7,422 1,177 1,204 4,073 3,972 1,920 5,492 5,352 30,627 245 55 35,507 1,891 694 4,419 758 964 2,039 3,126 697 1,431 1,518 15,645 188 5 16,444 204 470 3,102 562 705 1,430 2,224 494 1,023 1,084 11,095 130 5 11,668 148 151 907 148 188 428 645 139 284 304 3,194 40 1 3,354 41 25 138 17 24 62 88 21 42 44 459 6 0 482 5 48 271 31 47 120 169 42 82 86 896 12 0 939 10 118 1,591 203 289 566 611 230 656 666 4,930 35 9 5,389 164 82 1,142 154 223 411 455 175 499 500 3,641 27 7 3,996 127 25 317 38 50 114 119 43 122 128 955 7 1 1,040 31 4 45 4 5 14 13 4 12 13 115 1 0 121 2 8 88 7 10 28 24 8 23 24 220 1 0 232 4 Washington County total 529,710 181,111 602,970 82,732 11,648 14% 4,805 37,657 7,758 5,627 1,534 204 394 3,727 2,846 Banks 1,777 646 1,491 194 35 18% 15 113 56 40 11 1 3 11 9 Beaverton 89,803 24,005 96,327 13,813 1,943 14% 751 6,267 1,313 964 254 33 63 633 481 Cornelius 11,869 3,517 7,844 963 159 17% 62 1,089 119 89 23 2 5 94 73 Durham 1,351 399 1,887 277 33 12% 9 94 10 7 2 0 0 9 7 Forest Grove 21,083 7,267 19,462 2,617 496 19% 223 2,238 596 418 124 19 36 216 165 Gaston* 637 312 618 79 9 12% 5 17 10 7 2 0 1 3 2 Hillsboro 91,611 26,846 116,113 17,603 2,884 16% 1,280 7,124 2,186 1,564 439 62 121 800 602 King City 3,111 1,610 3,702 494 56 11% 17 195 15 11 3 0 1 20 15 North Plains 1,947 952 2,602 328 61 19% 32 157 56 39 12 2 4 15 11 Sherwood 18,194 5,873 17,792 2,335 217 9% 113 534 209 149 42 6 12 54 41 Tigard 48,035 16,004 62,578 8,490 1,087 13% 516 2,306 672 494 130 17 32 248 191 Tualatin 26,054 7,535 41,411 5,751 732 13% 362 1,030 549 409 104 12 24 144 110 315,472 94,966 371,828 52,943 7,712 3,383 21,164 5,792 4,191 1,146 155 300 2,247 1,707 Washington County Jurisdictions total+ 15% Washington County Unincorporated total — 86,501 228,783 29,512 3,913 13% 1,395 16,509 1,992 1,451 394 50 96 1,491 1,146 + The jurisdiction is associated with the county it occupies most by area. Figures are for the entire jurisdiction and may include building data from neighboring counties. Summaries by all jurisdictions and unincorporated area for a given county will vary slightly with the county total. * Gaston census numbers are for entire jurisdiction. Gaston loss figures limited to buildings and residences in Washington County and do not include buildings, casualties, debris, and displaced population in Yamhill County. Casualty level definitions are provided in Table 4-1 and are based on U.S. Census 2010 population figures. 705 2 119 18 2 41 1 154 4 3 10 46 27 425 282 63 0 12 1 0 4 0 16 0 0 1 4 3 40 22 113 0 22 2 0 6 0 29 1 0 2 7 5 74 40 Clackamas County total Barlow Canby Estacada Gladstone Happy Valley Johnson City Lake Oswego Milwaukie Molalla Molalla Prairie Hamlet Mulino Hamlet Oregon City Rivergrove Sandy Stafford Hamlet The Villages at Mt Hood West Linn Wilsonville Clackamas County Jurisdictions total+ Clackamas County Unincorporated total 375,992 135 15,829 2,695 11,497 13,903 566 36,619 20,291 8,108 — — 31,859 289 9,570 — — 25,109 19,509 195,979 — 179,164 60 5,559 1,309 4,022 5,856 275 13,770 7,891 3,176 4,165 2,021 12,641 196 3,734 1,206 3,795 9,170 5,492 84,338 94,481 486,122 124 14,978 3,361 8,749 19,882 249 47,252 21,596 6,827 10,102 4,178 31,984 539 8,551 3,543 7,268 28,162 31,168 248,512 240,494 62,390 15 1,890 448 1,129 2,692 11 6,805 2,890 854 1,137 491 4,190 70 1,077 477 886 3,817 4,410 33,289 29,470 4,573 7 61 27 69 75 4 523 394 21 83 70 342 8 12 36 67 209 423 2,429 2,180 7% 47% 3% 6% 6% 3% 35% 8% 14% 2% 7% 14% 8% 12% 1% 8% 8% 5% 10% 7% 7% Multnomah County total 735,334 255,577 Fairview 8,920 2,611 Gresham 105,594 29,043 Maywood Park 752 339 Portland (by Bureau of Emergency Management Risk Reporting Areas): Airport — 284 Central City — 2,809 Central Northeast Neighborhoods — 19,883 East Portland Neighborhood Office — 46,301 Neighbors West/Northwest — 7,663 North Portland Neighborhood Services — 25,468 Northeast Coalition — 22,178 Southeast Uplift Neighborhood Program — 57,291 Southwest Neighborhoods — 24,288 Portland (total) 583,776 206,165 Troutdale 15,962 5,161 Wood Village 3,878 1,194 718,882 244,513 Multnomah County Jurisdictions total+ Multnomah County Unincorporated total — 11,053 810,087 7,976 83,478 627 114,046 1,061 11,160 74 20,489 58 726 3 18% 6% 7% 4% 12,971 108,884 47,310 114,853 50,308 87,894 52,444 124,011 72,458 671,134 13,481 3,507 780,203 29,359 1,898 18,436 6,226 15,359 7,320 12,076 6,994 16,652 10,945 95,906 1,730 408 110,339 3,614 983 5,672 979 1,212 2,419 3,581 641 1,676 1,785 18,947 169 9 19,911 565 52% 31% 16% 8% 33% 30% 9% 10% 16% 20% 10% 2% 18% 16% Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 17,292 Long-Term Displaced Population Clackamas County 2,092 3 36 18 32 32 5 184 193 11 45 32 170 2 5 14 21 64 196 1,063 1,060 Multnomah County Washington County 69 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon Table 12-10. Loss estimates by jurisdiction, Portland Hills fault magnitude 6.8 earthquake, “dry” soil conditions. Study area total U.S. Census Population 2010 Number of Buildings Square Footage (Thousand) Building Value ($ Million) 1,641,036 615,852 1,899,180 259,169 Building Repair Cost ($ Million) Building Loss Ratio 60,569 23% Debris (Thousands of Tons) Casualties: Daytime Scenario Total Level 1 Casualties: Nighttime Scenario Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Total Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 95,577 47,853 33,774 9,820 1,442 2,817 15,802 11,957 2,888 328 629 25,152 2 202 25 1,816 118 319 3,243 2,459 17 13 81 2,983 11 4 112 2 1,679 181 13,269 12,036 8,881 3 109 55 351 179 7 965 1,427 17 15 39 1,286 1 8 94 1 493 255 5,305 3,582 6,340 2 83 40 244 128 5 691 1,002 13 11 27 896 0 7 64 1 343 199 3,756 2,590 1,804 1 19 10 74 36 1 194 302 2 2 8 269 0 1 20 0 103 43 1,085 720 251 0 2 2 11 5 0 27 42 0 0 1 41 0 0 3 0 16 5 158 93 486 0 5 3 22 10 0 53 82 1 1 3 80 0 0 7 0 32 9 307 179 3,245 1 41 6 197 30 25 418 326 7 5 13 383 2 3 15 2 216 50 1,737 1,500 2,538 1 34 5 153 24 19 323 252 6 4 10 297 1 3 12 1 171 40 1,356 1,177 567 0 6 1 36 4 5 74 59 1 1 2 68 0 0 2 0 37 8 303 262 50 0 0 0 3 0 0 7 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 3 1 27 22 91 0 1 0 5 1 0 14 10 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 6 1 51 39 15,658 12 165 2 50,842 39 314 6 28,915 13 216 4 20,159 11 176 3 6,032 2 32 1 920 0 3 0 1,805 0 6 0 9,346 9 103 2 6,918 8 89 1 1,773 1 12 0 223 0 1 0 432 0 1 0 411 5,895 535 549 1,939 2,023 639 1,804 1,435 15,230 29 4 15,442 205 7 13,914 1,261 1,652 6,932 3,739 2,520 10,538 8,545 49,106 11 12 49,488 1,320 415 8,942 913 776 3,392 3,864 1,737 4,082 4,276 28,396 35 3 28,667 181 286 6,159 672 592 2,339 2,727 1,200 2,840 2,948 19,763 27 3 19,982 132 1,897 177 136 728 802 362 848 903 5,942 6 0 5,982 35 14 298 22 16 110 114 59 133 143 908 1 0 912 5 27 588 42 31 215 221 116 262 281 1,783 1 0 1,790 9 57 3,069 282 383 1,129 725 459 1,586 1,383 9,074 8 4 9,200 142 40 2,175 220 314 795 554 352 1,211 1,032 6,693 7 4 6,803 112 12 627 48 56 233 131 80 284 262 1,733 1 1 1,748 25 2 90 5 4 34 14 9 31 30 220 0 0 221 2 4 177 10 8 66 27 17 60 58 427 0 0 428 4 Washington County total 529,710 181,111 602,970 82,732 15,360 19% 5,982 19,582 10,056 7,275 1,984 271 526 3,211 2,501 Banks 1,777 646 1,491 194 12 6% 5 4 16 12 3 0 1 2 1 Beaverton 89,803 24,005 96,327 13,813 3,510 25% 1,310 5,597 2,721 1,961 546 73 141 787 605 Cornelius 11,869 3,517 7,844 963 52 5% 20 37 22 18 3 0 0 13 11 Durham 1,351 399 1,887 277 47 17% 13 63 12 9 2 0 0 8 7 Forest Grove 21,083 7,267 19,462 2,617 127 5% 61 115 84 66 13 1 3 28 24 Gaston* 637 312 618 79 2 3% 