Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-05-15 Council Meeting CITY OF Memo ASHLAND TO: Mayor Stromberg and Ashland City Council FROM: Melissa Huhtala DATE: May 10, 2018 RE: May 14 and 15 Meeting Preface Study Session of May 14, 2018 1. Presentation by Sheriff Sickler RE: Jackson County Jail 11. Wildfire Code Update Summary: General discussion regarding citywide wildfire mitigation strategies, modification of the adopted Wildfire Lands boundary map, proposed amendments to the Development Standards for Wildfire Lands section of the Ashland Municipal Code (Chapter 18.3.10.100), and the adoption of a fuel modification area prohibited plant list to disallow the planting of highly flammable plants within 30 feet of a structure. Business Meeting of May 15, 2018 CONSENT AGENDA 1. Appointment of Audit Committee Member Summary: Consistent with Ashland Municipal Code 2.11.010, the Municipal Audit Commission has a membership structure of four members: (1) Mayor or Councilor; (1) Appointed Budget Committee Member (2) Citizens at large. The current open position on the Commission is the appointed Budget Committee Member. 2. Annual reappointments to Commissions, Committees and Boards i Summary: Approval of the Mayor's recommendations for the 2018 Annual Appointments to the various Commissions. Committees and Boards. Page 1 of 3 ADMINISTRATION Tel: 541-488-6002 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311=, Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us 3. Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Approval Summary: The Jackson County, Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (NHMP) has received pre-adoption approval from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and has been adopted by the Jackson County Board of County Commissioners. The NHMP must also be adopted by each participating agency in order to receive final approval from FEMA. 4. Intergovernmental Agreement with Jackson County to Chip Seal East Main Street and Scenic Drive. Summary: Before the Council is an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Jackson County to perform grinding, inlay paving, and chip sealing on portions of East Main Street and Scenic Drive. The City of Ashland Street Division does not have the equipment and resources required to perform this work as part of the City's pavement management program. Council previously signed an IGA with Southern Oregon Cooperative (SOC) on January 16, 2018. Due to the scope and the cost of this project, a separate SOC IGA with Jackson County was created specifically for this work (attachment 1) at a cost of $103,576. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Land Use Decision amending _the Comprehensive Plan Map designation and zoning for 475 East Nevada Street. Summary: At the March 20, 2017 business meeting the Council continued a land use public hearing and first reading of an ordinance for a proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change for the properties located at 475 East Nevada Street. The continuation was to allow time for the applicants and staff to meet and discuss issues raised by Council during the hearing. The issues raised were largely focused on affordability requirements. Staff and the applicants have met to discuss the issues raised, and the applicants have made some modifications to their previous proposal. In its present form, the application requests only two exceptions: I ) To the requirement that the affordable units be comprised of a comparable mix of unit types to the market rate units (18.5.8.050.G.3.b); and 2) To the requirement that the affordable units not be distributed throughout the project (as required in 18.5.8.050.G.5). With regard to #1, relative to the mix of unit types, the applicants argue that attached units are more affordable to construct and have lower energy and maintenance costs over the long-term for residents. In staff's assessment, the '`unit type" requirement is not based on attached versus detached units but number of bedrooms, and as long as the number of two- and three-bedroom units is consistent with the overall proportion within the subdivision, no exception is necessary. With regard to #2, relative to clustering, clustering of the four affordable units was supported by the Planning Commission based on an affordable housing provider gaining efficiencies by clustering the affordable units together. In staff- s view, given the number of units and size of the proposed subdivision, and the Page 2 of 3 ADMINISTRATION Tel: 541-488-6002 20 East Main Street Fax: 541A88-5311 WE, Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 19 www.ashland.orms mix of unit types within the immediately surrounding North Mountain neighborhood staff does not believe that clustering poses a concerns. Staff is supportive of this exception. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Purchase of Real Property at 1291 Oak Street Summary: With prior direction from Council, Staff entered into exploratory negotiations with realtors for the Hardesty Trust regarding purchasing the property at 1291 Oak Street. Staff has negotiated a purchase price of $1,200,000 and escrow has been opened. The property is adjacent to the wastewater treatment plant and is on two separate tax lots totaling 20.98 acres. The two lots were originally listed at $1,500,000. The property is zoned exclusive farm use (EFU). 2. City Administrator Recruitment Process Update Summary: The application deadline for the City Administrator recruitment was extended to May 11, 2018 to allow for maximum outreach by the recruiter. After the close of the recruitment, staff and the recruiter will be seeking input from the Mayor and Council to narrow the semi-finalists to a short-list of finalists who will be invited to Ashland mid-June for an intensive selection process. The Council will be convening in a closed session to interview the finalists, so staff is recommending the Council seek input and formally adopt the selection criteria that will be utilized during the interview and selection process. In addition to the minimum qualifications outlined in the recruitment brochure, the Council will be determining which candidate most closely matches our candidate profile during the interview and selection process. Staff has provided the criteria used in the last City Administrator Recruitment which focuses on 5 Key Dimensions: • Vision • Experience (Knowledge of City operations) • Leadership • Communication Style • Self-Management (Interpersonal Skills) 3. Transportation and Growth Management Grant for Downtown Improvements Summary: This item requests Council support for submission of an Oregon Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) Grant to "Revitalize Downtown Ashland," which will develop an implementation strategy to provide specific short, medium and long-term actions to enhance our downtown core. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Civic Donations Policy Summary: This agenda item seeks formal Council approval of a policy clarifying the circumstances under which donations to the City will be accepted. Page 3 of 3 ADMINISTRATION Tel:541A80002 20 East Main Street Fax 541488-5311 W Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 w .ashland.orxs CITY OF -ASHLAND Important: Any citizen may orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Forum. Any citizen may submit written comments to the Council on any item on the Agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing and the record is closed. Time permitting, the Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony. If you wish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council Chambers. The chair will recognize you and inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you, if any. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to speak, and the length of the agenda. AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MAY 15, 2018 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street Note: Items on the Agenda not considered due to time constraints are automatically continued to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting [AMC 2.04.030.E.] 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Study Session of April 30, 2018 2. Business Meeting of May 1, 2018 VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS 1. Bike Month Proclamtion and National Bike to Work Week. 2. Annual Presentation by the Wildfire Mitigation Commission 3. Annual Use of Force Report VII. MINUTES OF BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES Airport Conservation Forest Lands Historic Housing and Human Srvs. Parks & Recreation Planning Public Arts Transportation Tree Wildfire Mitigation VIII. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. The Mayor will set time limits to enable all people wishing to speak to complete their testimony.) [15 minutes maximum] IX. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Appointment of Audit Committee Member 2. Annual reappointments to Commissions, Committies and Boards 3. Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Approval 4. Intergovernmental Agreement with Jackson County to Chip Seal East Main Street and Scenic Drive X. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Persons wishing to speak are to submit a "speaker request form" prior to the commencement of the public hearing. Public hearings shall conclude at 9:00 p.m. and be continued to a future date to be set by the Council, unless the Council, by a two-thirds vote of those present, extends the hearing(s) until up to 10:30 p.m. at which time the Council shall set a date for continuance and shall proceed with the balance of the agenda.) 1. Land Use Decision amending the Comprehensive Plan Map designation and zoning for 475 East Nevada Street XI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. None XII. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Purchase of Real Property at 1291 Oak Street 2. City Administrator Recruitment Process Update 3. Transportation and Growth Management Grant for Downtown Improvements XIII. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Civic Donations Policy XIV. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS XV. ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735- 2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). CITY OF ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION DRAFT MINUTES Monday, April 30, 2018 Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM Councilor Slattery, Councilor Bachman, Councilor Morris and Councilor Seffinger were present. Councilor Rosenthal was absent. 1. Public Input (15 min) Huelz Hutcheon- Ashland- Spoke regarding the speakers and monitor in the lobby not working. He spoke regarding having solar panel roofs on old and new buildings. II. Discussion of Senior Issues (45 min) Councilor Slattery gave a Staff report. He spoke that it was discussed to create a study group to discuss aging in Ashland and the services provided. Councilor Seffinger spoke that she brought this issue up 4 years ago and that there have been changes since that time. She gave Council a handout that she wrote up in the Ashland Daily Tidings 4 years ago (see attached). Items discussed were: • Ageism • Growing senior population • Future senior issues • Services for seniors • Budget and Strategic Planning • Installing a handrail at the Japanese Garden • Senior Services Division in the Parks and Recreation Department • The search for a Superintendent for Senior Services • Creating a Senior Program Advisory Committee • Poverty growth in seniors • 46% of people in Ashland are over 50 • Homelessness in elderly individuals • Housing for all ages - • Council and Parks role to this issue • Parking for seniors • Trails for seniors • Transportation for seniors It was decided to have Councilor Bachman and Councilor Seffinger work with Staff on establishing a working group to discuss senior issues and bring it back to the Council. III. Civic Donations Policy Review (30 min) City Attorney, David Lohman gave a staff report. He went over the draft policy. Council discussed whether or not to accept donations that have initial or ongoing costs. The Council came to a consensus to look at these donations case by case. It was decided that the policy would be revised and brought back to Council. Interim City Administrator discussed the Look Ahead. It was suggested to move the selection of Councilor Position #6 and the Approval of Employee Health Benefits Plan before the Public Hearing at the Council Business Meeting tomorrow night. Mayor Stromberg spoke regarding marijuana dispensaries staying open later than 7 PM. This would need an Ordinance change. This was decided to bring back to the Council with more information. The Council adjourned to Executive Session at 6:41 PM for real property transaction, pursuant to ORS 190.660(2)(e) Respectfully submitted by: City Recorder, Melissa Huhtala Attest: Mayor Stromberg In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735- 2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). • Transportation for seniors It was decided to have Councilor Bachman and Councilor Seffinger work with Staff on establishing a working group to discuss senior issues and bring it back to the Council. III. Civic Donations Policy Review (30 min) City Attorney, David Lohman gave a staff report. He went over the draft policy. Council discussed whether or not to accept donations that have initial or ongoing costs. The Council came to a consensus to look at these donations case by case. It was decided that the policy would be revised and brought back to Council. Interim City Administrator discussed the Look Ahead. It was suggested to move the selection of Councilor Position #6 and the Approval of Employee Health Benefits Plan before the Public Hearing at the Council Business Meeting tomorrow night. Mayor Stromberg spoke regarding marijuana dispensaries staying open later than 7 PM. This would need an Ordinance change. This was decided to bring back to the Council with more information. The Council adjourned to Executive Session at 6:41 PM for real property transaction, pursuant to ORS 190.660(2)(e) Respectfully submitted bey: City recorder, Melissa Huhtala Attest: M yo Stromb rg In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735- 2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). "It's paradoxical that the idea of living a long life appeals to everyone, but the idea of getting old doesn't appeal to anyone." - Andy Rooney By Stefani Seffinger, City Counselor Not coincidently, in recent years I have become interested in the social and health needs of aging senior people. After all, aging is something none of us can escape. And with advances in health care and technology many of us will be living longer. Statistics bear this out: • It is estimated that the number of people in Jackson County, age 80 and older, is expected to more than double in the next 20 years. • Jackson County has a distinctly higher than average number of elderly seniors than other Oregon metropolitan areas and almost 30% of them live alone. The World Health Organization along with AARP have developed programs and guidelines to help cities prepare for the rapid aging of the U.S. population by paying increased attention to the environmental, economic, and social factors that influence the health and well-being of older adults. j Many cities in Oregon and throughout the United States have created Commissions on aging to make their city more age friendly. These commissions focus on the needs of the elderly including , transportation, age friendly and affordable housing, and health care support. An example of this are senior advocates that help seniors learn about services, coordinate resources and identify gaps in service. Senior advisory committees also support existing commissions to include the needs of the elderly when recommending proposals to their city Council. Examples of this would be in advocating for housing options like single level houses, age-friendly design, multi- generational housing development and a continuum of support housing, assisted living and long-term care options. Someone turning 65 today has a 68% chance of needing some form of long term care. Our community is lacking in these facilities. i For many seniors losing their ability to drive has devastating consequences particularly when there are few public transportation options available. Ashland has limited bus service and valley lift provides service only to those within a short radius of a bus stop. Riding a bicycle or walking to town are not realistic options for many aging seniors. Social isolation is a very significant cause of depression and decline in mental ability for seniors so getting to a volunteer job or the senior center may be very important. Other cities have worked to expand transportation options and develop creative programs to connect seniors to rides. Looking at the built environment and outdoor spaces through the eyes of less mobile senior is another important role a senior commission can play. Examples include keeping pathways well maintained and free of obstructions and providing drop off areas that are safe and convenient for both older citizens and our many older visitors to our city. A specific concern that came to my attention recently was the entrance to the Japanese garden in Lithia Park. The beautiful entry includes natural rock stairs from the road up to the garden. Adding an attractive railing to help navigate the uneven surfaces of the natural rock steps would greatly increase the safety of this feature for unsteady older people. There are many other roles that an Ashland Senior commission or Adhoc committee might fill. These include an assessment of the city to identify how to make if more age friendly. There are programs and checklists available from the World Health Organization for this purpose. Other areas could include a compilation of existing services and resources, looking for grants for new and innovative programs that have a good chance to be implemented, and working with with both the city and the Parks and Recreation Commission to achieve city goal 6.3 which is to explore expansion of the Senior Center and senior services in Ashland. I recently participated in a television program the mayor hosted on needs of seniors in Ashland which has reenforced how important it is to understand and coordinate the needs of Ashland's aging population before the need is critical. I think a senior commission would help fill this role. * Source:Office of Economic Analysis, Department of Administrative Services, Oregon Source: US Census CITY OF ASHLAND DRAFT MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MAY 1, 2018 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM. H. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL Councilor Slattery, Councilor Morris, Councilor Bachman, Councilor Seffinger and Councilor Rosenthal were present. IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Stromberg announced that Staff requested to have item XI pulled until May 15" Business Meeting. Councilor Morris moved to pull Item XI and move it to the May 15th Council Business Meeting. Councilor Slattery seconded. Discussion: None. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. Councilor Slattery moved to place Item X. 1. Selection of Councilor Position #6 and Item XI. 1. Approval of Employment Health Benefit Plan ahead of the Public Hearing. Councilor Bachman seconded. Discussion: None. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Study Session of April 16, 2018 2. Business Meeting of April 17, 2018 Councilor Rosenthal moved to approve the minutes. Councilor Seffinger seconded. Discussion: None. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS 1. RVCOG Annual Presentation -Representative from RVCOG was not in attendance. VII. MINUTES OF BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES Airport Conservation Forest Lands Historic Housing and Human Srvs. Parks & Recreation Planning Public Arts Transportation Tree Wildfire Mitigation VIII. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. The Mayor will set time limits to enable all people wishing to speak to complete their testimony.) [15 minutes maximum] Huelz Gutcheon - Ashland- Spoke regarding the homeless and affordable housing. He spoke regarding building and using solar panels. He explained the City would make more money using solar panels. He spoke that the climate will be troublesome in 20-30 years and we need to work on making changes now. IX. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Supplemental Budget Request-Fire Department Forest Division Grant Councilor Rosenthal pulled this item. He congratulated the Fire Department on a job well done leveraging funds. 2. Special Procurement Contract Approval -Lomakatski Restoration Project 3. Request for approval of Contract Award with FCS Group for a Cost Allocation Plan Councilor Slattery pulled this item. Councilor Slattery asked Administrative Services Director, Mark Welch to give a Staff report. Mr. Welch spoke that the Cost Allocation Plan will be great for each Department. He explained this will ensure equitable charges to departments for all internal services. Councilor Slattery asked if this could be done internally. Mr. Welch spoke that it would cost more to do internally. Councilor Rosenthal asked how many hours of time the FCS group would have to spend to do the job. Mr. Welch answered approximately 150-200 hours to complete the Study. He explained that if done internally it would take longer because they would have to build the spreadsheets as well as do the study. Councilor Bachman asked if the costs will be listed on the OpenGov site. Mr. Welch answered yes. 4. Request for approval of contract addendum #2 with Northwest Code Professionals Councilor Morris pulled this item. Councilor Morris asked if Code Professionals will be the building official. Community Development Director, Bill Molnar answered yes. Councilor Morris asked if Staff would be in compliance without a Level A on Staff. Mr. Molnar answered yes and explained that the new rule requires an individual employed by the City of Ashland that has building official certification and A level structure inspector and that there is one. He explained that the State requires that the City have an A level electrical inspector which the newest hire does have. 5. Approval of Liquor License Application for Umami LLC Councilor Morris moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Councilor Rosenthal seconded. Discussion: None. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. X. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Selection for Councilor Position #6 City Recorder, Melissa Huhtala explained the ballot process. Each Councilor voted for one of the applicants. Councilor Seffinger, Councilor Bachman and Councilor Morris voted for Stephen Jensen. Councilor Slattery voted for George Kramer. Councilor Rosenthal voted for Brent Thompson. City Attorney, David Lohman suggested Council make a formal motion to appoint Jackie Bachman. She was appointed by Council unanimously by ballot on March 20" (see attached). Councilor Slattery moved approval to confirm the appointment of Jackie Bachman to Councilor Position #3. Councilor Seffinger seconded. Discussion: None. All ayes. Motion passed unanimously (note: Jackie Bachman did not vote). Councilor Seffinger moved to appoint Stephen Jensen to Councilor Position #6. Councilor Morris seconded. Councilor Seffinger spoke that she has worked with Mr. Jensen and spoke in support of him and his knowledge of the entire City not just one issue. She spoke to the work he puts in with the Forest Lands Commission. Councilor Morris spoke in appreciation of his hard work ethic. Councilor Slattery spoke that he will support Mr. Jensen as a Councilor but cannot support this motion. He explained that was not in favor to extend the process. City Attorney, David Lohman spoke that Mr. Jensen notified Council that he had previous vacation plans and will miss next Study Session and Business Meeting. Councilor Rosenthal spoke that he appreciates Councilor Slattery's comments. He spoke that he did not vote for Stephen Jensen but has respect for him. He voted for Brent Thompson but will vote in favor of this motion. Councilor Rosenthal, Councilor Seffinger, Councilor Bachman, Councilor Morris: YES. Councilor Slattery NO. Motion passed 4-1. XL ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Approval of Employee Health Benefits Plan Mr. Welch gave a Staff report. He explained that forgiveness of the loan was proposed in the budget process to pay run off cost. He explained that run off cost was to pay off all claims until June 30, 2018. Councilor Slattery asked if Parks and Recreation money absorbed from the ending fund balance and went into the Reserve Fund. Mr. Welch answered yes. Mayor Stromberg spoke that when the City went to Pacific Source it worked out well financially. Councilor Slattery asked how it worked out well financially. Mr. Welch explained that the City left CIS 7 years ago and went to Pacific Source on a reimbursement plan to the City's claim data with no rate increases in 5-year period. The premiums stayed low. He explained that currently claims are looking to be at 6 million a year and CIS has offered a premium at 5.2 million dollars; with that the City will be saving $800,000 for the next year. Councilor Seffinge'r moved to forgive the loan between the City's Health Benefit Fund and the Reserve Fund. Councilor Rosenthal seconded. Councilor Seffinger spoke that the City did not start out with a large enough reserve. Councilor Rosenthal spoke that it gives him no pleasure to vote for this. He spoke to the need to have more reserves for the City. He spoke that any savings for a new arrangement going forward with CIS will help hold the premiums down; but this won't be the source in increasing the Reserve Fund. He spoke there needs to be a new strategy. He spoke the money is gone and we need to forgive the loan. Councilor Slattery agreed with Councilor Rosenthal. He spoke he will support the motion reluctantly. Voice Vote: All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. Councilor Slattery moved to approve a Resolution titled, "A Resolution Authorizing Health Benefits Provided by City County Insurance Services and Repealing Resolution 2013-22." Councilor Bachman seconded. Discussion: Councilor Slattery spoke that this is something that needs to happen "when in a hole start digging". Councilor Bachman agreed with Councilor Slattery. Voice Vote: All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. XII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Persons wishing to speak are to submit a "speaker request form" prior to the commencement of the public hearing. Public hearings shall conclude at 9:00 p.m. and be continued to a future date to be set by the Council, unless the Council, by a two-thirds vote of those present, extends the hearing(s) until up to 10:30 p.m. at which time the Council shall set a date for continuance and shall proceed with the balance of the agenda.) 1. Public Hearing on the South Ashland Business Park Annexation Mayor Stromberg opened the Public Hearing at 7:50 PM. Mayor Stromberg and City Recorder read a statement into the record (see attached). Councilor Morris declared that he knew about the annexation long before a land use action. He read a statement into the record: "I have not prejudged this application and I am not prejudiced or biased by my prior contacts or involvement or by any personal considerations, I will make this decision based solely on the public interest and the application of the relevant criteria and standards to the facts and evidence in the record of this proceeding." Staff Report Community Development Director, Bill Molnar and Senior Planner, Derek Severson gave a Staff Report. I Mr. Severson presented a PowerPoint to Council (see attached). Mr. Severson went over the South Ashland Business Park Proposal: • Annexation of the 5.38-acre parcel which is currently zoned County RR-5 (Rural Residential) and would be annexed to City E-I (Employment). • Site Design Review approval for the phased development of a 72,606 square foot light industrial/flexible space business park. • Conditional Use Permit to allow a watchman's dwelling. • Limited Use/Activity Permits within the Water Resource Protection Zones of Knoll Creek and a Possible Wetland on the property to construct a stormwater outfall and construct street improvements. • Exception to Street Standards for the frontage improvements along the property's Washington Street frontage. • Tree Removal Permit to remove four trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). He explained that this would be done in 3 Phases. He explained that the applicant is imposing a trip cap on the property. He spoke that the Planning Commission decided that a trip cap was not required, however; DOT wanted to maintain the proposed trip cap. Staff received a letter this morning from Craig Anderson regarding this issue (see attached). Staff recommends approval of the application. Councilor Rosenthal questioned what watchmen quarters are used for. Mr. Severson explained it is a care taker facility served as a security function. Councilor Slattery questioned what a flexible building design is. Mr. Severson explained it is when you grow a business in an adjacent space and let it grow onsite. Councilor Seffinger asked if it is possible to have residential units. Mr. Molnar spoke that it is possible and it would be up to the applicant. Councilor Morris questioned what the target density will be. Mr. Molnar answered that in E-1 it will be approximately 3500 sq. ft. of business use for every 10,000 sq. ft. He explained that the downtown will be higher employee densities. Applicant Jay Harland with CSA Planning spoke that this is a good project and an upgrade for the City. He spoke that flex space is a great mix for offices and warehousing. He spoke that the Planning Commission did a thorough analysis of the project. There were constraints on transportation they figured out a way to make it work in the long term and short term. He spoke that this project will have many transportation improvements. He spoke that he doesn't think this would be a great place for residential. He spoke that it is a good place for offices and vertical mixed use. He recommended approval of the project. He handed a rebuttal letter to Council in reference to the letter received this morning from Craig Anderson (see attached). He explained that the original plan included a trip cap that was in compliance with Transportation Planning Rule and would agree to include the trip cap. Councilor Seffinger spoke that turning left on Washington St. is difficult and asked if there is an option to fix this issue. Mr. Harland spoke that the projects plan is to move the left out of Washington over to Tolman Creek. Public Input Craig Anderson - Ashland- Spoke that since the applicant has decided to add the trip cap he is fine with the project. He spoke that he is not against the annexation. He explained that the Independent Way Project makes sense. He spoke that the issue is development in the City is not paying for its infrastructure. He spoke to the importance of transportation analysis. He spoke that Toleman Creek will be blown out and will be expensive to fix. He spoke that projects that are in TSP are not funded and development is not going to be paying for them. He spoke in concern of how the City is working on their transportation projects. Don Morehouse - ODOT - Spoke that he worked with Staff and the applicant before the application was submitted. He spoke that when it came time for the Public Hearing ODOT was not notified. He spoke that ODOT would like the trip cap included with this development. It was confirmed that the applicant wants the trip cap. Rebuttal Applicant, Evan Archard spoke to the need for more spaces for small businesses to grow and to prosper. He spoke that this project recognizes what Ashland needs. He spoke that they went through an extensive process with Staff, Planning Commission and ODOT. He spoke that there are no other transportation issues other than the trip cap. Mr. Harland spoke that their original application did have the trip cap stipulation. He spoke that it is better to not have one but they are fine with the stipulation. Mayor Stromberg closed the public hearing at 8:55 PM Any requests to submit final written argument? No. Advice from legal counsel and Staff Councilor Slattery requested a response to Mr. Andersons concerns regarding the intersection of Toleman Creek. He questioned whether we have money available to make changes and do changes need to be made. He also questioned how this project will effect Toleman Creek. Public Works Director, Paula Brown explained that the TSP does have 2 projects related to Toleman Creek Road and both are development driven. She spoke that Staff is looking at SDC's and will be doing an update to TSP to make sure everything is consistent. She spoke that widening Toleman Creek Road and Ashland Street is something that will probably have to happen in the future. Councilor Rosenthal moved to extend the public hearing to 10:30. Councilor Morris seconded. Discussion: None. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. Councilor Rosenthal moved approval of first reading of the Ordinance and scheduling of second reading of the Ordinance for May 15, 2018. Councilor Morris Seconded. Discussion: Councilor Rosenthal spoke to the importance of due diligence with public process. He spoke that he doesn't see a reason to vote against this. He spoke that the City has an Economic Development Strategy and this project hits 3 of the objectives: 1. Diversifying the economic base of the Community. 2. Supporting creation and growth of businesses that use and provide local and region products. 3. Increasing the number of family- wage jobs in the Community. Councilor Morris agreed with Councilor Rosenthal. He spoke that there is shortage of facilities like this in Ashland. He spoke in concern with funding improvements with SDC's. He spoke to the need on finding ways to accommodate funding improvements. Councilor Seffinger spoke that she appreciates that the project increases the goals that Councilor Rosenthal mentioned. Councilor Slattery spoke in appreciation of the project. He spoke that the City does have challenges and the need to building more living wage jobs. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Rosenthal, Councilor Seffinger, Councilor Slattery, Councilor Morris and Councilor Bachman: YES. Motion passed unanimously. Councilor Rosenthal moved to direct staff to prepare written findings for approval of the proposed Annexation, with the trip cap proposed by the applicant and to incorporate the findings for the Planning Commission's decision, for Council adoption on May 15, 2018. Morris. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Councilor Seffinger, Councilor Rosenthal, Councilor Bachman and Councilor Morris: YES. Motion passed unanimously. 2. Public Hearing to Consider Increasing Storm Drain, Transportation, Water, and Wastewater Utility Fees Mayor Stromberg opened the Public Hearing at 9:08 PM. Ms. Brown gave a Staff report. She explained in order for the City to function we need the rate increases. She spoke that Staff recommends the rate increases. She spoke that the rate increases per standard household will be $5.22. She spoke in response to an email from Councilor Bachman questioning if Ashland rates are comparable to other cities. She explained that Ashland water rates are on the higher end and waste water rates are in the middle. This information is based on a study done in 2015 by League of Oregon Cities and the Hansford water rate cost study. Councilor Bachman questioned if the transportation rate increase will help with ADA requirements. Ms. Brown answered yes. Councilor Rosenthal spoke that the water fund and wastewater fund have rate studies whereas transportation fund and stormwater and drainage fund are tied to Consumer Price Index (CPI) and engineering news record (ENR). He questioned what was budgeted. Ms. Brown explained that Staff is currently working on a stormwater master plan. She spoke that not all stormwater is strictly construction cost so the CPI index is used to determine the rates. She spoke that there has not been a completed a rate study for transportation and that the ENR is used to determine the rates. She spoke that 3% was budgeted for future growth and fixture construction. Mayor Stromberg closed the public hearing at 9:19 PM Councilor Rosenthal moved to approve a Resolution adopting a storm drainage utility fee schedule pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Section 4.27.050 and repealing Resolution 2017-07. Councilor Morris seconded. Discussion: Councilor Rosenthal spoke that the adjustment based on the CPI is reasonable and to not make an adjustment on these types of fees would result in a much higher rate increase in subsequent years. He spoke that it is responsible and prudent to make this decision. Councilor Morris spoke that there are a lot of expenses and the rate increase is needed. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Councilor Morris, Councilor Bachman, Councilor Seffinger and Councilor Rosenthal: YES. Motion passed unanimously. Councilor Bachman moved to approve a Resolution adopting a transportation utility fee schedule pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Section 4.26 and repealing Resolution 2016-06. Councilor Slattery seconded. Discussion: Councilor Bachman spoke to the importance of improving the streets and ADA standards. Councilor Slattery agreed with Councilor Bachman. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Councilor Morris, Councilor Bachman, Councilor Seffinger and Councilor Rosenthal: YES. Motion passed unanimously. Councilor Seffinger moved to approve a Resolution adopting a water utility fee schedule pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Section 4.04.030 and repealing Resolution 2017-08. Councilor Rosenthal seconded. Discussion: Councilor Seffinger spoke that water is a prime concern and it is necessary to protect the resource. Councilor Rosenthal spoke that the water utility fee rate increase is a result of extensive analysis of what our community's needs are. He spoke that this increase is consistent with projections and rate studies. He explained that costs for the City do not remain the same. He spoke to the importance of analysis to make sure increases are responsible and tied to specific expenses. Councilor Seffinger spoke to the importance of making smaller and incremental increases as opposed to putting it off and having to make large increases in the future. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Bachman, Councilor Slattery, Councilor Morris, Councilor Seffinger and Councilor Rosenthal: YES. Motion passed unanimously. Councilor Slattery moved to approve Resolution adopting a wastewater (sewer) utility fee schedule pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Section 4.08.035 and repealing Resolution 2017-09. Councilor Bachman seconded. Discussion: Councilor Slattery agreed with Rosenthal's comments in previous motion. He spoke that it is important to keep looking at these rate increases incrementally. He spoke that he is not happy to raise rates but it is necessary. Councilor Bachman agreed with Councilor Slattery. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Seffinger, Councilor Slattery, Councilor Morris, Councilor Bachman, and Councilor Rosenthal: YES. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Public Hearing to Consider Increasing Electric Rate and Repeal Resolution 2017-11 Interim Director of Electric Utility, Thomas McBartlett gave a Staff Report. Councilor Slattery questioned what would happen if the rates were not raised. Mr. McBartlett answered that Staff would have to look at capital budget for 2019. Mayor Stromberg opened the Public Hearing at 9:39 PM Public Input None. Mayor Stromberg closed the Public Hearing at 9:39 PM Councilor Slattery moved approval of a Resolution tilted, A Resolution revising rates for electric service pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Section 14.16.030 and repealing Resolution 2017-11. Councilor Rosenthal seconded. Discussion: Councilor Slattery spoke that it is hard to have to raise rates but it is important to continue to pay attention to maintenance. He spoke that he normally votes against increases but this is important to continue the quality of service in Ashland. Councilor Rosenthal agreed with Councilor Slattery and pointed out that because the City of Ashland provides electric utility instead of Pacific Power customers are paying S15/month less. Councilor Seffinger spoke that there are many assistance programs for residents that the City provides. Councilor Morris spoke that electric utility is not great at advertising the improvements. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Seffinger, Councilor Morris, Councilor Slattery, Councilor Bachman and Councilor Rosenthal: YES. Motion passed unanimously. Mayor Stromberg thanked Councilor for their decisions on all tonight. XII1. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Land Use Decision amending the Comprehensive Plan Map designation and zoning for 475 East Nevada Street (Note: With concurrence of Council during Mavor's m~~tin~t. AmlOtlncemenl',. till, item 111,1\ h- Continued t~) the Nla\ I 201 S COMIC11 This item was moved to the May 15`h Business Meeting. XIV. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Transportation Network Companies-Amendment to AMC 6.28 Assistant City Attorney, Katrina Brown gave a Staff report. She spoke regarding public safety measures. She went over the background check options. She explained that Lyft did not provide any written comments for Council but she spoke to a representative which spoke in opposition to individual driver permits. Uber is also opposed. She spoke that a change in the Ordinance was to include a requirement to assist people with disabilities. The Transportation Commission was in support of this change. Councilor Rosenthal spoke in appreciation of the work done. He questioned why the Transportation Commission did not vote on the Ordinance. Ms. Brown explained that she prepared a memo and asked that the Transportation Commission to provide a recommendation. Due to time constraints there was not a formal vote. Public Input Mark Thomas- Ashland- Mr. Thomas spoke that he attended the transportation meeting. He explained that he is a consumer that travels a lot. He spoke that TNC's are brilliant in cities where you have demand and density. He spoke that he drives a Taxi for Crater Lake Taxi 3-4 times a week. He spoke that he works from 5 am - 5 pm and on a typical day he has 7 calls. He spoke that there is no demand for TNC's. He spoke that people without smartphones would not be served as well as people in need of wheelchair service. Nancy Buffington-Ashland-Spoke that she works for Cascade Shuttle. She explained that she is accountable with insurance and background checks. She spoke that there are Uber drivers with no insurance. She spoke that she has operated under the standards of the City for 10 years. She spoke against bringing TNC's into Ashland. Joseph Forika- Ashland- Manager of Crater Lake Taxi. Mr. Ferika explained the pros and cons of each option. Pros for TNC's: cheaper fares, convenience of auto payment, smart phone apps, more numbers of drivers and that tourists will use the popular TNC. Pros for the local Taxi drivers: provide proven commercial insurance, experienced drivers, wheel chair service, hospital rides, 24-hour service 365 days a year, no cancellation charges, all road condition services, police background checks and finger printing, and can get a cab without a smart phone. He spoke that there are more reasons to keep transportation services local. Mike Spargur-Ashland - Spoke against TNC's coming to Ashland. He spoke to the importance of supporting small businesses in Ashland. Evan Lasley - Spoke to consider amending proposed Ordinance. He read a statement into the record (see attached). He spoke to reasons why to not move forward with the proposed Ordinance. Letter submitted to the record from Jon Isaacs (see attached). Councilor Rosenthal spoke to the importance of the Transportation Commission providing a vote on this issue. Councilor Rosenthal moved to refer this matter to the Transportation Commissions May 17th Regular Meeting for a recommendation to Council and bring this item back to Council on June 5th. Councilor Slattery seconded. Discussion: Councilor Slattery agreed to the importance of having the Transportation Commission having a vote on this issue. Councilor Bachman spoke that she has received many emails and comments regarding this issue asking why the City does not have Lyft and Uber. She suggested for citizens to attend Transportation Commission and Council Meetings to speak up. Voice Vote: All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. XV. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS XVI. ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING The Business Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM Respectfully submitted by: City Recorder, Melissa Huhtala Attest: Mayor Stromberg In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, ifyou need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTYphone number 1-800- 735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). speak up. Voice Vote: All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. XV. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS XVI. ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING The Business Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM Respectfully submitted by: City Recorder, Melissa Huhtala Attest: Ma r trombe g In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, ifyou need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTYphone number 1-800- 735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). CITY COUNCIL VACANCY APPOINMENT FOR SEAT #3 TALLY SHEET Councilor Slattery Councilor Morris Councilor Seffinger Councilor Rosenthal Total Jackie Bachman Ton a Graham George Kramer i PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR LAND USE HEARING: 601 WASHINGTON READ ALOUD ALL IN BLUE FOLLOW THE STEPS AND ASK EACH QUESTION IN FULL 1. CALL TO ORDER The Public Hearing is now open. This public hearing concerns several subjects, including legislative and quasi- judicial matters; because of the combined nature of the hearing, we will observe quasi-judicial safeguards. The subject of this public hearing is a request for Annexation of a 5.38-acre parcel, Zone Change from County RR-5 Rural Residential) to City E-1 (Employment), and Site Design Review approval for the phased development of a light industrial business park for the property located at 601 Washington Street. The application includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a watchman's dwelling; Limited Use/Activity Permits within the Water Resource Protection Zones of Knoll Creek and a Possible Wetland on the property to construct a stormwater outfall and street improvements; an Exception to Street Standards for the frontage improvements along the property's Washington Street frontage; and a Tree Removal Permit to remove four trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). Tonight's proceedings include the land use public hearing and first reading of an Ordinance modifying the Comprehensive Plan and "Zoning map designations for the properties. The Council will lake a few moments to cover some preliminary matters and required statements. Rules for the conduct of the hearing are in the Pubic Hearing Format for Land Fse llearings- A Guide for Participants and Citizens and are available on the wall in the back of this room. Generally, the following procedure will he used in this hearing: 1. Preliminary Matters and Required Statements 2. Staff Report 3. Applicant's Presentation 4. Those wishing to provide testimony: in favor... in opposition 5. Rebuttal by the Applicant 6. Requests for Continuances or to Leave the Record Open 7. Close Public Hearing 8. Requests to submit final written argument 9. Advice from Legal Counsel and staff, and 10. Council Deliberation and Decision. If you wish to participate in this hearing, including challenges for bias, prejudgment or conflict of interest, you must complete the yellow speaker request form located at the back of the room and deliver them to the City Recorder. Please do so immediately. Challenges will be addressed after the reading of the required statements. Presentations are generally limited to 15 minutes and testimony to five minutes, hoNyeyer these may be adjusted if necessary to accommodate the number of those wishing to testify. When recognized by the presiding officer, please come forward to the podium, give your name, address and make your statement. If presenting documents at the time of your statement, these will be considered exhibits. Please submit these to the City Recorder as part of the record when you have completed your statement. Councilors may ask questions of staff and participants without affecting time limits. 2. ABSTENTIONS, CONFLICTS, EX PARTE CONTACTS Do any members of the council Nyish to abstain, declare a conflict of interest or report any ex parte contact on this matter? Page I of 3 I If contacts are reported, consider the following: u. Ex parte communications: I fa member has had ex parte communication the substance of the contact must be disclosed. The presiding officer and other members must listen to the disclosures to ensure the member places the substance of the ex parte communication on the record. The presiding officer should question the member ifthe disclosure of the written or oral communication is not complete. If the presiding of ficer fails to do so, a member may request a more full disclosure (point of order). Legal counsel will also monitor the disclosure. After disclosure of an ex parte contact, (or potential conflict of interest or after a challenge for bias (see below) the member should make the following affirmative statement of impartiality: "I have not prejudged this application and I am not prejudiced or biased by my prior contacts or involvement or by any personal considerations; I will make this decision based solely on the public interest and the application of the relevant criteria and standards to the facts and evidence in the record of this proceeding." After ex parte disclosure the following must be announced by the presiding officer: Any person has the right to rebut the substance of the evidence or information disclosed. Please present you our rebuttal evidence on the substance of any ex parte contacts during the normal time allowed for testimony which has been established for this proceeding. Please reduce any bias, conflict of interest and prejudgment challenges to writing with supporting evidence and provide these to the City Recorder b. Conflict of Interest: If a member has an actual or potential Conflict of Interest, the member must both announce the conflict and explain the nature of the conflict. If the Conflict is only a potential conflict the member mayparticipate and vote. If the Conflict is an actual conflict, the member must also announce that the member will not be participating or voting. The member should leave the room to avoid accusations of non-verbal communication. (The only exception to not voting [for the City Council] is for necessity). After disclosure ofpotential conflict of interest the member should make an affirmative statement of impartiality. c. Actual personal bias, prejudgment: If a member is actually personally biased, that is, the member cannot make the decision based upon applying the relevant Code standards to the evidence and argument presented, the member must announce the nature of the bias and also announce that they will not be participating or voting. The member should leave the room to avoid accusations of non-verbal communication. (see also Challenges below) Remember, if a member refuses to disqualify him or herself, the Council, for the hearings before the Council, shall have the power to remove such member for that proceeding. 2. READ THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT (pursuant to the City Land Use Code and ORS 197.763(5). (City Recorder will read the following) (1) The following is a list of the Ashland Municipal Code applicable substantiNe criteria for this decision: The criteria for Annexation of the property into the Cits N~ ith 1'l-1 Zoning are described in AMC 18.5.8.050. • The criteria for Plan Amendments and Zone Changes are described in AMC 18.5.9.020 • The criteria for Site Design Review approval are described in AMC 18.5.2.050 • The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in AMC 8.5.4.050.A. • The criteria for a Limited Activities and Uses Permit are described in AMC 18.3.11.060.1). • The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in AMC 18.5.7.040.B • The criteria for an Exception to Street Standards are described in AMC 18.4.6.020.B.1 • The requirements for a City Ordinance are described in Article 10 of the City Charter Page 2 of 3 The applicable criteria are more fully set forth in the guide handout at the back of this hearings room. (2) All testimony, arguments and evidence must be directed toward the applicable substantive criteria previously listed, or such other criteria in the Plan or Land Use regulations which the person believes applies to the decision. (3) Failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision maker and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to LUBA, the Land Use Board of Appeals, on that issue. (-t) Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues related to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow the decision maker to respond to the issue precludes any action for damages in Circuit Court. (5) Prior to the end of this hearing, any person who participated may request a continuance to provide additional testimony, argument or evidence or request that the record be left open to submit additional written testimony, argument or evidence. 3. CHALLENGES City Recorder, do we have any written challenges to members of this hearing body for bias, prejudgment or conflict of interest? If a challenge is made, the chall;`w-,~: I ced to be entered into tl-Ic record and sumillariicd by the presiding officer or legal counsel. The presiding officer, the challenged member and if necessary, the hearing body, will make a determination as how to proceed. including the power to override a member's own decision and remove a member. There is no opportunity for individuals to disrupt proceedings by making out of ' order oral presentations or interrogating members under the guise of conflict of interest, prejudgment and bias. If 'a member is challenged for bias, the following statement should be made: "I have not prejudged this application and I am not prejudiced or biased by my prior contacts or involvement or by any personal considerations; I will make this decision based solely on the public interest and the application of the relevant criteria and standards to the facts and evidence in the record of this proceeding." 