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Hillsboro 91,611 26,846 116,113 17,603 3,320 19% 1,476 2,116 2,255 1,625 444 63 122 533 406 King City 3,111 1,610 3,702 494 55 11% 17 78 12 9 2 0 1 14 11 North Plains 1,947 952 2,602 328 53 16% 28 20 44 31 9 1 3 6 4 Sherwood 18,194 5,873 17,792 2,335 148 6% 80 34 98 74 17 2 4 16 13 Tigard 48,035 16,004 62,578 8,490 1,873 22% 870 1,404 1,180 859 233 30 58 272 215 Tualatin 26,054 7,535 41,411 5,751 956 17% 453 432 672 504 125 15 28 134 105 315,472 94,966 371,828 52,943 10,156 4,335 9,902 7,117 5,170 1,398 187 362 1,812 1,404 Washington County Jurisdictions total+ 19% Washington County Unincorporated total — 86,501 228,783 29,512 5,176 18% 1,614 9,563 3,000 2,144 601 86 168 1,410 1,105 + The jurisdiction is associated with the county it occupies most by area. Figures are for the entire jurisdiction and may include building data from neighboring counties. Summaries by all jurisdictions and unincorporated area for a given county will vary slightly with the county total. * Gaston census numbers are for entire jurisdiction. Gaston loss figures limited to buildings and residences in Washington County and do not include buildings, casualties, debris, and displaced population in Yamhill County. Casualty level definitions are provided in Table 4-1 and are based on U.S. Census 2010 population figures. 547 0 138 1 1 4 0 94 2 1 2 45 22 311 239 56 0 15 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 4 2 34 23 106 0 28 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 8 4 64 43 Clackamas County total Barlow Canby Estacada Gladstone Happy Valley Johnson City Lake Oswego Milwaukie Molalla Molalla Prairie Hamlet Mulino Hamlet Oregon City Rivergrove Sandy Stafford Hamlet The Villages at Mt Hood West Linn Wilsonville Clackamas County Jurisdictions total+ Clackamas County Unincorporated total 375,992 135 15,829 2,695 11,497 13,903 566 36,619 20,291 8,108 — — 31,859 289 9,570 — — 25,109 19,509 195,979 — 179,164 60 5,559 1,309 4,022 5,856 275 13,770 7,891 3,176 4,165 2,021 12,641 196 3,734 1,206 3,795 9,170 5,492 84,338 94,481 486,122 124 14,978 3,361 8,749 19,882 249 47,252 21,596 6,827 10,102 4,178 31,984 539 8,551 3,543 7,268 28,162 31,168 248,512 240,494 62,390 15 1,890 448 1,129 2,692 11 6,805 2,890 854 1,137 491 4,190 70 1,077 477 886 3,817 4,410 33,289 29,470 12,922 4 159 42 437 243 9 1,877 1,341 37 63 96 1,319 8 20 118 11 899 406 7,088 5,895 21% 29% 8% 9% 39% 9% 82% 28% 46% 4% 6% 19% 31% 11% 2% 25% 1% 24% 9% 21% 20% Multnomah County total 735,334 255,577 Fairview 8,920 2,611 Gresham 105,594 29,043 Maywood Park 752 339 Portland (by Bureau of Emergency Management Risk Reporting Areas): Airport — 284 Central City — 2,809 Central Northeast Neighborhoods — 19,883 East Portland Neighborhood Office — 46,301 Neighbors West/Northwest — 7,663 North Portland Neighborhood Services — 25,468 Northeast Coalition — 22,178 Southeast Uplift Neighborhood Program — 57,291 Southwest Neighborhoods — 24,288 Portland (total) 583,776 206,165 Troutdale 15,962 5,161 Wood Village 3,878 1,194 718,882 244,513 Multnomah County Jurisdictions total+ Multnomah County Unincorporated total — 11,053 810,087 7,976 83,478 627 114,046 1,061 11,160 74 32,287 30 459 6 28% 3% 4% 8% 12,971 108,884 47,310 114,853 50,308 87,894 52,444 124,011 72,458 671,134 13,481 3,507 780,203 29,359 1,898 18,436 6,226 15,359 7,320 12,076 6,994 16,652 10,945 95,906 1,730 408 110,339 3,614 655 9,989 1,210 1,316 3,786 4,192 1,472 4,296 4,129 31,046 67 10 31,618 636 35% 54% 19% 9% 52% 35% 21% 26% 38% 32% 4% 2% 29% 18% Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 26,600 Long-Term Displaced Population Clackamas County 4,960 2 76 27 139 79 11 552 542 16 33 43 496 1 8 38 3 251 196 2,513 2,491 Multnomah County Washington County 70 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon Table 12-11. Loss estimates by jurisdiction, Portland Hills fault magnitude 6.8 earthquake, “wet” (saturated) soil conditions. U.S. Census Population 2010 Number of Buildings Square Footage (Thousand) Building Value ($ Million) 1,641,036 615,852 1,899,180 259,169 Building Repair Cost ($ Million) Building Loss Ratio 83,411 32% Debris (Thousands of Tons) Long-Term Displaced Population Total 33,905 256,936 Casualties: Daytime Scenario Casualties: Nighttime Scenario Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Total Level 1 Level 2 62,977 44,290 13,114 1,891 3,682 29,038 21,830 5,598 563 1,046 50,802 31 874 197 2,656 552 330 6,391 5,456 17 149 319 3,827 94 16 274 240 3,457 1,616 26,497 24,307 10,912 5 172 105 394 217 7 1,194 1,595 17 28 55 1,364 3 9 123 8 566 505 6,368 4,555 7,768 3 127 73 275 154 6 853 1,122 13 21 38 950 2 7 83 6 395 371 4,500 3,276 2,244 1 32 22 83 44 1 243 338 2 5 12 286 1 1 27 2 118 98 1,315 930 307 0 4 3 12 6 0 33 46 0 1 2 43 0 0 5 0 18 12 188 120 593 0 8 7 24 13 0 65 89 1 1 4 85 0 0 9 0 35 24 364 229 5,232 3 93 21 258 65 26 659 546 7 15 30 448 8 4 27 20 347 173 2,750 2,462 4,032 2 74 16 199 51 20 504 418 6 12 24 346 6 4 21 15 270 131 2,118 1,900 973 1 16 4 48 11 5 123 104 1 3 6 82 2 0 5 4 63 33 510 459 81 0 1 0 4 1 0 11 9 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 5 3 44 37 146 0 2 1 7 2 1 21 16 0 0 1 13 0 0 1 0 9 6 78 67 19,270 29 376 3 120,124 305 6,734 24 36,278 54 694 7 25,244 38 510 4 7,643 11 135 1 1,146 2 17 0 1,146 3 33 0 15,302 30 604 3 11,333 24 468 2 3,001 5 113 0 335 0 8 0 633 1 15 0 569 6,534 714 881 2,154 2,524 885 2,365 1,809 18,436 77 4 18,925 329 19 17,698 4,289 6,597 10,830 12,934 9,004 29,189 18,570 109,130 281 12 116,486 3,505 700 9,845 1,284 1,563 3,724 5,009 2,306 5,402 5,108 34,942 174 3 35,874 320 476 6,767 935 1,136 2,567 3,523 1,591 3,757 3,531 24,283 120 3 24,958 230 152 2,099 257 308 801 1,051 488 1,136 1,084 7,375 37 0 7,560 65 24 329 32 41 121 148 77 172 166 1,110 6 0 1,135 9 48 650 60 79 235 287 151 337 327 2,173 11 0 2,221 16 116 3,565 552 855 1,453 1,511 982 3,050 2,220 14,304 39 4 14,985 306 81 2,519 421 664 1,032 1,139 743 2,307 1,654 10,561 30 4 11,089 236 24 734 103 153 301 293 187 585 435 2,815 7 1 2,941 58 4 105 10 14 41 28 18 56 45 320 1 0 330 4 7 207 18 25 79 51 33 103 85 608 1 0 625 8 Washington County total 529,710 181,111 602,970 82,732 24,297 29% 8,645 86,010 15,787 11,279 3,226 437 844 8,503 6,465 Banks 1,777 646 1,491 194 27 14% 10 104 35 26 7 1 2 10 8 Beaverton 89,803 24,005 96,327 13,813 5,201 38% 1,775 19,130 3,850 2,751 790 105 203 1,861 1,404 Cornelius 11,869 3,517 7,844 963 125 13% 45 894 80 60 15 2 3 77 60 Durham 1,351 399 1,887 277 84 30% 23 277 26 19 5 1 1 24 19 Forest Grove 21,083 7,267 19,462 2,617 259 10% 107 1,242 236 170 47 7 13 122 94 Gaston* 637 312 618 79 4 5% 2 6 3 2 1 0 0 1 1 Hillsboro 91,611 26,846 116,113 17,603 5,269 30% 2,063 12,836 3,771 2,663 778 112 219 1,476 1,104 King City 3,111 1,610 3,702 494 105 21% 30 412 28 21 5 1 1 41 31 North Plains 1,947 952 2,602 328 92 28% 41 266 73 51 15 2 5 25 20 Sherwood 18,194 5,873 17,792 2,335 295 13% 130 963 250 177 51 7 15 91 70 Tigard 48,035 16,004 62,578 8,490 2,783 33% 1,164 7,409 1,814 1,299 371 49 95 755 578 Tualatin 26,054 7,535 41,411 5,751 1,469 26% 619 2,782 1,072 785 211 26 50 343 261 315,472 94,966 371,828 52,943 15,713 6,010 46,320 11,239 8,024 2,297 313 605 4,827 3,649 Washington County Jurisdictions total+ 30% Washington County Unincorporated total — 86,501 228,783 29,512 8,584 29% 2,603 39,822 4,621 3,302 946 127 246 3,707 2,839 + The jurisdiction is associated with the county it occupies most by area. Figures are for the entire jurisdiction and may include building data from neighboring counties. Summaries by all jurisdictions and unincorporated area for a given county will vary slightly with the county total. * Gaston census numbers are for entire jurisdiction. Gaston loss figures limited to buildings and residences in Washington County and do not include buildings, casualties, debris, and displaced population in Yamhill County. Casualty level definitions are provided in Table 4-1 and are based on U.S. Census 2010 population figures. 1,624 2 357 14 5 23 0 287 8 5 17 143 65 925 706 147 0 35 1 0 2 0 30 1 0 1 12 6 89 59 267 0 65 2 1 3 0 56 1 1 3 22 12 164 104 Study area total Clackamas County total Barlow Canby Estacada Gladstone Happy Valley Johnson City Lake Oswego Milwaukie Molalla Molalla Prairie Hamlet Mulino Hamlet Oregon City Rivergrove Sandy Stafford Hamlet The Villages at Mt Hood West Linn Wilsonville Clackamas County Jurisdictions total+ Clackamas County Unincorporated total 375,992 135 15,829 2,695 11,497 13,903 566 36,619 20,291 8,108 — — 31,859 289 9,570 — — 25,109 19,509 195,979 — 179,164 60 5,559 1,309 4,022 5,856 275 13,770 7,891 3,176 4,165 2,021 12,641 196 3,734 1,206 3,795 9,170 5,492 84,338 94,481 486,122 124 14,978 3,361 8,749 19,882 249 47,252 21,596 6,827 10,102 4,178 31,984 539 8,551 3,543 7,268 28,162 31,168 248,512 240,494 62,390 15 1,890 448 1,129 2,692 11 6,805 2,890 854 1,137 491 4,190 70 1,077 477 886 3,817 4,410 33,289 29,470 16,367 7 231 74 504 318 9 2,377 1,598 37 88 142 1,422 20 21 151 42 1,093 681 8,816 7,602 26% 48% 12% 17% 45% 12% 85% 35% 55% 4% 8% 29% 34% 29% 2% 32% 5% 29% 15% 26% 26% Multnomah County total 735,334 255,577 Fairview 8,920 2,611 Gresham 105,594 29,043 Maywood Park 752 339 Portland (by Bureau of Emergency Management Risk Reporting Areas): Airport — 284 Central City — 2,809 Central Northeast Neighborhoods — 19,883 East Portland Neighborhood Office — 46,301 Neighbors West/Northwest — 7,663 North Portland Neighborhood Services — 25,468 Northeast Coalition — 22,178 Southeast Uplift Neighborhood Program — 57,291 Southwest Neighborhoods — 24,288 Portland (total) 583,776 206,165 Troutdale 15,962 5,161 Wood Village 3,878 1,194 718,882 244,513 Multnomah County Jurisdictions total+ Multnomah County Unincorporated total — 11,053 810,087 7,976 83,478 627 114,046 1,061 11,160 74 42,747 65 1,114 8 37% 6% 10% 10% 12,971 108,884 47,310 114,853 50,308 87,894 52,444 124,011 72,458 671,134 13,481 3,507 780,203 29,359 1,898 18,436 6,226 15,359 7,320 12,076 6,994 16,652 10,945 95,906 1,730 408 110,339 3,614 1,016 11,593 1,721 2,193 4,513 5,587 2,200 6,046 5,434 40,304 167 10 41,667 1,030 54% 63% 28% 14% 62% 46% 31% 36% 50% 42% 10% 2% 38% 28% Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 Clackamas County 5,990 3 103 39 157 100 11 685 615 16 42 58 525 5 8 47 12 304 283 3,013 3,024 Multnomah County Washington County Level 3 Level 4 71 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon 13.0 APPENDIX D: GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) DATABASE The GIS data included with this publication are partitioned into two ArcGIS version 10.1 file geodatabases. Earthquake loss estimates and impact assessment data are contained in RDPO_ Earthquake_Impact_Analysis_Phase1.gdb. Loss estimates for a particular earthquake scenario are contained in independent tables and can be joined to the appropriate polygon dataset to graphically represent impacts. Ground motion and ground deformation data are contained in RDPO_GroundMotion_GroundFailure_Phase1.gdb. RDPO_Earthquake_Impact_Analysis_Phase1.gdb: Feature Dataset Phase1: Building_Footprints Outlines of buildings and other non-building structures. Electrical_Transmission_Structures Pointfile containing locations of electrical transmission poles and towers, and an estimate of permanent ground deformation at the location for all four earthquake scenarios. Buffered and segmented version of the Metro area Emergency Transportation Routes, and a categorization, per segment, of the impact of permanent ground deformation on the segment, for all four earthquake scenarios. Cities, villages, hamlets, and unincorporated areas, and summary statistics for number of buildings, square footage, replacement cost, and population estimates. Contains Jurisdiction attribute for joining to loss estimate tables. Neighborhood units (876 total), and summary statistics for number of buildings, square footage, replacement cost, and population estimates. Contains NUID attribute for joining to loss estimate tables. 20-acre hexagonal grid with summary statistics for number of buildings, number of residential buildings, and permanent residents per hexagonal cell. All cells contain at least one building. Emergency_Transportation_Routes Jurisdictions Neighborhood_Units Population_and_Building_Density Tables with building loss, casualty, and displaced population estimates for a given scenario Loss estimates by jurisdiction Tables can be joined to the Jurisdictions feature class using Jurisdiction attribute Loss_Jurisdiction_CSZ_M9p0_dry Scenario: Cascadia Subduction Zone M 9.0, “dry” soil conditions Loss_Jurisdiction_CSZ_M9p0_wet Scenario: Cascadia Subduction Zone M 9.0, “wet” (saturated) soil conditions Scenario: Portland Hills fault M 6.8, “dry” soil conditions Loss_Jurisdiction_PHF_M6p8_dry Loss_Jurisdiction_PHF_M6p8_wet Scenario: Portland Hills fault M 6.8, “wet” (saturated) soil conditions Loss estimates by neighborhood unit Tables can be joined to the Neighborhood_Units feature class using the NUID attribute Loss_Neighborhood_Unit_CSZ_M9p0_dry Scenario: Cascadia Subduction Zone M 9.0, “dry” soil conditions Loss_Neighborhood_Unit_CSZ_M9p0_wet Scenario: Cascadia Subduction Zone M 9.0, “wet” (saturated) soil conditions Scenario: Portland Hills fault M 6.8, “dry” soil conditions Loss_Neighborhood_Unit_PHF_M6p8_dry Loss_Neighborhood_Unit_PHF_M6p8_wet Scenario: Portland Hills fault M 6.8, “wet” (saturated) soil conditions Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 72 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon RDPO_GroundMotion_GroundFailure_Phase1.gdb: Synthetic Cascadia Subduction Zone magnitude 9.0 earthquake Site ground motion (rasters) CSZ_M9p0_pga_site Site peak ground acceleration, in g (standard gravity). CSZ_M9p0_pgv_site Site peak ground velocity, in centimeters per second. CSZ_M9p0_sa03_site Site spectral acceleration at 0.3 sec, in g (standard gravity). CSZ_M9p0_sa10_site Site spectral acceleration at 1.0 sec, in g (standard gravity). Permanent Ground Deformation (PGD) (rasters) Each PGD raster is accompanied with a probability (Prob) raster CSZ_M9p0_PGD_landslide_dry CSZ_M9p0_Prob_landslide_dry CSZ_M9p0_PGD_landslide_wet CSZ_M9p0_Prob_landslide_wet CSZ_M9p0_PGD_liquefaction_wet CSZ_M9p0_Prob_liquefaction_wet Permanent ground deformation due to earthquake-induced landslide under wet (or saturated) soil conditions, in centimeters. Probability of earthquake-induced landslide under wet (or saturated) soil conditions. In percent. Permanent ground deformation due to earthquake-induced landslide under wet (or saturated) soil conditions, in centimeters. Probability of earthquake-induced landslide under wet (or saturated) soil conditions. In percent. Permanent ground deformation due to liquefaction lateral spreading. Liquefaction assumes wet (or saturated) soil conditions, in centimeters. Probability of liquefaction under wet (or saturated) soil conditions. In percent. Synthetic Portland Hills fault magnitude 6.8 earthquake Bedrock ground motion PHF_M6p8_bedrock_groundmotion Pointfile with descriptors