4. STAFF REPORT At this time, 1 call for the staff to present the proposal. 5. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Would the applicant please come to the podium, state your name, address and make any comments you may have for the council regarding the application? **Ahh1IC21111 i- 1A ill I 1-llllti to 1)1~2 ~2I11 1)1,! 11.11 I IIIiI)IIl",A 1A I11 h;' ,1,1:cd t0 CoilcI Li L thciI I'Ctll~ll'~,~. 6. THOSE WISHING TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR AND OPPOSED "I %~rill now call foi-N~ard those who have filed testimony request forms. Each person Neill have 5 minutes. Please come to the podium, state your name, address and make any comments you may have for the council regarding the application. If you have any documents to be submitted into the record, please deliver these to the City Recorder." 7. REBUTTAL BY THE APPLICANT Does the applicant have any rebuttal? Page 3 of 3 \hhlicant will be "k en 5 111inute~ 01'rehutt,11 tin)c. alter which the Public 11~2a1'iiiU portion will be clo ed 8. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING At this time, 1 will close the public hearing as we have had no requests for continuance. The record is now closed. 9. REQUESTS TO SUBMIT FINAL WRITTEN ARGUMENT Does the applicant wish to submit any final written argument? 10. ADVICE FROM LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF Does the council have any questions of staff or does the staff have any matter they wish to respond to? 11. COUNCIL DELIBERATION AND DECISION "What is the pleasure of the council? I Page 4 of 3 CITY OF SHLAND 601 Washington Street South Ashand Business Park f t • u n c il Public Hearin b: May 1, 2018 qfy 1~ wl A vu. . ~;t T a T jT t 7 2 tTtl tt! ill Y! ( ! t t `i :7t' t [ -lamas r ~A CITY OF 601 Washington Street -ASHLAND Subject Property 571 ..Q 026 e3+ 638 85' 031 a: 641 ASHINGTON ST C6t PA #2018-00154 ,t5 \ 631 + 601 WASHINGTON ST 3= e+7 ea, 34 SUBJECT PROPERTY 770 M' 060 )!72 071 0 \ 7!3 t ~ ~ 681 Z :85 1 \ ~j - 305 3 507 _ 780 080 ~/f 363 3 \ 09.4 , ~ 690 i / k 710 ~A\\\ / 735 .17 743 15, 763 > 773 763 709 93 \ \ q \ \6 795 T80 780 7" 807 BW ma` N e15'- 2,4 W7 A 22• e'7 621 150 \ w E - l 695 B 837 . \ \ S 643 852 CITY OF 601 Washington Street SHLAND City Limits (pink) and U.G.B. (grey) L 601 Washington Street CITY OF SHLAND 2010 Oak Knoll Fire (postmfire aerial) 0,0 'Cie w r'~ f a No, e at.. ' a .M x * 0,4 n a 'mil "'.°.r~'?y'T"+F.~ s~^- ~Y'~*, _.y• x° 'a ~ o- ~ rP„ ' '1Y MYw " 1R . V ?~t x ypm. w, , 601 Washington Street CITYOF -ASHLAND South Ashland Business Park Proposal o Annexation of the 5.38-acre parcel which is currently zoned County RR-5 (Rural Residential) and would be annexed to City E-1 (Employment). o Site Design Review approval for the phased development of a 72,606 square foot light industrial/flexible space business park. o Conditional Use Permit to allow a watchman's dwelling. o Limited Use/Activity Permits within the Water Resource Protection Zones of Knoll Creek and a Possible Wetland on the property to construct a stormwater outfall and construct street improvements. o Exception to Street Standards for the frontage improvements along the property's Washington Street frontage. o Tree Removal Permit to remove four trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). 601 Washington Street CITY OF -ASHLAND South Ashland Business Park Proposed Phasing K ~ 'F 6 r !"'j YU6t :aNCi4tpU~2 ~ . s. y ~NI :7' 64 6 HY M~' R SQUTN ASHLAND BUSINESS PARK yrr'Ihrairh 601 Washington Street A CITY OF Watchman's Quarters Elevations I a qY- ! L U RSA i WATCHMAN QUARTERS & 2 INDUSTRIAL UNITS - PHASE 1 WATCHMAN QUARTERS b 2 INDUSTRIAL UNITE -PHASE 1 SOUTH ELEVATON WEST ELEVATON ,~jo~t1` Il i 1~ J n ' 41 •'v If Y 4 _'S WATCHMAN QUARTERS. & 2 INDUSTRIAL UNITS - PHASE 1 WATCHMAN QUARTERS A 2INDUSTRIAL UNITS . PHASE I , 1-1 EAST ELlVATON NORTH ELEVATON CITY OF 601 Washington Street ,SHLAND Building Group 1/Phase 1 Elevations IUD: ~v k a } y- ....M~ SUILDING GROUP 1 PHASE 1 SOUTH ELEVATON BUILDING GROUP 1 PHASE 1 SUILDINO GROUP 1 - PHASE i WEST ELEVATON EAST ELEVATON 1I•t 7-T - f SUILDING GROUP 1 - PHASE 1 NORTHELEVATON 601 Washington Street CITY OF • SHLAND Tree Protection Plan Tree Commission recommended approval as presented. - rLn , I~ ,l } , 11WlG/PR,1 CITY OF 601 Washington Street • Frontage Constraints s . -MINOR .K r J t t' 'NEW 9y i T ~ ors i ~ 3 ` „r cCyr 12 ~75f ✓ t A s ~ , `Tr`y - 'Xr ~R•~,iL..fn ~~"F~ i :y,'f ( za a~ t r. - - j- ~L; . _ _ - _ •;'~n~! v'- y Croman Area Buildable Lands Ashland St. l I y ~ a y> l . t% L O _t V_ I" Q 1 L % dry 0 . Employment Centers 'o 1 As and M, F, o l On =Employment Centers _ G 2.862 Buildable Land North of Railroad I inch cyuul, 2.18.525478 Icct Buildable Land South of Railroad 0 0o too rx u.u.. ~ \ ~ ' . Net Buildable Land Availability* Washington, Railroad Croman Jefferson, Totals Area Area Benson Areas Net* 117.25 Buildable 27.25 59.6 30.4 Acreage acres Gross Vacant or Partially Vacant 40.1 80.7 46.4 167.17 Acreage * Acreage includes estimated reductions for future roads, public facilities natural features & existing development 601 Washington CITY OF Street -ASHLAND TSP Future Connectivity LILL . M ~ f T1, TTO N *1~~ 4 p P 0* 601 Washington Street CITY OF SHLAND Frontage Improvements "Option E" - = No sidewalks/parkrow on "W wva freeway side. _ - 4\\ ,44 ► - y0 Car & bike lanes in both tAa[5 '°M ' directions. VI-1111-1-11.1 I No relocation of freeway guard rail. ` - 7-foot landscaped . _ ` arkrow n d ^x p a d 6 foot sidewalk on full frontage except 140 feet adjacent z_ 1 ' - `to wetland, with a few larger stature trees to be 1 ' placed at the wetland edge in those areas. 1 q M11 Fr, M ILL4 4 t \ , CITY OF 601 Washington Street • Frontage Improvements "Option Ell • No sidewalks/parkrow on freeway side. • Car & bike lanes in both i directions. No relocation of freeway wwKS 'I guard rail. ~6' S/.+~f' NrF tt..!~-ter ni.C~ 6 wwJ -lri. rx.w ~-M~ 7-foot landscaped parkrow and 6-foot sidewalk on full frontage qT rvMG ..1 of MIaJlO ~ . except 140 feet adjacent to wetland, with a few larger stature trees to be placed at the wetland edge in those areas. CITY OF 601 Washington Street SABP - TPR/Trip Cap Issue • Applicants proposed a trip cap for the development which would limit the uses of the site to those that would generate no more than 910 average daily trips (i.e. what is proposed for South Ashland Business Park now). • Planning Commission found that the trip cap was not required under the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) because the E-1 zoning is consistent with the Comp Plan zoning and was considered in the 2012 Transportation System Plan (TSP) as provided in the TPR. (Zone change is only from County RR-.5 to City E-1, which has been the Comprehensive Plan's designation for the property since the 1980"s.) • Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has indicated that they believe the Trip Cap is still necessary due to the TSP's methodology. • The applicants have indicated they are willing to retain the proposed trip cap. 601 Washington SHLAND SABP - TPR/Trip Cap Issue OAR 660-012-0060 Plan & Land Use Regulation Amendments (9) Notwithstanding section (1) of this rule, a local government may find that an amendment to a zoning map does not significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility if all of the following requirements are met. (a) The proposed zoning is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Map designation and the amendment does not change the Comprehensive Plan Map; (b) The local government has an acknowledged TSP and the proposed zoning is consistent with the TSP; and (c) The area subject to the zoning map amendment was not exempted from this rule at the time of an urban growth boundary amendment as permitted in OAR 660-024-0020(1)(d), or the area was exempted from this rule but the local government has a subsequently acknowledged TSP amendment that accounted for urbanization of the area. 601 Washington Street -A CITY OF SHLAND Today's Letter • A letter raising concerns with traffic impacts was received from Craig Anderson today, and the applicants will be providing a written response. • Staff continue to believe that a finding can be made that the amendment to the zoning map does not significantly affect an existing or planned facility because the zoning proposed is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the amendment does not change the Comprehensive Plan Map and the zoning is consistent with that considered in the acknowledged Transportation System Plan. • The applicants have indicated that they are willing to retain the proposed trip cap to address ODOT's concerns; this would limit the potential traffic impacts of the property proposed for annexation. I ~ o r ~ I y ounci .s Public Hearing ;a IY _ 4r. c j Ma 1 2018 w~ lr awwara son" am 5 J 16" fl-7 2111 1 so+arWAr! ti ) r 7 ~ y * t. )."i t $ ~ ;..~,a,....z +r i s_ ~a.~+a Tn I A r' ~ y a 147 tria i a Z P a_ A t a a,l~tit x 4 Y f lx a+rtt~.t T w Pam ' PIf !YQ lM6~ V May 1, 2018 RE: Planning Action #2018-00154 - South Ashland Business Park Annexation and Ordinance 3154 Adoption Findings Dear Members of the City- Council, Ordinance 3154 ("Ordinance") findings addressing adequacy of transportation facility related criteria (i.e., AMC 18.5.8.050.11, AMC 18.5.2.050.D, and OAR Division 12) rely- on a technical and, in this case, inapplicable interpretation of the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) in order to conclude that "the proposed tinning map amendment does not sigaifrcarrty affect existing orplanned transportation facilities. " Under AMC 18.5.8.050.E.1, "adequate transportation" (i.e., vehicular transportation) refers to the provision of paved streets along the frontage of, as well as areas adjacent to, the annexed property. This criteria does not appear to concern system-wide, capacity=-related impacts of the proposed annexation. However, when addressing "adequate transportation" criteria under the AMC, the Ordinance (e.g., pages 16- 18) contains findings which include OAR 660 Division 12 criteria. The OAR 660-012-0060 criteria included in the Ordinance primarily concerns capacity-related issues associated with the proposed zone change. Although staff has not identified any statewide planning goals or OARs as applicable criteria, the applicant did (see Planning Commission file, Application Volume 1, page 9 of 72) and the Ordinance includes them. The above facts establish that OAR 660 Division 12 is applicable approval criteria for this planning action. Additionally, LUBA has found that annexation decisions are governed by comprehensive plan annexation criteria or, if no such comprehensive plan criteria have been adopted, by the statewide planning goals. Morsman v. Cite of Madras, 45 Or LUBA 16 (2003). The City's Comprehensive Plan appears to lack any annexation criteria, therefore the statewide planning goals, and OAR 660 Division 12 in particular, apply to this decision. OAR 660-012-0060 requires that: (1) If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plat!, or a land use regulation (including a tinning map) avorrld significantly affect an existing orplanned transportation fadli, then the local government must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this mile, unless the amendment is allolved under section (3), (9) or (70) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly af}ects a transportation facility if it avorrld.• (a) Change the firnctzorlal classification of an existing orplanned transportation faeilio (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan); (b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or 8h (C) of o this- subsection based on projected graphs A) throe i) Result in any of o the effects listed in paru ( ( conditions measured at the end of the planrrirrg period idenli ied in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating ro'ected conditions, the amount of qf~~tra is projected ected to be generated of within the area o the amendment ma be ' _ p > reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that avorrld demonstrably limit tra c generation, inchrdin& but not limited to, transportation demand management. Tbis reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment (A) Types or levels of traml or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existitr~ or planned transportation facility; I I (B) Degrade the performance of an existing orplanned transportation facility such that it lvould not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or (C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. (9) iNotwithstanding section (1) of this rrile, a localgovernment may find that an amendment to a f oning map does not significantly affect an existing orplanned transportation facility if all of the following requirements are met. (a) The proposed tioning is consistent with the existing comprehensive plan map designation and the amendment does not change the comprehensive plan map; (b) The localgovernment has an acknoivlecl ed TSP and the proposed tionhng is consistent with the TSP; and.. . On the face of it, OAR 660-012-0060(9) provides a loophole to approve a zone change and annexation that: 1. Assumes that Independent Way - a project the City is currently seeking to fund through a federal grant and for which accurate cost estimates have not yet been completed - is already built; and 2. Will substantially increase turning volumes at Washington Street @ Ashland Street, a highly sub-standard intersection that is approximately'/ the minimum recommended distance from the southbound I-5 ramp terminal (350 feet as compared to 1320 feet) a situation that `can increase the potential risk of collisions, " and that creates `~otential vehicular conflicts and delay that may impact safety and trafc operations at the interchange," according to the June 2010 Draft Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP)'; and 3. Relies on a transportation study that recommends that a trip cap be placed as a condition of approval on the proposed zone change while also assuming a level of development in the area that appears to be approximately six rimes below the level of development included in the City's Comprehensive Plan; and 4. _\long with other contemplated (or pre-approved?) development in the area, has the potential to create the need for a very expensive intersection expansion at Tolman Creek Road @ Ashland Street and possibly a new I-5 interchange at Exit 14.2 In this case, the City cannot rely on the provisions within OAR 660-012-0060(9) for TPR compliance because their TSP is not TPR compliant. This conclusion stems from a technical argument in response to an equally technical conclusion that "Ihe proposed .honing map amendment does not significantly affect existing orplanned transportation facilities. "That is, by reading the Ordinance, the fact that adequate transportation facilities don't exist doesn't seem to matter. It doesn't seem to matter that ODOT has concluded that, "we have... determined that this proposal will adversely impact the states transportation facility. "Bizarrely, ODOT wasn't even noticed for the Planning Commission hearing - for a decision on a road that they own! The City has the Draft Exit 14 IADIP on their website and uses some of its recommendations as 1 The June 2010 DRAFT 1-5 Interchange 14 (Green Springs) IAMP is on the City's website at: https://www ashIand or.us/Files/Exit%2014%20Managment%20PIan%20Complete.pdf 2 Refer to attached Independent Way site plan and "Letter of Intent for Sale of Real Property" in Exhibit "A." i i 1 justification for several projects within its TSP, including the " N ashington Street Extension"/Independent Way project (incredulously, a project that is "rot development driven'). But that document doesn't seem to matter either, as evidenced by the City's unwillingness to adopt it. Apparently, the City has a predilection to pick and choose the information that suits it. In this case, what seems to matter is that the City is able to find a technical loophole in the TPR in order to make a claim that is, based on evidence in the record and elementary logic, false. For example, some of the problems with the January 5, 2018 TPR Analysis include: 1. ODOT's April 12, 2018 letter to the City states that, "comments were sent to Sandow Engineering on February 14, 2018 regarding several concerns within the TIA. A final response from Sandow Engineering regarding the ODOT comments ryas neversent to ODOT. "The City did not respond to this comment while the applicant's representative said that ODOT "did not have any issues "with the TIA. It is reasonable to presume that ODOT suggested modifications to the methodology used in the analysis and that such modifications could have resulted in showing a greater level of impacts than were indicated in the January 5`h document. 2. ODOT's April 12, 2018 letter to the City states that "the Cite of Ashland Transportation Systeiru Plan (TSP) was not developed ruing a transportation model which accounted for an increase in trafegeneration from Tax Lot 2800 that would potentially occur ender the proposed E-1 wring." This comment probably reflects the fact that the population and employment assumptions included in the R`'MPO model (and used by Sandow and the TSP) are inconsistent with population and employment projections included in the City's comprehensive plan and the City's Economic Opportunities Analysis, as acknowledged on page 60-61 and figures 5-1 and 5-2 of the City's TSP. The Ordinance states that, "the applicants note that existing average dail trips (ADT) jar motor vebicles are at 345 and the applicants Transportation Impact Analysis (I"IA) only anticipates them to grow to about 1,350 ADT by 2034. "The Ordinance goes on to say that, "staf furlberdiscussed that during the most recent Buildable Lands Inventory Update, the Washington, Jefferson, Benson and Crowman areas comprised 90 acres of the city s 117.25 acres of buildable employment lands or roughly 76 percent. Staff suggested that the IrlashingtonlJ fferson/Benson employment area, much of which is outside the current city limits but witbin the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), will see sigrrifrcant IacaljoG and houfirrggrowth in the near future. This area consists of approximately 45 acres, including the commercial/employment area along Ashland Street and Tolman Creek Road, and is the city's second largest employment center after the downtown. T bese 45 acres developed to an approximate Floor Area Ratio of 0.35 and an employment density of 20 employees per acre :viii equate to approximatey 686,070 square feet q f building floor area and 900 employees ultimately being served in this vicinity. " These two statements in the Ordinance are highly contradictory and should be a cause for concern by the City that the applicants have not used defensible assumptions in their analysis. Using the applicant's trip generation assumptions and applying those proportionally to the City's future employment forecasts as indicated in the above Ordinance language, the year 2034 ADT should not be 1,350 as stated by the applicant, but a figure over six times that amount (910 ADT / 72,606 sf = approx.. 8,600 ADT / 686,070 SO. 3. The City has used ODOT's recommendation in the Exit 14 IAMP that left-turn movements in/out of Washington Street @ Ashland Street be restricted via an extended median as justification for funding of the Independent Way project. No such recommendations have been acknowledged or assumed in the TPR Analysis. Changing assumptions to include left- turn restrictions in/out of Washington Street will show greater impacts at the Tolman Creek @ Ashland Street intersection. i 4. The trip distribution figures used by Sandow Engineering appear to minimize potential impacts at the Tolman Creek Road @ Ashland Street intersection. On page 17 of the TPR Analysis it is stated that, `the development trips were distributed throrrgb the study area rretrvork tuing The existing observed travel pattenu as a base with moo rations as per reasonable origins and destinations. " Figure 5 shows 2019 pm peak hour westbound background traffic volumes at intersection #7 (Tolman Creek Road @ Independent Way) split roughly 30% southbound and 70% northbound on Tolman Creek. Figure 7 shows 2019 "build-out" (development-related) traffic at the same location split 40% southbound and 60% northbound. There is no explanation for the discrepancy, however, even a 30% southbound distribution at this location is not reasonable. The existing trip distribution in this area is heavily skewed by traffic generators such as the Ashland Tennis and Fitness Club and other businesses and employers that attract a relatively local clientele. Whereas, it is far more likely that a majority of the traffic to and from the proposed employment location will have an origin and destination that utilizes I- 5/Exit 14 southbound (to) and northbound (from). A reasonable trip distribution aassumption would be that PM peak hour traffic from the proposed development that does not make a right turn from Washington Street onto Ashland Street (and then onto I-5) will primarily be destined westbound on Ashland Street and will use the Tolman Creek Road @ Ashland Street intersection via the newly-built Independent Way. It makes no sense that PM peak hour traffic leaving the proposed employment site would have a destination using southbound Tolman Creek Road. Merely changing the trip distribution at this one intersection to reflect a more "real-world" analysis could have far more detrimental impacts on the Tolman Creek Road @ Ashland Street intersection than have been divulged. When this issue is considered in the context of the other `approved brit not completed lI'CO development that was included aspipeliae trips in the backgrotmd" conditions (see Exhibit "A"), concerns about the impacts on Tolman Creek Road @ Ashland Street are compounded. So, in response to the City's technical claim that `Yhe proposed toning map amendment does not significantly affect existing orplanned transportation facilities,"I offer the following technical argument: OAR 660-012-0016 requires that: (2) When an MPO adopts or amends a regional transportation plan that relates to compliance with this division, the affected localgovernmerrtr shall review the adopted plan or amendment and either. (a) Make a finding that the proposed regional Yran rportation plan amendment or iodate is consistent with the applicable provisions of adopted regional and local transportation system plan and con pirbensive plan and I compliant with applicable provisions of this division; or (b) Adopt amendments to the relevant regional or local transportation system plan that make the regional transportation plan and the applicable tran.oriation system plans consistent with one another and compliant with applicableprovisions of this division. Necessagplan amendments or trpdatesshall beprrpared and adopted in coordination with the federally-required plan update or amendment. Such amendments shall be initiated no later than 30 days from the adoption of the ATP amendment or update and shall be adopted no later than one year from the adoption of the RTP amendment or trpdate or according to a work plan approved by the commission. A plan amendment is "initiated"forpurposes of this subsection where the affected localgoventment files a post-acknowledgement plan amendment notice with the department as provided in OAR chapter 660, division 18. (3) .Adoption or amendment of a regional transportation plan relates to compliance with this division for purposes of section (2) if it does one or more of the following: (h) Adds or deletes a project from the list of planned transportation facilities, services or improvements or from the jirnancially-constrained project list required by federal law... The Rogue Talley MPO has adopted or amended the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) twice since the City's adoption of their 2012 TSP. In each of these RTP revisions (2013 and 2017) the 54.6 million Clear Creek Drive Extension project is included on the financially-constrained project list. However, the City's TSP does not include this project within their financially-constrained project list (Table 14-3 in the TSP). Rather, the Clear Creek Drive Extension project is included in the "Preferred Plan" section of the TSP (project #R24, Table 10-3) which includes projects that are notfnancially-constrained' Therefore, per OAR 660-012-0016(3), the City's TSP is not in compliance with the TPR and the City cannot rely on OAR 660-012-0060(9) for findings of transportation facility adequacy. In order to have standing to appeal under ORS 197.830(3), a person must be "adversely affected" by the appealed decision. The foregoing arguments establish that, through the approval of Ordinance 3154, the City of Ashland is knowingly allowing the degradation of its transportation facilities to levels identified as of public safety concern by the Oregon Department of Transportation. Further, through the approval of this annexation and others that could use an identical rationale under OAR 660-012- 0060(9), the City is making a de-facto commitment to subsidize new development through the construction of street, intersection and/or I-5 interchange projects, an endeavor that will consume all of the City's transportation revenue for many years to come. Such a decision is a violation of public trust and runs contrary to stated goals in the City's adopted plans, including the TSP. Sincerely, Craig Anderson 575 Elizabeth Ave. Ashland, OR 97520 s See Exhibit "B" Exhibit A. 1 Independent Way 1 2 3 • ! - t C-11 ZONE DOSTiMO ~ xc _ FOREST mmes s - tIOSTfq E4 ZONE MApSNOTON S TIrMT % - - /i •---~j TL 2000 ZONE CLIA E•1~i ISM rlAC0t1•T rlyi TL 00 % f"4~ _ _ t}'h~ oilT ilk Lily' f'f< c • sine t T T / are- J iW1~•. / Mfr= OOSTINO ` S M 7ANt ■ ` c LES SCHWAB ^IIUrt fi•/rll I III I / . r' % j C-11 ZONE -J l TL 100 _ mKiwnNo WDEPENDENT cm `jKv~`'~C M dl ZOO! PR IM M• CO. J t Col ZONE A _ a a• .r,~ll. 54 Mat r / r ]SAS.IISA i 6 ---TOLt1AN _l.l1lEK _ ROAD- . •»r OVXUALL MASTlw "M VLAM A-101 Exhibit A.2 City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 13 Project #i: R25 Washington Street Extension to Tolman Creek Road Description: Extend Washington Street to Tolman Creek Road consistent with the TAMP Exit 14 Access Management on Ashland Street (OR 66). This Is a City funded project; not development driven. Right-of-way costs are not included in the cost estimate. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Roadway Neighborhood Collector 0-5 years $1,055,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access ❑ ❑ Project Location: r r 1 r 4 CltlfYl MV k~1': ty161 G ![KYn Sources: USGS, ESRI, TANA, AND Project Image: r PON Fumy S" I Pan" I PaMag ( Tram) I Travel Parkhy PWWV S. Wak I~..... ~ 0. M' .....554 ~%VA H - 8--'t' ~ 0' 8 Sb _-'f C Cub V cwb Neighborhood Collector, Commercial - Row 6T - er (Parallel Parking on Both Sides) Kitte/son & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Exhibit A.3 LETTER OF INTENT FOR SALE OF REAL PROPERTY December 13, 2012 IPCO Development 640 Tolman Creek Road Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Purchase of Property for Right of Way between Washington Street & Tolman Creek Road 1 Dear Messrs: t By this letter, City of Ashland ("Buyer"), presents the manner in which it and IPCO Development ("Seller") agree Buyer may acquire certain real property from Seller as described herein. The parties recognize that the transaction will require further documentation and approvals; including the preparation and approval of a formal agreement setting forth the terms and conditions of the z proposed purchase (the "Purchase Agreement"); nevertheless, they execute this letter to evidence their intention to proceed in mutual good faith to complete work required to negotiate terms of a Purchase Agreement that are consistent with this letter. s The proposed terms and conditions include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Property. Buyer will purchase from Seller all interests and rights, owned or used by Seller in connection with an approximate 55 feet wide strip of private property between Washington Street & Tolman Creek Road as further described in Exhibit A, (the "Property"). The Seller acknowledges that the Buyer intends to establish. this property as a dedicated right-of-way ("ROW") through the current IPCO Development property. This new ROW would parallel and offset approximately 10 feet to the north of the centerline of the existing Washington Street ROW. 2. Consideration. The consideration (the "Purchase Price") will be established pursuant to appraisal by an appraiser selected and paid by the Buyer and subject to reasonable negotiations with Seller. Buyer will not assume any other liabilities or obligations of Seller over other property adjacent to or previously part of parcel or lot through which the Property, as a right-of- way, runs, and Seller will indemnify and hold harmless Buyer against all such other liabilities and obligations. 3. Purchase Agreement. The transaction will be subject to the negotiation and execution of a definitive Purchase Agreement with terms satisfactory to Seller and Buyer. The Purchase Agreement will contain representations, warranties and covenants, conditions that are reflected in the IPCO Development conceptual site plan scheme #14 (11-13-13) Exhibit A (attached) and will include without limitation the following: (a) The Buyer proposes, subject to planning approval, to build, own, and maintain this approximately 700 feet long, 28 feet wide paved road with curb, "park row", and 8 feet wide sidewalks on the north'side of street. Buyer agrees, subject to Planning approval, to allow seller to credit park row landscape for sellers required landscape associated to any future Page 1 of 4 Exhibit A.4 development on said property. In addition, buyer will install irrigation system and pay water bill in public park row. (b) The Buyer will construct and maintain. a stream crossing structure over Hamilton Creek, to support the new roadway and sidewalk. The crossing structure will be designed to meet or exceed the most current storm water quality mitigation requirements and standards. Riparian restoration of the creek bed and banks will be included to the maximum extent practicable. (c) The Buyer will relocate existing utilities as required, without diminishing utility services quality to the development, including water pressure, electric power, and sewer service line to property line at a location designated by the property owner with proper access to all locations. This shall not be charged back to seller. (d) The Buyer will assist the development to adjust the location of the existing conservation easement across private property to the match the new FEMA flood map and Ashland Water Resources Protection Ordinance boundaries. If allowed by FEMA, the Buyer will allow building E as shown with parking at the southeast comer with utility and road access over that area. (e) The Buyer, subject to Planning approval, will allow the development to use any land recovered and to use the area over the existing pipe culvert, as deemed appropriate by FEMA, and allow the development to clean out and maintain blackberry and weed infested areas and use these areas for landscape credits. (f) Assist the development in preparing a master plan that will include parking and driveways in specified locations to be formally submitted for planning review through the City's planning process. The associated City planning costs will be paid by the Buyer. The Buyer anticipates that the process will include the following steps: a. Submit pre-application for Preliminary Site Layout. b. Draft conservation easement boundary adjustment & delineate "water protection zone." e. Draft right-of-way dedication survey documentation. i d. Obtain property owner concurrence RE: ROW dedication & easements. C. Obtain Planning approval for variances. ' f. Obtain City Council approval RE: ROW dedication & easements. g. Engineering Design & Permitting. I h. Planning Approval for Environmental Constraints. i. Site Plan approvals. (g) The Buyer agrees to work with the Seller during engineering phase of project to ensure final grades will accommodate ingress and egress on the Seller's driveways in order to minimize impacts of steep grades as much as possible. (h) The Seller can continue to drain storm water into Hamilton Creek as long as current state, federal and local storm drain regulations are met. t Page 2 of 4 • i Exhibit A.5 i • 4. Access. To permit Buyer to conduct its due diligence investigation, as long as this letter remains in effect, Seller will permit Buyer and its agents to have reasonable access to the Property for purposes of surveying and planning for the use and design of the Property. 5. Conditions to Closing. The closing of the transaction will be subject to certain conditions, including without limitation the following: (a) Funds for the purchase of said land are subject to the buyer successfully securing a grant to purchase the Property. (b) All required approvals, consents, and authorizations of state and federal regulatory authorities shall have been received. (c) All required consents of third parties shall have been received. (d) Buyer shall have completed a due diligence review of the property and its title of Seller satisfactory to Buyer in its sole discretion. The Buyer, as the City, may be required to make make land use and/or building code decisions affecting development of the subject Right-of-Way and related property according to local and state laws. The Parties therefore acknowledge that the Buyer cannot and does not promise or guarantee any particular planning or building code decision or result as part of or' as a condition of achieving the purposes of this letter of intent. - t 6. Negotiations with Others. Until January 1, 2018, the date on which the parties anticipate theta Purchase Agreement will be executed, Seller will not offer its stock or assets to, entertain offers for them from, negotiate for their sale to, or make information about them available (for purposes of sale) to, any third party. 7. Conduct of Business; Interim Operations. As long as this letter remains in effect, Seller will use its best efforts to conduct its business in axeasonable and prudent manner in accordance with past practices, to preserve its existing business organizations and relationships with its employees, customers, suppliers, and others with whom ft has a business relationship, to preserve and protect its properties, avoid any and all liens, and to conduct its business in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations: 8. Closing Date. The closing date under the Purchase Agreement will be the date agreed ripon by the parties. 9. Effect of This Letter. This letter sets forth the intent of the parties only, is not binding on the - parties, and may not be relied on as the basis for a contract by estoppel or be the basis for a claim based on detrimental reliance or any other theory; provided that paragraphs 6 and 7, and this paragraph 9 will be enforceable in accordance with their terms. With the exceptions of paragraphs 4, 6, 7, and this paragraph 9, the parties understand that no parry shall be bound until the Purchase Agreement has been negotiated, executed, delivered, and approved by the partners or shareholders of Buyer and Seller, as the case may be. Page 3 of 4 ' i - ExlAbif A.6 10. Termination of Negotiations. This letter may be terminated at any time by either party giving' written notice to the other. After notice is given, the parties shall be bound only by paragraphs 6, 7, and 9. If this letter sets forth your-intent to proceed in good faith substantially in the manner outlined in this letter, please sign a copy of this letter and return it to Buyer. This letter of intent shall be of no further force and effect if it is not signed by Seller and returned to Buyer by the close of business on /l3 2012. Ve Ve truly You Buyer Accepted and agreed to: By: gg Seller k i Page 4 of 4 - 11 f 'I 4/30/2018 Gmail - 2012 TSP Amendments Exhibit B M Gmail Craig Anderson <craig.ashland@gmail.com> 2012 TSP Amendments Scott Fleury <scott.fleury@ashland.or.us> Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 7:20 AM To: Craig Anderson <craig.ashland@gmail.com> Craig, I think you are referencing project R24 in table 10-3, which in 2013 has a project cost of $2,505,000. To my knowledge the TSP was never amended to move R24 from the preferred plan to the fiscally constrained plan. Let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks, I Scott A. Fleury, Deputy Public Works Director City of Ashland, Public Works 20 East Main Street, Ashland OR 97520 i (541) 552-2412, TTY 800-735-2900 Fax: (541) 488-6006 This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at (541) 552-2412. Thank you. a6i CSA Planning, Ltd 4497 Brownridge. Suite 101 Medford, OR 97504 Telephone 541.779.0569 Fax 541.779.01 14 iav@CSAplanning.net May 1, 2018 City of Ashland Mayor and Council Attn: Derek Severson, Senior Planner 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Rebuttal to Anderson Letter Dated May 1, 2018; Planning Action 2018-154 j I Dear Mayor and Council: The City received a letter this morning from Craig Anderson raising certain objections under the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The relevant rule is Oregon Administrative Rule 660-012-0060. This letter constitutes Applicant's written rebuttal to the opposition letter submitted by Mr. Anderson, as follows: PREFACE: TPR has alternative regulatory paths in which transportation planning is balanced with land use planning. These regulatory paths are set forth in the rule. The objection primarily focuses on one such path at OAR 660-012-0060(9). The objection characterizes this rule as a "loophole". Oregon Administrative Rules are not loopholes. The particular rule at issue is one which is "permissive" because it is one which cities may apply but need not. In the subject application, the original application submittal took a different regulatory path to TPR compliance by providing a traffic study that demonstrated compliance with subsections (1), (2) and (3). The evidence in the record demonstrates that this regulatory path can be satisfied through the imposition of a trip cap, as allowed by these rules. At the Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Staff suggested the City need not impose the trip cap and could instead determine TPR compliance under Subsection (9). ODOT provided comments on April 12 disagreeing with the Planning Staff's analysis and the findings in this regard adopted by the Planning Commission. Regardless of the correct legal position, Applicant's position on the OAR 660-012- 0060(9) matter is as follows: 1. The original application included a stipulation to a trip cap that demonstrates compliance with the TPR without the necessity of resolving the Subsection (9) issue. The City can impose the stipulated trip cap and this issue is moot. 2. As a technical matter the Applicant is inclined to agree with the application of Subsection (9) suggested by the Planning Staff at the Planning Commission. However, the Applicant has no interest in being the test case for this legal issue. Applicant would prefer that the trip cap be imposed and TPR compliance be determined under prior Subsections of that rule. 3. Ultimately, we believe more job opportunities in Ashland will be better for the region's transportation system. REBUTTAL OF SPECIFIC ISSUES RAISED: Opponent's Statewide Planning Goal Objection: Opponent states that the Statewide Planning Goals are directly applicable to annexation and zone change because the City of Ashland does not have annexation criteria within its Comprehensive Plan. Rebuttal: The City of Ashland has adopted and acknowledged annexation criteria within its Land Development Ordinance which implements the Comprehensive Plan and requires certain specific compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. As such, Applicant does not concede that the Statewide Planning Goals are directly applicable to the subject quasi-judicial annexation and zone change that does not propose any comprehensive plan amendments. Opponent's "Planned Improvements" Objection #2: Based upon point #1 on page 2 of the letter and a later point at the end of page 3 and top of page 4, it appears that opponent is arguing that the traffic analysis cannot assume construction of Independent Way in its traffic analysis for purposes of demonstrating compliance with TPR under subsections (1) through (3) of the TPR. There also appears to be a corollary argument that the proposed annexation and zone change is effectively an update to the Regional Transportation Plan. i Rebuttal: The objection letter does not reference the relevant rule, as follows: i (4) Determinations under sections (1)-(3) of this rule shall be coordinated with affected transportation facility and service providers and other affected local governments. In determining whether an amendment has a significant effect on an existing or planned transportation facility under subsection (1)(c) of this rule, local governments shall rely on existing transportation facilities and services and on the planned transportation facilities, improvements and services set forth in subsections (b) and (c) below. (b) Outside of interstate interchange areas, the following are considered planned facilities, improvements and services: (A) Transportation facilities, improvements or services that are funded for construction or implementation in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program or a locally or regionally adopted transportation improvement program or capital improvement plan or program of a transportation service provider. (B) Transportation facilities, improvements or services that are authorized in a local transportation system plan and for which a funding plan or mechanism is in place or approved. These include, but are not limited to, transportation facilities, improvements or services for which: transportation systems development charge revenues are being collected; a local improvement district or reimbursement district has been established or will be established prior to development; a development agreement has been adopted; or conditions of approval to fund the improvement have been adopted. (C) Transportation facilities, improvements or services in a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) area that are part of the area's federally-approved, financially constrained regional transportation system plan. (D) Improvements to state highways that are included as planned improvements in a regional or local transportation system plan or comprehensive plan when ODOT provides a written statement that the improvements are reasonably likely to be provided by the end of the planning period. (E) Improvements to regional and local roads, streets or other transportation facilities or services that are included as planned improvements in a regional or local transportation system plan or comprehensive plan when the local government(s) or transportation service provider(s) responsible for the facility, improvement or service provides a written statement that the facility, improvement or service is reasonably likely to be provided by the end of the planning period. (c) Within interstate interchange areas, the improvements included in (b)(AHC) are considered planned facilities, improvements and services, except where: I I i Addressee Page 2 i (A) ODOT provides a written statement that the proposed funding and timing of mitigation measures are sufficient to avoid a significant adverse impact on the Interstate Highway system, then local governments may also rely on the improvements identified in paragraphs (b)(D) and (E) of this section; or (B) There is an adopted interchange area management plan, then local governments may also rely on the improvements identified in that plan and which are also identified in paragraphs (b)(D) and (E) of this section. (d) As used in this section and section (3): (A) Planned interchange means new interchanges and relocation of existing interchanges that are authorized in an adopted transportation system plan or comprehensive plan; (B) Interstate highway means Interstates 5, 82, 84, 105, 205 and 405; and (C) Interstate interchange area means: (i) Property within one-quarter mile of the ramp terminal intersection of an existing or planned interchange on an Interstate Highway; or (ii) The interchange area as defined in the Interchange Area Management Plan adopted as an amendment to the Oregon Highway Plan. I (e) For purposes of this section, a written statement provided pursuant to paragraphs (b)(D), (b)(E) or (cxA) provided by ODOT, a local government or transportation facility provider, as appropriate, shall be conclusive in determining whether a transportation facility, improvement or service is a planned transportation facility, improvement or service. In the absence of a written statement, a local government can only rely upon planned transportation facilities, improvements and services identified in paragraphs (b)(AHC) to determine whether there is a significant effect that requires application of the remedies in section (2). Subsection 4 of the rule, makes clear that within determinations under subsections 1 through 3, applicants can rely on planned transportation facilities in (4)(b)(A-C) above regardless of whether you are in an interchange area or not. One potential argument being made by opponent is that a project must be on (4)(b)(A) and (4)(b)(B) and (4)(b)(C). This is absurd. In the first instance, MPO plans only apply in MPO areas so numerous planned facilities outside an MPO could not be relied upon all around the state. Under Subsection (B), facility improvement plans may be developed as part of the amendment process and the City and the Applicant could reach a funding agreement as part of the process. Under such a scenario, the improvement may not be in the MPO plan or any other adopted capital facility plan. For these reasons and other possible reasons as well, TPR allows traffic analyses that rely on (A) or (B) or (C). The Independent Way extension project is listed as project 162 in the RTP's financially constrained project list and the applicant is entitled to rely on it, per OAR 660-012- 0060(4)(b)(C). In response to the corollary objection, the Applicant rebuts as follows: The "planned projects" are not mutually exclusive to require listing on (4)(b) (A) and (B) and (C), as such nothing about the project is amending the regional transportation plan. OAR 660-012-0016 requirements are relevant to LEGISLATIVE obligations on the City of Ashland for transportation planning, but that does not preclude the reliance on planned projects under OAR 660-012-0060(4)(b)(C) for a OUASI- JUDICIAL annexation and zone change. If the opponent believes this a critical issue for Ashland's transportation system planning obligations there are other more appropriate remedies that do not have effect of rendering land that is identified as short-term employment land supply unavailable and upending the City's entire plan to comply with statewide planning Goal 9. The opponent j could have, at any time, appeared at a regular Planning Commission or City Council meeting and requested the City take action under OAR 660-12-0016. If the opponent had taken such action, a simple finding of consistency under OAR 660-12-0060(0016) is all that is required. Addressee Page 3 • In the context of the subject application, the City's TSP includes Independent Way as a planned project and the RTP plans the project in its financially constrained list. The Applicant herewith testifies that they were directed by the City and ODOT to analyze the transportation impacts in this way. Approval of the zone change functions as a finding that the RTP is consistent with the Local TSP within the scope of this application. • No argument has been presented that would cause one to conclude that the Independent Way extension project is inherently inconsistent with the RTP financially constrained list. All that is presented is an argument of plan consistency and timing. Moreover, Independent Way project went through its own land use entitlement process that was duly noticed and was approved to implement the City's TSP for this area and is a final land use decision. Construction of that project is consistent with City land use regulations. Opponent's Transportation Demand Objection: Based upon point #3 on page 2 and point #2 on page 3 of the letter, it is difficult to know exactly what the objection is. Either the trip cap is too low or the City's development assumptions for the area are too high- or both? Ultimately, the objection alleges an internal inconsistency in the City's findings because the TIA estimates future traffic volumes of approximately 1,350 ADT when the opponent alleges they should be 8,600. Rebuttal: The objection letter is geographically challenged. The 1,350 future year ADT from the Transportation Impact Analysis is specific to the section of Washington Street from Jefferson to Jefferson. The 45 acres of land development identified in the BLI is a wide area of land. See attached map. Much of this potential land for development would not be expected to utilize the section of Washington Street between the Jefferson Street intersections very often. For example, the 7.5 acres in the North Washington area would be expected to use north Washington, Ashland and Tolman much more often. Perhaps fewer than 10 percent of their trips would utilize this section of Washington Street. The 7.7 acres on Jefferson Street would almost never use it, because it is completely out of the way. The 10.5 acres down by Benson would use it some but there are a lot of other choices from Crowson or Siskiyou. Perhaps 50% of those trips would use this section of Washington. That only leaves the middle 13.7 acres that would again, use Crowson and Siskiyou some and Washington some, perhaps 80% north and 20% south. This all assumes that the rail crossing improvement is not constructed which would further distribute traffic. Once the likely routing is considered, the actual acreage of development that will utilize the section of Washington Street between Jefferson Street Intersections is more like about 16 acres (approximately). Using this acreage with the 20 employees per acre figure in the PC findings yields about 321 employees. The ITE rate for office park is 3.5 trips per employee so that would be about 1124 trips additional plus the 325 that are currently on this street segment. This makes the Sandow Engineering estimate look pretty good. Ultimately, this is why there are regional transportation models and traffic engineers. Transportation trip generation and distribution gets complicated quickly. The very brief analysis here is not intended to take the place of the analysis in the Sandow Engineering report. It merely points up that the assumptions in it a reasonable and the assertion that they are off by a factor of 6 is unreasonable because the analysis did not consider the origin and destinations and likely routing of future development in the area. Addressee Page 4 - - TRAFFIC ENGINEERING RELATED OBJECTIONS: In addition to the planning related objections addressed herein, the Applicant's traffic engineer Kelly Sandow provided responses to those issues. Those responses are also submitted under cover of this letter. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial evidence in the record on transportation facility adequacy. The application can be approved under multiple regulatory paths under the TPR. If the Council is most comfortable imposing the trip cap, as originally stipulated, Applicant has no objection and we believe our traffic analysis provides adequate evidence to conclude the proposed zone change complies with TPR and any other applicable transportation regulations. Very Truly Yours, CSA Planning, Ltd. y Harland Principal cc. File I Addressee Page 5 i, nin ttv r ' i r~ fir 4" Y (A) N ry f „ =l lei w t TOLMAN SHINGTON ! ty~z Y $y Vacant: 6.6 ac .i a:'°''•.+ ~'tKp:.t ~l~;°"z;. A;~ F (B)SUBJECT Part Vac 1.9 ac ~ tv w • a,~ 4 i^ ~ ur . Y r d , ~I ~ .,i~ ~ . ~ r_ ~ Vacant 2.d ac r ~ K,~~, i_ imp -40 Vacant: < \ Part Vac: 7.7 ac P~j -e.g~ k,llw ;.Y i °'{7.: I.,, t l.♦ e i P.: y •.~.r•, +y+v1 , 81 ~i . ~ 1`~ ~ ~ sir, . a~, .d ~ +uf { ~ mi ("1 ! rt._ ~ fA O MIDDLE C JEFFERSON ST Vacant* 6.b ac w ' Vac" 6 7 ac t`.'Mt y Vas r Part Va.c 70 ac il. d e AIL,. A ~_r 5 #I;._? ChAjPMAN ---TV -W 11 "1 , I 'r It +b.,- "t t p ♦ k ,raw zk de u, • t , N 1 Rf (E) BENSON -RIB q31 K Q z "::77 . ~itdlC Vacant: 5 7 o ti I't c Sz Part vac 4.8 ac m r , ps~rF~ 9 Mir 1 Study Area City's 2011 BLI..PP~'~~ppV. oil IN " f.....~ mod' Urban Growth Boundary vacant ~1\,. K. Y P31'atty Vacant Parking Built 600 300 0 600 Feet i.~ ! „0. May 2018 jai Technical Memorandum CSA Planning, Ltd 4497 Brownridge. Suite 101 Medford, OR 97504 To: Jay Harland Telephone 541 .779.0589 Date: May 1, 2018 Fax 541.779.0114 Mike@CSAplanning.net Subject: BLI Analysis I The attached map titled, "Buildable Lands Analysis Map" was derived using the following methodologies. Step 1. Identify the Study Area which is reflected by the yellow hatch on the attached map. Step 2. Crop and Georeference the City's 2011 Adopted BLI Map obtained from the City of Ashland's Website at the following locations, into our GIS: • http://www.ashland.or.us/Files/2011 BLI approved._pdf • http.