of bedrock ground motion (pga, pgv, sa03, sa10) Site ground motion (rasters) PHF_M6p8_pga_site Site peak ground acceleration, in g (standard gravity). PHF_M6p8_pgv_site Site peak ground velocity, in centimeters per second. PHF_M6p8_sa03_site Site spectral acceleration at 0.3 sec, in g (standard gravity). PHF_M6p8_sa10_site Site spectral acceleration at 1.0 sec, in g (standard gravity). Permanent Ground Deformation (PGD) (rasters) Each PGD raster is accompanied with a probability (Prob) raster PHF_M6p8_PGD_landslide_dry PHF_M6p8_Prob_landslide_dry PHF_M6p8_PGD_landslide_wet PHF_M6p8_Prob_landslide_wet PHF_M6p8_PGD_liquefaction_wet PHF_M6p8_Prob_liquefaction_wet Permanent ground deformation due to earthquake-induced landslide under wet (or saturated) soil conditions, in centimeters. Probability of earthquake-induced landslide under wet (or saturated) soil conditions. In percent. Permanent ground deformation due to earthquake-induced landslide under wet (or saturated) soil conditions, in centimeters. Probability of earthquake-induced landslide under wet (or saturated) soil conditions. In percent. Permanent ground deformation due to liquefaction lateral spreading. Liquefaction assumes wet (or saturated) soil conditions, in centimeters. Probability of liquefaction under wet (or saturated) soil conditions. In percent. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 73 ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon 14.0 APPENDIX E: MAP PLATES Plate 1. Plate 2. Plate 3. Plate 4. Plate 5. Plate 6. Plate 7. Plate 8. Plate 9. Plate 10. Plate 11. Plate 12. Plate 13. Plate 14. Plate 15. Plate 16. Population Density and Building Location – Clackamas County, Oregon .............................................. 75 Population Density and Building Location – Multnomah County, Oregon ............................................ 76 Population Density and Building Location – Washington County, Oregon ............................................ 77 Site Peak Ground Acceleration, Simulated Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake ............................................................................................................................................. 78 Site Peak Ground Acceleration, Simulated Portland Hills Fault Magnitude 6.8 Earthquake ................. 79 Perceived Shaking and Damage Potential, Simulated Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake ....................................................................................................................................... 80 Perceived Shaking and Damage Potential, Simulated Portland Hills Fault Magnitude 6.8 Earthquake ............................................................................................................................................. 81 Potential Permanent Ground Deformation Due to Earthquake-Induced Landslides or Liquefaction Lateral Spreading, Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake, “Wet” (Saturated) Soil Scenario ........................................................................................................................ 82 Probability of Earthquake-Induced Landslides or Liquefaction, Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake, “Wet” (Saturated) Soil Scenario ................................................................ 83 Potential Impact of Permanent Ground Deformation to Metro Emergency Transportation Route Segments, Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake, “Wet” (Saturated) Soil Scenario ........................................................................................................................................... 84 Potential Impact of Permanent Ground Deformation to Metro Emergency Transportation Route Segments, Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake, “Dry” Soil Scenario ............. 85 Potential Impact of Permanent Ground Deformation to Metro Emergency Transportation Routes, Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake, “Wet” (Saturated) Soil Scenario .................................................................................................................................................. 86 Potential Impact of Permanent Ground Deformation to Electrical Transmission Structures, Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake, “Wet” (Saturated) Soil Scenario ..................... 87 Injuries Requiring Hospitalization, Clackamas County, Oregon, Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake, “Wet” (Saturated) Soil Conditions, Daytime (“2 PM”) Scenario................ 88 Injuries Requiring Hospitalization, Multnomah County, Oregon, Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake, “Wet” (Saturated) Soil Conditions, Daytime (“2 PM”) Scenario................ 89 Injuries Requiring Hospitalization, Washington County, Oregon, Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake, “Wet” (Saturated) Soil Conditions, Daytime (“2 PM”) Scenario................ 90 Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 74 E a r thqua k eReg i o na l I mp a c t Ana l y si s fo rCl a c k a ma s, Mul tno ma h, a ndWa s hi ng to nCo unti e s, Or eg on ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 M U LT N O M A H C O . Milwaukie Happy Valley ! ! Boring ! ! ! WASH IN GTON C O. Wilsonville YA M H I L L C O . Sandy Oregon City ! Mount Hood Village Government Camp ! ! ! MARION CO. Appendix E: Plate 1 CLACKAMAS CO. ! Estacada HOOD RIVER CO. Canby WASC O C O. Population Density and Building Location Clackamas County, Oregon Permanent Residents Per 20-Acre Cell 0( Bui l di ng ( s )p r e s ent, no p e r ma ne nt r esi de nts ) 1  – 5 6  –10 ! Molalla 1 1 – 20 2 1 – 50 5 1 – 100 1 01 – 200 2 01 – 500 ! 5 01 – 1, 000 Ripplebrook 1 , 001 – 2, 000 F l oa ti ngs tr uc tur e sa ndbui l di ng s l e s s tha n400s qua r efee t no t i nc l udedi nbui l di ngc o unt ¹ 0 2.5 5 10 Miles 0 4 8 16 Kilometers Source Data: Hydrography, Arterial Network: Metro Regional Land Information System (RLIS), 2016 Population: Derived from U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic, EPSG 2913. Unit: International Feet, Horizontal Datum: NAD 1983 Map Author: John M. Bauer September 1, 2017 Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 4 5° WASHI NGTON OREGON 122° 75 E a r thqua k e Re g i ona l I mpa c t An a l ysi sf o r Cl a c k a ma s, Mul tn o ma h, a n dWa shi ng to n ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Appendix E: Plate 2 CLARK CO. Population Density and Building Location Multnomah County, Oregon SKAMANIA CO. WASH IN GTON C O. COLUMBIA CO. Co un ti e s, Ore g on HOOD RIVER CO. Permanent Residents Per 20-Acre Cell 4 5. 5° 0( Bui l di ng ( s)pre se n t, n o per ma n e n t re si den ts) 1  – 5 M U LT N O M A H 6  –10 CO. CLACKAMAS CO. 1 1 – 20 2 1 – 50 5 1 – 100 1 01 – 200 2 01 – 500 5 01 – 1, 000 1 , 001 –  2, 000 F l oa ti n gstr uc ture s a n dbui l di ng s l e ss tha n 400squa re f eet not i nc l ude di n bui l di n gc o un t Source Data: Hydrography, Arterial Network: Metro Regional Land Information System (RLIS), 2016 Population: Derived from U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic, EPSG 2913. Unit: International Feet, Horizontal Datum: NAD 1983 Map Author: John M. Bauer September 1, 2017 Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 0 2.5 0 4 ¹ WASHI NGTON 5 10 Miles 8 16 Kilometers OREGON 122° 76 E a rt hq ua k eReg i on a l I m pa c tAn a l ys i sf or Cl a c k a m a s, Mul t n om a h, a nd ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 COLUMBIA CO. Timber Population Density and Building Location Washington County, Oregon M U LT N O M A H C O . ! Permanent Residents Per 20-Acre Cell Banks 0( Bui l di ng ( s )pre s ent , n ope rm a ne n tresi de nt s) ! TILLAMOOK CO. 1  – 5 Appendix E: Plate 3 123° ! Glenwood Wa s hi ng t on Coun t i e s, Oreg on ! North Plains 6  –10 1 1 – 20 2 1 – 50 5 1 – 100 1 01 – 200 2 01 – 500 Forest Grove 5 01 – 1, 000 Hillsboro ! ! 1 , 001 – 2, 000 F l oa t i n gs t ruc t ure sa n d bui l di ng s l e ss t ha n 400s q ua ref ee t n oti nc l ud ed i n bui l di n gc oun t ! WASH IN GTON C O. 0 0 2.5 4 ¹ 5 8 Beaverton Gaston YA M H I L L C O . Tigard ! 10 Miles 16 Kilometers ! Source Data: Hydrography, Arterial Network: Metro Regional Land Information System (RLIS), 2016 Population: Derived from U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic, EPSG 2913. Unit: International Feet, Horizontal Datum: NAD 1983 Map Author: John M. Bauer September 1, 2017 Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 OREGON ! Tualatin WASHI NGTON 4 5. 5° ! Sherwood CLACKAMAS CO. 77 E a r t h qu a k eReg i ona l I mpa c tAna l ys i sf orCl a c k a ma s , Mu l t noma h, a ndWa s hi ng t onCou nt i e s , Or eg on ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 123° ! Site Peak Ground Acceleration Scappoose Simulated Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake COLUMBIA CO. Timber Appendix E: Plate 4 ! ! u ! a ! Vancouver ti Banks CLARK CO. la ! North Plains M ! n TILLAMOOK CO. o ! Camas u n Hillsboro ! Gresham Beaverton ! Gaston Raleigh Hills ! Lake ! Oswego ! ! Tualatin ! ! Oak Grove ! ! Sunnyside ! M U LT N O M A H C O . CLACKAMAS CO. Boring ! Johnson City Sandy ! Gladstone ! Sherwood Brightwood ! ! Oregon ! <0. 05 Happy Valley Milwaukie ! King City Site Peak Ground Acceleration (g) 4 5. 5° ! Tigard ! YA M H I L L C O . Wood ! Village ! Aloha WASH IN GTON C O. ! s ! in ! Maywood Park ta Forest Grove Cornelius Rockcreek Cedar Mill ! ! City ! Mount Hood Village Rhododendron ! 0 . 05  –  0. 10 Wilsonville 0 . 10  –  0. 15 ! ! HOOD RIVER CO. ! 0 . 20  –  0. 25 0 . 25  –  0. 30 WASC O CO. Barlow ! MARION CO. Government Camp ! Estacada Canby 0 . 15  –  0. 20 Cascade Locks SKAMANIA CO. Burlington T ! Glenwood 0 . 30  –  0. 35 0 . 35  –  0. 40 0 . 40  –  0. 45 Molalla ! Ripplebrook ! Scotts Mills WASHI NGTON Source Data: Major Arterial Network: Metro Regional Land Information System (RLIS), 2016 Cities, Population Centers: USGS Geographic Names Information System, 2013 Site ground motion: DOGAMI, 2018 Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic, EPSG 2913. Unit: International Feet, Horizontal Datum: NAD 1983 Map Author: John M. Bauer February 2, 2018 Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 OREGON Miles 0 Kilometers 0 2.5 4 ¹ ! 5 10 8 16 78 E a r thqu a k eReg i ona l I mpa c t Ana l y si s forCl a c k a ma s, Mu l tnoma h, a ndWa s hi ng tonCou nti e s, Or eg on ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 123° Site Peak Ground Acceleration ! Scappoose Simulated Portland Hills Fault Magnitude 6.8 Earthquake COLUMBIA CO. Timber Appendix E: Plate 5 ! u ! a ! la ti Banks ! North Plains n TILLAMOOK CO. Vancouver M ! ! o u n ! Hillsboro Aloha WASH IN GTON C O. Gaston ! Lake ! Oswego ! ! Tualatin ! ! ! ! 0 . 05 – 0. 10 Oak Grove ! Gladstone Sherwood <0. 05 Milwaukie ! King City Site Peak Ground Acceleration (g) Happy Valley ! Sunnyside ! M U LT N O M A H C O . CLACKAMAS CO. Boring ! Johnson City ! Sandy ! Brightwood ! Oregon City Wilsonville ! 0 . 10 – 0. 15 4 5. 5° ! Raleigh Hills Tigard ! YA M H I L L C O . Gresham Beaverton ! Mount Hood Village ! Canby ! 0 . 20 – 0. 25 0 . 25 – 0. 30 Rhododendron Government Camp HOOD RIVER CO. WASC O CO. Barlow ! MARION CO. ! ! Estacada ! 0 . 15 – 0. 20 Cascade Locks Wood ! Village ! ! Camas Maywood Park s Cornelius ! ! in ! Rockcreek Cedar Mill ! ta Forest Grove CLARK CO. Burlington T Glenwood ! SKAMANIA CO. ! 0 . 30 – 0. 35 0 . 35 – 0. 40 0 . 40 – 0. 45 Molalla 0 . 45 – 0. 50 ! 0 . 50 – 0. 60 0 . 60 – 0. 70 0 . 70 – 0. 75 Ripplebrook ! Scotts Mills WASHI NGTON Source Data: Major Arterial Network: Metro Regional Land Information System (RLIS), 2016 Cities, Population Centers: USGS Geographic Names Information System, 2013 Site ground motion: DOGAMI, 2018 Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic, EPSG 2913. Unit: International Feet, Horizontal Datum: NAD 1983 Map Author: John M. Bauer February 2, 2018 Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 OREGON Miles 0 Kilometers 0 2.5 4 ¹ ! 5 10 8 16 79 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 -123° ! Perceived Shaking and Damage Potential Scappoose Simulated Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake COLUMBIA CO. Timber Appendix E: Plate 6 ! ! a la Vancouver ti Banks ! North Plains M ! n TILLAMOOK CO. ! o ! Camas u n ! Hillsboro ! Beaverton ! Gaston Gresham Raleigh Hills ! Tigard! ! ! Lake ! Oswego King City V Moderate None Strong Light VII Very Strong Moderate Severe Moderate/ Heavy VIII IX Violent Tualatin ! Heavy ! ! Sherwood WA S H I N GTON Happy Valley ! Sunnyside CLACKAMAS CO. ! Johnson City Boring ! Sandy ! Gladstone ! Brightwood ! Mount ! Hood Village Oregon City ! ! Wilsonville ! Canby Estacada WASC O CO. Barlow ! MARION CO. This map is intended to provide nontechnical users with an estimate of the geographic distribution of building damage. The damage categories are taken from the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale, which is based on observed effects on people, objects, and buildings. The damage potential categories are derived from the peak ground velocity developed for this project. The peak ground velocity breakpoints are established by Wald and others (2006). Further information is available at https://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/mercalli.php Source Data: Hydrography, Major Arterial Network: Metro Regional Land Information System (RLIS), 2016 Cities, Population Centers: USGS Geographic Names Information System, 2013 Site ground motion: DOGAMI, 2018 Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic, EPSG 2913. Unit: International Feet, Horizontal Datum: NAD 1983 Map Author: John M. Bauer February 12, 2018 Molalla ! Ripplebrook ! Scotts Mills ! Miles 0 Kilometers 0 Government Camp HOOD RIVER CO. ! OR EGO N Rhododendron ! ! ! Very light VI Oak Grove 45.5° ! MULT NO M AH CO . Milwaukie ! Modified Mercalli Intensity Perceived Damage Shaking Potential Scale Light Wood ! Village ! Aloha IV ! s ! in WASH IN GTON C O. Maywood Park ta Forest Grove Cornelius Rockcreek Cedar Mill ! ! Cascade Locks SKAMANIA CO. u ! CLARK CO. Burlington T Glenwood ! 2.5 4 ¹ 5 10 8 16 Earthquake Regional Impact Analysis for Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 -123° ! Perceived Shaking and Damage Potential Scappoose Simulated Portland Hills Fault Magnitude 6.8 Earthquake COLUMBIA CO. Timber ! Appendix E: Plate 7 Cascade Locks u ! a la Vancouver ti North Plains n Banks ! TILLAMOOK CO. ! CLARK CO. Burlington T Glenwood ! M ! o ! Camas u n ! Hillsboro ! Aloha ! WASH IN GTON C O. YA M H I L L C O . Light V Moderate None Strong Light VII Very Strong Moderate Severe Moderate/ Heavy VIII IX Violent Heavy 45.5° Gresham Beaverton ! ! Gaston ! Tigard King City Sherwood WA S H I N GTO N Very light VI Wood ! Village M U LT N O M A H C O . Modified Mercalli Intensity Perceived Damage Shaking Potential Scale IV ! s ! Cedar Mill ! ! in Forest Grove Cornelius ta Rockcreek SKAMANIA CO. ! Lake Oswego ! ! ! Milwaukie Oak Grove Happy Valley ! Sunnyside CLACKAMAS CO. ! Boring ! ! ! Tualatin Brightwood ! ! Mount Hood Village Oregon City ! ! Wilsonville Sandy Gladstone ! ! ! Estacada Government Camp WASC O CO. Barlow ! MARION CO. This map is intended to provide nontechnical users with an estimate of the geographic distribution of building damage. The damage categories are taken from the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale, which is based on observed effects on people, objects, and buildings. The damage potential categories are derived from the peak ground velocity developed for this project. The peak ground velocity breakpoints are established by Wald and others (2006). Further information is available at https://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/mercalli.php Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 Rhododendron HOOD RIVER CO. ! Source Data: Hydrography, Major Arterial Network: Metro Regional Land Information System (RLIS), 2016 Cities, Population Centers: USGS Geographic Names Information System, 2013 Site ground motion: DOGAMI, 2018 Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic, EPSG 2913. Unit: International Feet, Horizontal Datum: NAD 1983 Map Author: John M. Bauer February 12, 2018 ! ! ! Canby OR EG ON ! Molalla ! Ripplebrook ! Scotts Mills Miles 0 Kilometers 0 2.5 4 ¹ ! 5 10 8 16 81 E ar thq ua k eReg i o nal I mp a c t Analysi sf o rCla c k a ma s, Multno ma h, a ndWa shi ng to nCo unti e s, Or eg on ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 123° Timber Scappoose Appendix E: Plate 8 Potential Permanent Ground Deformation Due to Earthquake-Induced Landslides or Liquefaction Lateral Spreading ! COLUMBIA CO. Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake Wet (Saturated) Soil Scenario ! ! Banks Burlington CLARK CO. ! ! TILLAMOOK CO. ! ! Forest Grove North Plains ! Cedar Mill Hillsboro ! Wood ! Village ! 4 5. 5° Gresham! Aloha ! WASH IN GTON C O. Camas SKAMANIA CO. Glenwood ! Cascade Locks M U LT N O M A H C O . Gaston YA M H I L L C O . Tigard ! ! King City Lake ! Oswego CLACKAMAS CO. ! Milwaukie ! Sunnyside Boring ! Sandy ! ! Tualatin ! Permanent Ground Deformation Oregon City ! ! Sherwood No ne ! Rhododendron L ow ( 0  –  10c m;0  –  4i nc hes) Wilsonville ! Mo der a te( 10  –  30c m;4  –  12i nc hes) ! Canby Hi g h( 30  –  100c m;12  –  39i nc hes) ! HOOD RIVER CO. WASC O CO. MARION CO. Ver y Hi g h( 100  –  1180c m;39  –  173i nc hes) Estacada Government Camp ! Molalla ! Source Data: Hydrography: Metro Regional Land Information System (RLIS), 2016 Cities, Population Centers: USGS Geographic Names Information System, 2013 Probability of earthquake-induced landslide or liquefaction: DOGAMI, 2018, taking maximum ground deformation from earthquake-induced landslide and liquefaction lateral spreading. Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic, EPSG 2913. Unit: International Feet, Horizontal Datum: NAD 1983 Map Author: John M. Bauer February 12, 2018 Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 WASHI NGTON OREGON Miles 0 Kilometers 0 2.5 4 ¹ 5 10 8 16 82 E a r thqua ke Re g i ona l I mpa c t An a l ysi sf o r Cl a c ka ma s, Mul tn o ma h, a n dWa shi ng to n ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 123° Timber Scappoose Probability of Earthquake-Induced Landslides or Liquefaction COLUMBIA CO. ! ! Banks Burlington CLARK CO. ! ! TILLAMOOK CO. ! ! Forest Grove North Plains ! Cedar Mill Hillsboro ! Wood ! Village ! 4 5. 5° Gresham! Aloha ! WASH IN GTON C O. Camas Cascade Locks SKAMANIA CO. Glenwood ! Appendix E: Plate 9 Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake Wet (Saturated) Soil Scenario ! Co un ti e s, Ore g on M U LT N O M A H C O . Gaston YA M H I L L C O . Tigard ! ! King City Lake ! Oswego CLACKAMAS CO. ! Milwaukie ! Sunnyside Boring ! Sandy ! ! Tualatin ! Probability of Permanent Ground Deformation Oregon City ! ! Sherwood No n e ! Rhododendron L ow ( 1% – 5%) Wilsonville ! Mo de ra te ( 6% – 15%) ! Canby Hi g h( 16% – 30%) ! Estacada Government Camp ! HOOD RIVER CO. WASC O CO. MARION CO. Molalla ! Source Data: Hydrography: Metro Regional Land Information System (RLIS), 2016 Cities, Population Centers: USGS Geographic Names Information System, 2013 Probability of earthquake-induced landslide or liquefaction: DOGAMI, 2018, taking maximum probability from earthquake-induced landslide and liquefaction probabilities. Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic, EPSG 2913. Unit: International Feet, Horizontal Datum: NAD 1983 Map Author: John M. Bauer February 12, 2018 Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 WASHI NGTON OREGON Miles 0 Kilometers 0 2.5 4 ¹ 5 10 8 16 83 E a rthqua k eReg io n a l I mp a c t An a l ysis fo r Cl ac k a ma s, Mul tn o ma h, a n dWa shin g to n ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Potential Impact of Permanent Ground Deformation to Metro Emergency Transportation Route Segments 123° COLUMBIA CO. Forest Grove CLARK CO. Portland Cornelius Troutdale Hillsboro 4 5. 5° Gresham WASH IN GTON C O. Gaston SKAMANIA CO. TILLAMOOK CO. Appendix E: Plate 10 Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake Wet (Saturated) Soil Scenario North Plains Banks Co un tie s, Oreg on Happy Valley Beaverton YA M H I L L C O . Tigard Sherwood Lake Oswego Tualatin Oregon City Wilsonville 0. 5 – 1. 0meters Canby 1. 0 – 2. 0meters Sandy P erma n ent g ro un dde fo rma tio n c o mbin es e a rthqua k ein duc ed l a n dsl idea n dl a tera l sp readfro ml ique fa c tio n ( Pl a te8) . Pro babil ity o fo c c urren c efo r seg ments w ith>0. 5mo f p erma n ent g ro un dde fo rma tio n is be tw ee n 20%a n d30%( Pl a te9) . Estacada HOOD RIVER CO. WASC O CO. MARION CO. >2. 0meters CLACKAMAS CO. West Linn Maximum Potential Permanent Ground Deformation Within Segment <0. 5meters M U LT N O M A H C O . Molalla E merg enc yT ra n sp o rta tio n Ro ute s in Co l umbia Co un ty ( OR) a n dCl a rk Co un ty ( WA)n o t a n a l yz edn o r ful l y represe n ted in this ma p . No t a l l c itie s a rel a be l ed. WASHI NGTON Source Data: City boundaries: Metro Regional Land Information System (RLIS), 2016 Emergency Transporation Routes: Metro, 2006 Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic, EPSG 2913. Unit: International Feet, Horizontal Datum: NAD 1983 Map Author: John M. Bauer September 1, 2017 Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 OREGON Miles 0 Kilometers 0 2.5 4 ¹ 5 10 8 16 84 E a rthqua k eReg io n a l I mp a c t An a l ysis fo r Cl ac k a ma s, Mul tn o ma h, a n dWa shin g to n ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Potential Impact of Permanent Ground Deformation to Metro Emergency Transportation Route Segments 123° COLUMBIA CO. Forest Grove CLARK CO. Portland Cornelius Troutdale Hillsboro 4 5. 5° Gresham WASH IN GTON C O. Gaston SKAMANIA CO. TILLAMOOK CO. Appendix E: Plate 11 Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake Dry Soil Scenario North Plains Banks Co un tie s, Oreg on Happy Valley Beaverton YA M H I L L C O . Tigard Sherwood Lake Oswego Tualatin Oregon City Wilsonville 0. 5 – 1. 0meters Canby 1. 0 – 2. 0meters CLACKAMAS CO. Sandy West Linn Maximum Potential Permanent Ground Deformation Within Segment <0. 5meters M U LT N O M A H C O . HOOD RIVER CO. WASC O CO. MARION CO. P erma n ent g ro un dde fo rma tio n c o mbin es e a rthqua k ein duc ed l a n dsl idea n dl a tera l sp readfro ml ique fa c tio n ( Pl a te8) . Pro babil ity o fo c c urren c efo r seg ments w ith>0. 5mo f p erma n ent g ro un dde fo rma tio n is be tw ee n 20%a n d30%( Pl a te9) . Estacada Molalla E merg enc yT ra n sp o rta tio n Ro ute s in Co l umbia Co un ty ( OR) a n dCl a rk Co un ty ( WA)n o t a n a l yz edn o r ful l y represe n ted in this ma p . No t a l l c itie s a rel a be l ed. WASHI NGTON Source Data: City boundaries: Metro Regional Land Information System (RLIS), 2016 Emergency Transporation Routes: Metro, 2006 Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic, EPSG 2913. Unit: International Feet, Horizontal Datum: NAD 1983 Map Author: John M. Bauer September 1, 2017 Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 OREGON Miles 0 Kilometers 0 2.5 4 ¹ 5 10 8 16 85 E a rthqua k eReg io n a l I mp a c t An a l y sis fo r Cl ac k a ma s, Mul tn o ma h, a n dWa shin g to n ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Potential Impact of Permanent Ground Deformation to Metro Emergency Transportation Routes 123° COLUMBIA CO. CLARK CO. Portland Forest Grove WASH IN GTON C O. YA M H I L L C O . Cornelius Troutdale Hillsboro Milwaukie Tigard King City West Linn Sherwood Wilsonville Estacada Potential Permanent Ground Deformation HOOD RIVER CO. WASC O CO. <0. 5meters 0. 5 –  1. 0meters 2,000 Molalla Feet 1. 0 –  2. 0meters >2. 0meters Closeup, Oregon Highway 8, showing potential permanent ground deformation (same color scale as main map) P erma n ent g ro un dde fo rma tio n ta k es thema ximumo f e a rthqua k ein duc edl a n dsl idea n dl a tera l sp re a dfro m l ique fa c tio n ( Pl a te8) . WASHI NGTON Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 Sandy Oregon City MARION CO. Source Data: Emergency Transporation Routes: Metro, 2006 Cities: Metro Regional Land Information System (RLIS), May 2017 Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic, EPSG 2913. Unit: International Feet. Horizontal Datum: NAD 1983 Map Author: John M. Bauer September 1, 2017 CLACKAMAS CO. Happy Valley Gladstone Canby 1,000 M U LT N O M A H C O . Lake Oswego Tualatin 0 4 5. 5° Gresham Beaverton Gaston SKAMANIA CO. TILLAMOOK CO. Appendix E: Plate 12 Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake Wet (Saturated) Soil Scenario North Plains Banks Co un tie s, Oreg on OREGON Miles 0 Kilometers 0 2.5 4 ¹ Pro babil ityo fo c c urren c efo r ro a da re a s w ith>0. 5m p erma n ent g ro un dde fo rma tio n is be tw ee n 20%a n d30%( Pl a te9) . 5 10 8 16 E merg enc yT ra n sp o rta tio n Ro ute s in Co l umbia Co un ty( OR) a n dCl a rk Co un ty( WA)n o t a n a l y z edn o r ful l yreprese n ted in this ma p . Hig hw a yl a bel s a rep l ac edo n a re a s w ithmin ima l to no g ro un dde fo rma tio n (<0. 5m) . No t a l l c itie s a rel a be l ed. 86 E a rth qua k eRegi on a lI m pa c t An a lysi sf o r Cla c k a m a s, Multn o m ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 !! !! ! ! ! ! " ) ! ! ! Potential Impact of Permanent Ground Deformation to Electrical Transmission Structures 123° ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! COLUMBIA CO. ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake, Wet (Saturated) Soil Scenario ! !! ! ! ! " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) ! " ) 1. 0  –   2. 0m eters ! >2. 0m eters ) " " ) " ) CLARK CO. " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) M U LT N O M A H C O . " ) " ) " ) CLACKAMAS CO. " ) " " ) ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) ") " ") ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) MARION CO. ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! P erm a n ent g ro un dde f o rm a ti on a t th epo le/ to we r si teta k es th e m a x i m um o fea rth qua k e i n duc ed la n dsli dea n d la tera l sprea d f ro m li que f a c ti on ( Pla te8) . Pro ba bi li ty o fo c c urren c ef o r struc tures wi th >1m e te r perm a n ent g ro un dde f o rm a ti on i s be twee n 2 0%a n d30%( Pla te9) . ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! WASHI NGT ON OREGON Miles 0 2.5 " ) ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! " ) 5 4 8 WASC O CO. !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! !!!! !!! ! !! !! !!!!! !! !! !! ! ! !! !! " ) ! !! !! !!!! !! !!!!! !! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!!! !! ! " ) ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ¹ HOOD RIVER CO. !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!! ! "!!!!!!!!! ) ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !! !!!!!!! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! " ) !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! !! !!!! !! ! ! !! !!!!!!!! !! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! !! !! !!! !! !! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !!!!!!!!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! 10 ! !! Kilometers 0 4 5. 5° " ") ) " ) T ra n sm i ssi on L i n eCo rri do r ( o utsi deo fstudy a rea ) Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 " ) " ) " ) " ) ) " " ) S ubsta ti on Source Data: Hydrography: Metro Regional Land Information System (RLIS), 2016 Transmission Structures: Compiled by DOGAMI, 2017 Substations and Transmission Line Corridors: Dept. of Homeland Security Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD), 2017 Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic, EPSG 2913. Unit: International Feet, Horizontal Datum: NAD 1983 Map Author: John M. Bauer September 1, 2017 " ) " ) " ) ") " " ) ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) <1. 0m eter ! " ) " ) " ) " ) Potential Permanent Ground Deformation at Electrical Transmission Pole/Tower " ") " ) ) " ) " ) " ") ) " ") ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " " ) ) " ) " ) " ") ") ) " ) " ) " ) " " ) ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) ") ) ") " " ) " ) " ) WASH IN GTON C O. YA M H I L L C O . " ) ) " " ) " ) " ) " " ) ) " ) " ) " ) " " ) ) " ) " ) " ) " " ) ) ") " ) " ) " ) " ) ) " ) " " ) " ) " ) ) " " ) ") " ) " ) " ) SKAMANIA CO. ! ! ! " ) !!!! !!!! !!! !! Appendix E: Plate 13 ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !!!! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!!!! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !!!!!!!!!! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!!!! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! !! !!!!!!! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !!!! !!!! !! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! ! !! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !!!! ! !! !! !!!!!! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! !!! !! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !!!!! ! !! !! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! !!!!! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!!!!! !! ! ! !! ! !!!!!!! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !! !!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! !! !! ! ! !!! !!!!!!!!! ! ! !! !!!!! !!!!!! !! !!! ! ! !!!! !!!!!!! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !!! !!! ! !!! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! !!! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !!!! ! ! !!! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !!! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! !! !!!!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! !! ! !! !!! !! !! ! !! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! !! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! !! ! !!!!!!! ! !! ! !! !! !!!! !!!!!!! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!!!!! !!!!! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !! !!! ! !! !! !!!!!! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! !! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! !!!! ! ! !! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !!! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !!! ! ! !! !! !!!! !!!!! ! ! !! !! ! !! !!!! !! ! ! ! !!! !!!!! !!!! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!!!! !!!!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!! !!! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!! !!!!!!!! !!! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!! ! !!!! !!!!! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !!! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !!!! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !!! !!!! ! !!!! !! ! ! !!! !! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!!!! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !!! ! ! !!! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!!!!!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!! ! ! !!! ! !! !!!!!!!! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!!!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! !!!!! ! ! !! !!!! ! !! ! !!! !!! !! ! !! !!!!!! !! ! !!! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!! ! !!!!!! !! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !!!! !!!! ! !!!!! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!!! !!!!!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! !!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !!!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! !!!!!! !!!!!!!! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!!!!!!!! !! ! !! ! !!! !!!! ! !!!!!!!! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! !!! !!!! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! ! !! !! !!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!! ! !! ! !! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! !!!!! !!! ! ! !!!!!! ! !! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! !!!!!! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !!!! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!!!! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! !! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! !!!! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!!!!! ! ! !! ! !!!!! !!! ! !!!!!!! !! !!! ! ! !! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!!!!!!! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! !! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! !!! !!!!!! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !!! ! !!! !! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!!! ! !!!! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !!! ! !! ! !!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !!!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !!!! ! !!! !! !! ! !! !!! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! !! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !!! !!!!! ! ! !! !!!!! ! ! !!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! !!! !! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!!!!!!!! !!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!!!!! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !!! !! !!!!! ! !!! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !!! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!! !! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!!! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! " ) TILLAMOOK CO. a h, a n d Wa sh i n g to n Co un ti e s, Orego n 16 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! !!!! !!! !! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! !!! ! 87 E a r thqu a k eRe g iona l I mpa c t Ana l ys is f orCl a c k a ma s, Mu l tnoma h, a ndWa s hingtonCou ntie s, Or egon ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 MULT NO M AH CO . CLACKAMAS CO. ® v Appendix E: Plate 14 ® v ® v ® v WASHI NGTO N CO. YA M H I L L C O . MARION CO. HOOD RIVER CO. WASC O C O. Injuries Requiring Hositalization per Neighborhood Unit 0 – 1 2 – 5 Injuries Requiring Hospitalization Clackamas County, Oregon 6 – 10 11 – 20 Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake Wet (Saturated) Soil Conditions, Daytime ("2 PM") Scenario 21 – 50 ® v Hospital Hospita l s ou ts ideofCl a c k a ma s Cou nty not s how n. " I nj ur ie sr equ ir ing hospita l iza tion"c ombines Ha zu s c a su a l ty l ev el s 2a nd3. 0 2.5 0 4 ¹ WASHI NGTON 5 10 Miles 8 16 Kilometers Source Data: Neighborhood Units: Adapted from U.S. Census Bureau 2010 Census Block Groups Hospitals: Metro Regional Land Information System (RLIS), May 2017 Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic, EPSG 2913. Unit: International Feet, Horizontal Datum: NAD 1983 Map Author: John M. Bauer February 12, 2018 Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 4 5° OREGON 12 2° 88 E a r thqu a k eRe g iona l I mpa c t Ana l ys is f orCl a c k a ma s, Mu l tnoma h, a ndWa s hingtonCou ntie s, Or egon ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 Appendix E: Plate 15 Injuries Requiring Hospitalization Multnomah County, Oregon WASH IN GTON C O. COLUMBIA CO. CLARK CO. ® v ® v ® v HOOD RI VER C O. ® v ® v ® v Injuries Requiring Hositalization per Neighborhood Unit SKAMANIA CO. Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake Wet (Saturated) Soil Conditions, Daytime ("2 PM") Scenario 4 5. 5° ® v MULT NO M AH 0 – 1 CO. CLACKAMAS CO. 2 – 5 6 – 10 11 – 20 21 – 50 51 – 100 101 – 200 201 – 400 ® v Hospital Hospita l s ou ts ideofMu l tnoma hCou nty not s how n. " I nj ur ie sr equ ir ing hospita l iza tion"c ombines Ha zu s c a su a l ty l e v el s 2a nd3. Source Data: Neighborhood Units: Adapted from U.S. Census Bureau 2010 Census Block Groups Hospitals: Metro Regional Land Information System (RLIS), May 2017 Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic, EPSG 2913. Unit: International Feet, Horizontal Datum: NAD 1983 Map Author: John M. Bauer February 12, 2018 Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 0 2.5 0 4 ¹ WASHI NGTON 5 10 Miles 8 16 Kilometers OREGON 12 2° 89 E a r thqu a k eRe g iona l I mpa c t Ana l ys is f orCl a c k a ma s, Mu l tnoma h, a ndWa s hingtonCou ntie s, Or egon ADVANCE REVIEW COPY. INFORMATION IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 12 AM THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 COLUMBIA CO. Appendix E: Plate 16 12 3° MULT NO M AH CO . Injuries Requiring Hospitalization Washington County, Oregon Cascadia Subduction Zone Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake Wet (Saturated) Soil Conditions, Daytime ("2 PM") Scenario TILLAMOOK C O. ® v Injuries Requiring Hositalization per Neighborhood Unit ® v ® v ® v 0 – 1 ® v 2 – 5 4 5. 5° 6 – 10 11 – 20 21 – 50 51 – 100 101 – 200 ® v WASH IN GTON C O. YA M H I L L C O . Hospital Hospita l s ou ts ideofWa s hingtonCou nty not s how n. " I nj ur ie sr equ ir ing hospita l iza tion"c ombines Ha zu s c a su a l ty l e v el s 2a nd3. Source Data: Neighborhood Units: Adapted from U.S. Census Bureau 2010 Census Block Groups Hospitals: Metro Regional Land Information System (RLIS), May 2017 Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic, EPSG 2913. Unit: International Feet, Horizontal Datum: NAD 1983 Map Author: John M. Bauer February 12, 2018 Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report O-18-02 WASHI NGTON OREGON 0 2.5 0 4 ¹ 5 10 Miles 8 16 Kilometers CLACKAM AS CO. 90