//vvvvw.ashland.or.us/Files/bli 2011 map.pdf Step 3. Apply the City's BLI categories of Vacant, Partially Vacant, and Parking to Tax Lots in our GIS that correspond to the same values in the City's BLI map. All lands not attributed in one of the above categories was categorized as Built. Step 4. Overlay the above on a 2016 georeferenced aerial photograph from USDA. Step 5. Identify five distinct subareas within the study area based on their proximity to the local transportation network. The five categories include; (A) N Washington; (B) Subject; (C) Jefferson St; (D) Middle; and (E) Benson. Step 6. Use GIS to remove duplicate records in Tax Lots so that each polygon corresponds with each tax lot. Calculate the acres of each category for the entire study area, with the following results. • Total Tax Lot Acres: 88.1; Built & Parking: 34.5; Vacant: 28.45; Gross Partially Vacant: 25.1. • Total of Vacant and Partially Vacant: 53.55 Step 7. Based on the calculations in the City's 2011 BLI for the area, there are 45 vacant and partially vacant acres of land available. The City's BLI assumed portions of the Partially Vacant lands are not and would not be available thus there is a difference between gross partially vacant acres and net partially vacant acres. For the purposes of this analysis I assumed the entirety of vacant lands is available and the difference between 53.55 acres and 45 acres was attributed to the partially vacant lands at the factor of 84%. (45 / 53.55 = 84%) Thus, for the buildable / available area for each lot identified as partially vacant I assumed a factor of 84% (For example, a 1 acre partially vacant tax lot was shown to have .84 acres available. Step 8. Summarize each subarea by Vacant and Partially Vacant lands and illustrate the results on the map. CSA Planning, Ltd. Michael Savage Associate cc. File Table 8.3.1 Project List by Jurisdiction PROJECT n ferMrsl Funds Witter, PM101CO~ LOCATION OESCRfPT10N TMAtlO COST Cost by Rarlgs Fulls AyaOsbk C"Watery 8tatu4 NUMBER Near AMIMSnartn» Areas Ashlnnrt yDle 2 _,0 120 Laval St RR Crossing FUR X-irg Irtprovemenk surface mprorernonk (175-ft 0.03 Mks) sh.1 f 813.552 L Safety 160 Hersey SC N. Main to Oak St Sidewek Sldewefr Comtucton 11,76451 0.33 Mine) short S 829,000 ExerrAir pt - Oual Table 2 - PM10 161 E. Newsta Street Edemlm aid street over Beer Creek to ink roadway at Kestrat sideutMu, bicycler short $ 5,055,500 Non-Eenpt Photo levee 6758, 0.13 Mlas 162 Independent Way E>aand street from WasNngw St to Toeron Leek Rd. sldeweks, bicycb knee 71 Sfl. 0.13 Mlae short f 1,055,000 1•ax1-F.asn0 PM70 prolect artmis grading, pr'Mrlg and misting a double crap at m E-w - Table 2 - 166 Chip Seal approznleley M, 903 square yards of exist" dirt roads within he Ashland short i $ 561,648 Safoy PM10 City trots. (appro,< 5.3 nibs) Short Range 2017.20211 Total $ 8.314,700 $ 6,7041,000 Inter-bon Inpnoemen4s AslJnnd-Oak KnoA- ) 153 E Main Raa4gn inlersecton, in51aA speed-raducbm treabr-ts iVO ft. 0.18 V-) medium $ 1,164,195 Eaemq- Table J PM10 8ladkan on 2022.2030 Total S 1,164,198 $ 6,499,000 $ 164 Normal Avon. Edene,on EA.rd roadwe in East Win, vd-ks, do ck lams (2,250-ft0 44 t.1 $ 5,918,032 PMiQ i6S Clem Creek Dr E>a-- E~dend road to connect vwth N. IAxmbsm Are. 12.OWft. 0 38 Mks f 4,801,359 P10110 Realtle 2051.2012 Total f t0,S1T,391 f 12,754,060 6 PROJECT I LOCATON DESCRiT10N TMiG COST Coat by RanOe Fulls AvstabWi Federal Funds Contomdty Slatw WthlnPM10/Co ~ NUfJf3ER I Needed ~Maintenance /uses Cf.ntrai Point ~ 732 Tvan Creeks Ra,l Crossing Add new at grace crossing and signal, vdeweks at DIt99 and Twn Creeks srrnrt'. $ 3.900.000 ~!r tJprv E~srtpt PM10 Crow" 1,080 h1 i 233 E. Plm Strest Do*nWm Improvement N-, Sidewalks, street lights, and new vgnats at 2nd and 4th Steels New short $ 5.000.000 EaorryR7abte 3 - PM10 Pr % Pedesl- Cross" at 61h Steel 1,600 ft 0.3 mks 4ra8m W. Pins Stre11t R-resin b n: (,enn Way m Widen W. Pine St between (4em Way and Brmdxl Are. Add sideweks. 234 cub n1d gutter, 8 Nke lanes; 2 paved travel lanes and 1 corr8ranou" k8 turn rJwrt S 4,549,000 EmmDt - Table 2 - pM10 Brandon Ave lane. Drat wfl also be frnlaled/u eded 2,2(1011 0.42 roles i Safety Shorl Range 2017.2021) Total S 13,449,000 $ 14,143,000 j i 215 OR 99: Tragic Calrong Unit 3 Traffic Catning (3W ft) - medum i $ 259,043 Emmpt-t able 2. PM70 1_- 227 W Pins St, Van" SL to Hasket St. Zid~ h) add tenter ban lane, I'll kalee , s"'e'at" (m new tra"! la-, i rmtlYUm 23, 86,685 E-~et~ 2 PM10 . "w, Msdkan R". (21122.20]0) Total S 3.845.717 $ 16,276,000 5 Scenic A-, Mary's Way In Scenic Mddle Widen to add dke lams and s"dwaks (urban tpgrade - m new travel la, r. 214 School (7008) bng f 866.078 E,e Tabb2- PM10 safety 219 Table Rock Rd- A Vile" Rd Intersection Widen to add km Wines big S 1,751,803 Ewr"p Table 3 - Photo Cherneization j -T EserryA-Te01s 2 - 224 Scenic Ave, 101h St. to Scenic Will. School Widen to add con8rnous loin wm ah Nke lanes and sidewaks (m new L. travol lanes) (700 B) $ 1.117 a73 safety PM70 ' . N r. z,=, a w ..i ..R,.„..,. LOtr$ Range (2031.2042) Toth f 3,734.75/ ....9001.006 ; RVMPO Regional Transportation Plan Page 8.8 SANDOWENGINEERING 160 MADISON STREET SUITE A EUGENE OREGON 97402 541.513.3376 TP R1 May 1, 2018 77929PE a Ashland City Council GREG N y o City Council Chambers 4 ZO 1175 E Main Street y R, S P Ashland, Oregon 97520 RENEWAL 06 / 30 /18 RE: South Ashland Business Park-Response to Comments from Craig Anderson Dear City Council Members, Sandow Engineering would like to provide a response to comments received by Craig Anderson on May 1, 2018 regarding the South Ashland Business Park Annexation and Ordinance 3154 Adoption Findings. Comment #2 Page 2: "Will Substantially increase turning volumes at Washington Street @ Ashland Street, a highly sub-standards intersection that is approximately Y. the minimum recommended distance from the Southbound 1-5 terminal (350 feet as compared to 1320 feet) a situation that "can increase the potential risk of collisions," and that creates "potential vehicular conflicts and delay that may impact safety and traffic operations at the interchange," according to the June 2010 Draft Interchange Area Management Plan (TAMP)" First off, it is worth noting that the statements quoted above of "can increase the potential risk of collisions", and "potential vehicular potential vehicular conflicts and delay that may impact safety and traffic operations at the interchange" are being taken out of context and misappropriated. This first statement "can increase the potential risk of collisions", appears twice in the TAMP; page 4-25 under 2030 Land use Intensification Scenario #1 and page 4-27 under 2030 Land use Intensification Scenario #2. Attachment A contains the pages from the TAMP in which the statement is provided. The sections are a discussion of conditions related to the theoretical maximum development beyond what the RVMPO model includes (Scenario #1), and the significant employment and residential growth in the area of Crowman Mill Site beyond what the RVMPO model includes (Scenario #2). The statement in the IAMP was made in relation to a discussion of conditions, under these scenarios, in which Ashland Street has a significant enough increase in traffic volumes by year 2030 that the infrequency of gaps in traffic increases the v/c ratio on Washington Street to above 2.0. When the v/c ratio reached these levels, it could result in conditions where drivers become inpatient resulting in an increase in the potential of collisions. i Kelly Sandow PE South Ashland Business Park-Response to Anderson Comments May 1, 2018 Page 2 The sections state that, at the high levels of development that the TAMP analysis assumed, there is the potential for an increased risk of collisions. Mr Anderson misappropriated the statement by applying it to this development proposal when it was intended for the level of traffic that would increase the v/c ratio to greater than 2.0. Further, the Traffic Impact Analysis and subsequent analysis revisions, shows that the v/c ratio for Washington Street is 0.57 for the year 2034 with the zone change. The v/c ratio is significantly better than the conditions discussed in the [AMP in which that statement was made. The second statement "potential vehicular conflicts and delay that may impact safety and traffic operations at the interchange," according to the June 2010 Draft Interchange Area Management Plan (TAMP)'; is found under the Problem Statement of the Executive Summary. See Attachment B for the section from the TAMP. The statement is a very generalized statement that there are numerous public and private approaches within'/, mile of the interchange and that the approaches create potential vehicular conflicts with the interchange. The statement is not specific to a singular approach and does not speak to specifically to the operations of Washington Street approach The TIA and subsequent analysis revisions also provided information on crash rates and queuing to Washington Street. All levels are within the acceptable range. Therefore, there is no substantial evidence to validate the statement that the intersection is currently highly sub-standard and that any significant safety concerns are currently present or will be present after the approval of the zone change. Comment #4 Page 2: "Along with other contemplated (or pre-approved?) developments in the area, has the potential to create the need for a very expensive intersection expansion at Tolman Creek Road @ Ashland Street and possibly a new I-5 interchange at Exit 14. The analysis provided in the TIA, took into consideration growth rate levels in the area consistent with the Ashland TSP and recently approved (but not yet built) developments. The rates are typical for TIA's of this type and they were reviewed by the City and ODOT and found to be appropriate. The intersection of Tolman Creek Road @ Ashland Street is projected to meet mobility standards at the year 2034 with the approval of the proposed zone change, even with the project traffic and the additional 105 trips assumed to occur due to background traffic growth through this intersection. i i The interchange ramp signals are shown to exceed the mobility standard in the background conditions. With the proposed trip cap, the approval of the zone change will not have a significant effect on the intersections. I i Therefore, this project has demonstrated that the proposed zone change will not significantly affect ~ the adjacent transportation system and is not responsible for providing intersection improvements. i SANDOW ENGINEERING i Kelly Sandow PE South Ashland Business Park-Response to Anderson Comments May 1, 2018 Page 3 i Comment #1 Page 3: "ODOT's April 12, 2018 letter to the City states that, "comments were sent to Sandow Engineering on February 14, 2018 regarding several concerns within the TIA. A final response from Sandow Engineering regarding the ODOT comments was never sent to ODOT." The City did not respond to this comment while the applicant's representative said that ODOT "did not have any issues" with the TIA. It is reasonable to presume that ODOT suggested modifications to the methodology used in the analysis and that such modifications could have resulted in showing a greater level of impacts than were indicated in the January 5th document." Sandow Engineering has addressed the comments to date with supplemental analyses that were transmitted via email to ODOT traffic engineers on April 9, 2018 and April 25, 2018. These technical revisions did not have any meaningful impacts to the results indicated that the proposed zone change does not have a significant effect on intersection operations and the conclusions of the January 51h TIA remain valid. Comment #3 Page 3: "The City has used ODOT's recommendation in the Exit 14 TAMP that left-turn movements in/out of Washington Street @ Ashland Street be restricted via an extended median as justification for funding of the Independent Way project. No such recommendations have been acknowledged or assumed in the TPR Analysis. Changing assumptions to include left-turn restrictions in/out of Washington Street will show greater impacts at the Tolman Creek @ Ashland Street intersection." The evaluation considered existing infrastructure and improvements that are on the Regional Transportation System Plan Short Term List. The RTP has Independent Way listed as project #162 described as "Extend street from Washington St to Tolman Creek Rd: sidewalks, bicycle lanes (715- ft, 0.13 miles). The RTP does not have the median listed as an improvement. Additionally, during the scoping process the median was not requested to be considered by ODOT or by the City of Ashland. Therefore, it was not included as an infrastructure improvement in the TPR evaluation. Comment #4 page 4: The trip distribution figures used by Sandow Engineering appear to minimize potential impacts at the Tolman Creek Road @ Ashland Street intersection. On page 17 of the TPR Analysis it is stated that, "the development trips were distributed through the study area network using the existing observed travel patterns as a base with modifications as per reasonable origins and destinations." Figure 5 shows 2019 pm peak hour westbound background traffic volumes at intersection #7 (Tolman Creek Road @ Independent Way) split roughly 30% southbound and 70% northbound on Tolman Creek. Figure 7 shows 2019 "build-out" (development-related) traffic at the some location split 40% southbound and 60% northbound. There is no explanation for the discrepancy, however, even a 30% southbound distribution at this location is not reasonable. The existing trip distribution in this area is heavily skewed by traffic generators such as the Ashland Tennis and Fitness Club and other businesses and employers that attract a relatively local clientele. Whereas, it is for more likely that a majority of the traffic to and from the proposed employment SANDOW ENGINEERING Kelly Sandow PE South Ashland Business Park-Response to Anderson Comments May 1, 2018 Page 4 location will have an origin and destination that utilizes I-5/Exit 14 southbound (to) and northbound (from). A reasonable trip distribution oassumption would be that PM peak hour traffic from the proposed development that does not make a right turn from Washington Street onto Ashland Street (and then onto 1-5) will primarily be destined westbound on Ashland Street and will use the Tolman Creek Road @ Ashland Street intersection via the newly-built Independent Way. It makes no sense that PM peak hour traffic leaving the proposed employment site would have a destination using southbound Tolman Creek Road. Merely changing the trip distribution at this one intersection to reflect a more "real-world" analysis could have far more detrimental impacts on the Tolman Creek Road @ Ashland Street intersection than have been divulged. When this issue is considered in the context of the other "approved but not completed IPCO development that was included as pipeline trips in the background" conditions (see Exhibit "A"), concerns about the impacts on Tolman Creek Road @ Ashland Street are compounded" The trip distribution values were based on the following assumptions: 1) The development is primarily employment. Trips in the PM peak hour will be leaving and heading toward local residential and commercial areas, as the trips will be primarily work to home trips. i. There is a very large residential area south of Ashland Street that will be accessed by Tolman Creek to/from the south (see Exhibit 1) ii. Commercial and residential are accessed by Ashland Street to the west via Tolman Creek to/from the north iii. Use of 1-5 for areas outside the City. 2) Traffic volumes on Tolman Creek Road are nearly a 50% split meaning that 50% traffic is traveling south and 50% is traveling north. Based on a traffic count taken on Tolman Creek near Independent Way connection. 3) Total traffic volumes entering and leaving the study area on the adjacent street network. This information was the basis for determining the trip distribution pattern. Sandow Engineering assumed that 20% of all development trips be to/from Tolman Creek south of Independent Way based on traffic patterns and the proximity to existing and future households. Sandow Engineering believes is it is unreasonable to assume that a majority of traffic will use 1-5 and that no traffic will use Tolman Creek to the south as stated in the comment above. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to respond to the comments. cerely, Kelly andow, PE SANDOW ENGINEERING c i 14 4 v as r f- w►. r~ ~ • 1 ,mil ~ ~ _ s ~ r z ( • ..0 K ,z i Attachment A Attachment A-1 J" 2010 i would provide improved intersection operations because it would allow conventional phasing rather than the split phasing that would be necessary with a three-lane bridge configuration. j Analysis indicates that a five-lane bridge provides no operational benefit at either ramp terminal intersection compared to a four-lane bridge. The lane configuration at the northbound ramp terminal would be identical to the four-lane configuration. At the southbound ramp terminal, a five-lane bridge would allow for a westbound left-turn lane. However, analysis indicates that a left-turn lane would not provide any improvement in overall intersection v/c ratio due to the low westbound left-turning volume. Furthermore, the projected turning volumes are not sufficient to warrant a left turn signal. Each of the interchange alternatives would provide acceptable traffic operations at both ramp terminal intersections. The calculated v/c ratio at the southbound ramp terminal is the same for all of the conventional diamond interchange configurations at 0.46. The calculated v/c ratio for the central SPUI intersection is 0.57, and the calculated v/c ratios for the DDI are 0.51 and 0.40 for the southbound and northbound ramp terminals, respectively. The intersection of Ashland Street with Washington Street is expected to operate at a calculated v/c in excess of 1.50 for the critical northbound left-turn movement under all interchange alternatives. All of the remaining intersections within the study area are expected to operate with acceptable v/c ratios and queuing under 2030 baseline conditions. Like Washington Street, the intersection of Ashland Street with Clover Lane is unsignalized and located in close proximity to the interchange. However, analysis shows that the intersection will operate acceptably under future baseline conditions. This is primarily due to the significantly lower traffic volumes on Ashland Street to the east of the interchange compared with those to the west. If land on the east side of the interchange develops to a greater intensity than what is predicted in the RVMPO model (e.g., Land Use Scenario #1), then future operations at this intersection may fail to meet the applicable operational standards and mitigation such as turn restrictions may be necessary. 2030 Land Use Intensification Scenario #1 The analysis shows that the existing interchange is not adequate to accommodate the increased traffic volumes associated with this land use scenario, with calculated v/c ratios at both ramp terminals in excess of 2.00. In contrast, the calculated v/c ratios at each ramp terminal were well below 1.00 for each interchange design. However, the calculated v/c ratios at the southbound ramp terminal would marginally exceed the HDM mobility standard of 0.75 for each of the conventional interchange designs. The calculated v/c ratio at the northbound ramp terminal marginally exceeds the HDM mobility standard under the three-lane bridge design. Operational differences between the various interchange types are consistent with those described for the 2030 baseline scenario in the previous section. DRAFT TAMP: 1-5 Interchange 14 (Green Springs) 4-24 Attachment A-2 June 2010 Table 4-8. Intersection Traffic Operations (in feet) - 2030 Land Use Scenario #1 Conditions Interchange Alternative' 3-Lane 3-Lane 4-Lane 5-Lane Mobility Standard No-Build Bridge w/Loop Bridge Bridge spul DDI WC Ratio2 Intersection WC (LOS) WC (LOS) V/C (LOS) WC (LOS) WC (LOS) WC (LOS) WC (LOS) OHP' HOW City, Tolman Creek Rd & 0.76 (F) 0.76 (D) 0.76 (D) 0.76 (D) 0.76 (D) 0.78(D) 075(D) 0.90 0.85 0.85 Ashland St (OR 66) Washington St & ,.i 0.90 0.85 0.85 Ashland St (OR 66) 1-5 SB Ramps & ' ' , 0.53 (A) 0.85 0.75 - Ashland St (OR 66) 0.69 (C) 1-5 NB Ramps & - Ashland St (OR 66) ' I(F) U.27 (A) 0.69 (B) U.54 (6) 0.53 (B) 0.85 0.75 Clover Ln & Ashland 0.74 (B) 0.70.74 (D) 0.74 (D) 0.74 (D) 0.74 (F) 0.74 (D) 0.90 0.85 0.85 St (OR 66) E. Main St/Oak Knoll 0 & Ashland St (OR 66) .62 (D) 0.62 (D) 0.62 (D) 0.62 (C) 0.62 (C) 0.63 (D) 0.63 (C) 0.90 0.85 0.85 Notes: 1. For unsignalized intersections, the v/c and LOS are for the critical movement, which Is typically a stopped side street movement. For signalized intersections the v/c and LOS are for the overall intersection. 2. Intersections with v/c ratios that do not meet the applicable mobility standard are shaded in black. 3. 1999 Oregon Highway Plan Mobility Standards (Table 6); applies to No-Build only. 4. 2003 ODOT Highway Design Manual Mobility Standards (Table 10-1): applies to build alternatives. 5. Ashland Municipal Code requires that traff ic operations on City facilities do not exceed capacity (v/c < 1.00) and defers to ODOT mobility standards (HDM shown) for intersections with State highways within the City. This can increase the potential risk of collisions. If land develops to the extent projected by Land Use Scenario #1, some mitigation at Washington Street may be necessary. A possible mitigation could include turn restrictions through installation of a non-traversable median along Ashland Street. Ultimately, the Washington Street approach to Ashland Street should be closed and traffic routed to Tolman Creek Road.3 All other study area intersections are expected to operate with acceptable v/c ratios under this land use scenario. Long queuing on the northbound approach at the Tolman Creek intersection indicates the potential future need for intersection improvements, such as an additional northbound approach lane, if the pace of development significantly surpasses what is projected in the RVMPO model. 3 Signalization would reduce delays for vehicles on Washington Street. However, projected intersection traffic volumes do not meet volume-based signal warrants. Furthermore, a signal at Washington Street would not comply with ODOT access management and signal spacing standards. Therefore, signalization does not appear to be a viable mitigation measure. DRAFT TAMP: 1-5 Interchange 14 (Green Springs) 4-25 Attachment A-3 June 2010 Table 4-9. 95th Percentile Queues (in feet) - 2030 Land Use Scenario #1 Conditions No- 3-lane 3-Lane 4-Lane S-Lane Intersection Movement Build Bridge w/loop Bridge Bridge SPUI DDI Tolman Creek Rd & EBL 200 175 175 175 175 175 175 Ashland St (OR 66) EBT/R 24502 350 325 400 350 475 400 WBL 125 200 175 175 175 175 200 WBT/R 150 325 325 350 350 525 450 NBL 150 125 125 125 125 125 125 NBT/R 825 800 900 875 875 700 525 SBL 125 125 125 125 `125 125 125- SBT/R 1575 350 350 375 300 250 300 Washington St & Ashland NBL 100 125 125 125 125 125 125 St (OR 66) WBL 50 75 75 75 75 50 75 1-5 SB Ramps & Ashland St SBL 650 175 175 175 175 200 175 (OR 66) SBR 750 225 275 225 200 0 150 WBL 100 450 350 250 50 75 125 100 150 250 125 EBT 255 275 200 300 175 175 EBT/R 275 250 275 275 25 100 1-5 NB Ramps & Ashland St NBL 75 75 100 75 75 50 (OR 66) NBR 50 50 50 50 25 50 EBL 2 400 225 225 225 200 3550 EBT 475 350 75 175 150 WBT 325 200 225 250 100 WBR 225 150 200 125 50 Clover In & Ashland St NBL/R 125 350 200 200 250 125 200 (OR 66) WBL 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 E. Main/Oak Knoll & NBL/T/R 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 Ashland St (OR 66) SBL 100 100 100 100 125 125 100 SBT/R 175 175 175 125 125 150 125 WBL/T/R 25 25-. 25 25 25 - 25 25 EBL/T/R 150 150 150 150 150 175 175 Notes: 1. Shaded cells indicate either free or nonexistent movements where queues are not generated. 2. Queue spills into downstream intersection. The potential improvements associated with this land use scenario do not constitute recommendations, but merely potential future needs. The potential needs are based on the projections of a speculative land use scenario and neither on the RVMPO model nor any proposed development. Future analysis will be required to determine appropriate mitigation as land use changes occur and as new development are proposed. DRAFT LAMP: 1-5 Interchange 14 (Green Springs) 4-26 Attachment A-4 June 2010 2030 Land Use Intensification Scenario #2 he calculated v/c ratios at the interchange ramp terminals and at all study area intersections east of the intersection are generally lower than those for Land Use Scenario #1 as displayed in Table 4-10, and the operational differences between interchange types remain consistent with those described for the baseline land use scenario. This land use scenario causes the calculated v/c ratio at the northbound ramp terminal to marginally exceed the HDM mobility standard of 0.75 under the three-lane bridge design. Table 4-10. Intersection Traffic Operations - Land Use Scenario #2 Conditions Interchange Alternative' 3-Lane 3-Lane 4-Lane 5-Lane Mobility Standard No-Build Bridge w/Loop Bridge Bridge SPUI DDI WC Ration Intersection WC (LOS) WC (LOS) V/C (LOS) V/C (LOS) WC (LOS) V/c (LOS) WC (LOS) OHP; HDM4 Citys Tolman Creek Rd & o.as (F) o_ss (F) ass ru o as (E ~ o_as (D) ~ : ~ : • 0.90 0.85 o.Bs Ashland St (OR 66) Washington St & Ashland St (OR 66) r r ' r' " 0.90 0.85 0.85 1-5 SB Ramps & 1 0.68 (B) 0.68 (B) 0.68 (B) 0.68 (B) 0.51(A) 0.85 0.75 - Ashland St (OR 66) 0.70 (B) 1-5 NB Ramps & 1 0.14 (B) 0.58(8) 0.58(8) 0.39 (B) 0.85 0.75 - Ashland St (OR 66) Clover Ln & Ashland 0.47 (B) 0.48 (D) 0.48 (C) 0.49 (C) 0.49 (C) 0.48 (C) 0.48 (B) 0.90 0.85 0.85 St (OR 66) E. Main St/Oak Knoll 0.25 (B) 0.29 (C) 0.29 (B) 0.29 (B) 0.29 (B) 0.30 (B) 0.30 (B) 0.90 0.85 0.85 & Ashland St (OR 66) Notes: 1. For unsignalized intersections, the v/c and LOS are for the critical movement, which is typically a stopped side street movement. For signalized intersections the v/c and LOS are for the overall intersection. 2. Intersections with v/c ratios that do not meet the applicable mobility standard are shaded in black. 3. 1999 Oregon Highway Plan Mobility Standards (Table 6); applies to No-Build only. 4. 2003 ODOT Highway Design Manual Mobility Standards (Table 10-1): applies to build alternatives. 5. Ashland Municipal Code requires that traffic operations on City facilities do not exceed capacity (v/c < 1.00) and defers to ODOT mobility standards (HDM shown) for intersections with State highways within the City. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIF This can increase the potential risk of collisions. If land develops to the extent projected by Land Use Scenario #2, some mitigation at Washington Street will be necessary. A possible mitigation could include turn restrictions through installation of a non-traversable median along Ashland Street. Ultimately, the Washington Street approach to Ashland Street should be closed and traffic routed to DRAFT TAMP: 1-5 Interchange 14 (Green Springs) 4-27 Attachment A-5 June 2010 Tolman Creek Road 4. Hence, this measure is listed as a medium/long term action of the access management strategy and plan as described in Section 6. At the Tolman Creek intersection the analyses of this land use scenario revealed significant queuing and calculated v/c ratios at or marginally above the mobility standard threshold (see Table 4-11). The projected westbound left-turn volumes approach levels that may warrant an additional westbound left-turn lane. Dual westbound left-turn lanes would require widening of Tolman Creek for several hundred feet to the south of Ashland Street to accommodate two southbound receiving lanes. Mitigation for long queues on the northbound approach may include widening and provision of an additional northbound approach lane. It should be noted that closing or restricting some turn movements at Washington Street could create increased vehicular demand at the Tolman Creek intersection and increase the likelihood that one or more of the above-noted improvements would be needed. Additionally, constricted roadway geometry (curb-to-curb width) will limit the ability to maneuver U-Turns at the Tolman Creek intersection to passenger cars and small trucks. Larger vehicles will need to either proceed straight through the intersection or turn onto the cross street to find a more accessible locations to reverse course. Table 4-11. 95th Percentile Queues (in feet) - 2030 Land Use Scenario #2 Conditions No- 3-Lane 3-Lane 4-Lane 5-Lane Intersection Movement Build Bridge w/Loop Bridge Bridge sPUI DDI Tolman Creek Rd & EBL 200 175 175 175 175 175 175 Ashland St (OR 66) EBT/R 25502 400 350 425 350 475 550 WBL 150 175 175 175 175 17S 175 WBT/R 125 450 450 350 350 525 525 NBL 150 150 150 150 125 125 125 NBT/R 850 900 900 900 900 700 700 SBL 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 SBT/R 1775 300 275 250 250 250 275 Washington St & Ashland NBL 150 125 125 125 125 125 125 St (OR 66) WBL 25 50 SO 50 50 50 50 1-5 SB Ramps & Ashland St SBL 675 150 150 150 175 200 150 (OR 66) SBR 925 200 200 200 200 25 175 WBL - 50 300 250 125 50 50 50 - WBT 2S 225 125 EBT I 325 350 300 400 12S 175 EBT/R 350 325 350 350 0 100 4 Signalization of the Ashland Street/Washington Street intersection is not a viable mitigation measure. See discussion of Land Use Intensification Scenario #1 in previous section. DRAFT TAMP: 1-5 Interchange 14 (Green Springs) 4-28 Attachment A-6 June 2010 Table 4-11. 95th Percentile Queues (in feet) - 2030 Land Use Scenario #2 Conditions No- 3-Lane 3-Lane 4-Lane 5-lane Intersection Movement Build Bridge w/Loop Bridge Bridge spul DDI 1-5 NB Ramps & Ashland St NBL 825 75 75 75 75 75 50 - (OR 66) NBR 50--- 50 50 ---.-,-50 25 50 EBL z 250 225 175 275 150 4075 - - EBT 350 25 50 - 125 150 WBT 300 250 275 225 100 WBR 225 175 175 50 25 Clover Ln & Ashland St NBL/R 125 200 75 150 125 125 125 (OR 66) WBL 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 E. Main/Oak Knoll & NBL/T/R 50 75 50 5o 5o 50 50 Ashland St (OR 66) SBL 75 75 75 100 75 75 75 SBT/R 50 50 50 50 50 75 75 WBL/T/R 25 25 25 25 25 25 50 EBL/T/R 50 75 75 75 75 75 100 Notes: j 1. Shaded cells indicate either free or nonexistent movements where queues are not generated. 2. Queue spills into downstream intersection. i j The potential improvements associated with this land use scenario do not constitute recommendations, but merely potential future needs. The potential needs are based on the projections of a speculative land use scenario and neither on the RVMPO model nor any proposed development. Future analysis will be required to determine appropriate mitigation as land use changes occur and new development is proposed. Preliminary Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis The need for traffic signals at intersections is established by evaluating existing and projected traffic conditions against traffic signal warrants contained in the 2003 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The MUTCD provides eight signal warrants that consider different conditions under which a new signal may be warranted. The most commonly applied signal warrants are based on traffic volumes, although the MUTCD contains signal warrants based on crash experience, coordinated signal systems, and warrants for signals at pedestrian and school crossings. The 2006 TAR reported the results of MUTCD signal warrants analysis for existing conditions. For years 2010 and 2030 conditions TPAU preliminary traffic signal warrants were evaluated. The TPAU preliminary warrants are based on MUTCD warrants, but require less data. TPAU developed these warrants for the purpose of projecting future traffic signal needs. Meeting traffic signal warrants does not guarantee that a signal shall be installed. Before a signal can be installed a field warrant analysis is conducted by the Region. If warrants are met, the State Traffic Engineer will make the final decision on the installation of a signal. DRAFT TAMP: 1-5 Interchange 14 (Green Springs) 4-29 Attachment B SANDOW ENGINEERING June 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The existing bridge at 1-5 Interchange 14 will be repaired and improved with funding provided by the OTIA III State Bridge Delivery Program. The bridge repairs will consist of a rehabilitation of the deck and bridge rails. Traffic signals will be installed at the ramp terminal intersections, and the bridge will be widened to provide three traffic lanes, bicycle lanes, and 7-1/2-foot sidewalks on both sides. The construction is scheduled to begin in mid 2010 and be completed by mid 2012. As outlined in Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 734-051-0155(7), an Interchange Area Management Plan (TAMP) should be developed when there are substantial modifications to interchanges. Public investments for major interchange improvements are very costly and it is in the interest of the State, local governments, citizens of Oregon, and the traveling public to ensure that the interchange functions as it was designed for as long a time period as possible. Development of this IAMP is the planning process intended to assess existing and potential land use and transportation conditions, opportunities and limitations, identify long-range needs, and identify recommended improvements to the Green Springs Interchange (1-5 Interchange 14). This process includes identifying necessary improvements to the local street network in the vicinity of the interchanges to ensure consistency with operational standards. Problem Statement The bridge structure, constructed in 1961, has been deemed structurally and geometrically deficient due to cracked cross beams, poor deck condition, narrow bridge width, substandard bridge railing, and substandard vertical clearance. Additionally, there are currently no provisions for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Analysis of existing and projected future traffic volumes show that the existing bridge and ramps are functionally obsolete to adequately serve the long-range transportation needs. Significant queuing and delay currently exists on several unsignalized approaches. As the area grows and traffic volumes increase, queuing and delays are expected to increase if no improvements are made to the interchange and the transportation system in the vicinity. The crash rate at the interchange is higher than the statewide average rate for comparable facilities, and the site ranks in the top ten percent of ODOT Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) sites. These approaches create potential vehicular conflicts and delay that may impact safety and traffic operations at the interchange. IAMP Goals and Objectives The goals of this IAMP are to develop a plan for improvements that can be implemented over time to improve safety and operations of Interchange 14, identify adequate local street network improvements, and protect the investment in 1-5 and its interchanges by maintaining the function of the interchange. DRAFT TAMP: 1-5 Interchonge 14 (Green Springs) i Tom Chamberlain, Presided[ • - Barbara Byrd, Secretary-Treasurer 15031232 - 1195 3645 SE 32.d Ave p Portland, OR 97202 araflcio.or0 TO: MayorStromberg Members of the Ashland City Council CC: Assistant City Attorney Katrina L Brown City Attorney David H. Lohman FR: Evan Lesley, Oregon AFL-CIO RE, ' Amendment to Ordinance Bill No. 3152 My name is Evan Lesley, Regional Staff of the Oregon AFL-CIO. I'm contacting you today representing the over 300,000 working people of our state and affiliate local unions. The City of Ashland is considering code changes to regulate Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) like Uber and Lyft. The State Federation of Labor has been the long-term advocate for all workers in Oregon's economy and with this key role in mind, our organization has significant concerns about the "gig economy". In the last'20 years, we have seen a change in the employment model where companies are frequently classifying workers as Independent contractors and insulating themselves against liabilities and employment taxes. This shift to "gig" jobs has left many workers in our ; community without basic protections. We continue to be ready and willing to help local authorities grapple with this evolving issue. We know that there are significant concerns from drivers and the community about fairness as it relates to every component of our transportation system, especially TNCs. Last month Oregon AFL-CIO President Tom Chamberlain mailed you a packet to provide you with background information on the influence of TNCs such as Uber and Lyft in politics - as well as the impact thatthe so-called 'gig economy is having on the lives of working people. I have included those resources at the end of this communique should you-be interested in reviewing them prior to the upcoming May l:t City Council meeting. The Oregon AFL-CIO remains committed to being a voice for all workers, including Transportation Network Company drivers as well as traditional transportation workers. That is why we are respectfully calling upon you to honor the Council values of participatory government and an economy that works for all through implementing a Transportation Industry Board Policy for the City of Ashland (see attached) alongside changes in regulation which would allow companies like Uber and Lyft to operate within Ashland city limits. The Board would serve to examine conditions for drivers and riders in the transportation industry, and include representatives from populations reliant on public transportation such as senior citizens and people with disabilities; drivers from TNC and taxi services; and representatives from TNC and taxi management. Their charge of duties would include: • Investigating conditions and practices in the TNC industry and advising the Council on standards that ensure safe, reliable transportation by TNCs within the city, with emphasis on consumer and driver protections and establishing fair rates and driver compensation; • Considering the effect ofTNCs on the transportation system overall, including the financial and operational viability of the public transit system, and on transportation options for people of color, people with disabilities, and other people with equity concerns; • Conducting public hearings and submitting to the Council a report, including its recommendations as to policy changes to carry out the purposes of this Act. • Reviewing disputes between drivers and TNCs or consumers and TNCs regarding compliance with standards applicable to the industry that are brought to its attention, eitherthrough direct communications to the Board chair orat public hearing. Drivers deserve to have a voice at the table. TNCs like Uber have shown us over and over again that they will blatantly disregard local authorityto turn an enormous profit on the backs of working people. We advise you to learn from the experiences of other cities all across the world and consider alternative models for-addressing historic inequities in the transportation. system. We ask that you do not move forward with this Council Bill until there is some structure in place to allow TNC drivers to have a voice in the industry here in Ashland. If you have any questions about our work on policies related to TNCs, do not hesitate to contact me at (541) 890-7545 or evan@oraflcio.org. Further Resources Uber State Interference: How TNCs Buy. Bully. And Bamboozle Their Way To Deregulation National Employment Law Project, January 18, 2018 • Recommendations to legislators from this comprehensive report include: o. State legislators should reject efforts to preempt local authority with respect to TNCs, and instead delegate regulation of TNCs to local transportation authorities, just as many states have done for taxi regulation. Alternatively, they should work closely with cities to develop "policies that establish a statewide floor, allowing cities flexibility to customize TNC regulations. They should reverse laws that strip drivers of their rights as employees. o Local legislators should require TNCs to comply with local labor standards and be alert to any attempts to define drivers' employment relationship as independent contractors in city legislation and rulemaking; require TNCs to share, with appropriate privacy safeguards,.the data that communities need to ensure that TNCs are strengthening rather than undermining mobility and transportation; and learn about and support innovative ways to ensure for-hire drivers can form alternative business models, like cooperatives and nonprofit organizations. A Drivers' Suicide Reveals the.Dark Side of the Gig Economy. New York Times, February 6, 2019 - • Following the suicide of a taxi driver in New York City, this article examines the economic hardships of the 'gig economy.' I chose to include this article as part of this packet because it shines a light on how Transportation Network Companies' political influence leaves traditional transportation workers behind economically. The Economics of Ride-Hailing: Driver Revenue, Expenses and Taxes MIT Center for Ener4V and Environmental Policy Research, February 2018 • Provides a detailed analysis of Uber and Lyft ride-hailing driver economics by pairing results from a survey of over 1100 drivers with detailed vehicle cost information. Results show that per hour worked, median profit from driving is $3.37/hour before taxes, and 74% of drivers earn less than the minimum wage in their state. I PROPOSED CITY OF ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY BOARD POLICY Prepared by National Employment Law Project & The Oregon AFL-CIO DEFINITIONS As used in this Chapter, unless the context requires otherwise: 1. Board means the transportation network industry board established in this chapter; 2. Council means the City of Ashland City Council; 3. Mayor means the City of Ashland Mayor; 4. Transportation Network Company (TNC) means any entity or organization, whether a corporation, partnership, or sole proprietor, that connects passengers with affiliated TNC drivers and TNC vehicles through an Internet-based digital or software platform/application operated by the TNC. 5. Transportation Network Company (TNC) Driver means any individual operating a PFHT vehicle who connects with passengers through an Internet-based digital or software platform/application operated by an affiliated TNC. TRANSPORTATION NETWORK INDUSTRY BOARD -STAFFING AND MEMBERSHIP There is established in the City of Ashland a transportation network industry board. The Board shall be made up of seven members, to be appointed by the Council and Mayor. These shall be two representatives of Transportation Network Companies, three Transportation Network Company drivers or their representatives, one public member representing people with disabilities and one public member representing Ashland communities traditionally underserved by public transportation; Board members' terms shall be staggered, so that one TNC representative, two drivers and one public representative shall expire on [date that makes a three-year term], and one TNC representative, one driver and one public member shall expire on [two-year term] The Council and Mayor must annually select one member as Chair. Vacancies shall be filled by appointment for the unexpired terms. The members of the board shall not receive a salary or other compensation but shall be paid actual and necessary traveling expenses while engaged in the performance of their duties. POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE BOARD. i 1. The Board shall be charged with investigating conditions and practices in the TNC industry and advising the Council on standards that ensure safe, reliable transportation by TNCs within the city, with emphasis on consumer and driver protections and establishing fair rates and driver compensation. The Board will also investigate and consider the effect of TNCs on the transportation system overall, including the financial and operational viability of the public transit system, and on transportation options for people of color, people with disabilities, and other people with equity concerns; Within 60 days of the appointment of the board, it shall a) conduct public hearings and b) submit to the Council a report, including its recommendations as to policy changes to carry out the purposes of this Act. The report and recommendations may be finalized only after a vote of all the sitting members of the Board, along with an accounting of the yea or nay votes. The report and recommendations shall be submitted to the Council Staff, who will transmit them to the City Council and Mayor. City of Ashland staff shall draft legislative language from the recommendations, and within 60 days of receiving the report and language, the City Council shall consider proposed legislation, PROPOSED CITY OF ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY BOARD POLICY Prepared by National Employment Law Project & The Oregon AFL-CIO 2. The Board is also empowered to resolve disputes between drivers and TNCS or consumers and TNCs regarding compliance with standards applicable to the industry that are brought to its attention, either through direct communications to the Board chair or at public hearing. Whenever a dispute is brought to the attention of the Board, Disputes must be resolved, through a process of binding mediation, within 8 weeks of formal presentation to the Board. I 3. In carrying out its work under paragraphs 1 and 2, the Board shall power to administer oaths and to require by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses, and the production of all books, records, data, algorithms, and other evidence relative to any matters under inquiry. Such subpoenas shall be signed and issued by the chair of the TNC Board with the assistance of the City Attorney and shall be served and have the same effect as if issued out of the district court. The Board shall have power to cause depositions of witnesses residing within or without the state to be taken in the manner prescribed for like depositions in civil actions in the district court. The Board shall not be bound by common law or statutory rules of procedure or evidence. 4. The Board shall be staffed by City Staff already assigned to TNC/PPV, convene its meetings and bring pertinent research, and industry experts before the Board. 5. After the Board has issued its initial report, it shall meet quarterly, or by call of the chair in response to disputes. The Board shall devote such time as it deems appropriate, at each quarterly meeting, to public hearing. Any member of the public may bring issues regarding driver standards before the Council and Mayor, which must resolve those issues within 12 weeks of formal presentation to the Board. From: Jon Isaacs, Public Affairs Manager, Uber <administration@ashland.or.us> Sent: Monday, April 30,2018 10:29 AM To: City Council Subject: Council Contact Form - Jon Isaacs, Public Affairs Manager, Uber - 4/30/2018 Name: Jon Isaacs, Public Affairs Manager, Uber Email: jisaacs@uber.com Subject: Comments on proposed Ordinance No. 3152 Message: Ashland City Council, My name is Jon Isaacs, and I am the Public Affairs Manager for Uber in Oregon, based out of Portland, OR. I apologize that I am unable to make these comments in person. at your council meeting this evening. I am writing to express Uber's opposition to the ordinanc a as prop osed. As previously stated,.if the ordinance is approved without changes Uber will continue to decline to include Ashland pick-up service in the Southern Oregon region. Drivers will continue to conduct drop-offs in Ashland. Uber has transparently made our position on the draft ordinance clear to the city staff for several months. The previously provided e-mail clearly explains the changes that need to be made to make Uber's popular, on demand service available in Ashland. We remain hopeful that these changes will be made by the council. By making the requested changes you will align Ashland's regulations with Bend, Salem, Corvallis, Eugene, and, most importantly, Medford. Rideshare service simply will not work for drivers or riders if Ashland adopts regulations that are out of alignment with the rest of the region. Uber's app connects a statewide, national, and global network of riders with drivers who frequently conduct trips between jurisdict ions. Ube is on demand service simply does not work when the regulations do not align between neighboring cities. This is why we worked so closely with, for example, Bend and Redmond, to align their local ordinances. Salem/Keizer and Corvallis/Albany are other examples of neighboring cities that took the necessary steps to modernize and align their for hire transportation regulations to bring rideshare to their communities. It isn't clear to us why Ashland isn't taking the same successful approach. We know that there is demand for Uber in Ashland. Drivers already complete hundreds of trips a week to Ashland. We have also received many questions as to why Uber is unavailable in Ashland. We encourage you to make the changes necessary so we can work with you to improve transportation for Ashland and the entire region. I am available any time via phone or e-mail if you have any questions. Sincerely, ]on Isaacs Public Affairs Manager, Uber < jtd> PROCLAMATION • PEOPLE riding bicycles is a viable and environmentally sound form of transportation and an excellent form of recreation. • Approximately 60 percent of Rogue Valley residents ride bikes through educational programs, races, trail riding, and charity events as well as daily activities such commuting, running errand, visiting friends, or just getting out and going for a ride. • Bicycling provides economic, health, and scenic benefits to citizens of Jackson County and the world. • Oregon hosts 54 or more major bicycle events, including the local Up and Down Ride, and promotes bicycle tourism that attract thousands of cross-country and local bicyclists each year. • These bicycling activities and attractions have great potential to have a positive impact on Southern Oregon's economy and tourism industry and to stimulate economic development by making the region attractive to businesses and citizens who enjoy the out of doors and healthy lifestyles. • Creating bicycle-friendly communities has been shown to improve citizens' health, well- being, and quality of life, to boost community spirit, to improve traffic safety, and to reduce pollution and congestion. • May has been declared National Bike Month for each of the last 61 years, and is so again in 2018. • The League of American Bicyclists, bicycle clubs, schools, parks and recreation departments, police departments, hospitals, companies and civic groups throughout Oregon will be promoting bicycling as a leisure activity as well as an environmentally-friendly alternative to the automobile during the month of May. • The education of bicyclists and motorists as to the proper and safe operation of bicycles is important to ensure the safety and comfort of all road users. • The creation of an "all ages and abilities" bicycle network is essential to creating a transportation system that is suitable for people of all ages and abilities to safely and confidently ride a bike. • Oregon law provides, through ORS 811.065, special passing requirements for motorists and require that the separation distance must be equal to the "fall-over" height of the cyclist: NOW THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of Ashland, do proclaim the Month of May 2018 as National Bike Month and the week of May 14-18,2018 as Bike to Work Week. And urges all who support bicycling to participate in the events planned and urges all local and state roadway jurisdictions to ensure that bike facilities serve all ages and abilities. Dated this 151h day of May, 2018 John Stromberg, Mayor Melissa Huhtala, City Recorder . Council Business Meeting May 15 Title: Ashland Police Department's Annual use of Force Report From: Tighe O'Meara Police Chief Tighe.omeara@ashland.or.us Summary: Since 2008 the police department has come before Council to provide an annual use of force report. This presentation has grown in scope and now includes use of force, crime and clearance rates and an update on the enhanced law enforcement area (FLEA). Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: No action is necessary. Staff Recommendation: N/A Resource Requirements: N/A Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: 47. Keep the Council informed of organizational activity and provide timely information for Council decision-making. Background and Additional Information: During 2017 the Police Department used force 13 times. This represents a 56% decrease from 2016, but also puts the department on par with 2015. "There was one instance of the Taser conducted energy weapon being used in 2017. There were three instances of the use of pepper spray in 2017. The less lethal shotgun bean bag round was not deployed at all in 2017. The straight baton was used in one case in 2017. There were four instances of officers being injured, with all of the injuries being fairly minor. In one of these instances the officer received medical treatment and was placed on light duty for a short period. Of the 13 instances of use of force, seven resulted in the prisoner complaining of an injury. All of those complaints were minor in nature, and in no case did the prisoner require medical care. Fifty-four percent of the use of force incidents involved a person under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Sixty-nine percent of the use of force incidents occurred at night time. In 2017 APD handled over 27,000 calls for service and generated 4,436 case reports. This means that less than one half of one percent of the cases that were handled by the APD resulted in a use of force. The department's use of force review board reviewed all instances of the use of force. "Twelve of the thirteen incidents were deemed to be entirely within policy. One of the reviews resulted in the board finding that a different amount of and type of force should have been employed, as well as Page 1 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND different tactics in handling the call. In this case the officer received corrective coaching. In this isolated incident the suspect was not injured and complained of minor pain. During 2016 Ashland officers received a total of 693.5 hours of use of force training. Crime rate is based on the number of part one crimes occurring in a jurisdiction. Part one crimes are those that are reported annually to the FBI for inclusion into the Uniform Crime Report. They are homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, auto theft, arson and larceny. In 2017 the city saw a total of 799 part one crimes. This is down slightly from the 829 reported in 2016. For further comparison in 2015 the PD took 639 part one cases, in 2014 we took 629 and 2013 we took 694. Violent crime is defined as homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault. There were 40 violent crimes reported to the Ashland Police Department in 2017, practically equal with the 39 seen in 2016. And still up from 20 reported in 2015. Clearance rates for part one crime remain high at 36%. Clearance rates for violent crime remains very high at 80%. The Enhanced Law Enforcement Area (ELEA) ordinance has been in effect since August of 2012. The ELEA is roughly defined as downtown. In this area we see a concentrated number of complaints and disorderly behavior as this is the focal gathering point for many members of the community. A conviction of three or more qualifying violations (or crimes) in Ashland Municipal Court within a six-month period may result in a person being expelled from the downtown area. The qualifying violations are: scattering rubbish; unnecessary noise; dogs-control required; consumption of alcohol; open container of alcohol; dog license required; or use of marijuana in public. In 2017 there were 359 ELEA violation convictions in the municipal court. There were 15 people expelled from the downtown area and there were six people charged with persistent violator failure to appear under the city ordinance. The ELEA continues to be a valuable tool to address chronic negative behavior. Attachments: None I Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Business Meeting May 15, 0: Title: Audit Committee Appointment From: Mark Welch Administrative Services Director Mark.Welch@ashland.or.us Summary: Consistent with Ashland Municipal Code 2.11.010, the Municipal Audit Commission has a membership structure of four members: (1) Mayor or Councilor; (1) Appointed Budget Committee Member (2) Citizens at large. The current open position on the Commission is the appointed Budget Committee Member. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: I move to appoint Garrett Furuichi to the Municipal Audit Commission with a term expiring December 31, 2018. Staff Recommendation: That Council fill the position with the appointment of Citizens Budoet Committee appointed member Garrett Furuichi. Resource Requirements: N/A Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: N/A Backiround and Additional Information: The Municipal Audit Commission has a membership that includes a member of appointed Budget Committee. At the March I9th Study Session. Garrett Furuichi volunteered to he a member of the Municipal Audit Commission. At Council's request, Staff reached out to the appointed members of the Budget Committee to ensure everyone was aware of this opportunity and no additional appointed members chose to add their names to the potential appointment list. Page 1 of 1 CITY OF -ASHLAND i Council Business Meeting May 15, 0: Title- 2018 Annual Reappointments to Commissions, Committees and Boards From: Melissa Huhtala City Recorder Melissa.huhtala@ashland.or.us Summary: Approval of the Mayor's recommendations for the Annual Appointments to the various Commissions, Committees and Boards. li Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: I move to approve the Mayor's recommendations for the Annual Appointments to the various Commissions, Committees and Boards. Staff Recommendation: N/A Resource Requirements: N/A Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: AMC 2.04.090 (C) Regular Commission and Board Membership Appointments Except for the Municipal Audit Commission (AMC 2.11) all Regular advisory committees and boards not required by state law to be appointed by the City Council shall be appointed by the Mayor with the consent of the Council. The Mayor may request assistance or recommendations from Councilors in making appointments. Background and Additional Information: The ending term for most Commission/Board members is April 30, 2018. Proper notice was made in our local newspaper and the City's website on the vacancies. Appointments are 3-year appointments with terms ending April 30, 2021 with exception of the Planning Commission which are 4-year appointments with terms ending April 30, 2022 and the Band Board which are 1-year terms. All appointments at this time are for members who are asking for reappointment. Any new applications for appointments will come to a future meeting for council confirmation. Attachments: List of reappointments Page I of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND 2018 LIST OF ANNUAL REAPPOINTMENTS Airport Commission 2 Vacancies-Terms ending 04/30/2021 Reappointment Barney Spera David Wolske Band Board 7 Vacancies - Terms ending 04/30/19 Reappointment Tim McCartney Don Bieghler Dave Hoxie Ed Wight Bruce Dresser Ling Helphand Building Appeals Board 2 Vacancies - Terms ending 04/30/2021 Reappointment Royce Duncan Forest Lands Commission: 2 Vacancies -Terms ending 04/30/2021 Reappointment Shannon Downey Historic Commission: 3 Vacancies (2) Terms ending 04/30/2021 (1) Term ending 04/30/2020 Reappointment Sam Whitford Dale Shostrom Housing & Human Svcs Commission: 3 Vacancies - Terms ending 04/30/2021 Reappointment Gina DuQuenne Tom Gunderson Public Arts Commission: 5 Vacancies - Terms ending 04/30/2021 Reappointment Sandy Friend Dana Bussell Transportation Commission: 3 Vacancies - Terms ending 04/30/2021 Reappointment Joseph Graf Tree Commission: 3 Vacancies (2) Terms ending 04/30/2021 Term ending 04/30/2019 Reappointment Russell Neff Wildlife Mitigation Commission: Tracy Peddicord Bruce Moats Stephen Gange Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Business Meetin May 15, 0: Title: Jackson County, Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan From: Michael D'Orazi Fire Chief michael.dorazi@ashland.or.us Summary: The Jackson County, Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (NHMP) has received pre-adoption approval from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and has been adopted by the Jackson County Board of County Commissioners. The NHMP must also be adopted by each participating agency in order to receive final approval from FEMA. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: I move to approve adoption of the NHMP Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of the Nil MP Resource Requirements: There is no cost associated with adoption of the NHMP Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: I I Prepare the community for natural and human-made disasters Backl4round and Additional Information: Natural hazards pose a threat to the people, property and infrastructure of the City of Ashland. Undertaking hazard mitigation programs helps to reduce the potential for harm from these disasters. Additionally, an adopted NHMP is required as a condition for pre and post disaster mitigation grants and funds from FEMA. The City of Ashland participated in the FEMA proscribed planning process and has identified natural hazard risks and prioritized actions to mitigate the vulnerability of the community. which are included in the NHMP. Attachments: Jackson County, Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Ashland Resolution 2018-16 Page I of I CITY OF ASHLAND Jackson County Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Jackson County and the Cities of: Ashland, Butte Falls, Eagle Point, Jacksonville, Phoenix, Rogue River, Shady Cove and Talent V ' It W_ 4W.- r ^y~ r i y 1 ~ty~ ~ a ~ r iH ;ate •Y~ z~_~._`f•F._ (3~ ~~:'Fw: ir:'`_ rys t ,a'~~ `u its December 2017 Volume 1: Basic Plan Prepared for: Jackson County Emergency Management Prepared by: University of Oregon Community Service Center Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience naeco UNIVERSITY OF OREGON PPPM DISA ST'ER I x e s 1 1 c;: r. E Department of P1wring, Public Policy and Manegm m CSC School of Archtecwre and Allied Ana Community Scn ice Center 0 This Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan was prepared by: JACKSON OREGON CSC 1'6 t 1 P11111 "1N 1 COUNTY DISASTER RESILIENCEI Community Service Center 0 r i 9 0 11 With support from: UNIVERSITY OF OREGON PPPM O Department of Planning, Pudic Policy and Management School of Architecture and Allied Arts Planning grant funding provided by: ~pARThj .0 FEMA l~IV D SEGJ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program Grant: EMS-2016-PC-0001 Sub-grant Application Reference: PDMC-PL-10-OR-2015-003 and Additional Support Provided by: cot o6M Olt s s Vi r pI C V Land Conwrvatton - ' and Development Mt: This material is a result of tax-supported research and, as such, is not copyrightoble. I It may be freely reprinted with the customary crediting of the source. SPECIALTHANKS & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Jackson County developed this Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (MNHMP, NHMP) through a regional partnership funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Competitive Grant Program: EMS-2016-PC- 0001, Sub-grant Application Reference: PDMC-PL-10-OR-2015-003. This updated Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan is a collaboration between Jackson County and the cities of Ashland, Butte Falls, Eagle Point, Jacksonville, Phoenix, Rogue River, Shady Cove and Talent. Planning process, plan templates and plan development support provided by the Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience (OPDR) at the University of Oregon's Community Service Center. Special thanks to Sara Rubrecht, Jackson County Emergency Manager for her vision, passion and positive outlook throughout the plan update process. Jackson County NHMP Update Steering Committees Jackson County • Convener, Sara Rubrecht, Jackson County Emergency Manager • Jim Buck, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Michael Cavallaro, Rogue Valley Council of Governments • Tracy DePew, Cow Creek Band of the Umpqua Tribe of Indians • Ray DiPasquale, City of Phoenix • Brian Fish, Medford Fire and Rescue • Justin Gindlesperger, Jackson County Development Services • Jeremiah Griffin, Oregon Department of Transportation • Kevin Harris, Emergency Communications of Southern Oregon • Shavon Haynes, Oregon Water Resources Department, District 13 • Stephanie Holtey, City of Central Point • J Domis, Jackson County Roads and Parks • Wendy Jones, Rogue Community College • Whitney Juszczak, Jackson County Health and Human Services • Laura Leebrick, Rogue Waste, Inc. • Abraham Loebs, American Red Cross • Jim Lunders, Jackson County Vector Control District • Shane Macuk, Rogue Valley Sewer • Larry Masterman, City of Medford Emergency Manager • Mike McLaughlin, Applegate Valley Fire District • Karim Naguib, Jackson County GIS • Aaron Ott, Asante • Tanya Phillips, Jackson County Health and Human Services • Aaron Prunty, City of Shady Cove • Mark Reagles, City of Rogue River • Ryan Sandler, National Weather Service I • David Searcy, Medford Water Commission • David Sommer, Ashland School District • Jon Sullivan, Rogue Valley Transportation District • Maureen Swift, Jackson County Library District • Carl Tappert, Rogue Valley Sewer • Michelle Taylor, American Red Cross • Randy White, Jackson County Soil and Water Conservation District • Ted Zuk, Jackson County Development Services City of Ashland • Convener, David Shepherd, Fire Chief • Mike Morrison, Public Works • Fred Creek, Southern Oregon University • Aaron Ott, Asante • Janice Tacconi, Oregon Shakespeare Festival • Bill Molnar, Ashland Community Development • Meiwen Richard, Ashland Chamber of Commerce • Kate Jackson, Resident • David Sommer, Ashland School District Town of Butte Falls • Convener, Linda Spencer, Town of Butte Falls Mayor • Chris Bray, Town of Butte Falls Public Works • Trish Callahan, Town Council (Business Owner) • Jeff Gorman, Butte Falls Fire • Lori Paxton, Town of Butte Falls Recorder • Fred Phillips, Volunteer City of Eagle Point • Convener, Vern Thompson, Eagle Point Police Chief • Robert Miller, City of Eagle Point Public Works Director • Mike Upston, City of Eagle Point Planning Director City of Jacksonville • Convener, Devin Hull, Jacksonville Fire Chief • Stacey Bray, City of Jacksonville Administration • Dick Converse, City of Jacksonville Planning • Ian Foster, City of Jacksonville Planning City of Phoenix • Convener, Ray DiPasquale, Public Works Director • Evan MacKenzie, Planning Director • Dave Kanner, (interim) City Manager • Derek Bowker, Police Chief • Chris Luz, Mayor • Micki Summerhays, Planning Commissioner City of Rogue River • Convener, Mark Reagles, City of Rogue River Administrator • Mike Bollweg, City of Rogue River Public Works Director • Bonnie Honea, City of Rogue River Finance Director • James Price, Rogue River Fire DistrictDean Stirm, City of Rogue River Planning Commissioner • Pam VarnArsdale, City of Rogue River Mayor City of Shady Cove • Convener, Aaron Prunty, City of Shady Cove Administrator • Dick Converse, City of Shady Cove Planning • Dawn Edwards, City of Shady Cove Planning Commission • Ed Mayer, City of Shady Cove Volunteer • Paula Trudeau, City of Shady Cove Planning Commission • Tom Sanderson, City of Shady Cove Mayor City of Talent • Convener, Curtis Whipple, Talent Police Chief • Jennifer Snook, Talent Police Department • Zac Moody, City of Talent Community Development • Brett Marshall • Vince Lockett • Charles Hanley • Joi Riley • Kittie Harrison • Chance Metcalf Community Service Center Team • Josh Bruce, Director OPDR • Michael Howard, Assistant Program Manager • Tarik Rawlings, Graduate Employee Additional Thanks: To the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries for assistance with hazard data; the Department of Land Conservation and Development staff in the hazards forflood data, mapping and process support; to the Oregon Military Department Office of Emergency Management for grant administration and process support. About the Community Service Center The Community Service Center (CSC), a research center affiliated with the Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management at the University of Oregon, is an interdisciplinary organization that assists Oregon communities by providing planning and technical assistance to help solve local issues and improve the quality of life for Oregon residents. The role of the CSC is to link the skills, expertise and innovation of higher education with the transportation, economic development and environmental needs of communities and regions in the State of Oregon, thereby providing service to Oregon and learning opportunities to the students involved. About the Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience The Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience (OPDR) is a coalition of public, private and professional organizations working collectively toward the mission of creating a disaster- resilient and sustainable state. Developed and coordinated by the Community Service Center at the University of Oregon, the OPDR employs a service-learning model to increase community capacity and enhance disaster safety and resilience statewide. Plan Template Disclaimer This Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan is based in part on a plan template developed by the Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience. The template is structured to address the requirements contained in 44 CFR 201.6; where language is applicable to communities throughout Oregon, OPDR encourages the use of standardized language. As part of this regional planning initiative, OPDR provided copies of the plan templates to communities for use in developing or updating their hazards mitigation plans. OPDR hereby authorizes the use of all content and language provided to Jackson County in the plan template. TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume I: Basic Plan Plan Summary .................................................................................................................i-1 Section 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................1-1 Section 2: Community Profile .........................................................................................2-1 Section 3: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment ......................................................3-1 Section 4: Mitigation Strategy ........................................................................................4-1 Section 5: Plan Implementation and Maintenance ..........................................................5-1 Volume II: Appendices Appendix A: Glossary and Acronyms A-1 Appendix B: Planning and Public Process B-1 Appendix C: Hazard Analysis ...........................................................................................C-1 Appendix D: Economic Analysis of Natural Hazard Mitigation Projects D-1 Appendix E: Grant Programs and Resources ....................................................................E-1 Appendix F: Community Survey F-1 Appendix G: City of Ashland Hazard Mitigation, Green Infrastructure, and Low Impact Development G-1 Appendix H: Upper Rogue Watershed Multi-Hazard Risk Report H-1 Appendix I: Areas of Mitigation Interest: Upper Rogue .....................................................1-1 Volume III: City Addenda Ashland AA-1 Butte Falls BA-1 Eagle Point ...................................................................................................................EA-1 Jacksonville JA-1 Phoenix PA-1 Rogue River RA-1 Shady Cove ..................................................................................................................SA-1 Talent ..........................................................................................................................TA-1 FIGURES AND TABLES Volume I: Basic Plan Plan Summary Figure PS-1 Understanding Risk ....................................................................................i-11 Table PS-1 Hazard and Vulnerability Assessment Summary ...........................................i-12 Table PS-2 Jackson County High Priority NHMP Actions .................................................i-14 Table PS-3 Ashland High Priority NHMP Actions ............................................................i-14 Table PS-4 Butte Falls High Priority NHMP Actions ........................................................i-15 Table PS-5 Eagle Point High Priority NHMP Actions .......................................................i-15 Table PS-6 Jacksonville High Priority NHMP Actions ......................................................i-16 Table PS-7 Phoenix High Priority NHMP Actions ............................................................i-16 Table PS-8 Rogue River High Priority NHMP Actions i-17 Table PS-9 Shady Cove High Priority NHMP Actions i-17 Table PS-10 Talent High Priority NHMP Actions .............................................................i-18 Section I: Introduction None Section 2: Community Profile Table 2-1 Average Rainfall and Temperatures ................................................................2-3 Figure 2-1 Ecoregions of Jackson County ........................................................................2-4 Table 2-2 Population Estimates for Jackson County and Incorporated Cities ...................2-6 Table 2-3 Population Forecast for Jackson County and Incorporated Cities .....................2-7 Table 2-4 Annual Visitor Estimates in Person Nights .......................................................2-8 Table 2-5 Jackson County Language Barriers ..................................................................2-9 Table 2-6 Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin ................................................................2-10 Table 2-7 Population by Vulnerable Age Groups ..........................................................2-11 Table 2-8 Family vs. Non-Family Households ................................................................2-12 Table 2-9 Household Income .......................................................................................2-13 Table 2-10 Median Household Income .........................................................................2-14 Table 2-11 Poverty Rates .............................................................................................2-15 Table 2-12 Educational Attainment ..............................................................................2-16 Table 2-13 Health Insurance Coverage .........................................................................2-17 Table 2-14 Disability Status .........................................................................................2-17 Figure 2-2 Jackson County PIT Homeless Count (2015) :............................................2-18 Table 2-15 Regional Income Equality ...........................................................................2-20 Table 2-16 Households Spending > 30% of Income on Housing .....................................2-21 Table 2-17 Regional Herfindahl Index Scores ................................................................2-21 Figure 2-3 Unemployment Rate ...........................:.......................................................2-22 Figure 2-4 Jackson County Laborshed ...........................................................................2-23 Table 2-18 Total Employment by industry 2016, Expected Growth 2024 .......................2-24 Table 2-19 Revenue of Top Sectors ..............................................................................2-25 Table 2-20 Housing Profile ......................................................................................:....2-30 Table 2-21 Year Structure Built ....................................................................................2-31 Table 2-22 Community Flood Map History ...................................................................2-32 Table 2-23 Jackson County Dam Inventory ...................................................................2-39 Table 2-24 Bridge Inventory ........................................................................................2-41 i Figure 2-5 Communication Process ..............................................................................2-43 Table 2-25 Historic Places ............................................................................................2-44 Table 2-26 Regional Residential Stability ......................................................................2-46 Table 2-27 Housing Tenure and Vacancy ......................................................................2-47 Section 3: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Figure 3-1 Understanding Risk .......................................................................................3-1 Figure 3-2 Three Phases of a Risk Assessment ................................................................3-2 Table 3-1 Jackson County Hazard Identification ..............................................................3-2 Table 3-2 Drought Summary .........................................................................................3-3 Figure 3-3 SWSI Values for the Rogue & Umpqua Basin (1983-2017) ...............................3-4 Table 3-4 Earthquake Summary - Crustal .......................................................................3-8 Table 3-5 Earthquake Summary - Subduction .................................................................3-8 Figure 3-4 Earthquake Epicenters (1971-2008), Active Faults and Soft Soils .....................3-9 Figure 3-5 Cascadia Subduction Zone Damage Potential ...............................................3-12 Table 3-6 Jackson County Earthquake Damage Summary .............................................3-14 Table 3-7 Rapid Visual Survey Scores ...........................................................................3-16 Table 3-7 Rapid Visual Survey Scores (continued) .........................................................3-17 Table 3-8 Emerging Infectious Disease Summary ..........................................................3-19 Table 3-9 Flood Summary ............................................................................................3-22 Figure 3-6 Special Flood Hazard Area ...........................................................................3-24 Table 3-10 Landslide Summary ....................................................................................3-27 Figure 3-7 Landslide Susceptibility Exposure ...............................................................3-28 Table 3-11 Landslide Susceptibility Exposure ...............................................................3-29 Figure 3-8 Landslide Inventory .....................................................................................3-31 Table 3-12 Windstorm Summary .................................................................................3-34 Table 3-14 Probability of Severe Wind Events (Region 4) ..............................................3-38 Table 3-15 Winter Storm Summary ..............................................................................3-40 Figure 3-9 Oregon Climate. Divisions ............................................................................3-41 Table 3-17 Volcano Summary ......................................................................................3-45 Figure 3-10 Regional Tephra-fall Maps .........................................................................3-46 Table 3-18 Wildfire Summary ......................................................................................3-49 Figure 3-11 Wildfire Risk Assessment - Communities at Risk .......................................3-51 Figure 3-12 Wildland-Urban Interface .........................................................................3-52 Figure 3-13 All Fire Reported in Jackson and Josephine Counties (1992-2016) ...............3-53 Figure 3-14 Large 36 acres) Fire Occurrence (1992-2015) .........................................3-54 Table 3-19 Significant Fires in Jackson County (2000-2011) ...........................................3-55 Table 3-30 Fires by Cause with Number of fires and acres burned (1992-2016) .............3-56 Figure 3-15 Rogue Basin Cohesive Forest Restoration Strategy ..............................3-58 Priority Planning Areas Table 3-21 FEMA Major Disaster (DR) and Emergency (EM) and Fire Management Assistance (FMA) Declarations for Jackson County ......................................................3-60 Table 3-22 Flood Insurance Detail ................................................................................3-64 Figure 3-16 NFIP Policies, Repetitive Loss, & Severe Repetitive Loss Properties .............3-65 Table 3-23 Natural Hazard Probability Assessment Summary .......................................3-66 Table 3-24 Community Vulnerability Assessment Summary .........................................3-67 Table 3-25 Hazard Analysis Matrix - Jackson County 3-68 Section 4: Mitigation Strategy Figure 4-1 Development of Action Items 4-3 Table 4-1 Jackson County Priority Action Items ..............................................................4-4 Table 4-2 Jackson County Action Item Pool 4-6 Section 5: Plan Implementation and Maintenance Figure 5-1 Action Item and Project Review Process ........................................................5-5 Figure 5-2 Benefit Cost Decision Criteria .......................................................................5-6 Table 5-1 Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Toolkit ...............................................5-8 Volume II: Appendices See appendix for applicable Figures and Tables. Volume III: City Addenda Ashland Table AA-1 Ashland Priority Action Items AA-7 Table AA-2 Ashland Action Item Pool AA-8 Table AA-2 Ashland Action Item Pool (continued) AA-9 Figure AA-1 Green Infrastructure - Low Impact Development Continuum AA-10 Table AA-3 Co-Benefits of GI and LID AA-12 Figure AA-2 Understanding Risk AA-14 r- Table AA-4 Hazard Analysis Matrix-Ashland AA-15 Table AA-5 Probability and Vulnerability Comparison AA-15 Figure AA-3 Cascadia Subduction Zone AA-21 Table AA-7 Rapid Visual Survey Scores AA-22 Figure AA-4 Active Faults and Soft Soils AA-23 Figure AA-5 Special Flood Hazard Area AA-25 Table AA-8 Flood Insurance Detail AA-27 Figure AA-6 Landslide Susceptibility Exposure AA-28 Figure AA-7 Overall Hazard Analysis Comparison -Ashland/Jackson County AA-32 Butte Falls Table BA-1 Butte Falls Priority Action Items BA-7 Table BA-2 Butte Falls Action Item Pool BA-8 Table BA-2 Butte Falls Action Item Pool (continued) BA-9 Figure BA-1 Understanding Risk BA-10 Table BA-3 Hazard Analysis Matrix- Butte Falls BA-11 Table BA-4 Probability and Vulnerability Comparison BA-11 i Table BA-5 Community Characteristics BA-13 Figure BA-2 Cascadia Subduction Zone BA-17 Table BA-6 Rapid Visual Survey Scores BA-18 Figure BA-3 Active Faults and Soft Soils BA-19 Figure BA-4 Special Flood Hazard Area BA-21 Table BA-7 Flood Insurance Detail BA-22 Figure BA-5 Landslide Susceptibility Exposure BA-23 Figure BA-6 Overall Hazard Analysis Comparison - Butte Falls/Jackson County.......... BA-27 Eagle Point Table EA-1 Eagle Point Priority Action Items ................................................................EA-7 Table EA-2 Eagle Point Action Item Pool ......................................................................EA-8 Table EA-2 Eagle Point Action Item Pool (continued) ....................................................EA-9 Table EA-2 Eagle Point Action Item Pool (continued) ..................................................EA-10 Figure EA-1 Understanding Risk .................................................................................EA-11 Table EA-3 Hazard Analysis Matrix- Eagle Point ........................................................EA-12 Table EA-4 Probability and Vulnerability Comparison .................................................EA-12 Table EA-5 Community Characteristics .......................................................................EA-14 Figure EA-2 Cascadia Subduction Zone .......................................................................EA-18 Table EA-6 Rapid Visual Survey Scores .......................................................................EA-19 Figure EA-3 Active Faults and Soft Soils ......................................................................EA-20 Figure EA-4 Special Flood Hazard Area .......................................................................EA-22 Table EA-7 Flood Insurance Detail .............................................................................EA-24 Figure EA-5 Landslide Susceptibility Exposure ............................................................EA-25 Figure EA-6 Overall Hazard Analysis Comparison - Eagle Point/Jackson County EA-29 lacksonville Table JA-1 Jacksonville Priority Action Items JA-7 Table JA-2 Jacksonville Action Item Pool JA-8 Table JA-2 Jacksonville Action Item Pool (continued) JA-9 Figure JA-1 Understanding Risk JA-10 Table JA-3 Hazard Analysis Matrix - Jacksonville JA-11 Table JA-4 Probability and Vulnerability Comparison JA-11 Table JA-5 Community Characteristics JA-13 Figure JA-2 Cascadia Subduction Zone JA-17 Table JA-6 Rapid Visual Survey Scores JA-18 Figure 1A-3 Active Faults and Soft Soils JA-19 Figure JA-4 Special Flood Hazard Area JA-21 Table JA-7 Flood Insurance Detail JA-22 Figure JA-S Landslide Susceptibility Exposure JA-23 Figure JA-6 Overall Hazard Analysis Comparison -Jacksonville/Jackson County.......... JA-27 Phoenix Table PA-1 Phoenix Priority Action Items PA-7 Table PA-2 Phoenix Action Item Pool PA-8 Table PA-2 Phoenix Action Item Pool (continued) PA-9 Figure PA-1 Understanding Risk .................................................................................PA-10 Table PA-3 Hazard Analysis Matrix - Phoenix .............................................................PA-11 Table PA-4 Probability and Vulnerability Comparison .................................................PA-11 Table PA-5 Community Characteristics .......................................................................PA-13 Figure PA-2 Cascadia Subduction Zone .......................................................................PA-17 Table PA-6 Rapid Visual Survey Scores .......................................................................PA-18 Figure PA-3 Active Faults and Soft Soils ......................................................................PA-19 Figure PA-4 Special Flood Hazard Area .......................................................................PA-20 Table PA-7 Flood Insurance Detail .............................................................................PA-22 Figure PA-5 Landslide Susceptibility Exposure ............................................................PA-23 Figure PA-6 Overall Hazard Analysis Comparison - Phoenix/Jackson County ...............PA-26 Roeue River Table RA-1 Rogue River Priority Action Items RA-7 Table RA-1 Rogue River Priority Action Items (continued) RA-9 Table RA-2 Rogue River Action Item Pool RA-10 Table RA-2 Rogue River Action Item Pool (continued) RA-11 Figure RA-1 Understanding Risk RA-12 Table RA-3 Hazard Analysis Matrix - Rogue River RA-13 Table RA-4 Probability and Vulnerability Comparison RA-13 Table RA-5 Community Characteristics RA-15 Figure RA-2 Cascadia Subduction Zone RA-19 Table RA-6 Rapid Visual Survey Scores RA-20 Figure RA-3 Active Faults and Soft Soils RA-21 Figure RA-4 Special Flood Hazard Area RA-23 Table RA-7 Flood Insurance Detail RA-25 Figure RA-5 Landslide Susceptibility Exposure RA-26 Figure RA-6 Overall Hazard Analysis Comparison - Rogue River/Jackson County........ RA-29 Shady Cove Table SA-1 Shady Cove Priority Action Items ................................................................SA-7 Table SA-2 Shady Cove Action Item Pool ......................................................................SA-8 Table SA-2 Shady Cove Action Item Pool (continued) ...................................................SA-9 Table SA-2 Shady Cove Action Item Pool (continued) .................................................SA-10 Figure SA-1 Understanding Risk .................................................................................SA-11 Table SA-3 Hazard Analysis Matrix - Shady Cove ........................................................SA-12 Table SA-4 Probability and Vulnerability Comparison .................................................SA-12 Table SA-5 Community Characteristics .......................................................................SA-14 Figure SA-2 Cascadia Subduction Zone .......................................................................SA-18 Table SA-6 Rapid Visual Survey Scores .......................................................................SA-19 Figure SA-3 Active Faults and Soft Soils ......................................................................SA-20 Figure SA-4 Special Flood Hazard Area .......................................................................SA-22 Table SA-7 Flood Insurance Detail ..............................................................................SA-24 Figure SA-5 Landslide Susceptibility Exposure ............................................................SA-25 Figure SA-6 Overall Hazard Analysis Comparison - Shady Cove/Jackson County SA-29 Talent Table TA-1 Talent Priority Action Items ........................................................................TA-7 Table TA-2 Talent Action Item Pool ..............................................................................TA-8 Table TA-2 Talent Action Item Pool (continued) ...........................................................TA-9 Figure TA-1 Understanding Risk .................................................................................TA-10 Table TA-3 Hazard Analysis Matrix -Talent ...............................................................TA-11 Table TA-4 Probability and Vulnerability Comparison .................................................TA-11 Table TA-5 Community Characteristics .......................................................................TA-13 Figure TA-2 Cascadia Subduction Zone .......................................................................TA-17 Table TA-6 Rapid Visual Survey Scores .......................................................................TA-18 Figure TA-3 Active Faults and Soft Soils ......................................................................TA-19 Figure TA-4 Special Flood Hazard Area .......................................................................TA-21 Table TA-7 Flood Insurance Detail .............................................................................TA-23 Figure TA-5 Landslide Susceptibility Exposure ............................................................TA-24 Figure TA-6 Overall Hazard Analysis Comparison -Talent/Jackson County .................TA-27 i C This page intentionally left blank. ~I PLAN SUMMARY Jackson County updated this Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (MNHMP, NHMP) in an effort to prepare for the long-term effects resulting from hazards. It is impossible to predict exactly when these hazards will occur, or the extent to which they will affect the community. However, with careful planning and collaboration among public agencies, private sector organizations and citizens within the community, it is possible to create a resilient community that will benefit from long-term recovery planning efforts. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defines mitigation as the effort to 44 cFR 20 the local mitigation plan is reduce loss of life and property by lessening the the r the representation of the impact of disasters through risk analysis, jurisdiction's commitment to which results in information that provides a reduce risks from natural hazards, foundation for mitigation activities that reduce serving as a guide for decision risk." Said another way, hazard mitigation is a makers as they commit resources to reducing the effects of natural method of permanently reducing or alleviating hazards.... the losses of life, property and injuries resulting from hazards through long and short-term strategies. Example strategies include policy changes, such as updated ordinances, projects, such as seismic retrofits to critical facilities; and education and outreach to targeted audiences, such as non-English speaking residents or the elderly. Hazard mitigation is the responsibility of the "Whole Community." FEMA defines Whole Community as, "private and nonprofit sectors, including businesses, faith- based and disability organizations and the general public, in conjunction with the participation of local, tribal, state, territorial and Federal governmental partners." Why Develop this Mitigation Plan? The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K) and the regulations contained in 44 CFR 201 44 CFR 201.6(c)(1) -A local government require that jurisdictions (counties, cities, special must have a mitigation plan districts, etc.) maintain an approved Natural approved pursuant to this section Hazard Mitigation Plan (NHMP) to receive FEMA in order to receive HMGP project Hazard Mitigation Assistance funds for grants.. . mitigation projects. To that end, Jackson County is involved in a broad range of hazard and emergency management planning activities. Local and federal approval of this NHMP ensures that the County and listed jurisdictions will (1) remain eligible for pre- and post- disaster mitigation project grants and (2) promote local mechanisms to accomplish risk reduction strategies. What is Mitigation? "Any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to life and property from a hazard event." Federal Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page i-1 1 I Who Participated in Developing the NHMP? The Jackson County NHMP is the result of a collaborative effort between the County, cities, special districts, citizens, public agencies, non-profit organizations, the private sector and regional organizations. County and City steering committees guided the NHMP development process. For a list of individual County steering committee participants, refer to the acknowledgements section above. The update process included representatives from the following jurisdictions and agencies: • Jackson County Emergency 44 CFR 201.6(c)(1) -Documentation of the Management planning process used to develop • Jackson County Development the plan, including how it was Services prepared, who was involved in the • Jackson County GIS process and how the public was involved. • Jackson County Health and Human Services • Jackson County Roads and Parks Jackson County Library District • Cow Creek Band of the Umpqua . Jackson County Soil and Water Tribe of Indians Conservation District • Rogue Valley Council of . Jackson County Vector Control Governments District • City of Ashland . Medford Fire and Rescue • Town of Butte Falls a Medford Water Commission • City of Central Point . Rogue Community College • City of Eagle Point . Rogue Valley Sewer • City of Jacksonville . Rogue Valley Transportation • City of Medford District • City of Phoenix Rogue Waste, Inc. • City of Rogue River . Oregon Department of • City of Shady Cove Transportation • City of Talent • Oregon Water Resources • American Red Cross Department, District 13 • Applegate Valley Fire District National Weather Service • Asante . U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Ashland School District • Emergency Communications of Southern Oregon The Jackson County Emergency Manager convened the planning process and will take the lead in implementing, maintaining and updating the County NHMP. Each of the participating cities have also named a local convener who is responsible for implementing, maintaining and updating the City Addenda (see addenda for specific names and positions). Jackson County is dedicated to directly involving the public in the continual review and update of the Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan. The County achieves this through systematic engagement of a wide variety of active groups, organizations or committees, including but not limited to: The Rogue Valley Emergency Management Advisory Group (EMAG), Rogue Valley Fire Chiefs Page i-2 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Association, public and private infrastructure partners, watershed and neighborhood groups and numerous others. Although members of the Steering Committee represent the public to some extent, the public will also have the opportunity to continue to provide feedback about the NHMP throughout the implementation and maintenance period. How Does this Mitigation Plan Reduce Risk? The NHMP is intended to assist Jackson County reduce the risk from hazards by identifying 44 CFR 201.6(c)(2) - A Risk Assessment that resources, information and strategies for risk provides the factual basis for reduction. It is also intended to guide and activities proposed in the strategy coordinate mitigation activities throughout the County. A risk assessment consists of three phases: hazard identification, vulnerability assessment and risk analysis, as illustrated in the following graphic. Figure PS-I Understanding Risk ZUSGS Understanding Risk ul,A~riR RESILIENCE science la a changing w Id Natural Hazard ~\Vulnerable System Potential Catastrophic Exposure, Sensitivity and Chronic Physical Events , Risk t and Resilience of: • Past Recurrence Intervals I t • Population • Future Probability I of I • Economic Generation • Speed of Onset I I Built Environment Magnitude t Disaster, Academic and Research Function • Duration t / • Cultural Assets • Spatial Extent • Infrastructure Ability, Resources ' and Willingness to: • Mitigate • Respond • Prepare • Recover Source: U5G5-Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience Research collaboration, 2006 Source: Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience. By identifying and understanding the relationship between hazards, vulnerable systems and existing capacity, Jackson County is better equipped to identify and implement actions aimed at reducing the overall risk to hazards. Notably, Jackson County took the unique step of directly engaging representatives in four critical lifeline sectors: Communication, Energy, Transportation and Water. Because these four lifeline sectors are critical to virtually all other activity in the county, this approach was used to better understand each sector's unique vulnerabilities, threats and hazards. The County utilized the information collected to inform specific, targeted actions aimed at reducing risks across each of the four lifeline sectors. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page i-3 What is Jackson County's Overall Risk to Hazards? Jackson County reviewed and updated the risk assessment to evaluate the probability of each hazard as well as the vulnerability of the community to that hazard. Table PS-1 below summarizes hazard probability and vulnerability as determined by the County steering committee (Volume I, Section 3). Table PS- I Hazard and Vulnerability Assessment Summary Maximum Total Threat Hazard Hazard Hazard History Vulnerability Threat Probability Score Rank Tiers Earthquake(Cascadia) 2 50 100 70 222 #1 Emerging Infectious Disease 12 50 100 49 211 #2 Top Wildfire 20 35 60 70 185 #3 Tier Winter Storm 20 30 60 70 180 #4 Flood 20 20 60 70 170 #5 Drought 20 30 50 63 163 #6 Middle Windstorm 20 20 50 70 160 #7 Tier Landslide 10 15 30 70 125 #8 Earthquake (Crusta1) 2 25 50 21 98 #9 Bottom Volcano 2 5 50 7 64 #10 Tier Source: Jackson County NHMP Steering Committee, 2017 What is the NHMP's Mission? The mission of the Jackson County NHMP is to: 44 CFR 201.6(c)(3)(i) -A description of Protect life, property and the environment, mitigation goals to reduce or reduce risk and prevent loss from natural avoid long-term vulnerabilities to hazard events through coordination and the identified hazards. cooperation among public and private partners. What are the NHMP Goals? The N H M P goals describe the overall direction that the pa rticipatingjurisdiction's agencies, organizations and citizens can take toward mitigating risk from all-hazards. Below is a list of the NHMP goals (note: although numbered the goals are not prioritized): GOAL 1: EMERGENCY SERVICES Minimize life safety issues by promoting, strengthening and coordinating emergency response plans. GOAL 2: EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Further the public's awareness and understanding of natural hazards and potential risk, including economic vulnerability and mitigation efforts. Page i-4 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP GOAL 3: PREVENTION Reduce the threat of loss of life and property from natural hazards by incorporating information on known hazards and providing incentives to make hazard mitigation planning a priority in land use policies and decisions, including NHMP implementation. GOAL 4: PROPERTY PROTECTION Lessen impact from natural disaster on individual properties, businesses and public facilities by increasing awareness at the individual level and encouraging activities that can prevent damage and loss of life from natural hazards. GOAL 5: PARTNERSHIP AND COORDINATION Identify mitigation or risk reduction measures that address multiple areas (i.e., environment transportation, telecommunications); Coordinate public/private sector participation in planning and implementing mitigation projects throughout the County; and seek funding and resource partnerships for future mitigation efforts. GOAL 6: NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION Preserve and rehabilitate natural systems to serve natural hazard mitigation functions (i.e., floodplains, wetlands, watershed and urban interface areas). GOAL 7: STRUCTURAL PROTECTIONS When applicable, utilize structural mitigation activities to minimize risks associated with natural hazards. How are the Action Items Organized? The action items are organized within an action matrix included within Volume I, Section 4. 44 CFR 201.6(c)(3)(ii) -A section that identifies and analyzes a Data collection, research and the public comprehensive range of specific participation process resulted in the mitigation actions... development of the action items. The Action Item Matrix portrays the overall NHMP framework and identifies linkages between the NHMP goals and actions. The matrix documents the title of each action along with, the coordinating organization, timeline and the NHMP goals addressed. City specific action items are included in Volume III, City Addenda. Comprehensive Action Plan The following lists and tables summarizes specific priority NHMP actions. Refer to Volume I, Section 4 for a complete list of County action and Volume III for a complete list of City actions. The matrix contains detailed information for all action items, including potential partners, proposed timeline and estimated budget. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page i-5 Table PS-2 Jackson County High Priority NHMP Actions Priority Mitigation Actions Multi-Hazard (MH) MH #1 Sustain an education and outreach program for local jurisdictions about natural hazards and assist them in developing emergency operations, public information, and hazard mitigation plans. Develop and maintain a GIS inventory of all critical facilities, large employers/public assembly MH #2 areas and lifelines, and use GIS to evaluate their vulnerability by comparing them with hazard- prone areas. Wildfire (WF) WF #1 Coordinate fire mitigation action items through the Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Source: Jackson County NHMP Steering Committee (2017) Table PS-3 Ashland High Priority NHMP Actions Priority Mitigation Actions Earthquake (EQ) EQ#1 Emergency Operations Center Upgrades EQ#2 Seismic Retrofit for Critical Infrastructure Landslide (LS) LS #1 Water Treatment Plant Relocation Assessment Wildfire (WF) W F #1 Ashland Defensible Space Initiative (new) WF #2 Ashland Forest Resiliency Project Source: Ashland NHMP Steering Committee (2017) Page i-6 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP ;ihl,- PS-4 Butte Falls High Priority NHMP Actions Priority Mitigation Actions Multi-Hazard (MH) MH #1 Explore funding sources and grant opportunities for community-wide natural hazard mitigation and resiliency activities MH #2 Obtain generators to provide power to maintain water and sewer systems. Drought (DR) Obtain and connect a pump for emergency water connection to Medford Water Commission DR #1 system. Earthquake (EQ) EQ #1 Implement structural and non-structural retrofits to critical and essential facilities. Wildfire (WF) WF #1 Remove fuels from vacant lots/ alleys. WF #2 Mutual aid agreement with Rogue Valley Fire Chiefs Association Source: Butte Falls NHMP Steering Committee (2017) Table PS-5 Eagle Point High Priori NHMP Actions Priority Mitigation Actions Drought (DR) DR #1 Develop a drought preparedness and response plan to include a city ordinance restricting water during periods of low water availability. Flood (FL) Promote and enhance the use of natural flood prone open space or wetlands as flood storage FL #1 areas. Add potential open space preservation areas within the north segment of the City where floodways are identified as wide and potential contributors to flooding and flood effects. FL #2 Protect City facilities in flood prone areas. FL #3 Increase street drainage system capacity on new road improvements in flood prone areas. (New) FL #4 Improve water retention capacity through new headwall design to reduce water flow in flood prone (New) areas. Source: Eagle Point NHMP Steering Committee (2017) I Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page i-7 Priority Mitigation Actions Multi-Hazard (MH) Integrate the Mitigation Plan findings into planning and regulatory documents and programs MH 41 including the Comprehensive Plan (particularly Goal 7) and development code. Particular attention will be aid to the wildfire hazard. Landslide (LS) LS #1 Investigate the development and implementation of a city landslide ordinance. Wildfire (WF) WF #1 Coordinate fire mitigation action items through the recommendations of the Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Source: Jacksonville NHMP Steering Committee (2017) Table PS-7 Phoenix High Priori NHMP Actions Priority Mitigation Actions Multi-Hazard (MH) MH #1 Integrate the Mitigation Plan findings into planning and regulatory documents and programs including the Comprehensive Plan (particularly Goal 7). Earthquake (EQ) EQ#1 Implement structural and non-structural retrofits to critical and essential facilities. Flood (FL) Ensure continued compliance in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) through enforcement FL #1 of local floodplain management ordinances and take steps to participate in the Community Rating System (CRS). Wildfire (WF) WF #1 Coordinate fire mitigation action items through the Jackson County Integrated Fire Plan Source: Phoenix NHMP Steering Committee (2017) Page i-8 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Priority Mitigation Actions Multi-Hazard (MH) MH #1 Wire schools to use city's portable generators (New) MH #2 Incorporate hazard-resilient development design and siting of infrastructure into development (New) code and ordinances. Drought (DR) DR #1 Ensure that the waterquantity held in established water storage facilities is at an amount (New) adequate for drought preparedness. Earthquake (EQ) EQ#1 Implement structural and non-structural retrofits to critical and essential facilities. Including water reservoir (500,000) built in 1974 and bridges. Flood (FL) FL #1 Mitigate streambank erosion near "New Beginnings" (New) FL #2 Ensure continued compliance in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) through enforcement of local floodplain management ordinances. Wildfire (WF) WE #1 Partner with Jackson County on Implementation of the Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wiildfire Protection Plan and outreach projects Source: Rogue River NHMP Steering Committee (2017) Table PS-9 Shad Cove High Priority NHMP Actions Priority Mitigation Actions Flood (FL) FL #1 Ensure continued compliance in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) through enforcement of local floodplain management ordinances. Severe Weather (SW, Windstorm and Winter Storm) SW #1 Encourage critical facilities to secure emergency power. Wildfire (WF) WE #1 Promote public awareness campaigns for individual property owners living in the Wildland/Urban Interface (WUI). WE #2 Partner with Jackson County on Implementation of Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Protection Plan and outreach projects Source: Shady Cove NHMP Steering Committee (2017) Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page i-9 ahl,- PS- 10 TMent High Priority NHMP Actions Priority Mitigation Actions Multi-Hazard (MH) MH #1 Pursue funding to replace existing water tank. MH #2 Pursue funding for enhancement of city resources including emergency water supply system, critical infrastructure retrofitting, and emergency generators both traditional and solar. MH #3 Identify and pursue funding and personnel to enhance communication efforts including radio equipment, HAM radio operation/ equipment, and community warning system. Develop and enhance current education programs aimed at mitigating natural hazards. Programs MH #4 should focus on evacuations, disaster awareness, simulated training with partner agencies, and identifying vulnerable populations. MH #5 Develop emergency fuel supply plan including supplying, management, rationing and identifying essential needs. Flood (FL) FL #1 Review the City of Talent Flood Plan to ensure corrective and preventative measures for reducing flooding and flood damage are current. Source: Talent NHMP Steering Committee (2017) How will the NHMP be implemented? Volume I, Section 5 of this NHMP details the formal process that will ensure that the Jackson 44 CFR 201.6(c)(3)(iii) -An action plan County NHMP remains an active and relevant describing how the actions... will document. The NHMP will be implemented, be prioritized, implemented and maintained and updated by a designated administered convener. The Jackson County Emergency 44 CFR 201.6(c)(4) -A plan maintenance Manager is the designated convener (NHMP process... Convener) and is responsible for overseeing the review and implementation processes (see City Addenda for city conveners). The NHMP maintenance process includes a schedule for monitoring and evaluating the NHMP quarterly and producing a NHMP revision every five years. This section also describes how the communities will integrate public participation throughout the NHMP maintenance process. NHMP Adoption 44 CFR 201.6(c)(5) - Documentation that Once the NHMP is locally reviewed and deemed the plan has been formally complete the NHMP Convener (or their designee) adopted by the governing body of submits it to the State Hazard Mitigation Officer thejurisdiction... at the Oregon Military Department - Office of Emergency Management (OEM). OEM reviews 44 CFR 201.6(d) - Pion review [process] the NHMP and submits it to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA - Region X) for review. This review will address the federal criteria outlined in FEMA Interim Final Rule 44 CFR Part 201.6. Once the NHMP is Page i-10 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP pre-approved by FEMA the County and cities formally adopt the NHMP via resolution. The Jackson County NHMP Convener will be responsible for ensuring local adoption of the NHMP and providing the support necessary to ensure NHMP implementation. Once the resolution is executed at the local level and documentation is provided to FEMA, the NHMP is formally acknowledged by FEMA and the County (and participating cities) will maintain eligibility for the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program, the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds and the Flood Mitigation Assistance program funds. The accomplishment of the NHMP goals and actions depends upon regular Steering Committee participation and adequate support from County and City leadership. Thorough familiarity with this NHMP will result in the efficient and effective implementation of appropriate mitigation activities and a reduction in the risk and the potential for loss from future natural hazard events. The Steering Committees for Jackson County and participating cities each met to review the NHMP update process and their governing bodies adopted the NHMP as shown below: Jackson County adopted the NHMP on [DATE], 2018 The City of Ashland adopted their addendum to the NHMP on [DATE], 2018... The Town of Butte Falls adopted their addendum to the NHMP on [DATE], 2018... The City of Eagle Point adopted their addendum to the NHMP on [DATE], 2018... The City of Jacksonville adopted their addendum to the NHMP on [DATE], 2018... The City of Phoenix adopted their addendum to the NHMP on [DATE], 2018... The City of Rogue River adopted their addendum to the NHMP on [DATE], 2018... The City of Shady Cove adopted their addendum to the NHMP on [DATE], 2018... The City of Talent adopted their addendum to the NHMP on [DATE], 2018... FEMA Region X approved the Jackson County NHMP on [DATE], 2018. With approval of this NHMP, the entities listed above are now eligible to apply for the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act's hazard mitigation project grants through [DATE], 2023. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page i-11 This page intentionally left blank. Page i-12 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Volume I: Basic Plan 1 This page intentionally left blank. r SECTION I: INTRODUCTION This section provides a general introduction to natural hazard mitigation planning in Jackson County. In addition, it addresses the planning process requirements contained in 44 CFR 201.6(b) thereby meeting the planning process documentation requirement contained in 44 CFR 201.6(c)(1). The section concludes with a general description of how the NHMP is organized. What is Natural Hazard Mitigation? The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defines mitigation as the effort to reduce loss of life and property by lessening the impact of disasters through risk analysis, which results in information that provides a foundation for mitigation activities that reduce risk."' Said another way, natural hazard mitigation is a method of permanently reducing or alleviating the losses of life, property and injuries resulting from natural hazards through long and short-term strategies. Example strategies include policy changes, such as updated ordinances, projects, seismic retrofits to critical facilities and education and outreach to targeted audiences, such as Spanish speaking residents or the elderly. Natural hazard mitigation is the responsibility of the "Whole Community"; individuals, private businesses and industries, state and local governments and the federal government. Engaging in mitigation activities provides jurisdictions (counties, cities, special districts, etc.) with many benefits, including reduced loss of life, property, essential services, critical facilities and economic hardship; reduced short-term and long-term recovery and reconstruction costs; increased cooperation and communication within the community through the planning process; and increased potential for state and federal funding for recovery and reconstruction projects. Why Develop a Mitigation Plan? Jackson County updated this Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (MNHMP, NHMP) in an effort to reduce future loss of life and damage to property resulting from natural hazards. It is impossible to predict exactly when natural hazard events will occur, or the extent to which they will affect community assets. However, with careful planning and collaboration among public agencies, private sector organizations and citizens within the community, it is possible to minimize the losses that can result from natural hazards. In addition to establishing a comprehensive community-level mitigation strategy, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K) and the regulations contained in 44 CFR 201, require that jurisdictions maintain an approved NHMP in order to receive federal funds for mitigation projects. Local and federal approval of this NHMP ensures that the County and listed cities will remain eligible for pre- and post-disaster mitigation project grants. ' FEMA, Whatis Mitigation? http;//www.fema.gov/what-mitigation I Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 1-1 What Federal Requirements Does This NHMP Address? DMA2K is the latest federal legislation addressing mitigation planning. It reinforces the importance of mitigation planning and emphasizes planning for natural hazards before they occur. As such, this Act established the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant program and new requirements for the national post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). Section 322 of the Act specifically addresses mitigation planning at the state and local levels. State and local jurisdictions must have approved mitigation plans in place in order to qualify to receive post-disaster HMGP funds. Mitigation plans must demonstrate that State and local jurisdictions' proposed mitigation measures are based on a sound planning process that accounts for the risk to the individual and State and local jurisdictions' capabilities. Chapter 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), section 201.6, also requires a local government to have an approved mitigation plan in order to receive HMGP project grants.' Pursuant of Chapter 44 CFR, the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan planning processes shall include opportunity for the public to comment on the NHMP during review and the updated NHMP shall include documentation of the public planning process used to develop the NHMP.3 The Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan update must also contain a risk assessment, mitigation strategy and a NHMP maintenance process that has been formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction.4 Lastly, the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan must be submitted to Oregon Military Department - Office of Emergency Management (OEM) for initial review and then sent to FEMA for federal approval.' Additionally, a recent change in the way OEM administers the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG), which helps fund local emergency management programs, also requires a FEMA-approved NHMP. What is the Policy Framework for Natural Hazards Planning in Oregon? Planning for natural hazards is an integral element of Oregon's statewide land use planning program, which began in 1973. All Oregon cities and counties have comprehensive plans (Comprehensive Plans) and implementing ordinances that are required to comply with the statewide planning goals. The challenge faced by state and local governments is to keep this network of local plans coordinated in response to the changing conditions and needs of Oregon communities. Statewide land use planning Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards calls for local plans to include inventories, policies and ordinances to guide development in or away from hazard areas. Goal 7, along with other land use planning goals, has helped to reduce losses from natural hazards. Through risk identification and the recommendation of risk-reduction actions, this NHMP aligns with the goals of the jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan and helps each jurisdiction meet the requirements of statewide land use planning Goal 7. ' Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 44. Section 201.6, subsection (a), 2015 'ibid, subsection (b). 2015 a ibid, subsection (c). 2015 e ibid, subsection (d). 2015 Page 1-2 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP The primary responsibility for the development and implementation of risk reduction strategies and policies lies with local jurisdictions. However, additional resources exist at the state and federal levels. Some of the key agencies in this area include Oregon Military Department - Office of Emergency Management (OEM), Oregon Building Codes Division (BCD), Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) and the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). How was the NHMP Developed? The NHMP was developed by the Jackson County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee and the Steering Committees for the cities of Ashland, Butte Falls, Eagle Point, Jacksonville, Phoenix, Rogue River, Shady Cove and Talent. Note: The cities of Central Point and Medford have stand-alone NHMPs. The Jackson County Steering Committee formally convened on several occasions to discuss and revise the NHMP. Each of the participating city Steering Committees met at least once formally. Steering Committee members contributed data and maps, reviewed and updated the community profile, risk assessment, action items and implementation and maintenance plan. An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective NHMP. In orderto develop a comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include opportunity forthe public, neighboring communities, local and regional agencies, as well as, private and non-profit entities to comment on the NHMP during review.6 Jackson County provide a publicly accessible project website forthe general public to provide feedback on the draft NHMP. In addition, Jackson County provided a press release on their website to encourage the public to offer feedback on the NHMP update. The County and city websites continue to be a focal point for distribution natural hazard information through the use of hazard viewers, emergency alerts, hazard preparation and annual natural hazard progress reports. How is the NHMP Organized? Each volume of the NHMP provides specific information and resources to assist readers in understanding the hazard-specific issues facing county and city residents, businesses and the environment. Combined, the sections work in synergy to create a mitigation plan that furthers the community's mission to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and their property from hazards and their effects. This NHMP structure enables stakeholders to use the section(s) of interest to them. Volume I: Basic Plan Plan Summary The NHMP summary provides an overview of the FEMA requirements, planning process and highlights the key elements of the risk assessment, mitigation strategy and implementation and maintenance strategy. e Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 44. Section 201.6, subsection (b). 2015 Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 1-3 Section I: Introduction The Introduction briefly describes the countywide mitigation planning efforts and the methodology used to develop the NHMP. Section 2: Community Profile The community profile describes the County and participating cities from a number of perspectives in order to help define and understand the region's sensitivity and resilience to natural hazards. The information in this section represents a snapshot in time of the current sensitivity and resilience factors in the region when the plan was updated. Section 3: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment This section provides the factual basis for the mitigation strategies contained in Volume I, Section 4. (Additional information is included within Volume I, Section 2, which contains an overall description of Jackson County and the 11 incorporated cities.) This section includes a brief description of community sensitivities and vulnerabilities. The Risk Assessment allows readers to gain an understanding of each jurisdiction's vulnerability and resilience to natural hazards. A hazard summary is provided for each of the hazards addressed in the NHMP. The summary includes hazard history, location, extent, vulnerability, impacts and probability. This NHMP addresses the following hazards: • Drought • Volcano Earthquake Wildfire • Emerging Infectious Disease • Windstorm • Flood • Winter Storm • Landslide Additionally, this section provides information on each jurisdictions' participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Section 4: Mitigation Strategy This section documents the NHMP vision, mission, goals and actions (mitigation strategy) and also describes the components that guide implementation of the identified actions. Actions are based on community sensitivity and resilience factors and the risk assessments in Volume I, Section 3 and Volume III. Section 5: Plan Implementation and Maintenance This section provides information on the implementation and maintenance of the NHMP. It describes the process for prioritizing projects and includes a suggested list of tasks for updating the NHMP, to be completed at the semi-annual and five-year review meetings. Page 1-4 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP r Volume II: Appendices The appendices are designed to provide the users of the Jackson County NHMP with additional information to assist them in understanding the contents of the NHMP and provide them with potential resources to assist with NHMP implementation. Appendix A: Glossary and Acronyms This appendix includes a list of terms, and their acronyms, related to natural'hazard mitigation that are found throughout this NHMP. Appendix B: Planning and Public Process This appendix includes documentation of all the countywide public processes utilized to develop the NHMP. It includes invitation lists, agendas, sign-in sheets and summaries of Steering Committee meetings as well as any other public involvement methods. Appendix C: Hazard Analysis This appendix includes the OEM Hazard Vulnerability Assessment that was updated with the development of this NHMP. The hazard analysis is a useful early step in planning for hazard mitigation, response and recovery. The information in this appendix was used to inform Volume 1, Section 3. Appendix D: Economic Analysis of Natural Hazard Mitigation Projects This appendix describes the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) requirements for benefit cost analysis in natural hazards mitigation, as well as various approaches for conducting economic analysis of proposed mitigation activities. Appendix E: Grant Programs and Resources This appendix lists state and federal resources and programs by hazard. Appendix F: Community Survey This appendix includes the survey instrument and results from the community survey implemented by OPDR. Appendix G: City of Ashland Hazard Mitigation, Green Infrastructure, and Low Impact Development The purpose of this pilot project was to identify opportunities to incorporate green infrastructure (GI) and low impact development (LID) best management practices, (BM Ps) into NHMP Action Items. The project resulted in two recommended NHMP action items for Ashland, OR. These action items use GI and LID best management practices (BMPs) to mitigate riskfrom natural hazards and to provide water quality, habitat, and community benefits. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 1-5 Appendix H: Upper Rogue Watershed Multi-Hazard Risk Report This report describes the methods and results of natural hazard risk assessments performed by the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) for the community of the Upper Rogue Watershed. Appendix I: Areas of Mitigation Interest: Upper Rogue This report describes the results of a natural hazard technical assistance project provided by STARR to the communities of Shady Cove and Eagle Point. The report identifies Areas of Mitigation Interest (AoMI) and suggests a number of Mitigation Strategies. Volume 111: City Addenda Volume III of this NHMP is reserved for any city and special district addenda developed through this multi-jurisdictional planning process. Eight of the cities within the County created an addendum. As such, the five-year update cycle will be the same for these eight cities and the County. The cities of Central Point and Medford have stand-alone NHMPs. Future updates to the MNHMP will seekto incorporate Central Point, Gold Hill and Medford. Note: Special districts did not create addenda for this version of the NHMP, however, they may be included in future updates. See acknowledgements for a list of special districts that participated in the development of this NHMP. Page 1-6 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP SECTION 2: COMMUNITY PROFILE I Community resilience can be defined as the community's ability to manage risk and adapt to natural hazard impacts. In order to help define and understand the County's sensitivity and resilience to natural hazards, the following capacities must be examined: • Natural Environment • Socio-Demographic • Economic • Built Environment • Community Connectivity • Political The Community Profile describes the sensitivity and resilience to natural hazards of Jackson County, its incorporated cities and unincorporated areas, as they relate to each capacity. It provides a snapshot in time when the NHMP was developed and will assist in preparation for a more resilient county. The information in this section, along with the hazard assessments located in Volume I, Section 3 and Volume II, Appendix C should be used as the local level rationale for the risk reduction actions identified in Volume I, Section 4. Natural Environment Capacity Natural environment capacity is recognized as the geography, climate and land cover of the area such as, urban, water and forested lands that maintain clean water, air and a stable climate.' Natural resources such as wetlands and forested hill slopes play significant roles in protecting communities and the environment from weather-related hazards, such as flooding and landslides. However, natural systems are often impacted or depleted by human activities adversely affecting community resilience. Geography Jackson County occupies the upper Rogue River Valley in southwestern Oregon, covering about 2,800 square miles. The area is rich in natural resources: forests, mountains, rivers and lakes dominate the landscape. Three major mountain ranges characterize Jackson County boundaries: the Klamath Mountains to the west and south, Western Cascades in the north and the High Cascades to the east with the Bear Creek Valley within the central lowlands. The Rogue River and its tributaries cut through each of these regions on its journey towards the Pacific Ocean. This river corridor through the mountains provides an avenue for westerly winds and Pacific Storms to travel into Jackson County with relative ease. Slopes are generally steep and topsoil, unique to the Northwest in structure and chemistry, is susceptible to landslides, torrential flooding and sheet erosion. Those mountains subjected to extensive weathering, large-scale faulting, or consisting of softer parent rock i Mayunga, J. 2007. Understanding and Applying the Concept of Community Disaster Resilience: A capital-based approach. Summer Academy for Social Vulnerability and Resilience Building. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 2-1 have gentler slopes, in which earthflow (debris flow) and slump (creep) are common natural hazards.2 The Klamath Mountains encompass approximately 12,000 square miles and consist of several north-south-trending belts of rock that formed in an ocean setting (terrain) and subsequently collided with the North American crustal plate about 150 million years ago. The area is rugged with narrow canyons. Mt. Ashland, at 7,530 feet, is the county's second highest peak. Cascade Mountains The geologic story of the Cascades begins around 40 million years ago when the Pacific [Juan de Fuca] plate began moving beneath the North American crustal plate. Convergence of these crustal plates has slowed considerably, from an estimated 3 inches per year 35 million years ago to only inch at present; less subduction means less volcanic activity. The tallest point in Jackson County, Mt. McLoughlin, a young and dormant volcano, rises to 9,499 feet. It lies just within the county's eastern boundary in the High Cascades and although it is the tallest volcanic peak between Crater Lake and Mt. Shasta, it is dwarfed by their bulk. The entire northwest slope of the mountain is the catchment area for Big Butte Springs. These large-volume springs gush from the end of the lava flows and are the domestic water source for Medford and other towns in the Bear Creek Valley.3 Nearby volcanic neighbors include Mt. Bailey, Mt. Thielsen and the remnants of Mt. Mazama (Crater Lake) to the north. While dramatic eruptions have been absent during the last century, continued subduction and presence of numerous faults indicate that a significant seismic orvolcanic event could occur at any time. Seismic activity can also trigger landslides and cause flashflood events due to breached dams, jeopardizing the safety of downstream communities. Bear Creek Valley This broad valley separates the older Klamath Mountains from the Cascade Range. Bear Creek, along with the Rogue River and other rivervalleys in the county, contain soft sediments over bedrock. Hazards include ponding, high ground water, flooding and stream bank erosion? Much of the development in Jackson County has occurred in the Bear Creek Valley and the 1-5 corridor, which includes the cities of Ashland, Central Point, Medford, Phoenix and Talent. Current and Projected Climate Late October marks the beginning of the rainy season in Jackson County. Surrounding mountain ranges help moderate the area's annual rainfall, which averages 18 inches in the Medford areas This is in sharp contrast to the 37 to 50 inches normally seen in other parts 2 Beaulieu, John D. and Paul W. Hughes, Land Use Geology of Central Jackson County, Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Oregon, (1977). 3 United States Geological Survey, Cascades Volcano Observatory, http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/home.htm]. 4 Ibid. 5 The Oregon Climate Service, George Taylor, State Climatologist "1971-2000 Climate of Jackson County." http://www.ocs. o rst.ed u/co u nty_cl i m ate/Jackson_fl ies/Ja ckson. htm l#table l Page 2-2 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP of the Pacific Northwest. In most winters, there are one or two severe windstorms and in some years, accompanying heavy rains cause serious flooding. Summer precipitation is very low, increasing the risk of wildfire and requiring irrigation for crops. I Temperature Climate models project that the annual average temperatures in Jackson County and the Rogue River Basin are likely to increase by 1 to 3°F by around 2040 and 4 to 8° F by around 2080. Summer temperatures may increase dramatically reaching 7 to 15° above baseline temperatures by 2080, while winter temperatures may increase 3 to 8°F.6 Precipitation and Snowpack Total precipitation may remain similar to historic levels but it is increasingly likely to fall in the mid-winter months rather than in the spring, summer and fall. Rising temperatures will cause snow to turn to rain in lower elevations and decrease average January snowpack significantly; this corresponds with a decline in runoff and stream flows. Worst-case scenario as projected by climate models, is a reduction of snowpack by 75% by 2040.7 Table 2-1 Average Rainfall and Temperatures Ecore on ID Mean Annual Rainfati~ange-(;oTa nuary Mean Temperature Ecoregion ~gi I Range (Inches) min/max Range (°F) July min/max C- Western Cascades Montane Highlands 4b 70-120 26/37 44/75 CascadesSubalpine/Alpine 4d 75-140 16/31 38/65 High Southern Cascades Montane Forest 4e 45-70 23/37 44/74 Southern Cascades 4f 45-80 30/45 49/85 Rogue/Illinois Valleys 78a 20-60 31/47 51/89 Oak Savanna Foothills 78b 25-45 28/45 50/87 Serpentine Siskiyous 78d 45-120 32/44 49/82 Inland Siskyous 78e 35-70 29/44 50/86 Klamath River Ridges 78g 25-35 24/42 49/88 Southern Cascades Slope 9i 25-40 20/34 47/82 Source: US EPA. Ecoregions of Oregon Klamath Mountains Hazard Severity The dynamic geography, climate and land cover across Jackson County are significant indicators of hazard vulnerability when combined with projected climate change and severe weather-related events. The Rogue River Basin is likely to experience more severe storm events, variable weather, higher and flashier winter and spring runoff events and increased flooding. Both wet and dry cycles are likely to last longer and be more extreme, leading to periods of deeper drought and more extensive flooding. The reduced snowpack and 6 Doppelt, B., R. Hamilton, C. Deacon Williams & M. Koopman. 2008. Preparing for Climate Change in the Rogue River Basin of Southwest Oregon. In Stressors, Risks and and Recommendations for Increasing Resilience and Resistance in Human, Built, Economic and Natural Systems. Climate Leadership Initiative Institute for a Sustainable Environment, National Center for Conservation Science and Policy, MAPSS Team at the U.S. Forest Service: Pacific Northwest Research Station. Ibid. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 2-3 subsequently lower soil moisture with hotter temperatures will likely increase the amount of vegetation consumed by wildfire.8 Land Cover Due to the topography and climate described above, land is used most intensively by people in the Bear Creek, middle Rogue and to a lesser extent, the Applegate Valleys. Development has followed the land use patterns of the early settlers; farmers located on the rich valley floors and miners and woodsmen claimed the foothill areas.9 Agriculture, rural, suburban, urban, industrial and rural service center land uses are concentrated in these fertile valleys, whereas forest and open space and pockets of agriculture occur in surrounding mountainous regions of the county. Consequently, intense valley development is subject to increased risk from associated flood hazards. Forested mountains and steep slopes surrounding these valleys pose a significant risk to the entire region from wildfire and landslide events. Figure 2-1 Ecoregions of Jackson County 4e 4f 1 / Crater e N 78e _ f 4d IJ f 9g Grants:'"-- i 78b 13 v~ 78b rJ ass f 78a - O edfo[d _ d Ashland Oregon Caves NM 91 78d 78o ; CALIFORNIA ' • : j Source: Thorson, Thor D. "Ecoregions of Oregon." Map. Ecoregions of Oregon. Reston, VA: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 2004. 1-2. Print. 8 Ibid. 9 Jackson County Comprehensive Plan. 1989. Section 5-1. Page 2-4 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Synthesis The physical geography, weather, climate and land cover of an area represent various interrelated systems that affect overall risk and exposure to natural hazards. The projected climate change models representing Southern Oregon indicate the potential for increased effects of hazards due to the unique terrain and climate of the region. These factors combined with a growing population and development intensification can lead to increasing risk of hazards, threatening loss of life, property and long-term economic disruption if land management is inadequate. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 2-5 Social/Demographic Capacity Social/demographic capacity is a significant indicator of community hazard resilience. The characteristics and qualities of the community population such as language, race and ethnicity, age, income, educational attainment and health are significant factors that can influence the community's ability to cope, adapt to and recover from natural disasters. Population vulnerabilities can be reduced or eliminated with proper outreach and community mitigation planning. Population Approximately two-thirds of Jackson County's population is located within incorporated cities. Medford accounts for about 37% of the county's population, followed by Ashland (10%) and Central Point (8%). About one-third of the population is in unincorporated areas of the county (including Prospect and White City). Between 2012 and 2016, Jackson County experienced a 4.5% increase in population. Table 2-2 Population Estimates for Jackson County and Incorporated Cities Change 2012 2016 (2012-2016) AAGR Jurisdiction Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Jackson County 204,630 100% 213,765 100% 9,135 4.5% 1.1% Incorporated 141,905 69.3% 146,170 68.4% 4,265 3.0% 0.8% Ashland 20,325 9.9% 20,620 9.6% 295 1.5% 0.4% Butte Falls 425 0.2% 430 0.2% 5 1.2% 0.3% Central Point 17,275 8.4% 17,585 8.2% 310 1.8% 0.4% Eagle Point 8,550 4.2% 8,765 4.1% 215 2.5% 0.6% Gold Hill 1,220 0.6% 1,220 0.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% Jacksonville 2,815 1.4% 2,920 1.4% 105 3.7% 0.9% Medford 75,545 36.9% 78,500 36.7% 2,955 3.9% 1.0% Phoenix 4,570 2.2% 4,585 2.1% 15 0.3% 0.1% Rogue River 2,145 1.0% 2,200 1.0% 55 2.6% 0.6% Shady Cove 2,920 1.4% 3,040 1.4% 120 4.1% 1.0% Talent 6,115 3.0% 6,305 2.9% 190 3.1% 0.8% Unincorporated 62,725 30.7% 67,595 31.6% 4,870 7.8% 1.9% Source: Portland State University, Population Research Center, "Annual Population Estimates", 2016; and, Portland State University, Population Research Center, Oregon Population Forecast Program, "Jackson Final Forecasts 201506" The county's coordinated population forecast projects that, by 2035, Jackson County's population will increase to 255,840, a 20% increase from the 2016 estimate (30% of the increase is expected to be within incorporated cities).10 10 Portland State University, Population Research Center, "Oregon Population Forecast Program - Region 1 " 2017. Page 2-6 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Table 2-3 Population Forecast for Jackson County and Incorporated Cities Change 2035 Population (2016-2035) AAGR Number Percent Number Percent Jackson County 255,840 100% 42,075 19.7,/,, 1.O1,o Incorporated 190,735 74.6% 44,565 30.5% 1.6% Ashland UGB 23,183 9.1% 2,563 12.4% 0.7% Butte Falls Town UGB 437 0.2% 7 1.6% 0.1% Central Point U G B 22,680 8.9% 5,095 29.0% 1.5% Eagle Point UGB 14,839 5.8% 6,074 69.3% 3.6% Gold Hill UGB 1,496 0.6% 276 22.6% 1.2% Jacksonville UGB 4,316 1.7% 1,396 47.8% 2.5% Medford UGB 99,835 39.0% 21,335 27.2% 1.4% Phoenix UGB 6,883 2.7% 2,298 50.1% 2.6% Rogue River UGB 3,705 1.4% 1,505 68.4% 3.6% Shady Cove UGB 4,343 1.7% 1,303 42.9% 2.3% Talent UGB 9,020 3.5% 2,715 43.1% 2.3% Outside UGBs 65,104 25.4% -2,491 -3.7% -0.2% Source: Portland State University, Population Research Center, "Annual Population Estimates", 2016; and, Portland State University, Population Research Center, Oregon Population Forecast Program, "Jackson Final Forecasts 201506" Population size itself is not an indicator of vulnerability. More important is the location, composition and capacity of the population within the community. Research by social scientists demonstrates that human capital indices such as language, race, age, income, education and health can affect the integrity of a community. Therefore, these human capitals can impact community resilience to natural hazards. Tourists Tourists are not counted in population statistics; and are therefore considered separately in this analysis. The table below shows the estimated number of person nights in private homes, hotels and motels and other types of accommodations. The table shows that, between 2014-2016, approximately half of all visitors to Jackson County lodged in private homes, with about one-third staying in hotels/motels and the remaining visitors staying on other accommodations (vacation homes/campgrounds). For hazard preparedness and mitigation purposes, outreach to residents in Jackson County will likely be transferred to these visitors in some capacity. Visitors staying at hotel/motels are less likely to benefit from local preparedness outreach efforts aimed at residents. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 2-7 II Table 2-4 Annual Visitor Estimates in Person Nights 2014 2015 2016p Person-Nights Person-Nights Person-Nights (1,000's) Percent (1,000's) Percent (1,000's) Percent All Overnight 5,159 100:110 5,287 100 0 5,422 100-/. Hotel/Motel 1,653 32.0% 1,713 32.4% 1,790 33.0% Private Home 2,698 52.3% 2,750 52.0% 2,794 51.5% Other 808 15.7% 824 15.6% 838 15.5% Source: Oregon Tourism Commission, Oregon Travel Impacts: 1992-2016p, Dean Runyan Associates Tourists are specifically vulnerable due to the difficulty of locating or accounting for travelers within the region. Tourists are often at greater risk during a natural disaster because of unfamiliarity with evacuation routes, communication outlets, or even the type of hazard that may occur. Knowing whether the region's visitors are staying in friends/relatives homes in hotels/motels, or elsewhere can be useful when developing outreach efforts." Language Special consideration should be given to populations who do not speak English as their primary language. Language barriers can be a challenge when disseminating hazard planning and mitigation resources to the general public and it is less likely they will be prepared if special attention is not given to language and culturally appropriate outreach techniques. There are various languages spoken across Jackson County; the primary language is English. However, 4% (6,991 people) of the total population in Jackson County is not proficient in English. Medford (3,775 people, 5%) has the largest population of residents who have limited or no English proficiency while Talent has the largest percentage (6%, 340 people). 11 MDC Consultants (n.d.). When Disaster Strikes - Promising Practices. Retrieved March 18, 2014, from http://www. mdci nc.org/sites/default/files/resources/When%20Disaster%2OStrikes%20- %20Promising%2OPractices%20- %20Tourists.pdf Page 2-8 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP II Table 2-5 Jackson County Language Barriers Population English Only Multiple Limited or No 5 years Languages English and over Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Jackson County 196,398 177,633 90% 18,765 10% 6,991 4°% Ashland 19,916 18,554 93% 1,362 7% 267 1% Butte Falls 371 368 99% 3 1% 2 1% Central Point 16,467 15,355 93% 1,112 7% 267 2% Eagle Point 8,036 7,942 99% 94 1% 0 0% Gold Hill 1,123 1,110 99% 13 1% 2 <1% Jacksonville 2,778 2,576 93% 202 7% 11 <1% Medford 71,988 63,420 88% 8,568 12% 3,775 5% Phoenix 4,278 3,911 91% 367 9% 185 4% Rogue River 2,223 2,070 93% 153 7% 0 0% Shady Cove 2,636 2,499 95% 137 5% 27 1% Talent 5,968 5,010 84% 958 16% 340 6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey Estimates, Table 51601 • Outreach materials used to communicate with, plan for and respond to non-English speaking populations and those who do not speak English very well, should take into consideration the language needs of these populations. Race The impact in terms of loss and the ability to recover may also vary among minority population groups following a disaster. Studies have shown that racial and ethnic minorities can be more vulnerable to natural disaster events. This is not reflective of individual characteristics; instead, historic patterns of inequality along racial or ethnic divides have often resulted in minority communities that are more likely to have inferior building stock, degraded infrastructure, or less access to public services. The table below describes Jackson County's population by race and ethnicity. The majority of the population in Jackson County is racially white (92%); Rogue River has the largest percentage of non-white population (12%), followed closely by Eagle Point and Phoenix. Approximately 12% of the county population is Hispanic or Latino; with the largest Hispanic or Latino populations located in Medford (10,846 people, 14% of population) and Central Point (1,899 people, 11% of population). Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 2-9 Table 2-6 Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin Jackson Central Race County Ashland Butte Falls Point Eagle Point Gold Hill Total Population 208,363 20,556 391 17,604 8,701 1,194 White 92% 91% 91% 93% 89% 97% Black 1% 2% 0% < 1% 0% < 1% AIAN 1% < 1% < 1% 1% < 1% 1% Asian 1% 2% 0% < 1% 1% < 1% N H P I 0% 0% 0% < 1% 0% 0% Some Other Race 1% 1% < 1% 1% 1% 0% Two or More Races 4% 4% 8% 4% 9% 2% Hispanic or Latino 24,496 860 3 1,899 578 24 Percent 12% 4% 1% 11% 7% 2% Total Population 2,827 77,579 4,500 2,442 2,960 6,244 White 95% 91% 89% 88% 94% 92% Black 1% 1% 0% <1% 2% 1% MAN 0% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% Asian 2% 1% 2% 2% 0% 1% N H P I 00/0 1% < 1% 1% 0% 0% Some Other Race 0% 2% 1% 2% < 1% < 1% Two or More Races 2% 4% 8% 5% 3% 3% Hispanic or Latino 16 10,846 467 252 147 771 Percent 1% 14% 10% 10% 5% 12% Source: Social Explorer, Table T12, U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey Estimates AIAN = American Indian and Alaskan Native, NHPI = Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders. It is important to identify specific ways to support all portions of the community through hazard mitigation, preparedness and response. For example, connecting to historically disenfranchised populations through already trusted sources or providing preparedness handouts and presentations in the languages spoken by the population will go a long way to increase overall community resilience. Gender Jackson County is evenly split between females and males (Male: 50%, Female 50%). It is important to recognize that women tend to have more institutionalized obstacles than men during recovery due to sector-specific employment, lower wages and family care responsibilities.,, Age Of the factors influencing socio demographic capacity, the most significant indicator in Jackson County may be age of the population. Depicted in the table below, as of 2015, 19% 11 Social Explorer, Table 4, U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey Estimates Page 2-10 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP of the county population is over the age of 64, a percentage that is projected to rise to 27% by 2035. The county age dependency ratio13 is 58.7 (Jacksonville has the largest age dependency ration at 104.1 due to a large number of older people). The age dependency ratio indicates a higher percentage of dependent aged people to that of working age. The Oregon Office of Economic Analysis projects that, in 2035, there will be a higher percentage of the county population over the age of 64. As the population ages, the County may need to consider different mitigation and preparedness actions to address the specific needs of this group. The age dependency ratio for the county is expected to rise to 74.9 in 2035, largely because of the rise in the older age cohorts. Table 2-7 Population by Vulnerable Age Groups 2015 < 15 Years Old > 64 Years Old Age 15 to 64 Dependency Jurisdiction Total Number Percent Number Percent Years Old Ratio Oregon 3,939,233 712,96/ 18' 606,877 15,1) ~ I,019,33~ 50.4 Jackson County 208,363 36,457 18% 40,589 19% 131,317 58.7 Ashland 20,556 2,670 13% 4,180 20% 13,706 50.0 Butte Falls 391 58 15% 60 15% 273 43.2 Central Point 17,604 3,953 23% 3,053 17% 10,598 66.1 Eagle Point 8,701 1,913 22% 1,244 14% 5,544 56.9 Gold Hill 1,194 230 19% 192 16% 772 54.7 Jacksonville 2,827 205 7% 1,237 44% 1,385 104.1 Medford 77,579 15,644 20% 12,807 17% 49,128 57.9 Phoenix 4,500 557 12% 1,251 28% 2,692 67.2 Rogue River 2,442 426 18% 661 27% 1,355 80.2 Shady Cove 2,960 488 17% 800 27% 1,672 77.0 Talent 6,244 1,227 20% 1,098 18% 3,919 59.3 Oregon 4,995,200 865,889 17% 1,082,781 22% 3,046,530 64.0 Jackson County 265,624 42,722 16% 71,069 27% 151,833 74.9 Source: Social Explorer, Table 17, U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey Estimates, Office of Economic Analysis, Long-Term County Population Forecast, 2010-2050 (2013 release). The age profile of an area has a direct impact both on what actions are prioritized for mitigation and how response to hazard incidents is carried out. School age children rarely make decisions about emergency preparedness. Therefore, a larger youth population in an area will increase the importance of outreach to schools and parents on effective ways to teach children about fire safety, earthquake response and evacuation plans. Furthermore, children are more vulnerable to the heat and cold, have few transportation options and require assistance to access medical facilities. Older populations may also have special needs prior to, during and after a natural disaster. Older populations may require assistance in evacuation due to limited mobility or health issues. Additionally, older populations may 13 The age dependency ratio is derived by dividing the combined under 15 and 65-and-over populations by the 15-to-64 population and multiplying by 100. A number close to 50 indicates about twice as many people are of working age than non-working age. A number that is closer to 100 implies an equal number of working age population as non-working age population. A higher number indicates greater sensitivity. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 2-11 require special medical equipment or medications and can lack the social and economic resources needed for post-disaster recovery." Families and Living Arrangements Two ways the census defines households are by type of living arrangement and family structure. A householder may live in a "family household" (a group related to one another by birth, marriage or adoption living together); in a "nonfamily household" (a group of unrelated people living together); or alone. Jackson County is predominately comprised of family households (64%). Of all households, 29% are one-person non-family households (householder living alone). Rogue River (513, 44%) has the highest percentage of householders living alone. Table 2-8 Family vs. Non-Family Households Total Family Households Nonfamily Households Householder Living Households Alone Jurisdiction Estimate Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Jackson County 83,487 53,375 64% 30,112 36% 24,128 29% Ashland 9,446 4,654 49% 4,792 51% 3,797 40% Butte Falls 151 71 47% 80 53% 54 36% Central Point 6,565 4,668 71% 1,897 29% 1,576 24% Eagle Point 3,171 2,067 65% 1,104 35% 859 27% Gold Hill 477 326 68% 151 32% 118 25% Jacksonville 1,539 926 60% 613 40% 594 39% Medford 29,751 18,967 64% 10,784 36% 8,420 28% Phoenix 2,176 1,016 47% 1,160 53% 901 41% Rogue River 1,171 627 54% 544 46% 513 44% Shady Cove 1,377 954 69% 423 31% 317 23% Talent 2,705 1,534 57% 1,171 43% 939 35% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey Estimates, Table 52501 74 Wood, Nathan. Variations in City Exposure and Sensitivity to Tsunami Hazards in Oregon. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, 2007. I Page 2-12 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Income Household income and poverty status are indicators of socio demographic capacity and the stability of the local economy. Household income can be used to compare economic areas, but does not reflect how the income is divided among the area residents. Between 2012 and 2015 the share of households making less than $15,000 increased more than other income cohorts; no other income cohort saw a gain of 1% or more. Table 2-9 Household Income 2012^ 2015 Change in Share Household Income Households Percent Households Percent Households Percent Less than $15,000 11,480 14% 12,485 15% 1,005 1% $15,000-$29,999 15,946 19% 15,648 19% -298 <-1% $30,000-$44,999 14,078 17% 14,455 17% 377 < 1% $45,000-$59,999 10,405 13% 10,577 13% 172 < 1% $60,000-$74,999 9,076 11% 9,085 11% 9 < 1% $75,000-$99,999 9,888 12% 9,027 11% -861 -1% $100,000-$199,999 10,297 12% 10,374 12% 77 0% $200,000 or more 2,202 3% 1,836 2% -366 <-1% Source: Social Explorer, Table 56, U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey and 2008-2012 American Community Survey ^ 2012 dollars are adjusted for 2015 using the Social Explorers Inflation Calculator. The 2015 median household income across Jackson County is $44,028; this is lower than the inflation adjusted 2012 figure, representing a 2% decline in real incomes. Eagle Point and Central Point have the highest median household incomes, while Rogue River and Butte Falls have the lowest median household incomes. The table below shows decreases in real incomes across Jackson County and cities, except for Ashland and Jacksonville which both gained in real median income. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 2-13 Table 2-10 Median Household Income Median Household Income Percent 2012^ 2015 Change Jackson County $45,088 $44,028 -2% Ashland $44,718 $45,704 2% Butte Falls $40,548 $29,375 -28% Central Point $49,420 $48,984 -1% Eagle Point $57,322 $55,474 -3% Gold Hill $38,594 $39,688 3% Jacksonville $42,383 $46,901 11% Medford $43,622 $41,931 -4% Phoenix $32,287 $32,035 -1% Rogue River $33,484 $26,753 -20% Shady Cove $36,859 $31,058 -16% Talent $34,036 $36,528 7% Source: Social Explorer, Table 57, U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey Estimates and 2008-2012 American Community Survey Estimates Note: A - 2012 dollars adjusted for 2015 via Social Explorer's Inflation Calculator The table below identifies the percentage of individuals and cohort groups that are below the poverty level in 2015. It is estimated that about 19% of individuals, 27% of children under 18 and 8% of seniors live below the poverty level across the county. Butte Falls (34%) has the highest poverty rate. Overall, 8% of Jackson County residents live in "deep poverty" (having incomes below half the federal poverty level), the percent is greatest in Butte Falls at 34%.15 1s Social Explorer Tables 117, U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey Estimates Page 2-14 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Table 2-1 1 Poverty Rates Total Population Children Under 18 18 to 64 65 or over in Poverty in Poverty in Poverty in Poverty Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Jackson County 39,122 19% 11,479 27% 24,273 20% 3,370 8% Ashland 3,767 18% 749 23% 2,779 23% 239 6% Butte Falls 146 34% 48 53% 89 38% 9 15% Central Point 2027 12% 838 19% 1,047 11% 142 5% Eagle Point 1891 22% 949 42% 867 17% 75 6% Gold Hill 191 16% 59 21% 112 16% 20 10% Jacksonville 121 4% 0 0% 73 6% 48 4% Medford 17,596 23% 51759 32% 10,686 23% 1,151 9% Phoenix 1,160 25% 256 31% 829 34% 75 6% Rogue River 616 28% 191 38% 325 26% 100 15% Shady Cove 692 23% 92 19% 507 31% 93 12% Talent 1283 20% 425 31% 755 20% 103 9% Source: Social Explorer, Tables T114, T115, T116, U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey Estimates. Cutter's research suggests that lack of wealth contributes to social vulnerability because individual and community resources are not as readily available. Affluent communities are more likely to have both the collective and individual capacity to rebound more quickly from a hazard event, while impoverished communities and individuals may not have this capacity -leading to increased vulnerability. Wealth can help those affected by hazard incidents to absorb the impacts of a disaster more easily. Conversely, poverty, at both an individual and community level, can drastically alter recovery time and quality." Federal assistance programs such as food stamps are another indicator of poverty or lack of resource access. Statewide social assistance programs like the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) aid individuals and families. In Jackson County, TANF reaches approximately 1,154 families per month and SNAP helps to feed about 16,036 people per month.17 Those reliant on state and federal assistance are more vulnerable in the wake of disaster because of a lack of personal financial resources and reliance on government support. Education Educational attainment of community residents is also identified as an influencing factor in socio-demographic capacity. Educational attainment often reflects higher income and therefore higher self-reliance. Widespread educational attainment is also beneficial for the regional economy and employment sectors as there are potential employees for professional, service and manual labor workforces. An oversaturation of either highly 16 Cutter, S. L. (2003). Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards. Social Science Quarterly. 17 Sabatino, J. (2016). Oregon TANF Caseload FLASH, "One and Two Parent Families Combined", District 8 (Ashland and Medford); June 2017 data and Sabatino, J. (2016). Oregon SNAP Program Activity, "SSP, APD and AAA Combined", District 3 (Ashland and Medford); June 2017 data. Retrieved from State of Oregon Office of Business Intelligence website: http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ASSISTANCE/Pages/Data.aspx, June 21, 2017. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 2-15 educated residents or low educational attainment can have negative effects on the resiliency of the community. According to the U.S. Census, 89% of the Jackson County population over 25 years of age has graduated from high school or received a high school equivalency, with 24% going on to earn a Bachelor's or higher degree. Ashland and Jacksonville (97%) have the highest percentage of high school graduates. Medford (14%) and Central Point (13%) have the highest percentage of people without a high school degree. Table 2-12 Educational Attainment f Jackson County Ashland Butte Falls Central Point Eagle Point Gold Hill 1:17,1'2; i, 13? Less than high school 16,400 459 18 1,521 396 60 High school graduate or GED 40,327 1,912 95 3,349 1,819 30S Some college, no degree 41,472 2,972 110 3,477 2,060 258 Bachelor's degree 23,319 4,286 22 1,473 625 123 Graduate or professional degree 12,609 3,336 2 723 162 26 Percent withoutHighschoolDegree 11% 3% 7% 13% 7% 7% Percent High School Graduate or Higher 89% 97.11 93% 87.1 93% 93% Percent Bachelor's Degree or Higher 24% 53% 9% 19% 14% 17% Population 25 years and over 2,442 52,263 3,459 1,741 2,353 4,246 Less than high school 82 7,112 377 207 280 409 High school graduate or GED 611 14,298 1,150 610 806 1,030 Some college, no degree 580 14,582 882 468 695 1,110 Bachelor's degree 620 8,270 505 112 305 833 Graduate or professional degree 415 3,544 274 98 109 420 Percent without Highschool Degree 3% 14% 11% 12% 12% 10% Percent High School Graduate or Higher 97106 86% 89% 88% 88% 90% Percent Bachelor's Degree or Higher 42% 23% 23% 12% 18% 30% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey Estimates, TableB15003 Health Individual and community health play an integral role in community resiliency, as indicators such as health insurance, people with disabilities, dependencies, homelessness and crime rate, paint an overall picture of a community's well-being. These factors translate to a community's ability to prepare, respond to and cope with the impacts of a disaster. The Resilience Capacity Index recognizes those who lack health insurance or are impaired with sensory, mental or physical disabilities, have higher vulnerability to hazards and will likely require additional community support and resources. Talent (18%) has the highest percentage of population in Jackson County without health insurance. The percentage of uninsured changes with age; the highest rates of uninsured are within the 18 to 64-year category. Talent also has the highest rate of this age group (18 to 64) that is uninsured (16%) while Medford (10,509) has the largest number. Rogue River (4%) has the highest percentage of individuals under 18 without health insurance, while Medford (911) and Central Point (534) have the largest number. The ability to provide services to the uninsured populations may burden local providers following a natural disaster. Page 2-16 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Table 2-13 Health Insurance Coverage Without Health Insurance Total Population Under 18 years 18 to 64 years 65+ Jurisdiction Population Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Jackson County 207,284 30,468 15io 3,506 2,Q 26,841 13%121 < 1% Ashland 20,474 2,709 13% 264 1% 2,429 12% 16 < 1% Butte Falls 391 52 13% 1 0% 47 12% 4 1% Central Point 17,585 1,186 7% 534 3% 652 4% 0 0% Eagle Point 8,701 1,060 12% 73 1% 987 11% 0 0% Gold Hill 1,194 115 10% 3 0% 112 9% 0 0% Jacksonville 2,827 100 4% 0 0% 100 4% 0 0% Medford 76,779 11,460 15% 911 1% 10,509 14% 40 < 1% Phoenix 4,500 430 10% 53 1% 377 8% 0 0% Rogue River 2,442 372 15% 87 4% 285 12% 0 0% Shady Cove 2,960 345 12% 34 1% 311 11% 0 0% Talent 6,244 1,150 18% 122 2% 1,028 16% 0 0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey Estimates, Table 52701. The table below describes disability status of the population. As of 2015, 17% of the Jackson County non-institutionalized population identifies with one or more disabilities. Jacksonville shows a higher rate (19%) of individuals 65 and over with a disability than the entire county (7%). Table 2-14 Disability Status Total Under 18years 65 years and over Population With a disability with a disability with a disability Estimate Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Jackson County 210,975 35,422 17% 2,424 1% 15,760 7% Ashland 20,405 2,409 12% 20 0% 1,070 5% Butte Falls 430 101 23% 4 1% 18 4% Central Point 17,485 2,856 16% 271 2% 1,485 8% Eagle Point 8,695 1,635 19% 102 1% 641 7% Gold Hill 1,220 221 18% 11 1% 66 5% Jacksonville 2,880 705 24% 57 2% 549 19% Medford 77,655 12,943 17% 1,226 2% 5,219 7% Phoenix 4,585 940 21% 66 1% 411 9% Rogue River 2,175 525 24% 10 0% 227 10% Shady Cove 3,025 692 23% 6 0% 364 12% Talent 6,270 1,143 18% 20 0% 639 10% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey Estimates, Table DP02. In 2015, Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) conducted a point-in-time homeless count to identify the number of homeless, their age and their family type. The OHCS study found that 679 individuals and persons in families in Jackson County identify as homeless; 349 were sheltered (52 in families), 330 were unsheltered (44 in families). Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 2-17 Figure 2-2 Jackson County PIT Homeless Count (2015) 6%(44) 8%(52) - 44% (297) 42% (286) ■ Individuals Sheltered 2015 ■ Individuals Unsheltered 2015 ■ Persons in Families Sheltered 2015 ■ Persons in Families Unsheltered 2015 Source: Oregon Housing and Community Services, 2015 Point-in-Time Homeless Count The homeless have little resources to rely on, especially during an emergency. It will likely be the responsibility of the County and local non-profit entities to provide services such as shelter, food and medical assistance. Therefore, it is critical to foster collaborative relationships with agencies that will provide additional relief such as the American Red Cross and homeless shelters. It will also be important to identify how to communicate with these populations, since traditional means of communication may not be appropriate or available. Synthesis For planning purposes, it is essential Jackson County consider both immediate and long- term socio-demographic implications of hazard resilience. Immediate concerns include the growing elderly population, declining incomes and language barriers associated with a culturally diverse community. Even though the vast majority of the population is reported as proficient in English, there is still a segment of the population not proficient in English. These populations would serve to benefit from mitigation outreach, with special attention to cultural, visual and technology sensitive materials. The current status of other socio- demographic capacity indicators such as graduation rate, poverty level and median household income can have long-term impacts on the economy and stability of the community ultimately affecting future resilience. Page 2-18 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Economic Capacity Economic capacity refers to the financial resources present and revenue generated in the community to achieve a higher quality of life. Income equality, housing affordability, economic diversification, employment and industry are measures of economic capacity. However, economic resilience to natural disasters is far more complex than merely restoring employment or income in the local community. Building a resilient economy requires an understanding of how the component parts of employment sectors, workforce, resources and infrastructure are interconnected in the existing economic picture. Once any inherent strengths or systematic vulnerabilities become apparent, both the public and private sectors can act to increase the resilience of the local economy. Regional Affordability The evaluation of regional affordability supplements the identification of socio-demographic capacity indicators, i.e. median income and is a critical analysis tool to understanding the economic status of a community. This information can capture the likelihood of individuals' ability to prepare for hazards, through retrofitting homes or purchasing insurance. If the community reflects high-income inequality or housing cost burden, the potential for home- owners and renters to implement mitigation can be drastically reduced. Therefore, regional affordability is a mechanism for generalizing the abilities of community residents to get back on their feet without Federal, State or local assistance. Income Equality Income equality is a measure of the distribution of economic resources, as measured by income, across a population. It is a statistic defining the degree to which all persons have a similar income. The table below illustrates the county and city level of income inequality. The Gini index is a measure of income inequality. The index varies from zero to one. A value of one indicates perfect inequality (only one household has any income). A value of zero indicates perfect equality (all households have the same income)." The cities within the county vary with the greatest income equality within the cities of Central Point and Gold Hill, while Butte Falls has the greatest income inequality. Based on social science research, the region's cohesive response to a hazard event may be affected by the distribution of wealth in communities that have less income equality19 181.1niversity of California Berkeley. Building Resilient Regions, Resilience Capacity Index. http://brr.berkeley.edu/rci/. 19 Susan Cutter, Christopher G. Burton and Christopher T. Emrich. 2010. "Disaster Resilience Indicators for Benchmarking Baseline Conditions," Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 7, no.1: 1-22 Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 2-19 Table 2-15 Regional Income Equality Income Inequality Jurisdiction Coefficient Jackson County 0.46 Ashland 0.49 Butte Falls 0.51 Central Point 0.37 Eagle Point 0.39 Gold Hill 0.37 Jacksonville 0.48 Medford 0.45 Phoenix 0.47 Rogue River 0.47 Shady Cove 0.42 Talent 0.44 Source: Social Explorer, Table 157, U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey Estimates Housing Affordability Housing affordability is a measure of economic security gauged by the percentage of an area's households paying less than 30% of their income on housing.20 Households spending more than 30% are considered housing cost burdened. The table below displays the percentage of homeowners and renters reflecting housing cost burden across the region. Among homeowners without a mortgage, Rogue River (32%), Shady Cove (31%) and Talent (31%) have the highest housing cost burdens. Amongst homeowners with a mortgage, Shady Cove (65%), Jacksonville (63%), Rogue River (56%) and Talent (53%) have the highest housing cost burdens. Among renters, Shady Cove (79%) renters have the highest housing cost burdens. In general, the population that spends more of their income on housing has proportionally fewer resources and less flexibility for alternative investments in times of crisis.21 This disparity imposes challenges for a community recovering from a disaster as housing costs may exceed the ability of residents to repair or move to a new location. These populations may live paycheck to paycheck and are extremely dependent on their employer; in the event their employer is also impacted, it will further the detriment experienced by these individuals and families. 20 University of California Berkeley. Building Resilient Regions, Resilience Capacity Index. http://brr.berkeley.edu/rci/. 21 Ibid. Page 2-20 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Table 2-16 Households Spending > 30% of Income on Housing Owners With Without Jurisdiction Mortgage Mortgage Renters Jackson County 41% 19% 56% Ashland 44% 15% 58% Butte Falls 34% 19% 54% Central Point 37% 22% 52% Eagle Point 26% 25% 59% Gold Hill 45% 18% 51% Jacksonville 63% 24% 59% Medford 41% 15% 59% Phoenix 42% 21% 63% Rogue River 56% 32% 52% Shady Cove 65% 31% 79% Talent 53% 31% 47% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey Estimates, Tables B25070 and B25091 Economic Diversity Economic diversity is a general indicator of an area's fitness for weathering difficult financial times. Business activity in the Southwestern Oregon region is fairly homogeneous and consists mostly of small businesses. Economic diversity is a general indicator of an area's fitness for weathering difficult financial times. One method for measuring economic diversity is through use of the Herfindahl Index, a formula that compares the composition of county and regional economies with those of states or the nation. Using the Herfindahl Index, a diversity ranking of 1 indicates the Oregon County with the most diverse economic activity compared to the state, while a ranking of 36 corresponds with the least diverse county economy. The table below describes the Herfindahl Index Scores for counties in the region. Table 2-17 shows that Jackson County has an economic diversity rank of 8 (2013), this is on a scale between all 36 counties in the state where 1 is the most diverse economic county in Oregon and 36 is the least diverse. Table 2-17 Regional Herfindahl Index Scores 2008 2013 Number of Number of County Employment Industries State Rank Employment Industries State Rank Jackson 70,479 243 7 67,092 243 8 Douglas 28,888 207 13 26,933 199 14 Josephine 21,103 205 6 19,716 196 12 Klamath 18,345 191 15 16,826 190 15 Source: Oregon Employment Department Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 2-21 While illustrative, economic diversity is not a guarantor of economic vitality or resilience. Jackson County, as of 2017, is listed as an economically distressed community as prescribed by Oregon Law. The economic distress measure is based on indicators of decreasing new jobs, average wages and income and is associated with an increase of unemployment.zz Employment and Wages According to the Oregon Employment Department, the unemployment rate in Jackson County has declined from 12.8% in 2009 to 5.8% in 2016 but remains higher than the rate for Oregon (4.9%). Figure 2-3 Unemployment Rate 15% n 12.5% 10% i + > ► 7.5% i + 5% 2.5% 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Oregon (Seasonally Adjusted) Jackson County (seasonally Adjusted) Source: Oregon Employment Department, "Local Area Employment Statistics". Table 2-18 displays the payroll and employee figures for Jackson County. As of 2016, there were 85,195 individuals employed in the county, with an average wage of $40,311. Labor Shed The Jackson County economy is a cornerstone of regional economic vitality. Figure 2-4 shows the county's labor shed; the map shows that about 80% of workers live and work in the county (64,940), 20% of workers come from outside the county (16,721) and about 20% of residents work outside of the county (16,008). 22 Business Oregon -Oregon Economic Data "Distressed Communities List", http://www.oregon4biz.com/Publications/Distressed-List/ Page 2-22 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Figure 2-4 Jackson County Laborshed Jra~ n -a~r- 4*, r 16,72, 16,008 64,940 99 © E' 97 y 97B 20 km ' rr 273 r 20 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census (2015), On The Map, accessed October 12, 2017. Mitigation activities are needed at the business level to ensure the health and safety of workers and limit damage to industrial infrastructure. Employees are highly mobile, commuting from all over the surrounding area to industrial and business centers. As daily transit rises, there is an increased risk that a natural hazard event will disrupt the travel plans of residents across the region and seriously hinder the ability of the economy to meet the needs of Jackson County residents and businesses. Industry Key industries are those that represent major employers and are significant revenue generators. Different industries face distinct vulnerabilities to natural hazards, as illustrated by the industry specific discussions below. Identifying key industries in the region enables communities to target mitigation activities towards those industry's specific sensitivities. It is important to recognize that the impact a natural hazard event has on one industry can reverberate throughout the regional economy. This is of specific concern when the businesses belong to the basic sector industry. Basic sector industries are those that are dependent on sales outside of the local community; they bring money into a local community via employment. The farm and ranch, information and wholesale trade industries are all examples of basic industries. Non-basic sector industries are those that are dependent on local sales for their business, such as retail trade, construction and health services. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 2-23 Employment bX Industry Economic resilience to natural disasters is particularly important for the major employment industries in the region. If these industries are negatively impacted by a natural hazard, such that employment is affected, the impact will be felt throughout the regional economy. Thus, understanding and addressing the sensitivities of these industries is a strategic way to increase the resiliency of the entire regional economy. The table below identifies employment by industry. The top five industry sectors in Jackson County with the most employees, as of 2016, are Trade, Transportation & Utilities (22%, 19,125), Education and Health Services (18%, 14,926), Retail Trade (16%, 13,503), Leisure and Hospitality (13%, 10,774) and Manufacturing (9%, 7,676). While Jackson County has some basic industries, such as natural resources and mining and manufacturing; three out of their five largest employers are of the non-basic nature and thus they rely on local sales and services. Trending towards basic industries can lead to higher community resilience. Table 2-18 Total Employment by Industry 2016, Expected Growth 2024 2016 Percent Change Employment Percent Average in Employment Forecast* Employment Sector Firms Employees Workforce Wage (2010-2016) (2014-2024) Total Payroll Frnployn ent 7,112 0,311 13% ' Total Private 6,892 73,859 87% $ 39,132 15% 10% Natural Resources and Mining 186 2,413 3% $ 34,014 7% 8% Construction 716 3,932 5% $ 44,467 41% 12% Manufacturing 328 7,676 9% $ 46,389 27% 11% Trade, Transportation & Utilities 1,291 19,125 22% $ 35,675 11% 6% Wholesale Trade 340 2,452 3% $ 50,249 13% 6% Retail Trade 764 13,503 16% $ 30,087 7% 6% Information 122 1,252 1% $ 50,115 -25% -9% Financial Activities 643 3,253 4% $ 52,636 2% 4% Professional and Business Services 964 6,872 8% $ 44,940 2% 12% Education and Health Services 796 14,926 18% $ 50,640 20% 15% Leisure and Hospitality 720 10,774 13% $ 18,695 23% 12% Other Services 1,083 3,613 4% $ 26,003 28% 7% Private Non-Classified 41 23 <1% $ 40,644 109% 0% Government 220 11,336 13% $ 47,991 -1% 2% Federal 46 1,791 2% $ 66,132 1% -1% State 38 1,694 2% $ 39,312 -27% 0% Local 136 7,851 9% $ 45,726 7% 3% Source: Oregon Employment Department, "2010 and 2016 Covered Employment and Wages Summary Reports" and "Regional Employment Projections by Industry & Occupation 2014-2024". http://www.qualityinfo.org. Accessed June 2017. *Based on 2024 projections for Jackson and Josephine Counties High Revenue Sectors In 2012, the three sectors with the highest revenue were Retail Trade, Manufacturing and Health Care and Social Assistance. The table below shows the revenue generated by each economic sector (Note: not all sectors are reported). All of the sectors combined generated more than $8.6 billion in revenue for the county. Jackson County relies on both basic and non-basic sector industries and it is important to consider the effects each may have on the economy following a disaster. Basic sector businesses have a multiplier effect on a local economy that can spur the creation of new Page 2-24 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP jobs, some of which may be non-basic. The presence of basic sector jobs can help speed the local recovery; however, if basic sector production is hampered by a natural hazard event, the multiplier effect could be experienced in reverse. In this case, a decrease in basic sector purchasing power results in lower profits and potential job losses for the non-basic businesses that are dependent on them. Table 2-19 Revenue of Top Sectors Sector Revenue Sector Meaning (NAICS code) ($1,000) Retail trade $ 3,202,715 Manufacturing $ 1,624,646 Health Care and social assistance $ 1,443,797 Wholesale trade $ 828,368 Transportation and warehousing $ 530,570 Accommodation and food services $ 382,194 Administrative and support and waste management and remediation services $ 177,572 Real estate and rental and leasing $ 164,113 Other Services (Except Public Administration) $ 157,310 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation $ 98,347 Educational Services $ 16,550 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services D Source: Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census, Table EC1200A1. D = Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual companies; data are included in higher level totals The Retail Trade sector generated $3.2 billion making it the largest earning sector in Jackson County. The Retail Trade sector typically relies on residents and tourists and their discretionary spending ability. Residents' discretionary spending diminishes after a natural disaster when they must pay to repair their homes and properties. In this situation, residents will likely concentrate their spending on essential items that would benefit some types of retail (e.g., grocery) but hurt others (e.g., gift shops). The potential income from tourists also diminishes after a natural disaster as people are deterred from visiting the impacted area. Retail trade is also largely dependent on wholesale trade and the transportation network for the delivery of goods for sale. Disruption of the transportation system could have severe consequences for retail businesses. In summary, depending on the type and scale, a disaster could affect specific segments of retail trade, or all segments. The Manufacturing sector was the second largest revenue generator with $1.6 billion. It is highly dependent upon the transportation network to access supplies and send finished products to outside markets. As a base industry, manufacturers are not dependent on local markets for sales, which contribute to the economic resilience of this sector. Healthcare and Social Assistance generated about $1.4 billion. Healthcare and Social Assistance provides essential medical, social and other services to local and even regional residents. Disruptions from a natural hazard may put an exaggerated strain on the ability to Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 2-25 provide needed services to the community at a time when they are most needed. Distanced residents may have difficulty connecting to the provided services due to transportation and personnel disruptions from a natural disaster. If any of these primary sectors are impacted by a disaster, Jackson County may experience a significant disruption of economic productivity. Future Employment in Industry Between 2010 and 2016, the sectors that experienced the largest percent growth were Private Non-Classified (109%), Construction (41%), Other Services (28%), Manufacturing (27%), Leisure and Hospitality (23%) and Education and Health Services (20%). Some of these sectors often require more training and education, while others require less education and have lower wages. Education and Health Services (14,926 employees) and Manufacturing (7,676) are among the largest employers. Sectors that are anticipated to be major employers in the future also warrant special attention in the hazard mitigation planning process. As shown in Table 2-18, between 2014 and 2024, the largest employment growth in the region (Jackson and Josephine Counties) is anticipated within Education and Health Services (15%), Construction (12%), Professional and Business Services (12%), Leisure and Hospitality (12%) and Manufacturing (11%)." Synthesis The current and anticipated financial conditions of a community are strong determinants of community resilience, as a strong and diverse economic base increases the ability of individuals, families and the community to absorb disaster impacts for a quick recovery. Because education and health services and manufacturing are key to post-disaster recovery efforts, the region is bolstered by its major employment sectors. The county's economy is expected to grow by 2024, with much of the growth within the industries of Education and Health Services. It is important to consider what might happen to the county economy if a disaster impacts the largest revenue generators and employers. Areas with less income equality, particularly in the smaller cities, higher housing costs and overall low economic diversity are factors that may contribute to slower recovery from a disaster. 13 Oregon Employment Department, "Employment Projections by Industry and Occupations: 2014-2024 Oregon and Regional Summary", https://www.gualityinfo.org/documents/10182/92203/Mid- Vallev+Industry+Emplovment+Projections+2014-2024?version=l. S, January 2017. Page 2-26 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Built Environment Capacity Built Environment Capacity refers to the built environment and infrastructure that supports the community. The various forms, quantity and quality of built capital mentioned above contribute significantly to community resilience. Physical infrastructures, including utility and transportation lifelines, are critical during a disaster and are essential for proper functioning and response. The lack or poor condition of infrastructure can negatively affect a community's ability to cope, respond and recover from a natural disaster. Following a disaster, communities may experience isolation from surrounding cities and counties due to infrastructure failure. These conditions force communities to rely on local and immediately available resources. Land Use and Development Patterns Jackson County was created by the territorial legislature on January 12, 1852, from the southwestern portion of Lane County and the unorganized area south of Douglas and Umpqua Counties. It was named for President Andrew Jackson and was the twelfth county created in Oregon. When white settlement began in southern Oregon, several Indian tribes already lived in the area. Modocs, Shastas, Rogue Rivers and Umpquas all lived within the present boundaries of Jackson County. In the early 1850s, both the Klickitats from the north and the Deschutes from the south raided and settled in the area. Jackson County's borders originally ran south to California, west to the Pacific Ocean, east to Lane County and north to Umpqua and Douglas Counties. In 1853, Coos County was created from the western portions of Jackson, Douglas and Umpqua Counties. In 1854, Wasco County was created and given all the land in Oregon Territory lying east of the summit of the Cascades. Due to the topography and climate of Jackson County, land is used most intensively by people in the Bear Creek, middle Rogue and to a lesser extent, the Applegate Valleys. Development has followed the land use patterns of the early settlers; farmers located on the rich valley floors and miners and woodsmen claimed the foothill areas.24 Agriculture, rural, suburban, urban, industrial and rural service center land uses are concentrated in these fertile valleys, whereas forest and open space and pockets of agriculture occur in surrounding mountainous regions of the county. Consequently, intense valley development is subject to increased risk from associated flood hazards. Forested mountains and steep slopes surrounding these valleys pose a significant risk to the entire region from wildfire and landslide events.25 Historically, the county, region and state economy are based on timber, mining, tourism and agriculture. This, along with the large portions of the county that are public lands, impacted the land use and development patterns in the county. The Board of County Commissioners began adopting land use regulations in 1956. Then, in 1973, the Oregon Legislature adopted mandatory requirement for local jurisdictions commonly referred to as Oregon's 19 24Jackson County Comprehensive Plan. 1989. Section 5-1. u Oregon Secretary of State. (n.d.). Retrieved January 7, 2017, from http://sos.oregon.gov/archives/Pages/default.aspx Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 2-27 Statewide Planning Goals. The Goals express the state's policies on land use and related topics, such as citizen involvement, housing and natural resources. Local jurisdictions including Counties and incorporated cities must prepare and adopt comprehensive plans, zoning regulations, land use permitting regulations. As part of the 19 Goals Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) were established to separate areas planned for urban use as opposed to rural uses. Urban Growth Boundaries are not necessarily city boundaries and, unlike a city boundary, must contain enough land to meet estimated 20-year employment and population growth. Additionally, the UGB must be reviewed periodically to assess the land capacity. Much of Jackson County is publicly owned including portions of the Klamath National Forest, the. Umpqua National Forest, the Winema National Forest, Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument and Bureau of Land Management lands in the Ashland and Butte Falls Resource Areas. Regulatory Context Oregon land use laws require land outside Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) to be protected for farm, forest and aggregate resource values. For the most part, this law limits the amount of development in the rural areas. However, the land use designation can change from resource protection in one of two ways: • The requested change could qualify as an exception to Statewide Planning Goals, in which case the city/county must demonstrate to the State that the change meets requirements for an exception. These lands, known as exception lands, are predominantly designated for residential use. • Resource land can also be converted to non-resource use when it can be demonstrated that the land is no longer suitable for farm or forest production. Local and state policies currently direct growth away from rural lands into UGBs and, to a lesser extent, into rural communities. If development follows historical development trends, urban areas will expand their UGBs, rural unincorporated communities will continue to grow and overall rural residential density will increase slightly with the bulk of rural lands kept in farm and forest use. The existing pattern of development in the rural areas, which is radiating out from the urban areas along rivers and streams, is likely to continue. Most "easy to develop" land is already developed. Natural features or hazards, such as floodplains, steep slopes orwildfire prone landscapes, often constrain the remaining undeveloped land. Since 1973, Oregon has maintained a strong statewide program for land use planning. The foundation of that program is a set of 19 statewide planning goals that express the state's policies on land use and on related topics, such as citizen involvement, land use planning and natural resources. Most of the goals are accompanied by "guidelines," which are suggestions about how a goal may be applied. Oregon's statewide goals are achieved through local comprehensive planning. State law requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive plan and the zoning and land-division ordinances needed to put the plan into effect. The local comprehensive plans must be consistent with the statewide planning goals. Plans are reviewed for such consistency by the state's Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). When LCDC officially approves a local government's plan, the plan is Page 2-28 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP said to be "acknowledged." It then becomes the controlling document for land use in the area covered by that plan. Statewide Land Use Planning _Goal 7: Natural Hazards Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards has the overriding purpose to "protect people and property from natural hazards." Goal 7 requires local governments to adopt comprehensive plans (inventories, policies and implementing measures) to reduce risk to people and property from natural hazards. Natural hazards include among others: floods, landslides, earthquakes, tsunamis, coastal erosion and wildfires. To comply with Goal 7, local governments are required to respond to new hazard inventory information from federal or state agencies. The local government must evaluate the hazard risk and assess the: • Frequency, severity and location of the hazard; • Effects of the hazard on existing and future development; • Potential for development in the hazard area to increase the frequency and severity of the hazard; and • Types and intensities of land uses to be allowed in the hazard area. Local governments must adopt or amend comprehensive plan policies and implementing measures to avoid development in hazard areas where the risk cannot be mitigated. In addition, the siting of essential facilities, major structures, hazardous facilities and special occupancy structures should be prohibited in hazard areas where the risk to public safety cannot be mitigated. The state recognizes compliance with Goal 7 for coastal and riverine flood hazards by adopting and implementing local floodplain regulations that meet the minimum National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements. i In adopting plan policies and implementing measures for protection from natural hazards local governments should consider: • The benefits of maintaining natural hazard areas as open space, recreation and other low density uses; • The beneficial effects that natural hazards can have on natural resources and the environment; and • The effects of development and mitigation measures in identified hazard areas on the management of natural resources. Local governments should coordinate their land use plans and decisions with emergency prevention, protection, mitigation, response and recovery programs. Given the numerous waterways and forested lands throughout much of Jackson County, special attention should be given to problems associated with river bank erosion and potential for wildland/ urban interface fires. Goal 7 guides local governments to give special attention to emergency access when considering development in identified hazard areas, including: • Consider programs to manage storm water runoff as a means to address flood and landslide hazards; • Consider non-regulatory approaches to help implement the goal; Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 2-29 • When reviewing development requests in high hazard areas, require site specific reports, appropriate for the level and type of hazards. Site specific reports should evaluate the risk to the site, as well as the risk the proposed development may pose to other properties; and • Consider measures exceeding the National Flood Insurance Program. Housing In addition to location, the characteristics of the housing stock affect the level of risk posed by natural hazards. The table below identifies the types of housing most common throughout the county. Of particular interest are mobile homes, which account for about 14% of the housing in Jackson County (40% in Shady Cove and 32% in Butte Falls). Mobile homes are particularly vulnerable to certain natural hazards, such as windstorms and special attention should be given to securing the structures because they are more prone to wind damage than wood-frame construction. In other natural hazard events, such as earthquakes and floods, moveable structures like mobile homes are more likely to shift on their foundations and create hazardous conditions for occupants. Table 2-20 Housing Profile Housing Single Family Multi-Family Mobile Homes* Units Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Jackson County 91,782 63,145 69% 16,022 17% 12,615 14% Ashland 10,372 7,369 71% 2,687 26% 316 3% Butte Falls 200 110 55% 26 13% 64 32% Central Point 7,162 5,651 79% 999 14% 512 7% Eagle Point 3,458 2,595 75% 571 17% 292 8% Gold Hill 535 438 82% 38 7% 59 11% Jacksonville 1,608 1,018 63% 359 22% 231 14% Medford 32,209 21,866 68% 8,810 27% 1,533 5% Phoenix 2,299 1,236 54% 582 25% 481 21% Rogue River 1,336 671 50% 481 36% 184 14% Shady Cove 1,504 751 50% 145 10% 608 40% Talent 2,843 1,833 64% 535 19% 475 17% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey Estimates, Table DP04 * Also includes boats, RVs, vans, etc. that are used as a residence. Note: the percentages listed in the table above do not reflect the number of structures that are built within special flood hazard areas, or that are at risk of seismic damage or that are vulnerable to other hazards. Aside from location and type of housing, the year structures were built has implications. Seismic building standards were codified in Oregon building code starting in 1974; more rigorous building code standards were passed in 1993 that accounted for the Cascadia earthquake fault.26 Therefore, homes built before 1993 are more vulnerable to seismic events. Also, in the 1970's, FEMA began assisting communities with floodplain mapping as a 26 State of Oregon Building Codes Division. Earthquake Design History: A summary of Requirements in the State of Oregon, February 7, 2012. http://www.oregon.gov/OMD/OEM/osspac/docs/history_seismic_codes_or.pdf Page 2-30 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP response to administer the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. Upon receipt of floodplain maps, communities started to develop floodplain management ordinances to protect people and property from flood loss and damage. The table below illustrates the number and percent of homes built between 1970 and 2015. Countywide, about one-third (30%) of the housing stock was built prior to 1970, before the implementation of floodplain management ordinances; however, Butte Falls has the highest percentage of housing units built prior to 1970 (52%). Countywide, 62% of the housing stock was built before 1990 and the codification of seismic building standards. Approximately 39% of the county's housing stock was built after 1990; Eagle Point (62%) has the highest percentage of housing units built after 1990; conversely, about 75% of Rogue River's housing stock was built before 1990. Table 2-21 Year Structure Built Total Pre 1970 1970 to 1989 1990 or later Housing Percent Percent Percent Units Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total Jackson County 91,782 27,204 30% 29,011 32% 35,567 39% Ashland 10,372 4,073 39% 2,966 29% 3,333 32% Butte Falls 200 103 52% 28 14% 69 35% Central Point 7,162 1,382 19% 1,648 23% 4,132 58% Eagle Point 3,458 448 13% 864 25% 2,146 62% Gold Hill 535 199 37% 172 32% 164 31% Jacksonville 1,608 526 33% 488 30% 594 37% Medford 32,209 10,528 33% 9,590 30% 12,091 38% Phoenix 2,299 288 13% 1,114 48% 897 39% Rogue River 1,336 222 17% 760 57% 354 26% Shady Cove 1,504 250 17% 346 23% 908 60% Talent 2,843 561 20% 769 27% 1,513 53% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey Estimates, Table D1304 The National Flood Insurance Program's (NFIP's) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) delineate flood-prone areas. They are used to assess flood insurance premiums and to regulate construction so that in the event of a flood, damage is minimized. The table below shows the initial and current FIRM effective dates for Jackson County communities. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 2-31 I Table 2-22 Community Flood Map History Jackson County April 1, 1982 May 3, 2011 Ashland June 1, 1981 May 3, 2011 Butte Falls June 30, 1976 June 30, 1976 (M) Central Point Sept 30, 1980 May 3, 2011 Eagle Point Sept 30, 1980 May 3, 2011 Gold Hill Sept 17, 1980 May 3, 2011 Jacksonville Dec 4, 1979 May 3, 2011 Medford April 15, 1981 May 3, 2011 Phoenix May 3, 1982 May 3, 2011 Rogue River Jan 2, 1980 May 3, 2011 Shady Cove Sept 30, 1980 May 3, 2011 Talent Feb 1, 1980 May 3, 2011 Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Community Status Book Report* M = No Elevation Determined - All Zone A, C and X Critical Facilities Critical facilities are those facilities that are essential to government response and recovery activities (e.g., hospitals, police, fire and rescue stations, school districts and higher education institutions). The interruption or destruction of any of these facilities would have a debilitating effect on incident response. Critical facilities in Jackson County are identified below and within Volume III. Hospitals: • Asante Rogue Regional Medical Center (Medford) • Asante Ashland Community Hospital • Providence Medford Medical Center Law Enforcement: • Jackson County Sheriff's Office • Ashland Police Department • Butte Falls Police Department • Central Point Police Department • Central Point Police Department • Eagle Point Police Department • Gold Hill Police Department • Jacksonville Police Department • Medford Police Department • Phoenix Police Department • Rogue River Police Department • Shady Cove Police Department • Talent Police Department Page 2-32 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP I Fire Districts: • Applegate Valley Fire District #9 • Ashland Fire & Rescue • Butte Falls Volunteer Fire Department • Colestin Rural Fire Protection District • Evans Valley Fire District #6 • Greensprings Fire & Rescue • Jackson County Fire District #3 • Jackson County Fire District #4 (Shady Cove) • Jackson County Fire District #5 (Phoenix/Talent) • Jacksonville Fire Department • Lake Creek Fire District #8 • Medford Fire and Rescue (to include Jackson County Fire District #2) • Prospect Rural Fire Protection District • Rogue River Fire District #1 • Rogue Valley International Airport Fire & Rescue School Districts: • Ashland School District 5 • Butte Falls School District 91 • Central Point School District 6 • Jackson County School District 9 • Medford School District 5490 • Phoenix-Talent School District 4 • Pinehurst School District 94 • Prospect School District 59 • Rogue River School District 35 Dependent Facilities In addition to the critical facilities mentioned above there are other facilities that are vital to the continued delivery of health services and may significantly impact the public's ability to recover from emergencies. Assisted living centers, nursing homes and residential mental health facilities are important to identify within the community because of the dependent nature of the residents; and also these facilities can serve as secondary medical facilities as they are equipped with nurses, medical supplies and beds. Jackson County has 28 assisted living centers, five registered nursing homes and seven residential mental health facilities.- There are no reported psychiatric hospitals in the Jackson, or surrounding, counties. Of all of the dependent facilities identified in the county, 16 (57%) assisted living centers, four (80%) nursing homes and six (86%) residential mental health facilities are located in Medford. In summary, there are 26 of 40 (65%) dependent care facilities located in one city across the county. 27 Online Google Based Query, October 2011. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 2-33 it Correctional Facilities Correctional facilities are incorporated into physical infrastructure as they play an important role in everyday society by maintaining a safe separation from the public. There are three correctional facilities located in Jackson County. The Jackson County Jail (292 inmate capacity. 787 W. 8th, Medford), Jackson County Community Justice Transition Center (169 beds, average daily population 130, 5505 S. Pacific Highway, in County between Phoenix and Talent) and Jackson County Juvenile Detention (40 beds, 609 W. 10'h, Medford). While correctional facilities are built to code to resist structural failure and institutions will have back up powerto sustain regulation of inmates following the immediate event of an emergency, logistical planning becomes more of a challenge when the impacts of the event continue over a long duration. Infrastructure Profile Physical infrastructure such as dams, levees, roads, bridges, railways and airports support Jackson County communities and economies. Due to the fundamental role that physical infrastructure plays both in pre- and post-disaster, they deserve special attention in the context of creating resilient communities. Utility systems such as potable water, wastewater, natural gas, telecommunications and electric power are all networked systems. That is, they consist of nodes and links. Nodes are centers where something happens - such as a pumping plant, a treatment plant, a substation, a switching office and the like. Links are the connections (pipes or lines) between nodes. Pacific Power is the utility provider for the Jackson County. Utility Lifelines Utility lifelines are the resources the public relies on daily, (i.e., electricity, fuel and communication lines). If these lines fail or are disrupted, the essential functions of the community can become severely impaired. Utility lifelines are closely related to physical infrastructure, (i.e., dams and power plants) as they transmit the power generated from these facilities. The network of transmission lines running through the county may be vulnerable to severe, but infrequent natural hazards, such as windstorm, winter storms and earthquakes. Electric Power Systems The Bonneville Power Administration is the region's wholesale electricity distributor. Pacific Power (PacifiCorp) is the primary investor-owned utility company serving Jackson County (including the cities of Butte Falls, Central Point, Eagle Point, Jacksonville, Medford, Phoenix, Rogue River, Shady Cove, Talent and the unincorporated community of White City). Other utilities include: Ashland Municipal Electric Utility which serves the City of Ashland, Most of the electrical power in the region is generated through hydropower. Dams operated by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and Pacific Power (PacifiCorp) provide hydro- generated electricity, including from dams situated on the Applegate River and Rogue River. za Jackson County Community Justice, http://jacksoncountyor.org/community-justice/Transition- Center/Overview, accessed October 2017. Page 2-34 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP There is one additional power plant located in White City, which uses biomass as its energy source? The electric power system is central to community function. The impacts of loss of electric power are large: residential, commercial and public customers are all heavily dependent on electric power for normal functioning. Furthermore, other utility systems, especially water and wastewater systems, are heavily dependent on electric power for normal operations. Loss of electric power may have large impacts on affected communities, especially if outages are prolonged. Natural Gas Systems Jackson County's primary natural gas provider is investor-owned Avista Utilities. Natural gas transmission and distribution pipes are not usually affected by flooding, because the pipes are pressurized. However, compressor stations may be subject to inundation damage or loss of electrical power to run electrical and mechanical equipment. Transmission and distribution pipes are also subject to rupture in slide areas and in earthquakes. Buried utility pipes are very subject to failure in small ground movements. Movements as small as an inch or two are often sufficient to break the pipes, especially for older cast-iron pipe which is more brittle than welded steel or polyethylene pipe. Possible mitigation actions include pipe upgrades for a few critical locations and nonstructural seismic mitigation for control equipment. Telecommunications Systems Telephone (land lines and cellular) systems, broadcast radio and TV systems and cable TV systems may all be vulnerable to damages and services outages from hazards. However, in general, such systems have proved to be somewhat less vulnerable to service outages than other utility systems. System nodes (broadcast studios, switching offices and such) are subject to flooding if located in flood-prone areas. However, because of the importance of such facilities, few are located in highly flood-prone sites. Similarly, few such facilities are likely to be located in landslide prone areas. Cellular towers in hilly areas, however, may be more subject to landslide hazards. Buried communications (copper and fiber optic) and cable television cables are usually flexible enough to accommodate several feet of ground movement before failure. While major landslides may rupture such cables, minor settlements or small slides are not nearly as likely to impact such cables as they are to break buried gas or water pipes. Such lines typically perform relatively well in earthquakes. Above ground communications and cable television cables are subject to wind- induced failures from tree falls and pole failures. However, such failures are a less common than failures of electric power lines. The better performance of communications cables arises in part because the electrical cables are always highest on the poles, thus a falling branch is usually first resisted by the power cables. Also, because the voltage levels in communications cables are much lower than those in power cables, the communication 29 Loy, W. G., ed. 2001. Atlas of Oregon, 2nd Edition. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon Press Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 2-35 cables are not subject to "burn down" or shorting if wind-swayed cables touch each other or get too close. Some telecommunications facilities are subject to failure as a result of loss of electric power. However, key facilities almost always have backup battery power and/or generators. Therefore, telecommunications facilities are generally much less vulnerable to outages from loss of electric power than are water or wastewater systems. Potable Water Water treatment plants are often located in flood prone areas and are subject to inundation when untreated water enters the filters, sedimentation or flocculation basins, resulting in loss of capability to treat incoming untreated water properly. Water system control buildings and pump stations may also be subject to flood damages. Public or private water systems with wells as the water source are subject to outages when flood waters contaminate well heads; this is a common problem for smaller water systems. Water transmission or distribution pipes are rarely damaged by flood waters, unless there are soil settlements or major erosion, because the lines are sufficiently pressurized (for water quality) to prevent intrusion of flood waters. Water transmission or distribution pipes are, however, subject to breakage when they cross landslide areas or in earthquakes. Water treatment plants are also subject to earthquake damages to the building and to process and control equipment. Water systems are also highly vulnerable to electric power outages. Many water systems include pumped storage systems where water is pumped to storage tanks which are typically located 60 to 200 feet above the elevation of water system customers. Such tanks generally contain no more than 1 or 2 days of storage beyond typical daily usage (for reasons of water quality). Thus, electric power outages of more than 1 or 2 days may result in loss of potable water due to the inability of pumping plants to pump water. The most logical mitigation projects to minimize such outages are to provide back-up generators at key pumping plants or to provide quick connects so that portable generators (if available) can be quickly installed. Water treatment plants are also subject to outages due to loss of electric power. Wastewater Systems Wastewater systems are often highly vulnerable to flood impacts. Rising water may cause collection pipes to backup and overflow. Intrusion of storm water into collection systems may result in flows that exceed treatment plant capacities, resulting in release of untreated or only partially treated flows. Treatment plants are often located in floodplains, at low elevations, to facilitate gravity flow. However, such locations also facilitate flood damages. Lift stations and treatment plants are also subject to loss of function due to electric power outages, with resulting overflows or releases. Collection pipes are also subject to breakage due to landslides. However, such impacts are not particularly common, since most wastewater collection systems are in more urbanized areas with only selected areas subject to slides. Wastewater pipes are, however, subject to breakage in earthquakes. Wastewater treatment plants are also subject to earthquake damages to the building and to process and control equipment. Page 2-36 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Dams Dams are manmade structures built to impound water. Dams are built for many purposes including water storage for potable water supply, livestock water supply, irrigation or fire suppression. Other dams are built for flood control, recreation, navigation, hydroelectric power or to contain mine tailings. Dams may also be multifunction, serving two or more of these purposes. The National Inventory of Dams, NID, which is maintained by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, is a database of approximately 76,000 dams in the United States. The NID does not include all dams in the United States. Rather, the NID includes dams that are deemed to have a high or significant hazard potential and dams deemed to pose a low hazard if they meet inclusion criteria based on dam height and storage volume. Low hazard potential dams are included only if they meet either of the following selection criteria: • Exceeds 25 feet in height and 15 acre-feet of storage, or • Exceeds 6 feet in height and 50-acre feet of storage. There are many thousands of dams too small to meet the NID selection criteria. However, these small dams are generally too small to have significant impacts if they fail and thus are generally not considered for purposes of risk assessment or mitigation planning. This NID potential hazard classification is solely a measure of the probable impacts if a dam fails. Thus, a dam classified as High Potential Hazard does not mean that the dam is unsafe or likely to fail. The level of risk (probability of failure) of a given dam is not even considered in this classification scheme. Rather, the High Potential Hazard classification simply means that there are people at risk downstream from the dam in the inundation area, if the dam were to fail. Dams assigned the low hazard potential classification are those where failure or mis- operation results in no probable loss of human life and low economic and/or environmental losses. Losses are principally limited to the dam owner's property. Dams assigned to the significant hazard potential classification are those where failure or mis-operation results in no probable loss of human life but can cause economic loss, environmental damage or disruption of lifeline facilities. Significant hazard potential dams are often located in predominantly rural or agricultural areas. Dams assigned to the high hazard potential classification are those where failure or mis- operation will probably cause loss of human life. Failure of dams in the high classification will generally also result in economic, environmental or lifeline losses, but the classification is based solely on probable loss of life. Dam failures can occur at any time in a dam's life; however, failures are most common when water storage for the dam is at or near design capacity. At high water levels, the water force on the dam is higher and several of the most common failure modes are more likely to occur. Correspondingly, for any dam, the probability of failure is much lower when water levels are substantially below the design capacity for the reservoir. For embankment dams, the most common failure mode is erosion of the dam during prolonged periods of rainfall and flooding. When dams are full and water inflow rates Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 2-37 exceed the capacity of the controlled release mechanisms (spillways and outlet pipes), overtopping may occur. When overtopping occurs, scour and erosion of either the dam itself and/ or of the abutments may lead to partial or complete failure of the dam. Especially for embankment dams, internal erosion, piping or seepage through the dam, foundation, or abutments can also lead to failure. For smaller dams, erosion and weakening of dam structures by growth of vegetation and burrowing animals is a common cause of failure. For embankment dams, earthquake ground motions may cause dams to settle or spread laterally. Such settlement does not generally lead, by itself, to immediate failure. However, if the dam is full, relatively minor amounts of settling may cause overtopping to occur, with resulting scour and erosion that may progress to failure. For any dam, improper design, construction, or inadequate preparation of foundations and abutments can also cause failures. Improper operation of a dam, such as failure to open gates or valves during high flow periods can also trigger dam failure. For any dam, unusual hydrodynamic (water) forces can also initiate failure. Landslides into the reservoir, which may occur on their awn or be triggered by earthquakes, may lead to surge waves which overtop dams or hydrodynamic forces which cause dams to fail under the unexpected load. Earthquakes can also cause seiches (waves) in reservoirs that may overtop or overload dam structures. In rare cases, high winds may also cause waves that overtop or overload dam structures. Concrete dams are also subject to failure due to seepage of water through foundations or abutments. Dams of any construction type are also subject to deliberate damage via sabotage or terrorism. For waterways with a series of dams, downstream dams are also subject to failure induced by the failure of an upstream dam. If an upstream dam fails, then downstream dams also fail due to overtopping or due to hydrodynamic forces. Dam failures can occur rapidly and with little warning. Fortunately, most failures result in minor damage and pose little or no risk to life safety. However, the potential forsevere damage still exists. The Oregon Water and Resources Department has inventoried all dams located in Oregon and Jackson County. There are 15 dams categorized as high hazard; Fish Lake, Reeder Gulch Reservoir, Willow Creek Dam, Yankee Reservoir, Woodrat Knob Dam, Wade Reservoir, Lake Creek Dam, Sam Valley Reservoir, Osborne Creek Dam, Agate Dam, Duggan Dam, Howard Prairie, Emigrant, Lost Creek Reservoir and Applegate Lake. There are also 20 additional dams categorized as a significant hazard. Page 2-38 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Table 2-23 Jackson County Dam Inventory Threat Number of Potential Dams Rivers Fish Lake & Tributaries; Ashland Creek; Willow & Four Bit Creeks; Yankee Creek; Lake Creek & Tributaries; Maple Creek; Lake Creek; East Fork High 15 Sams, West Fork Sams, & Minera; Osbourne Creek; Dry Creek & Antelope Creek; Snider Creek; S Fork Little Butte Creek Tributaries; Hyatt & Howard Prairie Reservoirs; Rogue River; Applegate River Keene Creek, Long Branch (South Fork), Upper Table Rock Run-Off, Significant 20 School House Creek, Murderers Gulch, Fork of Lake Creek, Lost Creek, Harrison Creek, Snyder Creek, Branch of Whetstone Creek, North Fork Rogue River, Emigrant Creek, Tributary to Rogue River Dry Creek, Dailey Creek, North Fork Grizzley Creek, Indian & Dyer Creeks, Bear Gulch, Little Butte Creek, Coal Mine Creek, Lick Creek, Ramsey Low 28 Canyon, Squaw Creek, Keene Creek, Jackson Creek, South Fork Rogue River, Sams Creek, Iron Gulch Creek, South Fork of Grizzley Creek, Ashland Creek, Stimpson Gulch, Evans Creek, Pleasant Creek Tributary Total 63 Source: Oregon Water Resources Department, "Dam Inventory Query" Transportation Due to the fundamental role that transportation infrastructure plays both pre-and post- disaster, it deserves special attention in the context of creating more resilient communities. The information documented in this section of the profile can provide the basis for informed decisions about how to reduce the vulnerability of Jackson County's transportation infrastructure to natural hazards. Rail Ways Railroads are major providers of regional and national cargo trade flows. The Central Oregon & Pacific and the White City Terminal Railroad run through Jackson County.,, The Central Oregon & Pacific Line follows 1-5 through the Jackson County, it then runs west through Lane County and loops back into Douglas County through Reedsport. The White City Terminal Railroad is a short spur off the Central Oregon & Pacific Line in Jackson County. Rails are sensitive to icing from winter storms that can occur in the Southwest Oregon region. For industries in the region that utilize rail transport, these disruptions in service can result in economic losses. The potential for rail accidents caused by natural hazards can also have serious implications for the local communities if hazardous materials are involved. Airports Jackson County has one commercial service airport, three other public airports and 17 private airports.31 The Rogue Valley International Airport in Medford is the only commercial 30 Oregon Department of Transportation, State of Oregon, Oregon Railways. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TDATA/gis/docs/statemaps/ra i lroads.pdf?ga=t 31 FAA Airport Master Record. 2011. http://www.faa.gov/airports/ai rport_safety/ai rportdata_5010/menu/i ndex.cfm. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 2-39 service airport in surrounding Douglas, Josephine and Klamath Counties. Access to these airports face the potential for closure from a number of natural hazards, including wind and winter storms common to the region. Another important consideration in identifying area air resources is the type and condition of runway surfaces at these various facilities, as they will impact the ability to utilize the airport. Common runway surface types in Jackson County are turf, dirt, asphalt, concrete and gravel. Roads The region's major expressway is Interstate 5. It runs north/south through Jackson County and is the main passage for automobiles and trucks traveling along the west coast. Other major highways that service this region include: • US Highway 66 connects the Ashland Municipal Airport with Ashland and Klamath Falls. • US Highway 62 connects Medford to Central Oregon. • Highway 227 joins Highway 62 near Shady Cove and eventually merges with 1-5north near Roseburg. • US Highway 199 intersects with 1-5 in Grants Pass, just outside of Jackson County and runs south to the North Coast of California. • Highway 238 connects the Applegate Valley including the communities of Jacksonville, Ruch, Applegate, and Provolt to Medford and Grants Pass. • Highway 140 connects Medford to Klamath Falls. • Highway 99 runs parallel to Interstate 5 and provides a secondary transportation route for cities within the Rogue Valley. Daily, transportation infrastructure capacity in the Southwest Oregon region is stressed by maintenance, congestion and oversized loads. Natural hazards can further disrupt automobile traffic and create gridlock this is of specific concern in periods of evacuation.32 Seismic lifeline routes help maintain transportation facilities for public safety and resilience in the case of natural disasters. Following a major earthquake, it is important for response and recovery agencies to know which roadways are most prepared for a major seismic event. The Oregon Department of Transportation has identified lifeline routes to provide a secure lifeline network of streets, highways and bridges to facilitate emergency services response after a disaster.33 System connectivity and key geographical features were used to identify a three-tiered seismic lifeline system. Routes identified as Tier 1 are considered to be the most significant and necessary to ensure a functioning statewide transportation network. The Tier 2 system provides additional connectivity to the Tier 1 system; it allows for direct access to more locations and increased traffic volume capacity. The Tier 3 lifeline routes provide additional connectivity to the systems provided by Tiers 1 and 2. The Lifeline Routes in the Southl-5 and Cascades Regions affecting Jackson County consist of the following: 32 State of Oregon Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, Region 4 Southwest Oregon Regional Profile. 33 CH2MHILL, Prepared for Oregon Department of Transportation. Oregon Seismic Lifeline Routes Identification Project, Lifeline Selection Summary Report, May 15 2012. Page 2-40 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP • Tier I: Interstate 5 • Tier II: Oregon Route 140 Bridges Because of earthquake risk, the seismic vulnerability of the county's bridges is an important issue. Non-functional bridges can disrupt emergency operations, sever lifelines and disrupt local and freight traffic. These disruptions may exacerbate local economic losses if industries are unable to transport goods. The county's bridges are part of the state and interstate highway system, which is maintained by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), or are part of regional and local systems, maintained by the region's counties and cities. The bridges in Jackson County require ongoing management and maintenance due to the age and types of bridges. Modern bridges, which require minimum maintenance and are designed to withstand earthquakes, consist of pre-stressed reinforced concrete structures set on deep steel piling foundations. Table 2-24 shows the structural condition of bridges in the region. A distressed bridge (Di) is a condition rating used by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) indicating that a bridge has been identified as having a structural or other deficiency, while a deficient bridge (De) is a federal performance measure used for non-ODOT bridges; the ratings do not imply that a bridge is unsafe. 14 The table shows that the county has a lower percentage of bridges that are distressed and/ or deficient (16%), than does the state (21%). About 13% of the total county and city owned bridges are distressed, compared to 21% of State owned (ODOT) bridges. Table 2-24 Bridge Inventory NEEMEM Distressed 610 64 24 State Owned Sub-total 2,718 362 128 Percent Distressed 22% 18% 21% Deficient 633 81 16 County Owned Sub-total 3,420 508 152 Percent Distressed 19% 16% 11% Deficient 160 14 8 City Owned Sub-total 614 56 32 Percent Deficient 26% 25% 25% Deficient 40 4 0 Other Owned Sub-total 115 10 0 Percent Deficient 35% 40% Deficient 1,443 163 48 Area Total Sub-total 6,769 905 300 Percent Deficient 21% 18% 16% Historic Covered 334 11 4 Source: Oregon Department of Transportation, 2014; Oregon Department of Transportation (2013), Oregon's Historic Bridge Field Guide 34 Oregon. Bridge Engineering Section (2012). 2012 Bridge Condition Report. Salem, Oregon: Bridge Section, Oregon Department. of Transportation. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 2-41 Note: Di = ODOT bridges Identified as distressed with structural or other deficiencies; De= Non-ODOT bridge Identified with a structural deficiency or as functionally obsolete; D =Total od Di and De bridges; ST= Jurisdictional Subtotal; %D = Percent distressed (ODOT) and/ or deficient bridges; * = ODOT bridge classifications overlap and total (ST) is not used to calculate percent distressed, calculation for ODOT distressed bridges accounts for this overlap. The County's bridge maintenance and engineering divisions work in coordination to inspect and maintain the bridges within the county. Bridges within Jackson County are inspected at two-year intervals or more frequently if special conditions exist. Bridges that are found to be in critical condition during an inspection are prioritized for immediate replacement. Synthesis The planning considerations seemingly most significant forthe County are contingency planning for medical resources and lifeline systems due to the imminent need forthese resources. As mentioned above, functionality of hospitals and dependent care facilities are a significant priority in providing for Jackson County residents. One factor that is critical to consider in planning is the availability of medical beds in local hospitals and dependent care facilities. In the event of a disaster, medical beds may be at a premium providing not just for the growing elderly population, but the entire county. Some of these facilities may run at almost full capacity on a daily basis, hospitals should consider medical surge planning and develop memorandums with surrounding counties for medical transport and treatment. Other facilities to consider are utility lifelines and transportation lifelines such as, airports, railways, roads and bridges with surrounding counties to acquire utility service and infrastructure repair. While these elements are traditionally recognized as part of response and recovery from a natural disaster, it is essential to start building relationships and establishing contractual agreements with entities that may be critical in supporting community resilience. Page 2-42 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Community Connectivity Capacity Community connectivity capacity places strong emphasis on social structure, trust, norms and cultural resources within a community. In terms of community resilience, these emerging elements of social and cultural capital will be drawn upon to stabilize the recovery of the community. Social and cultural capitals are present in all communities; however, it may be dramatically different from one city to the next as these capitals reflect the specific needs and composition of the community residents. Social Systems and Service Providers Social systems include community organizations and programs that provide social and community-based services, such as employment, health, senior and disabled services, professional associations and veterans' affairs for the public. In planning for natural hazard mitigation, it is important to know what social systems exist within the community because of their existing connections to the public. Often, actions identified by the NHMP involve communicating with the public or specific subgroups within the population (e.g. elderly, children, low income, etc.). The County can use existing social systems as resources for implementing such communication-related activities because these service providers already work directly with the public on a number of issues, one of which could be natural hazard preparedness and mitigation. The presence of these services are more predominantly located in urbanized areas of the county, this is synonymous with the general urbanizing trend of local residents. The following is a brief explanation of how the communication process works and how the community's existing social service providers could be used to provide natural hazard related messages to their clients. There are five essential elements for communicating effectively to a target audience: • The source of the message must be credible; • The message must be appropriately designed; • The channel for communicating the message must be carefully selected; • The audience must be clearly defined; and • The recommended action must be clearly stated and a feedback channel established for questions, comments and suggestions. Figure 2-5 Communication Process Communication Process Audience Source Message Channel SBDC / Business Ca! e Workshop and Local Sem Small Bsinessos Planning F FEEDBACK (Evaluation) Source: Adapted from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Radon Division's outreach program Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 2-43 Civic Engagement Civic engagement and involvement in local, state and national politics are important indicators of community connectivity. Those who are more invested in their community may have a higher tendency to vote in political elections. The 2016 Presidential General Election resulted in 75% voter turnout in the county as of November 28th, 2016.35 Other indicators such as volunteerism, participation in formal community networks and community charitable contributions are examples of other civic engagement that may increase community connectivity. Historic and Cultural Resources Historic and cultural resources such as historic structures and landmarks can help to define a community and may also be sources for tourism revenue. Protecting these resources from the impact of disasters is important because they have an important role in defining and supporting the community. According to the National Register Bulletin, "a contributing resource is a building, site, structure, or object that adds to the historic associations, historic architectural qualities, or archeological values for which a property is significant because it was present during the period of significance, related to the documented significance of the property and possesses historical integrity or is capable of yielding important information about the period; or it independently meets the National Register criteria."36 If a structure does not meet these criteria, it is considered to be non-contributing. Overall, there are a total of 1,498 historically recognized places in Jackson County. 214 are considered to be eligible/significant (ES) and 1,284 are considered to be eligible/contributing (EC). Table 2-25 identifies historic features present in Jackson County according to the National Register of Historic Places. Overall there are a total of 149 historically registered places. Table 2-25 Historic Places Type Number Houses, Hotels, Resorts and Cabins 80 Districts 11 Municipal Buildings, Libraries and Schools 9 Cemetaries 4 Parks, Campgrounds, Ranches and Openspace 6 Military Posts, Ranger Stations and Guard Lookouts 11 Bridges 2 Churces 2 Misc. Buildings 24 Tota 1 149 Source: Oregon Historic Sites Database 35 Daily Ballot Return, http://www.Jacksonco.org/dailyballotreturn, accessed March 2013. 36 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources, National Register Bulletin 16A: "How to Complete the National Register Registration Form". Page 2-44 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Libraries and Museums Libraries and museums develop cultural capacity and community connectivity as they are places of knowledge and recognition, they are common spaces forthe community to gather and can serve critical functions in maintaining the sense of community during a disaster. They are recognized as safe places and reflect normalcy in times of distress. There are currently 15 libraries in Jackson County located in each incorporated city and in the unincorporated communities of Applegate, Prospect, Ruch, and White City.37 The museums across Jackson County cater to varying audiences; they range from historical, science, art and biology museums. Cultural Events Other such institutions that can strengthen community connectivity are the presence of festivals and organizations that engage diverse cultural interests. Jackson County is particularly recognized for the Oregon Shakespeare Festival in Ashland. Examples of other events and institutions include the Britt Festival in Jacksonville, the County Fair in Central Point and the Southern Oregon Historical Society in Medford. Not only do these events bring revenue into the community, they can improve cultural competence and enhance the sense of place. Cultural connectivity is important to community resilience, as people may be more inclined to remain in the community because they feel part of the community and culture. Community Stability Community stability is a measure of rootedness in place. It is hypothesized that resilience to a disasterstems in part from familiarity with place, not only for navigating the community during a crisis, but also accessing services and other supports for economic or social challenges 38 The table below estimates residential stability across the region. It is calculated by the number of people who have lived in the same house and those who have moved within the same county a year ago, compared to the percentage of people who have migrated into the region. Jackson County overall has a geographic stability rating of about 93% (i.e., 93% of the population lived in the same house or moved within the county). The figures of community stability are relatively consistent across the region with the smaller - cities having greater geographic stability. Rogue River has the lowest geographic stability rating (80%). 37 Jackson County Library Services, http://jcls.org/hours_locations 38 Cutter, Susan, Christopher Burton, Christopher Emrich. "Disaster Resilience Indicators for Benchmarking Baseline Conditions". Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 2-45 I Table 2-26 Regional Residential Stability Moved Geographic Same Within Same Jurisdiction Population Stability House County Jackson County 206,562 93% 81% 13% Ashland 20,414 89% 74% 16% Butte Falls 387 96% 72% 24% Central Point 17,357 95% 85% 11% Eagle Point 8,605 91% 79% 12% Gold Hill 1,183 98% 87% 11% Jacksonville 2,827 98% 86% 12% Medford 76,727 94% 78% 16% Phoenix 4,488 95% 89% 6% Rogue River 2,395 80% 73% 7% Shady Cove 2,903 98% 84% 14% Talent 6,226 94% 80% 15% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey Estimates, Table B07003. Homeownership Housing tenure describes whether residents rent or own the housing units they occupy. Homeowners are typically more financially stable but are at risk of greater property loss in a post-disaster situation. People may rent because they choose not to own, they do not have the financial resources for home ownership, or they are transient. Collectively, 62% of the occupied housing units in Jackson County are owner-occupied and about 38% are renter occupied. Rogue River (54%) has the highest rate of renter-occupied units. Gold Hill (74%) has the highest percentage of owner-occupied units. The number and percent of vacant units is derived from subtracting the number of seasonal and recreational vacant units from the total number of vacant units. Butte Falls (19%) has the highest vacancy rates within the county. In addition, seasonal or recreational housing accounts for approximately 2% of the county's vacant housing stock (6% in Butte Falls).39 39 U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey Estimates, Table B25004. Page 2-46 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Table 2-27 Housing Tenure and Vacancy Owner-occupied Renter-occupied Vacant* Housing Occupied Units Housing Units Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Jackson County 91,782 83,481 51,746 62 31,741 38` 6,118 71' Ashland 10,372 9,446 5,131 54% 4,315 46% 609 6% Butte Falls 200 151 90 60% 61 40% 37 19% Central Point 7,162 6,565 4,139 63% 2,426 37% 525 7% Eagle Point 3,458 3,171 2,042 64% 1,129 36% 287 8% Gold Hill 535 477 354 74% 123 26% 43 8% Jacksonville 1,608 1,539 1,077 70% 462 30% 69 4% Medford 32,209 29,751 14,977 50% 14,774 50% 2,037 6% Phoenix 2,299 2,176 1,375 63% 801 37% 123 5% Rogue River 1,336 1,171 536 46% 635 54% 111 8% Shady Cove 1,504 1,377 1,013 74% 364 26% 90 6% Talent 2,843 2,705 1,546 57% 1,159 43% 95 3% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey Estimates, Tables DP04 and B25004. * = Functional vacant units, computed after removing seasonal, recreational, or occasional housing units from vacant housing units. According to Cutter, wealth increases resiliency and recovery from disasters. Renters often do not have personal financial resources or insurance to assist them post-disaster. On the other hand, renters tend to be more mobile and have fewer assets at risk of natural hazards.40 In the most extreme cases, renters lack sufficient shelter options when lodging becomes uninhabitable or unaffordable post-disaster. Synthesis Jackson County has distinct social and cultural resources that work in favor to increase community connectivity and resilience. Sustaining social and cultural resources, such as social services and cultural events, may be essential to preserving community cohesion and a sense of place. The presence of larger communities makes additional resources and services available for the public. However, it is important to consider that these amenities may not be equally distributed to the rural portions of the county and may produce implications for recovery in the event of a disaster. In the long-term, it may be of specific interest to the County to evaluate community stability. A community experiencing instability and low homeownership may hinder the effectiveness of social and cultural resources, distressing community coping and response mechanisms. 41 Cutter, S. L. (2003). Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards. Social Science Quarterly. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 2-47 Political Capacity Political capacity is recognized as the government and planning structures established within the community. In terms of hazard resilience, it is essential for political capital to encompass diverse government and non-government entities in collaboration; as disaster losses stem from a predictable result of interactions between the physical environment, social and demographic characteristics and the built environment .41 Resilient political capital seeks to involve various stakeholders in hazard planning and works towards integrating the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan with other community plans, so that all planning approaches are consistent. Government Structure A three-member Board of Commissioners governs Jackson County. The Commissioners serve as the Executive Branch and perform legislative and quasi-judicial functions of the County. Commissioners are responsible for the planning, formation and implementation of the annual budget. In addition, Commissioners serve on other federal, state and local mandated governmental panels, boards and commissions with fiscal duties and authority over public monies.42 A County Administrator is staff to the Board of Commissioners and is responsible for County management, policy implementation, and financial planning. Beyond Emergency Management, all the departments within the County governance structure have some degree of responsibility in building overall community resilience. Each plays a role in ensuring that County functions and normal operations resume after an incident and the needs of the population are met. County departments and divisions that are most involved with natural hazard mitigation include the following: • Sheriff's Office: The mission of the Jackson County Sheriff's Office is "Serving our Community through values-oriented law enforcement: character, competence, courage, compassion". Public Safety interacts with the vulnerable aspects of the community on a day-to-day basis and can help identify areas for focused mitigation. • Emergency Management: The Jackson County emergency management program is responsible for emergency management planning and operations for that portion of the county outside the limits of the incorporated municipalities of the county. The Jackson County Emergency Operations Plan provides detail on the organization and operations of emergency management. • Development Services - Planning: conducts both short and long-range plans that determine much of the built, physical community. Through the County Comprehensive Plan and subsequent policies, this department guides decisions about growth, development and conservation of natural resources. The Planning Department can be partners in mitigation by developing, implementing and monitoring policies that incorporate hazard mitigation principles such as ensuring 41 Mileti, D. 1999. Disaster by Design: a Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States. Washington D.C.: Joseph Henry Press. 41 Jackson County. http://www.co.jackson.or.us/Departments.asp. Page 2-48 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP homes, businesses and other buildings are built to current seismic code and out of the flood zones. • Development Services - Building: Assists citizens with permitting and building code applications. This department could collaborate to do outreach to the owners of structures that were not built up to modern, resilient code. Professionals from this department could even be called on to help survey buildings after an incident. • Fairgrounds/Expo: Serves as an entertainment venue but can be considered a staging site for response efforts. Mitigation could include specific actions to ensure the facilities could be used during response, such as extra power should it need to be used as a shelter. • Geographic Information Systems: Develops and maintains a Geographic Information System (GIS) for Jackson County. The GIS is composed of computer maps and associated databases. Examples of the maps include soils, flood hazard areas and streams. In all phases of the disaster cycle, information is key. Building robust data that catalogues not only the County's risk and vulnerability, but also resources and response capability can ensure that efficient and effective mitigation activities. • Information Technology: focuses on providing the various other County departments with the information systems and telecommunications technology to conduct daily business. Without this critical component, the County could not effectively serve the residents. Mitigation efforts from this department would not likely involve citizens at all, but would go a long way to ensuring uninterrupted services during hazard incidents. • Health and Human Services: Jackson County Health and Human Services provides quality public health services consistent with laws, available resources and community support through, the prevention of disease, health education and promotion and protection of the community and the environment. As an inherently mitigation focused department, Public Health can be an ally in preparing the community for natural hazards. Public Health likely has a distribution network established for information and supplies and these connections to the community will be to encourage personal preparedness and also during incident response. • Jackson County Roads and Parks: The Roads Department addresses the transportation needs and policies of the County to assure that roads, bridges, traffic signs and rights-of-way are designed, built and maintained to provide users with the best possible, safest transportation system. This department can help to prioritize projects for mitigation and will be a key partner in implementation as well. Existing Plans and Policies Communities often have existing plans and policies that guide and influence land use, land development and population growth. Such existing plans and policies can include comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances and technical reports or studies. Plans and policies already in existence have support from local residents, businesses and policy makers. Many land-use, comprehensive and strategic plans get updated regularly and can adapt easily to changing conditions and need S.41 43 Burby, Raymond J., ed. 1998. Cooperating with Nature: Confronting Natural Hazards with Land-Use Planning for Sustainable Communities. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 2-49 The Jackson County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan includes a range of recommended action items that, when implemented, will reduce the County's vulnerability to natural hazards. Many of these recommendations are consistent with the goals and objectives of the County's existing plans and policies. Linking existing plans and policies to the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan helps identify what resources already exist that can be used to implement the action items identified in the Plan. Implementing the Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan's action items through existing plans and policies increases their likelihood of being supported and getting updated and maximizes the County's resources. In addition to the plans listed below the County and incorporated cities also have zoning ordinances (including floodplain development regulations) and building regulations. Jackson County's current plans and policies include the following: Jackson County Comprehensive Plan • Date of Last Revision: 2006 • Author/ Owner: Jackson County • Description: The Comprehensive Plan is the official policy guide for decisions about growth, development and conservation of natural resources in Jackson County. • Relationship to Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning: The Goal 7 Policies within Jackson County's Comprehensive Plan provide the framework for evaluating land use actions for their exposure to potential harm from natural hazards. The policies guide the identification of areas subject to natural hazards, regulation of development in those areas and protection of citizens, property and the environment from the effects of natural hazards. The protection methods prescribed by these policies include prevention and preparedness, land use regulation, use of natural systems to mitigate hazards, public education and collaboration with other organizations. These policies also guide development of this Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan. Likewise, the risk assessment and mitigation action items identified within this Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan should also influence the Comprehensive Plan's findings and land use policies. Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Protection Plan • Date of Last Revision: 2017 • Author/ Owner: Jackson County/Josephine County • Description: The mission of the RVIFP is to "Reduce the risk of wildfire to life, property, and natural resources in the Rogue Valley by encouraging coordination among public agencies, community organizations, private landowners, and the public to increase their awareness of, and responsibility for, fire issues". • Relationship to Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning: The Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) is intended to be adopted for incorporation within the Jackson County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. The CWPP contains goals and actions that seek to minimize the County's risk to wildfire hazards. Jackson County Emergency Operations Plan • Date of Last Revision: 2011 • Author/ Owner: Jackson County Page 2-50 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP • Description: The Jackson County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) is based on a thorough analysis of the natural and human-made hazards that could affect the county. This analysis is the first step in planning for mitigation, response and recovery actions. The method used in this analysis provides a sense of hazard priorities, or relative risk. It does not predict the occurrence of a particular hazard, but it does "quantify" the risk of one hazard compared with another. By doing this analysis, planning can then be focused where the risk is the greatest. • Relationship to Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning: the EOP includes information that is relevant to the Jackson County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan and vice versa. Hazard rankings from the EOP were included in the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan's Hazard Chapters. Ideally, the EOP and Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan will eventually share and benefit from one risk assessment. As such, information from the NHMP may be integrated into the EOP. Jackson County Transportation Systems Plan • Date of Last Revision: 2005 • Author/ Owner: Kittleson and Associates/Jackson County • Description: Establishes the County's goals, policies and action strategies for developing the transportation system within Jackson County. • Relation to Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning: Transportation systems are important in evacuating and responding to natural disasters. Mitigation actions that focus on strengthening the transportation system can be incorporated into the Transportation Systems Plan. Other plans are available via the County website or by contacting staff. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 2-51 This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-52 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP SECTION 3: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISKASSESSMENT This section of the NHMP addresses 44 CFR 201.6(b)(2) - Risk Assessment. The Risk Assessment applies to Jackson County and the city addenda included in the NHMP. We address city specific information where relevant. In addition, this chapter can assist with addressing Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Hazards. We use the information presented in this section, along with community characteristics presented in Volume I, Section 2 to inform the risk reduction actions identified Volume I, Section 4. Figure 3-1 below shows how we conceptualize risk in this NHMP. Ultimately, the goal of hazard mitigation is to reduce the area where hazards and vulnerable systems overlap. Figure 3-1 Understanding Risk -522 U S G S Understanding Risk IISASTER ricEj' science I"a changing "rid Natural Hazard .Vulnerable System Potential Catastrophic Exposure, Sensitivity and Chronic Physical Events , Risk t and Resilience of: • Past Recurrence Intervals I • Population • Future Probability I of I • Economic Generation • Speed of Onset I I • Built Environment •Magnitude I Disaster, Academic and Research Function • Duration t / • Cultural Assets • Spatial Extent / • Infrastructure Ability, Resources and Willingness to: • Mitigate • Respond • Prepare • Recover Source. USGS- Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience Research Collaboration, 2006 Source: Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience. What is a Risk Assessment? A risk assessment consists of three phases: hazard identification, vulnerability assessment and risk analysis. • Phase 1: Identify hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. This includes an evaluation of potential hazard impacts -type, location, extent, etc. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-1 • Phase 2: Identify important community assets and system vulnerabilities. Example vulnerabilities include people, businesses, homes, roads, historic places and drinking water sources. • Phase 3: Evaluate the extent to which the identified hazards overlap with, or have an impact on, the important assets identified by the community. The following figure illustrates the three-phase risk assessment process: Figure 3-2 Three Phases of a Risk Assessment The Three Levels of Hazard Assessment Community-Wide Community- Wide Hazard Identification , Vulnerability Assessment , Risk Analysis Source: Planning for Natural Hazards: Oregon Technical Resource Guide, 1998 This three-phase approach to developing a risk assessment should be conducted sequentially because each phase builds upon data from prior phases. However, gathering data for a risk assessment need not occur sequentially. Hazard Identification Jackson County identifies nine natural hazards that could have an impact on the County and participating cities. Table 3-1 lists the hazards identified in the county in comparison to the hazards identified in the Oregon NHMP for the Southwest Oregon (Region 4), which includes Jackson County. Table 3-1 Jackson Count Hazard Identification State of Oregon NHMP Region 4: Southwest Oregon Drought Drought Earthquake Earthquake Emerging Infectious Disease N/A FI ood FI ood Landslide Landslide Volcano Volcano Wildfire Wildfire Windstorm Windstorm Winter Storm Winter Storm Source: Jackson County NHMP Steering Committee (2017) and State of Oregon NHMP, Region 4: Southwest Oregon (2015) The following subsections briefly describe relevant information for each hazard. For additional background on the hazards, vulnerabilities and general risk assessment information for hazards in Southwest Oregon (Region 4), refer to the State of Oregon NHMP Region 4, Southwest Oregon Risk Assessment (2015). Page 3-2 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Drought Significant Changes since Previous NHMP: Two (2) significant drought events have occurred since the previous NHMP. Table 3-2 Drought Sunimary Hazard Drought Type. Climatic Speed of Onset Slow Location Varies, Countywide Extent Moderate to Severe Drought* Prior Occurrence Four > 6 month duration since 1983 Probability -12% Sources: Oregon NHMP; NRCS; analysis by OPDR Note: *Defined as between -2 and -4 on the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Surface Water Supply Index (SWSI) Characteristics A drought is a period of drier than normal conditions. Drought occurs in virtually every climatic zone, but its characteristics vary significantly from one region to another. Drought is a temporary condition; it differs from aridity, which is restricted to low rainfall regions and is a permanent feature of climate. The extent of drought events depends upon the degree of moisture deficiency and the duration and size of the affected area. Typically, droughts occur as regional events and often affect more than one city and county. Location and Extent Droughts occur in every climate zone and can vary from region to region. Drought may occur throughout Jackson County and may have profound effects on the economy, particularly the agricultural and hydro-power sectors. Drought is typically measured in terms of water availability in a defined geographical area. It is common to express drought with a numerical index that ranks severity. Most federal agencies use the Palmer Method which incorporates precipitation, runoff, evaporation and soil moisture. However, the Palmer Method does not incorporate snowpack as a variable. Therefore, it is not believed to provide a very accurate indication of drought conditions in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest. The Surface Water Supply Index (SWSI) from the Natural Resources Conservation Service is an index of current water conditions throughout the state. The index utilizes parameters derived from snow, precipitation, reservoir and stream flow data. NRCS collects data each month from key stations in each basin. The lowest SWSI value, -4.2, indicates extreme drought conditions (Low Surface Water Supply ranges from -1.6 to -4.2). The highest SWSI value, +4.2, indicates extreme wet conditions (High Surface Water Supply ranges from +1.6 to +4.2). The mid-point is 0.0, which indicates an average water supply (Average Water Supply ranges from +1.5 to -1.5). Figure 3-3 below shows the monthly history of SWSI values Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-3 from 1982 to 2017 for the Rogue and Umpqua Basin which includes Jackson County. Research shows that the periods of drought have fluctuated; recent drought periods occurred (SWSI <-3.0 for four or more months) in 1992, 1994, 2001 and 2015. In addition, seven (7) executive orders declaring drought emergencies have occurred since 1991, the two most recent in 2014 and 2015; the 2015 drought was also federally declared.' Figure 3-3 SWSI Values for the Rogue & Umpqua Basin (1983-2017) 4 High Surface Water Supply 3 2 1 Average ~ Surface Water Supply -1 -2 ---1 Nil I I -3 Low Surface Water Supply -4 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 Source: Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service, "Surface Water Supply Index, Rogue/Umpqua Basin" www.or.nres.usda.gov. Accessed January 2017. History • 1904-1905: Statewide drought period for about 18 months. • 1928-1941: A significant drought affected all of Oregon from 1928 to 1941. The prolonged statewide drought created significant problems for the agricultural industry. The first of the three Tillamook Forest burns occurred during this drought in 1933. • 1976-1981: Low stream flows prevailed in western Oregon during the period from 1976-1981, but the worst year by far was 1976-1977, the single driest year of the century. • 1985-1997: A dry period lasting from 1985 to 1994 caused significant problems statewide. The peak year was 1992 when the state declared a drought emergency. In the seven-year period from 1986-1992, Medford received only five years' worth Oregon Water Resources Department Public Declaration Status Report, httlp://alplps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/wr/wr drought/declaration status report aspx, accessed July 19, 2017. Page 3-4 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP i of precipitation and other areas of southern Oregon were also significantly affected. Forests throughout Oregon suffered from a lack of moisture with fires common and insect pests flourishing. Drought status was declared by the governor in 1991 (LO- 91-05, 1992 (EO-92-21 and 1994 (EO-94-09 . • 2000-2001: Klamath drought intensifies; low snowpack in mountains worsen conditions. Draw down at Detroit Lake, all but curtails lake recreation. Drought status was declared by the governor in 2001 (EO-01-11). • 2005: February 2005 was the driest month on record since 1977, surpassing 2001 conditions. Above normal temperatures contributed to decreased water availability for the summer. Stream and river levels dropped significantly and watermasters regulated live flow use by irrigators. Drought conditions also led to the use of stored water, when it was available. • 2010: Determination of a State of Drought Emergency in Klamath County and adjacent counties (including Jackson County) due to Drought and Low Water Conditions (EO-10-03 . • 2014: Determination of a State of Drought Emergency in Jackson County due to Drought and Low Water Conditions (EO-14-04 . • 2015: Determination of a state of drought emergency in Deschutes, Grant, Jackson, Josephine, Lane, Morrow, Umatilla and Wasco counties due to drought, low snow pack levels and low water conditions. Drought status was also declared by the President (EO-15-05 J. El Nino/La Nina El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) weather patterns can increase the frequency and severity of drought. During El Nino periods, alterations in atmospheric pressure in equatorial regions yield an increase in the surface temperature off the west coast of North America. This gradual warming sets off a chain reaction affecting major air and water currents throughout the Pacific Ocean; La Nina periods are the reverse with sustained cooling of these same areas. In the North Pacific, the Jet Stream is pushed north, carrying moisture laden air up and away from its normal landfall along the Pacific Northwest coast. In Oregon, this shift results in reduced precipitation and warmer temperatures, normally experienced several months after the initial onset of the El Nino. These periods tend to last nine to twelve months, after which surface temperatures begin to trend back towards the long- term average. El Nino periods tend to develop between March and June and peak from December to April. ENSO generally follows a two to seven-year cycle, with El Nino or La Nina periods occurring every three to five years. However, the cycle is highly irregular and no set pattern exists. The last major El Nino was during 1997-1998 and in 2015-2016 Oregon experience a "super" El Nino (the strongest in 15 years, the two previous events occurred in 1982-1983 and 1997-1998) that included record rainfall and snowpack in areas of the state.2 2 Cho, Renne. "El Nino and global warming-what's the connection." Phys.org, February 3, 2016. https://Phvs.org/news/2016-02-el-nino-global-warmingwhat.html Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-5 Future Climate Variability3 Climate models for Oregon suggest, future regional climate changes include increases in temperature around 0.2-1°F per decade in the 21st Century, along with warmer and drier summers and some evidence that extreme precipitation will increase in the future. Increased droughts may occur in the Rogue Valley under various climate change scenarios as a result of various factors, including reduced snowpack, rising temperatures and likely reductions in summer precipitation. Climate models suggest that as the region warms, winter snow precipitation will likely shift to higher elevations and snowpack will be diminished as more precipitation falls as rain altering surface flows. The negative effect of climate change on winter snow precipitation plays a significant role in anticipating drought risk in Jackson County as periods of drought (see Figure 3-3) occur during the winter seasons. Probability Assessment Droughts are not uncommon in the State of Oregon, nor are they just an "east of the mountains" phenomenon. They occur in all parts of the state, in both summer and winter. Oregon's drought history reveals many short-term and a few long-term events. The average recurrence interval for severe droughts in Oregon is somewhere between 8 and 12 years. According to SWSI analysis there have been four (4) droughts between 1983 and 2017 (see Figure 3-3). Based on the available data and research for Jackson County the NHMP Steering Committee assessed the probability of experiencing a locally severe drought as "High," meaning one incident is likely within the next 10 to 35 years; this rating has increased since the previous NHMP. Vulnerability Assessment The environmental and economic consequences can be significant, especially for the agricultural sector. Drought also increases the probability of wildfires - a major natural hazard concern for Jackson County. Drought can affect all segments of Jackson County's population, particularly those employed in water-dependent activities (e.g., agriculture, hydroelectric generation, recreation, etc.). Also, domestic water-users may be subject to stringent conservation measures (e.g., rationing) as per the County's water management plan. All parts of Jackson County are susceptible to drought, however, the following areas and issues are of particular concern: • Drinking water system • Power and water enterprises • Residential and community wells in rural areas • Fire response capabilities • Fish and wildlife Major county water supplies include the Rogue River, Bear Creek and Big Butte Creek. Potential impacts to these water supplies and the agriculture industry are the greatest 3 Oregon Climate Change Research Institute (OCCRI), Oregon Climate Assessment Report (2010) and Northwest Climate Assessment Report (2013). http://occri.net/reports Page 3-6 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP I threats. Additionally, long-term drought periods of more than a year can impact forest conditions and set the stage for potentially destructive wildfires. The NHMP Steering Committee rated the County as having a "moderate" vulnerability to drought hazards, meaning 1 - 10% of the region's population or assets would be affected by a major drought emergency or disaster; this rating has not changed since the previous NHMP. More information on this hazard can be found in the Risk Assessment for Region 4, Southwest Oregon, of the Oregon N H M P (2015). i Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-7 Earthquake Significant Changes since Previous NHMP: The Oregon Resilience Plan (2013) and Upper Rogue Watershed Multi-Hazard Risk Report have been cited and incorporated where applicable. The probability and vulnerability ratings were updated to distinguish between a Cascadia Subduction Zone event and a crustal event. Table 3-4 Earthquake Summary - Crustal Type Geologic Location No active faults in county Speed of Onset Rapid Extent Very Strong to Severe shaking - 500 yrs Prior Occurrence Two over Magnitude 5 last 100 yrs* Probability Approximately 1% annual Sources: Oregon NHMP; DOGAMI; analysis by OPDR Notes: *1993 Klamath Falls earthquakes east of Jackson County Table 3-5 Earthquake Summary - Subduction Type Geologic Location Primarily west of the Cascades; CA - BC Speed of Onset Rapid Extent Catastrophic Prior Occurrence One over Magnitude 9 last 500 yrs Probability Magnitude 9+ is 7% - 12% over 50 yrs Sources: Oregon NHMP; DOGAMI; analysis by OPDR Characteristics The Pacific Northwest in general is susceptible to earthquakes from four sources: 1) the offshore Cascadia Subduction Zone; 2) deep intraplate events within the subducting Juan de Fuca Plate; 3) shallow crustal events within the North American Plate and 4) earthquakes associated with volcanic activity. According to the Oregon NHMP, the return period for the largest of the CSZ earthquakes (Magnitude 9.0+) is 530 years with the last CSZ event occurring 314 years ago in January of 1700. The probability of a 9.0+ CSZ event occurring in the next 50 years ranges from 7 - 12%. Notably, 10 - 20 "smaller" Magnitude 8.3 - 8.5 earthquakes occurred over the past 10,000 years that primarily affected the southern half of Oregon and northern California. The Page 3-8 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP average return period for these events is roughly 240 years. The combined probability of any CSZ earthquake occurring in the next 50 years is 37 - 43%. Location and Extent Figure 3-4 shows a generalized geologic map of Jackson County and includes the areas for potential low and moderate liquefaction. These areas of moderate liquefiable soft soil hazards are concentrated around corridors of the Rogue and Applegate Rivers and the Rogue River tributaries of Evans Creek and Bear Creek. The central-county region around Medford, Jacksonville, Eagle Point, Central Point, Gold Hill, Phoenix, Rogue River, Shady Cove and surrounding Ashland. The majority of the earthquakes shown in the figure below are low-impact events below M 3.0, although 6 mapped events are shown with M 3-5. The larger events may have been slightly felt but little to no structural/property damage resulted. Thus, the seismic hazard for Jackson County arises predominantly from major earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction Zone. Smaller, crustal earthquakes in or near Jackson County could be locally damaging, but would not be expected to produce widespread or major damage. Figure 3-4 Earthquake Epicenters (1971-2008), Active Faults and Soft Soils Earthquake Hazard _ J Active Faults 0 i Potentially haurdous faults are those that have been identified by the Di LWIS J US Geological Survey as having moved in the last 1.6 million years These - - J j faults may be the source of future damaging earthquakes, and severe ground disruption is possible within the buffer zones. _ Magnitude Earthquake Epicenter 11971-20061 Kr,- J ® 5-7 An earthquake epicenter is the point on the Earth's o ® 3.5 surface that is directly above the location where an j Q 2-3 earthquake originates. • 1-2 • 01 _ Q' E a1 r High Earthquake Liquefaction (Soft Sole Hazard ~ Moderate The intense shaking of an earthquake can cause wll 01 1 liquefaction - where loosely packed, water logged Low sediments are transformed into a substance that acts j 8 li like a liquid Buildings and infrastructure sitting on O an L.S % *Y O 1 5: these soft sots are likely to be severely damaged in earthquake. O O f o k o i -to JL 00 ♦13 L.,~.II:dTnlll' IF O p o ~1 f.Ic+iN. 0 O G ` 11 0 S : o o I° o 0'-to } o O O O g fJ St:,~.. U AI NS f\ I p lifiI, c .,0 O f jc;I?N J~IZT-C.o P i_IECU.fYIA _ -,11IfORNI\ Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (HazVu) The Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI), in partnership with other state and federal agencies, has undertaken a rigorous program in Oregon to identify Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-9 seismic hazards, including active fault identification, bedrock shaking, tsunami inundation zones, ground motion amplification, liquefaction and earthquake induced landslides. DOGAMI has published a number of seismic hazard maps that are available for communities to use. The maps show liquefaction, ground motion amplification, landslide susceptibility and relative earthquake hazards. OPDR used the DOGAMI Statewide Geohazards Viewer to present a visual map of recent earthquake activity, active faults and liquefaction; ground shaking is generally expected to be higher in the areas marked by soft soils in the map above. The severity of an earthquake is dependent upon a number of factors including: 1) the distance from the earthquake's source (or epicenter); 2) the ability of the soil and rock to conduct the earthquake's seismic energy; 3) the degree (i.e., angle) of slope materials; 4) the composition of slope materials; 5) the magnitude of the earthquake; and 6) the type of earthquake. For more information, see the following reports: Open-File-Report: 0-2003-02 - Map of Selected earthquakes for Oregon (1841-2002), 2003 Open-File-Report: 0-2007-02 - Statewide seismic needs assessment: Implementation of Oregon 2005 Senate Bill 2 relating to public safety, earthquakes, and seismic rehabilitation of public buildings, 2007 Interpretive Map Series: IMS-9 - Relative earthquake hazard maps for selected urban areas in western Oregon 2000 Open-File-Report: 0-2013-22 - Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquakes: A magnitude 9.0 earthquake scenario, 2013 Additional reports are available via DOGAMI's Publications Search website: http://www.oregongeology.org/pubs/search.php Other agency/ consultant reports: Oregon Resilience Plan (2013) The Impacts of the Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake on Oregon -Jackson and Josephine Counties History Jackson County has not experienced any major earthquake events in recent history. Seismic events do, however, pose a significant threat. There have been several significant recent earthquakes in the region, primarily located in Klamath and Lake Counties in southern Oregon. The region has also been shaken historically by crustal and intraplate earthquakes and prehistorically by subduction zone earthquakes centered outside Central Oregon. In particular, a Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) event could produce catastrophic damage and loss of life in Jackson County. Page 3-10 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP While Jackson County has not experienced any significant earthquakes in recent history, earthquakes in Oregon that have affected the county are listed below4 (there have not been any significant earthquake events since the previous NHMP): • 1700 (January 26): Offshore, Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ)- Approximate 9.0 magnitude earthquake generated a tsunami that struck Oregon, Washington and Japan; destroyed Native American villages along the coast (additional CSZ events occurred approximately in 1400 BCE, 1050 BCE, 600 BCE, 400, 750 and 900) • 1873 (November 23): 6.75 quake near California Border. Damage was reported along the coast and in Josephine and Jackson Counties. Source is speculated to be originated from the Cascadia Subduction Zone. • 1920 (April 14): Quake centered near Crater Lake - No record of reported damage. • 1993 (September 20): Klamath Falls Earthquakes, two (2) magnitude 5.9 and 6.0 earthquakes that caused $7.5 million in damages and killed two (2; one heart attack, one crushed by a boulder while driving); felt in Southern Oregon. • 1999 (November 28): This earthquake's epicenter was located 13.9 miles west- northwest of Klamath Falls, almost precisely where two earthquakes originated six years prior. Ground motion was felt in Medford, 45 miles away, but there were no reported injuries or damages. Probability Assessment Jackson County is susceptible to deep intraplate events within the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ), where the Juan de Fuca Plate is diving beneath the North American Plate and shallow crustal events within the North American Plate. Establishing a probability for crustal earthquakes is difficult given the small number of historic events in the region. Earthquakes generated by volcanic activity in Oregon's Cascade Range are possible, but likewise unpredictable. For more information, see DOGAMI reports linked above. Based on the available data and research for Jackson County the NHMP Steering Committee determined the probability of experiencing a Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) is "high", meaning one incident is likely within the next 10 to 35 years. Additionally, the probability of a crustal earthquake is "low", meaning one incident is likely within the next 75 to 100 years. The previous NHMP rated the earthquake probability as "moderate" but did not distinguish between the crustal and CSZ events. Vulnerability Assessment The local faults, the county's proximity to the Cascadia Subduction Zone, potential slope instability and the prevalence of certain soils subject to liquefaction and amplification combine to give the county a high-risk profile. Due to the expected pattern of damage resulting from a CSZ event, the Oregon Resilience Plan divides the State into four distinct zones and places Jackson County predominately within the "Valley Zone" (Valley Zone, from the summit of the Coast Range to the summit of the Cascades). Within the Southwest Oregon region, damage and shaking is expected to be strong and widespread - an event will 4 Ivan Wong and Jacqueline D.J. Bolt, 1995, "A Look Back at Oregon's Earthquake History, 1841-1994", Oregon Geology, pp. 125-139. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-11 be disruptive to daily life and commerce and the main priority is expected to be restoring services to business and residents. I Figure 3-5 below shows the expected shaking/ damage potential for Jackson County as a result of a Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) earthquake event. The figure shows that the county will experience "strong" to "severe" shaking that will last two to four minutes. The strong shaking will be extremely damaging to lifeline transportation routes including 1-5, Highway 140 and Highway 238. For more information on expected losses due to a CSZ event see the Oregon Resilience Plan (note, several of the County and City mitigation actions utilize the analysis within the ORP as justification and to inform their rationale). Figure 3-5 Cascadia Subduction Zone Damage Potential Layers Currently Shown rr- - © r, a fJ.t, ~ I II Oregon Counties Oregon Counties --~,^r W L~ J A16 q ~ Cascadia Earthquake Hazard Cascadia Earthquake Expected Shaking ■ Violent ■ Severe i _ I Very Strong + a ~ . F Strong wr. O Moderate i ® Light I So Lim I I 30 inn it-ir--127.Q75149 4. .11.)I >f' A;I_.1_..._. _ __r Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (HazVu) The NHMP Steering Committee rated the County as having a "high" vulnerability to the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) earthquake hazard meaning that more than 10% of the region's population or assets would be affected by a major CSZ event. Additionally, the Steering Committee rated the County as having a "moderate" vulnerability to a crustal earthquake event, meaning that less than 1-10% of the region's population or assets would be affected by a major crustal earthquake event. The previous NHMP rated the earthquake vulnerability as "high" but did not distinguish between the crustal and CSZ events. Page 3-12 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Multi-Hazard Risk Report: Upper Rogue Watershed The Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) conducted a multi- hazard risk assessment (Risk Report) for portions of unincorporated Jackson County within the Upper Rogue Watershed, including the town of Prospect. The study was funded through the FEMA Risk MAP program and was completed in 2017. The Risk Report provides a quantitative risk assessment that informs communities of their risks related to certain natural hazards. The County hereby incorporates the risk assessment into this NHMP by reference to provide greater detail to hazard sensitivity and exposure (Volume II, Appendix H). The Risk Report identifies that during a CSZ Earthquake approximately 924 buildings may be damaged (1 essential facility; Jackson County Fire District No. 3) for a total loss of $24.9 million (a loss ratio of 4.5%). In addition, about 289 residents may be displaced (2.7% of the population). Within Prospect, nine (9) buildings may be damaged for a total loss of $331,000 (a loss ratio of 1.7%). 1999 Assessment Factors included in an assessment of earthquake risk include population and property distribution in the hazard area, the frequency of earthquake events, landslide susceptibility, buildings, infrastructure and disaster preparedness of the region. This type of analysis can generate estimates of the damages to the county due to an earthquake event in a specific location. Seismic activity can cause great loss to businesses, either a large-scale corporation or a small retail shop. Losses not only result in rebuilding cost, but fragile inventory and equipment can be destroyed. When a company is forced to stop production for just a day, business loss can be tremendous. Residents, businesses and industry all suffer temporary loss of income when their source of finances is damaged or disrupted. The potential losses from an earthquake in Jackson County extend beyond those to human life, homes, property and the landscape. A recent earthquake damage model has not been conducted for Jackson County, however, based upon data from a 1999 DOGAMI report rough loss estimates are available. The economic base in Jackson County is estimated at $7.829 billion in 1999 dollars ($11.5 billion in 2017 dollars), ranking it 6 of 36 Oregon counties in 1999). It is expected that the County will incur total direct losses valuing $538 million in 1999 dollars ($791 million in 2017 dollars) for the Cascadia model and $1.191 billion in 1999 dollars ($1.751 billion in 2017 dollars) for the 500-year model. The CSZ event direct losses amount to a loss ratio of 4-percent, while the 500-year model event direct losses amount to a loss ratio of 8%.5 Table 3-6 adjusts the economic loss estimates from DOGAMI's 1999 report to account for inflation and reflect potential economic loss in 2017 dollars (increases in population or additional infrastructure have not been accounted for within the tables). 5 DOGAMI, Special Papers: SP-29, Earthquake Damage in Oregon Preliminary Estimates of Future Earthquake Losses (1999). The loss ratio is determined as a percentage of the expected losses to the county's economic base. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-13 Table 3-6 Jackson County Earthquake Damage Summary 8.5 Cascadia Subduction Jackson County Zone Event 500-year model njuiies 425 930 These figures have Death 8 18 a high degree of Displaced households 650 1,458 uncertainty and Short-term shelter needs 489 1,080 should be used 538 million $1.2 billion onlyfor general Economic losses for buildings ($791 million*) ($1.8 billion*) planning purposes. Because of rounding, Fires Stations 75% n/a numbers may not Police Stations 62% n/a add up to 100%. Schools 70% n/a Br i dges 84% n/a Beca use the 500 year model Economic losses to includes several Highways $10 million $34 million earthquakes, the ($14.7 million*) ($50 million*) number of Airports $2 million $8 million facilities ($2.9 million*) ($11.8 million*) operational the "day after" cannot Economic losses $2 million $9 million be calculated. ($2.9 million*) ($13.2 million*) Operati ng the day of the qua ke 81% n/a Debris generated (thousands of tons) 434 889 8.5 Cascadia event Percentage of buildings in damage categories Building type None Slight Moderate Extensive Complete Agriculture 61 10 10 7 5 Commercial 58 11 13 9 6 Education 51 9 10 8 5 Government 55 11 14 10 7 Industrial 54 11 14 10 7 Residential 75 12 6 3 1 500 year model Percentage of buildings in damage categories Building type None Slight Moderate Extensive Complete Agriculture 39 15 17 13 10 Commercial 29 15 23 18 13 Education 29 12 17 14 11 Government 29 14 22 18 14 Industrial 27 14 23 19 14 Residential 54 21 13 5 3 Source: Y. Wang & J.L. Clark, Special Paper 29, Earthquake Damage in Oregon: Preliminary Estimates of Future Earthquake Losses. 1999. DOGAMI. Note: * - 1999 dollars were adjusted for inflation to represent estimated economic loss in 2017 dollars using the State of Oregon Employment Department Inflation Calculator. Page 3-14 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP While the expected losses have increased due to increased development and population in the county, as well as inflation, the loss ratio and relative damage for the county is expected to be similar. Local business economies are at substantial risk if an earthquake damages or otherwise necessitates the closure of any of the major transportation routes. For more information, see: Special Papers: SP-29, Earthquake damage in Oregon Preliminary estimates of future earthquake losses (1999) 2007 Rapid Visual Survey In 2007, DOGAMI completed a rapid visual screening (RVS) of educational and emergency facilities in communities across Oregon, as directed by the Oregon Legislature in Senate Bill 2 (2005). RVS is a technique used by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), known as FEMA 154, to identify, inventory and rank buildings that are potentially vulnerable to seismic events. DOGAMI ranked each building surveyed with a 'low,' 'moderate,' 'high,' or 'very high' potential for collapse in the event of an earthquake. It is important to note that these rankings represent a probability of collapse based on limited observed and analytical data and are therefore approximate rankings. To fully assess a buildings potential for collapse, a more detailed engineering study completed by a qualified professional is required, but the RVS study can help to prioritize which buildings to survey. As noted in the community profile approximately 61% of residential buildings were built prior to 1990, which increases the county's vulnerability to the earthquake hazard. Information on specific public buildings' (schools and public safety) estimated seismic resistance, determined by DOGAMI in 2007, is shown in Table 3-7; each "X" represents one building within that ranking category. Of the facilities evaluated by DOGAMI using a Rapid Visual Survey (RVS), 12 have a high (greater than 10% chance) collapse potential (one has been mitigated) and one (1) has a very high (100% chance) collapse potential. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-15 Table 3-7 Rapid Visual Survey Scores Level of Collapse Potential Low Moderate High Very High Facility Site ID* < 1% >I% >10% 100% Schools Table Rock Elementary (Eagle Point SD 9) Jack sch16 MITIGATED (2015-17 SRGP, Phase 1) (2830 Maple Court Dr, White City) - Mountain View Elementary (Eagle Point SD 9) Jack_sch17 X,X,X X (7837 Hale Way) White Mountain Middle (Eagle Point SD 9) Jack sch40 X (550 Wilson Way) Ruch Elementary School (Medford SD 549C) Jack_sch48 MITIGATED (2015-17 SRGP, Phase 1) (156 Upper Applegate Rd) Prospect School (Prospect SD 59) Jack sch49 X,,X X (160 Mill Creek Rd) - Evans Valley School (Rogue River SD 35) Jack sch50 X X (8205 E Evans Creek Rd) Elk Elementary (Eagle Point SD 9) Jack sch51 X X (591 Elk Creek Rd) - Applegate Elementary School (Three Jack sch53 X X,X Rivers/Josephine County SD) (14188 Highway 238) Community Colleges Table Rock - Table Rock Campus (Rogue CC) (7800 Pacific Avenue) Jack_coc06 X Table Rock- Workforce Training Center (Rogue CC) (7800 Pacific Avenue) Jack_coc07 X Table Rock - Crater Lake Center (Rogue CC) Jack coc08 X (7800 Pacific Avenue) - Source: DOGAMI 2007. Open File Report 0-07-02. Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment Using Rapid Visual Assessment. Site ID is referenced on the RVS Jackson County Map Page 3-16 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Table 3-7 Rapid Visual Survey Scores (continued) Level of Collapse Potential Low Moderate High Very High Facility Site ID* < 1% >1% >10% 100% Public Safety Applegate Valley RFPD 9 (Applegate Valley RFPD) (1095 Upper Applegate Rd) Jack_fir19 X,X Applegate Valley RFPD 9 (Applegate Valley RFPD) Jack fir04 X (2170 Hwy 238) Applegate Valley RFPD 9 (Applegate Valley RFPD) Jack fir05 X (7774 Upper Applegate Rd) Evans Valley Fire District #6 Jack fir07 X (86777 E Evans Creek Rd) - Jackson County Fire District #3 Jack fir02 X (8333 Agate Rd) Jackson County Fire District #5 Jack fir15 X (716 S Pacific Hwy) Lake Creek Rural Fire District (Lake Creek RFPD) Jack fir17 X (1584 S Fork Little Butte) Prospect Fire Department Jack fir25 X (276 Mill Creek Dr) - Prospect Police Department x (300 Mill Creek Dr) Jack_po110 Rogue River RFPD Jack fir06 X (5474 N River Rd) - Source: DOGAMI 2007. Open File Report 0-07-02. Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment Using Rapid Visual Assessment. - Site ID is referenced on the RVS Jackson County Map In addition to building damages, utility (electric power, water, wastewater, natural gas) and transportation systems (bridges, pipelines) are also likely to experience significant damage. In addition, there is a low probability that a major earthquake will result in failure of upstream dams. Utility systems will be significantly damaged, including damaged buildings and damage to utility infrastructure, including water and wastewater treatment plants and equipment at high voltage substations (especially 230 kV or higher which are more vulnerable than lower voltage substations). Buried pipe systems will suffer extensive damage with approximately one break per mile in soft soil areas. There would be much lower rate of pipe breaks in other areas. Restoration of utility services will require substantial mutual aid from utilities outside of the affected area.6 Mitigation Successes Seismic retrofit grant awards per the Seismic Rehabilitation Grant Program, have been funded to retrofit Table Rock Elementary (Phase One of 2015-2017 grant award, $1,495,500), Ruch Elementary (Phase One of 2015-2017 grant award, $1,477,100), Jackson 6 Regional All Hazard Mitigation Master Plan for Jackson, Lane and Linn Counties: Phase II (2001) 7 The Seismic Rehabilitation Grant Program (SRGP) is a state of Oregon competitive grant program that provides funding for the seismic rehabilitation of critical public buildings, particularly public schools and emergency services facilities. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-17 County Fire District 3 - Agate Lake Fire Station (Phase Two of 2015-2017 grant award, $79,340), Jackson County Fire District 3 - Dodge Bridge Fire Station (Phase Two of 2015-2017 grant award, $113,275) and Jackson County Fire District 3 - Sams Valley Fire Station Phase Two of 2015-2017 grant award, $124,433). See city addenda for mitigation successes within each city. For more information, see: Open-File-Report: 0-2007-02 - Statewide seismic needs assessment: Implementation of Oregon 2005 Senate Bill 2 relating to public safety, earthquakes and seismic rehabilitation of public buildings, 2007 and DOGAMI Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment Using Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) More information on this hazard can be found in the Risk Assessment for Region 4, Southwest Oregon, of the Oregon NHMP (2015). I I I Page 3-18 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Emerging Infectious Disease Significant Changes Since Previous NHMP: This section is new, the County did not assess the emerging infectious disease hazard in the previous NHMP. Table 3-8 Emerging Infectious Disease Summary Type Biologic Location Countywide Speed of Onset Rapid Extent Minor to severe Prior Occurrence Minor events annually Moderate, significant event likely within 75 Probability years Sources: Jackson County Public Health, CDC, analysis by CPDR Characteristics Emerging infectious diseases are those that have recently appeared in a population, or those whose incidence or geographic range is rapidly increasing or threatens to increase in the near future. Emerging infections may be caused by biological pathogens (e.g., virus, parasite, fungus, or bacterium) and may be: previously unknown or undetected biological pathogens, biological pathogens that have spread to new geographic areas or populations, previously known biological pathogens whose role in specific diseases was previously undetected and biological pathogens whose incidence of disease was previously declining but whose incidence of disease has reappeared (re-emerging infectious disease)." The emergence and re-emergence of infectious disease may occur from a variety of factors including the evolution of biological pathogens and human behavior and practices. Population growth, travel (particularly air travel), rural to urban migration, ecological change associated with development and poverty are all examples of contributing factors. For an infectious disease to become established it needs to: be introduced into a population, have the ability to spread from person to person and cause disease and needs to sustain itself by infecting more and more people.9 Emerging infectious diseases may emerge when biological pathogens are transmitted to humans (zoonoses), through climate change (changes to habitats may allow diseases to spread into new geographic areas) and through acquired resistance of biological pathogens to antimicrobial medications. Emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases include: influenza, SARS and MERS, cryptosporidiosis, salmonella, "Baylor College of Medicine, Emerging Infectious Disease, URL: https://www.bcm.edu/departments/molecular- virology-and-microbiology/emerging-infections-and-biodefense/emerging-infectious-diseases, accessed September 17, 2017. 9 Ibid. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-19 norovirus, pertussis (whooping cough), West Nile Virus, Lyme disease, dengue, Zika virus, Ebola virus, hepatitis, tuberculosis, Chikungunya. Location and Extent Due to the nature and transmission of emerging infectious disease all areas within Jackson County are vulnerable. Areas that have higher concentrations of population are particularly vulnerable. History Jackson County regularly experiences outbreaks of infectious disease. Recent history of infectious disease is listed below: • 1970s, Medford/Jackson County, Outbreaks of hepatitis related to sewage disposal and septic systems that failed in clay soils. • 1980s, Medford/Jackson County, Outbreaks of bacterial infection and illnesses associated with E.coli related to food preparation in restaurants. • 1992, Medford/Jackson County, People became ill with cryptosporidiosis, a waterborne parasite. Between January and June of 1992, approximately 15,000 people had diarrheal illness lasting at least 4-days. • 1992-present, Medford/Jackson County, Periodic outbreaks of Norovirus and salmonella in nursing homes, assisting living facilities, and restaurants. • 2003, Medford/Jackson County, Outbreak of pertussis (aka whooping cough) in children. The County had the highest rate in Oregon with 53.8 cases per 100,000 residents. • 2004, Oregon, West Nile Virus arrives in Oregon. • 2009, Medford/Jackson County, H1N1 outbreak. • 2010, Jackson County, Outbreak of pertussis (aka whooping cough). Jackson County incidence rate was between 8.0 and 19.1 cases per 100,000 people. • 2010-2015, Jackson County, 23 outbreaks of Norovirus during this period. • 2014-2015, Jackson County, 18 communicable disease outbreaks during this period. • 2017, Ashland/Jackson County, Outbreak of pertussis (aka whooping cough). Probability Assessment Based on the available data and research for Jackson County the NHMP Steering Committee determined the probability of experiencing an emerging infectious disease event is "moderate", meaning one incident is likely within the next 35 to 75-year period; The County did not assess the emerging infectious disease hazard in the previous version of their NHMP. Vulnerability Assessment The Steering Committee also determined that the County's vulnerability to emerging infectious disease is "high" meaning that greater than 10% of the region's population would be affected by a major disaster. The County did not assess the emerging infectious disease hazard in the previous version of their NHMP. More information on this hazard can be found at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. For more detail on regional events see the Medford NHMP and visit the Jackson County Public Health website. Page 3-20 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Flood Significant Changes Since Previous NHMP: Seven significant flood events have been added since the previous NHMP. Updated data from the Upper Rogue Watershed Multi- Hazard Risk Report, FIS and FIRM is included. Table 3-9 Flood Summary Type Climatic Speed of Onset Slow to moderate Location Mapped flood zones, floodplain Extent Moderate to severe Prior Occurrence 17 significant events since 1964 Probability -34% overall; 1% annual within SFHA Sources: Oregon NHMP, DOGAMI, FEMA, analysis by OPDR Characteristics Flooding results when rain and snowmelt creates water flow that exceeds the carrying capacity of rivers, streams, channels, ditches and other watercourses. In Oregon, flooding is most common from October through April when storms from the Pacific Ocean bring intense rainfall. Most of Oregon's destructive natural disasters have been floods.',, The principal types of floods that occur in Jackson County include: riverine floods, shallow area floods and urban floods. Location and Extent Jackson County lies within the Rogue River Valley between the Coastal Range to the west, the Cascade Range to the east and the Siskiyou Range to the south. Melting snow and winter rains combine to produce flood events because of the watersheds alluvial floodplain topography on the main valley floor. The main soil types of the valley are clay-loams and silty clay-loams along with extensive gravel deposits along the Rogue River and Bear Creek. These waterways easily exceed their banks in areas of flat terrain. Floods frequently occur in Jackson County during periods of heavy rainfall and/or snowmelt. The primary sources of riverine flooding include the Rogue River, Applegate River, Bear Creek and Evans Creek along with many lesser creeks and tributaries including Ashland Creek (Ashland) and Little Butte Creek (Eagle Point). Communities near these waterways are all susceptible to flood damage during a flood event. A common thread from these water courses is their potential to disrupt infrastructure by causing landslides, inundating roads and eroding river banks and bridge abutments. 10 Taylor, George H. and Chris Hannan. The Oregon Weather Book. Grants Pass, OR: Oregon State University Press. 1999 Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-21 Floods are described in terms of their extent (including the horizontal area affected and the vertical depth of floodwaters) and the related probability of occurrence. Flood studies often use historical records, such as streamflow gages, to determine the probability of occurrence for floods of different magnitudes. The probability of occurrence is expressed in percentages as the chance of a flood of a specific extent occurring in any given year. The magnitude of flood used as the standard for floodplain management in the United States is a flood having a one percent probability of occurrence in any given year. This flood is also known as the 100-year flood or base flood. The most readily available source of information regarding the 100-year flood is the system of Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) prepared by FEMA. These maps are used to support the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The FIRMS show 100-year floodplain boundaries for identified flood hazards. These areas are also referred to as Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) and are the basis for flood insurance and floodplain management requirements. Areas with significant development in the mapped Rogue River floodplain include Gold Hill, Eagle Point, Rogue River, Shady Cove and White City (unincorporated); and areas of the Bear Creek floodplain within the cities of Ashland, Central Point, Jacksonville, Medford, Phoenix and Talent along 1-5 (Bear Creek). For more information, refer to the following Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and associated Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM): • Jackson County FIS Part 1- 2011 (revised January 19, 2018) • Jackson County FIS Part 2 - 2011 (revised January 19, 2018) • Jackson County FIS Part 3 - 2011 (revised January 19, 2018) Refer to the following DOGAMI report for additional information: • Upper Rogue Watershed Multi-Hazard Risk Report (Volume II. Appendix H) Additional reports are available via DOGAMI's Publications Search website: http://www.oregongeology.org/pubs/search.php Page 3-22 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Figure 3-6 Special Flood Hazard Area Layers Currently Shown f Oregon Counties l i Oregon Counties y - U0 L_3 Nat' nii ~ Flood Hazard FOt I _l Type and Source of Flood Data Effective FEMA 100 yr Flood Preliminary FEMA 100 yr Flood State Digitized Flood Data Q3 FEMA Flood Data : 1I- tco CASCADE RAA; "n f s O km i f olo c oN ]o mi I OREGON M Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (HazVu) History Between the 1850's and the present, human activity significantly changed the hydrology of the Rogue and Umpqua watershed, including dams and flood control systems constructed throughout the drainage basin. More recently, increasing urbanization has contributed to changes in basin hydrology. Prior to human alteration of the river system, rivers in the region flooded larger areas more often. Listed below are historical flooding events that affected the Rogue/Umpqua River Basin and including events related to the Rogue River and its main tributaries, Bear Creek, Evans Creek and the Applegate River. Six significant flood events have been added since the previous NHMP (shown in italics below): • 1931 (March): Wet, mild weather consisting of rain-on-snow (ROS) with bridges and homes destroyed. • 1950 (October): Severe flooding and ROS in Region 4. Six fatalities. Bridges and roads destroyed. • 1962 (January): Heavy rain (3"-4" in Rogue Valley); 84 people evacuated. Great loss of farmland. • 1964 (December): Infamous 1964 flood that has become an Oregon flood of record. Record flows on Rogue and Umpqua Rivers. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-23 • 1974 (January): Series of storms with mild temperatures; large snowmelt with rapid runoff. Two fatalities. • 1986 (January): Significant flooding in western Oregon attributable to warm, intense rain. • 1990 (January): Significant flooding in western Oregon. • 1996 (February): Severe storm, flooding. $280 million in damage. • 1996 (November): Tropical air mass; intense rain; landslides; power outages. (FEMA-1149-DR-OR). • 1996 (December) -1997 (January): Mild weather continues. Severe flooding in Ashland. (FEMA-1160-DR-OR). • 2005 (December): $2,840,000 in flood damage centered in Douglas, Jackson and Josephine counties. • 2006 (June): Heavy rain brought flash flooding and riverine to Jacksonville, but no reported damages. • 2007 (August): Heavy rains caused flash flooding and riverine floods near Ashland, no major estimated damages. • 2010 (August): Heavy rains in Central Point caused riverine flooding. • 2012 (December 2) - The Rogue River at Gold Ray exceeded flood stage during this interval. • 2014 (February 14) - Heavy rains caused a brief flood on Little Butte Creek at Eagle Point. • 2014 (March 9) - Heavy rains led to flooding of some small streams near Eagle Point including Little Butte Creek. • 2015 (February 6) - Near the community of Wimer, ODOT reported that a portion of OR 66 from milepost 1 to 14 was closed by floodwaters and mudslides on Friday afternoon. Downed trees blocked other roads in the area. Tyler Creek road, Wagner Creek road, Savage Creek road and several BLM roads were washed out or covered by mudslides. • 2015 (December 13) -Jackson County Dispatch reported flood waters between 4 inches and 1 foot deep entering 3 homes in Shady Cove and entering one home in White City and one home in Eagle Point. • 2016 (January 17) - Evans Creek flowed out of its banks as a result of heavy regional rains. Probability Assessment The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has mapped the 10, 50, 100 and 500- year floodplains in portions of Jackson County (see referenced 2011 FIS for more information). This corresponds to a 10%, 2%, 1% and 0.2% chance of a certain magnitude flood in any given year. The 100-year flood is the benchmark upon which the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is based. Based on the available data and research for Jackson County, the NHMP Steering Committee determined the probability of experiencing a flood is "high", meaning one incident is likely within the next 10 to 35-year period; this rating has not changed since the previous NHMP. Page 3-24 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Vulnerability Assessment Flooding can occur every year depending on rainfall, snowmelt or how runoff from development impacts streams and rivers. Surveys by the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI), the County and FEMA have established the 100-year floodplain. The floodplains in Jackson County are generally located along the Rogue and Applegate Rivers, Bear Creek and Evans Creek. Jackson County development regulations restrict, but do not prohibit, new development in areas identified as floodplain. This reduces the impact of flooding on future buildings. As new land has been brought into the regional Urban Growth Boundary, the applicable development codes have been applied to prevent the siting of new structures in flood prone areas. Multi-Hazard Risk Report: Upper Rogue Watershed The Risk Report (Volume II, Appendix H) identifies that during a "1% Annual Chance" Flood event (100-Year Flood) approximately 185 buildings will be damaged (0 essential facilities) for a total loss of $323,000 (a loss ratio of 0.1%). In addition, about 157 residents may be displaced (about 1% of the population). For the town of Prospect, no buildings, infrastructure or population are expected to be at risk to flood. For mitigation planning purposes, it is important to recognize that flood risk for a community is not limited only to areas of mapped floodplains. Other portions of the county outside of the mapped floodplains may also be at relatively high risk from over bank flooding from streams too small to be mapped by FEMA or from local storm water drainage. The NHMP Steering Committee rated the county as having a "moderate" vulnerability to flood hazards, meaning that between 1-10% of the region's population or assets would be affected by a major flood event; this rating has not changed since the previous NHMP. More information on this hazard can be found in the Risk Assessment for Region 4, Southwest Oregon, of the Oregon NHMP (2015). Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-25 Landslide Significant Changes Since Previous NHMP: One (1) significant landslide event has been added since the previous NHMP. New landslide susceptibility information based on updated Lidar data provided by DOGAMI (0-16-02) has also been included. Analysis from the Upper Rogue Watershed Multi-Hazard Risk Report is also included. This section has also been reformatted. Table 3-10 Landslide Summary Type Climatic/Geologic Speed of Onset Slow to rapid Location Steep slopes, weak geology Minor to severe, most highly concentrated in Extent southeastern, central, and centraleastern portions of the county including areas east of 1-5 and along the North Fork Little Butte Creek Prior Occurrence 10 significant events since 1974 Probability -24% overall Sources: Oregon NHMP, DOGAMI, analysis by OPDR Characteristics A landslide is any detached mass of soil, rock, or debris that falls, slides or flows down a slope or a stream channel. Landslides are classified according to the type and rate of movement and the type of materials that are transported. In a landslide, two forces are at work: 1) the driving forces that cause the material to move down slope, and 2) the friction forces and strength of materials that act to retard the movement and stabilize the slope. When the driving forces exceed the resisting forces, a landslide occurs. Jackson County is subject to landslides or debris flows (mudslides), especially in the Cascade Range to the east of the county, which may affect buildings, roads and utilities. Additionally, landslides often occur together with other natural hazards, thereby exacerbating conditions, as described below: • Shaking due to earthquakes can trigger events ranging from rockfalls and topples to massive slides. • Intense or prolonged precipitation that causes flooding can also saturate slopes and cause failures leading to landslides. • Landslides into a reservoir can indirectly compromise dam safety and a landslide can even affect the dam itself. • Wildfires can remove vegetation from hillsides, significantly increasing runoff and landslide potential. Page 3-26 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Location and Extent The characteristics of the minerals and soils present in Jackson County indicate the potential types of hazards that may occur. Rock hardness and soil characteristics can determine whether an area will be prone to geologic hazards such as landslides. Landslides and debris flows are possible in any of the higher slope portions of Jackson County, including much of the central and eastern portions of the county. Landslide prone areas also include portions of the communities of Ashland, Gold Hill, Jacksonville, Phoenix and Talent. Figure 3-7 Landslide Susceptibility Exposure ! X I - © 1 Layers Currently Shown - r Oregon Counties ' _ 'tea Oregon Counties j I 0 Landslide Hazard Landslide Susceptibility ❑ Low - Landsliding Unlikely I a I ~'aa Moderate -Landsliding Possible ❑ High - Landsliding Likely I~ Very High - Existing Landslide 1 r A j 50 km ! l ( I Source: DOGAMI Statewide Landslide Information Laver for Oregon (SLIDO) More detailed landslide hazard assessment at specific locations requires a site-specific analysis of the slope, soil/rock and groundwater characteristics at a specific site. Such assessments are often conducted prior to major development projects in areas with moderate to high landslide potential, to evaluate the specific hazard at the development site. For Jackson County, many high landslide potential areas are in hilly-forested areas. Landslides in these areas may damage or destroy some timber and impact logging roads. Many of the major highways in Jackson County are at risk for landslides at one or more locations with a high potential for road closures and damage to utility lines. Especially in the Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-27 central-eastern portions of Jackson County, with a limited redundancy of road network, such road closures may isolate some communities. In addition to direct landslide damages to roads and highways, affected communities are also subject to the economic impacts of road closures due to landslides, which may disrupt access to/egress from communities. Table 3-11 shows landslide susceptibility exposure for Jackson County and the incorporated cities. Approximately 51% of the county land has high or very high landslide susceptibility exposure. Cities within the county show no rating of very high landslide exposure susceptibility except for Ashland (0.1%) and Medford (2.6%). The majority of Jackson County cities have ratings of low to moderate landslide exposure. Gold Hill has the highest percentage of high landslide susceptibility (21%), followed by Ashland (18%) and Jacksonville (18%). Note that even if a County or city has a high percentage of area in a high or very high landslide exposure susceptibility zone, this does not mean there is a high risk, because risk is the intersection of hazard and assets. Table 3-11 Landslide Susceptibility Exposure Jackson County 78,133,339,144 17.8%% 31.3% 44.5% 6.4% Ashland 182,893,560 39.5% 42.6% 17.8% 0.1% Butte Falls 10,731,642 83.7% 9.8% 6.5% 0.0% Central Point 107,071,293 91.9% 7.5% 0.6% 0.0% Eagle Point 81,613,814 32.5% 62.1% 5.4% 0.0% Gold Hill 20,166,729 51.1% 27.9% 21.0% 0.0% Jacksonville 53,163,321 50.4% 31.9% 17.7% 0.0% Medford 715,933,475 58.7% 32.6% 6.2% 2.6% Phoenix 37,694,474 76.0% 20.8% 3.2% 0.0% Rogue River 26,623,249 62.1% 26.5% 11.5% 0.0% Shady Cove 56,666,101 53.2% 33.7% 13.1% 0.0% Talent 36,432,983 75.3% 21.3% 3.5% 0.0% Source: DOGAMI Open-File Report, 0-16-02, Landslide Susceptibility Overview Map of Oregon (2016) The severity or extent of landslides is typically a function of geology and the landslide triggering mechanism. Rainfall initiated landslides tend to be smaller and earthquake induced landslides may be very large. Even small slides can cause property damage, result in injuries or take lives. For more information, refer to the following report and maps provided by DOGAMI: • Open File Report: 0-16-02, Landslide Susceptibility Overview Map of Oregon • Open File Report: 0-15-01, Landslide Susceptibility analysis of lifeline routes in the Oregon Coast Range (2015) • Special Paper 34: Slope failures in Oregon: GIS inventory for three 1996/97 storm events, 2000 • Open File Report: 0-06-11, Preliminary Geologic Map of the Sexton Mountain, Murphy, Applegate and Mount Isabelle 7.5' Quadrangles, Jackson and Josephine Counties, Oregon (2006) • Open File Report: 0-2009-02, Preliminary geologic map of the Robinson Butte 7.5' quadrangle, Jackson County, Oregon (2009) Page 3-28 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP • Open File Report: 0-2011-11, Geologic database and generalized geologic map of Bear Creek Valley, Jackson County, Oregon (2011) Additional reports are available via DOGAMI's Publications Search website: http://www.oregongeology.org/pubs/search.php History Landslides may happen at any time of the year. In addition to landslides triggered by a combination of slope stability and water content, earthquakes may also trigger landslides. Areas prone to seismically triggered landslides are generally the same as those prone to ordinary (i.e., non-seismic) landslides. As with ordinary landslides, seismically triggered landslides are more likely for earthquakes that occur when soils are saturated with water. Debris flows and landslides are a very common occurrence in hilly areas of Oregon, including portions of Jackson County. Many landslides occur in undeveloped areas and thus may go unnoticed or unreported. For example, DOGAMI conducted a statewide survey of landslides from four winter storms in 1996 and 1997 and found 9,582 documented landslides, with the actual number of landslides estimated to be many times the documented number. For the most part, landslides become a problem only when they impact developed areas and have the potential to damage buildings, roads or utilities. Figure 3-8 shows the landslide inventory for Jackson County, for additional information see the Statewide Landslide Information Database for Oregon. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-29 Figure 3-8 Landslide Inventory 9ti7 Oregon Counties .0 Oregon Counties t ry Landslide Inventory of q,}b I Sca rp • r~ • r, r~ ~L* Head Scarp ~ .,•a ,Q e Q t m Deposits Talus-Colluvium'_i -•Y,~1 j,'}',1 ' a 'DES Fan 4 Landslide r r~ , v`• v" 1 O O 1 { ~ a i TV Q 50 km j ~•9 . • i Q~ i 9 (.110 Gt IN ie17%7.k 30 mP t ,-11 if (TN[ Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (HazVu) Below are listed the most severe landslide events, one (1) landslide event has been added since the previous NHMP (as shown in italics below): • 1997 (January): New Year's flood caused a broad series of landslides in Jackson County resulting from heavy rain and flood conditions. Road damages near Butte Falls and other areas of the county caused a total of $1,740,000 in damage. • 2015 (February 6): ODOT reported that a portion of OR 66 from milepost 1 to 14 was closed by floodwaters and mudslides on Friday afternoon. Downed trees blocked other roads in the area. Tyler Creek road, Wagner Creek road, Savage Creek road and several BLM roads were washed out or covered by mudslides. For additional history see flood section above for events that included landslides. Probability Assessment The probability of rapidly moving landslide occurring depends on a number of factors, including steepness of slope, slope materials, local geology, vegetative cover, human activity and water. There is a strong correlation between intensive winter rainstorms and the occurrence of rapidly moving landslides (debris flows). Consequently, the National Weather Service tracks storms during the rainy season, monitors rain gauges and snow melt and Page 3-30 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP ~ I is$ues warnings as conditions warrant. Given the correlation between precipitation, snowmelt and rapidly moving landslides, it would be feasible to construct a probability curve. The installation of slope indicators or the use of more advanced measuring techniques could provide information on slower moving slides. Geo-engineers with the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) estimate widespread landslides about every 20 years; landslides at a local level can be expected every two or three years." Based on the available data and research for Jackson County the NHMP Steering Committee determined the probability of experiencing a landslide or debris flow is "high", meaning at least one incident is likely within the next 10 to 35-year period; this rating has not changed since the previous NHMP. Vulnerability Assessment To a large degree, landslides are very difficult to predict. Vulnerability assessments assist in predicting how different types of property and population groups will be affected by a hazard. 12 The optimum method for doing this analysis at the city or county level is to use parcel-specific assessment data on land use and structures.13 Data that includes specific landslide-prone and debris flow locations in the county can be used to assess the population and total value of property at risk from future landslide occurrences. Landslides can impact major transportation arteries, blocking residents from essential services and businesses. Many aspects of the county are vulnerable to landslides. This includes land use and development patterns, the economy, population segments, ecosystem services and cultural assets. A quantitative landslide hazard assessment requires overlay of landslide hazards (frequency and severity of landslides) with the inventory exposed to the hazard (value and vulnerability) by considering: • Extent of landslide susceptible areas; • Inventory of buildings and infrastructure in landslide susceptible areas; • Severity of earthquakes or winter storm event (inches of rainfall in 24 hours); • Percentage of landslide susceptible areas that will move and the range of movements (displacements) likely; and • Vulnerability (amount of damage for various ranges of movement). Currently, no countywide data is available, however, data is available for the Upper Rogue Watershed. Multi-Hazard Risk Report: Upper Rogue Watershed The Risk Report (Volume II, Appendix H) identifies that there are 1,098 buildings (0 essential facilities) exposed to high or very high landslide susceptibility for a total potential loss of $61.4 million (a loss ratio of just over 11%). In addition, about 950 residents may be "Mills, K. 2002. Oregon's Debris Flow Warning System. Cordilleran Section-98th Annual Meeting. Corvallis. 12 Burby, R., ed. 1998. Cooperating with Nature. Washington D.C.: Joseph Henry Press. 13 Burby, R., ed. 1998. Cooperating with Nature. Washington D.C.: Joseph Henry Press. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-31 displaced (about 9% of the population). For the town of Prospect, no buildings, infrastructure or population are expected to beat risk to landslide. As such, the NHMP Steering Committee rated the County as having a "low" vulnerability to landslide hazards, meaning that less than 1% of the region's population or assets would be affected by a major disaster; this rating has not changed since the previous NHMP. More information on this hazard can be found in the Risk Assessment for Region 4, Southwest Oregon, of the Oregon NHMP (2015). Page 3-32 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Severe Weather Severe weather in Jackson County can account for a variety of intense and potentially damaging weather events. These events include windstorms and winter storms. The following section describes the unique probability and vulnerability of each identified weather hazard. Other more abrupt or irregular events such as hail are also described in this section. Windstorm Significant Changes Since Previous NHMP: The windstorm hazard section has been edited to reference new history since the previous NHMP. This section has also been reformatted. Previously, windstorms were not rated individually, instead being included in the collective severe weather probability and vulnerability ratings. Table 3-12 Windstorm Summary Type Climatic Speed of Onset Slow to moderate Location Countywide Extent Minor to severe Prior Occurrence Minor events occur annually; -63 moderate to severe events since 2006 Probability 100% for minor events, -50% for moderate to severe events Sources: Oregon NHMP, National Weather Service, analysis by OPDR Characteristics A windstorm is generally a short duration event involving straight-line winds and/or gusts in excess of 50 mph. Although windstorms can affect the entirety of Jackson County, they are especially dangerous near developed areas with large trees or tree stands. The extent of any particular windstorm is determined by its track, intensity and local terrain.14 In the southwest Oregon, wind speed is typically 60 mph for 25-year storm events, 70 mph for 50-year storm events and 80 mph for 100-year storm events. Jackson County has experienced multiple 25-, 50- and 100-year windstorm events over the past century with impacts often occurring countywide. A windstorm will frequently knock down trees and 14 State of Oregon Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (2015) Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-33 I I power lines, damage homes, businesses, public facilities and create tons of storm related debris. Windstorms are a common, chronic hazard in Jackson County. Location and Extent The most common type of wind pattern affecting Jackson County is straight-line winds, which originate as a downdraft of rain-cooled air and reach the ground and spread out rapidly. Straight- line winds can produce gusts of 100 mph or greater. Records of major Pacific windstorms are documented by state agencies and weather stations throughout Oregon, including several official weather stations in Jackson County's lower valleys. However, because of the county's sheltered location, the most severe statewide windstorms only occasionally match up with local wind speed records. Jackson County experienced record-setting Pacific windstorms in January and February 1958. Wind speeds in November 1958 were not surpassed until 1981.15 During this storm, every major highway in Oregon was at some point blocked by fallen trees.16 Oregon's second most powerful windstorm occurred in December of 1995.17 This storm caused massive damage throughout the state. The 113 mph gusts measured in Portland illustrate the force of the 1995 storm.18 However, in Medford the sustained one-minute wind speeds from this storm did not reach 44 mph, which was the local record for the month of December, set thirty years earlier in 1965.19 The Columbus Day Storm of 1962 did register on Medford's official records, though winds reached only 40 mph. Typically, mountainous terrain slows down wind movement, which is why Oregon's sheltered valley areas have the slowest wind speed in the state. However, in the foothills, the wind speeds may increase due to down-sloping winds from the mountains. Although windstorms can affect the entirety of the county, they are especially dangerous in developed areas with significant tree stands and major infrastructure, especially above ground utility lines. A windstorm will frequently knock down trees and power lines, damage homes, businesses, public facilities and create tons of storm related debris. History Windstorms occur yearly; more destructive storms occur once or twice per decade, most recently in April 2016.20 Table 3-13 shows windstorms that occurred within and/or near Jackson County between 2007-201221 15 City of Medford weather data book, Table 28. 16 Taylor, George H. The Oregon Weather Book. Corvallis, OR, OSU Press, 1999. 17 Oregon Climate Service website: http://www.ocs.orst.edu. 18 Ibid. 19 City of Medford weather data book, Table 28. 20 NOAA, National Centers for Environmental Information, https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/`-` Taylor, George H. and Ray Hatton, 1999, The Oregon Weather Book; The Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States, [Online Database]. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina. Available at http://www.sheldus.org; U.S. Department of Commerce. National Climatic Data Center. Available at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cqi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent-storms; National Weather Service Forecast Office. Available at http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/pqr/paststorms/wind.php Page 3-34 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP it Table 3-13 History of Windstorms (2007-2012) Snow/ Rain Wind Speed Location Date Type Accumulation Deaths Injuries I (knots) (inches) Rogue River 7/11/2007 Thunderstorm Wind 52 0 0 Ashland 8/30/2007 Hail 3.0-4.0 52 0 0 Ashland 8/30/2007 High Wind 3.0-4.0 52 0 0 Prospect 10/26/2007 High Wind 52 0 0 Jackson County 1/3-1/4/08 High Wind - 70 1 0 Rogue River 6/28/2008 Thunderstorm Hail/ Wind 0.9 - 0 0 Pinehurst 8/17/2008 Thunderstorm Hail 0.9 0 0 Jackson County 5/31/2009 Thunderstorm/ Lightning - 0 1 Applegate/ Ashland 6/2/2009 Hail 1.5-1.75 0 0 Prospect 7/27/2010 Hail 1.0 0 0 Jackson County 8/17/2010 Hail 0.75-1.5 - 0 0 Jackson County 3/13/2011 Thunderstorm Wind 61 0 0 Medford 6/4/2012 Hail 1.0 Hail - 0 0 Source: National Climatic Data Center. Storm Events Database. htto://www. ncdc. noaa.gov/stormevents/choosedates.0sg?statefi ps=41 % 2COREGO N There have been 26 significant windstorm events, emergency declarations, or presidential disaster declarations since the previous NHMP (as shown in italics below): • 2012 (Dec 16): After a lull in storm activity, a strong cold front brought high winds back to portions of southern Oregon. 85 mph gusts. • 2012 (Dec 19): The stormy pattern continued as another cold front brought high winds to portions of southern Oregon. Peak gusts of 99 mph in some areas. • 2013 (Sept 28): The first strong system of the season brought high winds to portions of southern Oregon. Average gusts of 75 mph with peak gusts of 92 mph. The Oregon Department of Transportation reported 8-9 trees down across Oregon Highway 230, 12 trees down across Oregon Highway 62 and numerous trees down across Oregon Highway 138. Based on all this, it is assumed that the winds in ORZO27 met high wind warning criteria. Average gusts of 75 mph with peak gusts of 89 mph. • 2014 (Feb 15): An incoming front brought high winds to several areas around southern Oregon. Average gusts between 75-80 mph. • 2014 (Mar 5-6): An incoming front brought strong winds to portions of southern Oregon. Peak gusts of 92 mph. • 2014 (Oct 22): A member of the public reported wind gusts estimated at 50-60 mph downed several trees in the Dark Hollow area southwest of Medford. The tops of two large healthy trees were broken, one an oak and the other a poplar. No property damage. The high winds lasted around 45 minutes. Peak gust of 79 mph. • 2014 (Oct 24-25): A strong front brought high winds to many parts of southwest and south central Oregon. Peak gusts of 105 mph. • 2014 (Dec 10): An incoming front on 12/10/14 brought strong winds to many parts of southern Oregon and northern California. A rapidly developing low pressure system behind the first front brought another round of high winds on 12/11/14. Both of these events were covered by a long duration High Wind Warning. Average gusts of 79 mph with peak gusts of 84 mph. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-35 • 2014 (Dec 11): An incoming front on 12/10/14 brought strong winds to many parts of southern Oregon and northern California. A rapidly developing low pressure system behind the first front brought another round of high winds on 12/11/14. Both of these events were covered by a long duration High Wind Warning. Peak gusts of 117 mph. ODOT reported that a truck was blown over on Highway 140 near Meridian Road. • 2015 (Feb 5-6): The Medford Mail Tribune reported numerous trees down across southern Jackson County. There were power outages due to trees falling across power lines. A falling tree fell on a house and car in Ashland, damaging both. Peak gust of 124 mph. • 2015 (Feb 7): The second in a series of fronts brought strong winds to many areas in Southern Oregon. Peak gusts of 116 mph. • 2015 (Feb 8-9): The third in a series of fronts brought strong winds to many areas in Southern Oregon. Peak gusts of 94 mph. • 2015 (Dec 3-3): A strong front brought high winds to parts of southwest and south central Oregon. Peak gusts of 107 mph. • 2015 (Dec 5-21): A series of 5 distinct windstorm events impacted many regions in Southwest and south central Oregon. Peak gusts ranged from 76-88 mph. • 2016 (Jan 16): Another in a series of cold fronts brought high winds to portions of the southern Oregon coast and the higher terrain of the Cascades and Siskiyous. Peak gusts of 82 mph. • 2016 (Jan 19): Another in a series of cold fronts brought high winds to portions of the southern Oregon coast and the higher terrain of the Cascades and Siskiyous. Peak gusts of 102 mph. • 2016 (Jan 21-22): The peak gust was 92 mph recorded at 2200 PST. Earlier that evening, strong winds were reported at Mount Ashland ski park. Kids were blown over in the parking lot. A ski lift was also closed due to winds. A chaperone stated that this was the first time he has ever been scared for the safety of skiers and snowboarders at Mount Ashland due to the weather. • 2016 (Feb 17): One of the last of a series of fronts brought high winds to portions of southwest and south central Oregon. Peak gust of 79 mph. • 2016 (Feb 19): The last of a series of fronts brought high winds to portions of southwest and south central Oregon. Peak gust of 91 mph. • 2016 (Mar 1): A strong front brought high winds to portions of southwest and south central Oregon. Peak gust of 87 mph. • 2016 (Apr 13): Central Point reported a measured gust to 45 mph. A storage shed on the property was blown apart by the winds. Large branches down. A spotter in Applegate reported 2 inch branches coming off of trees. Winds were estimated gusting to 45 mph. An estimated 998 customers were without power. Additionally, Jackson County has experienced some severe weather events (not considered windstorms or winter storms) that do not necessarily exhibit windstorm conditions. Four (4) severe weather events were added to this hazard history section since the previous NHMP (shown in italics below): • 2013 (Aug 7): Hail - Monsoonal moisture combined with passing upper level disturbances to create thunderstorms over southern Oregon. Some of these storms became severe. 1-inch hail reported on Squires Peak and near the community of Page 3-36 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Ruch. An orchardist from a orchard near Talent reported a 50% loss of the pear crop due to hail damage. Estimated hail size was 0.5 to 1.0 inches judging from holes in the ground. The monetary value of the loss is not known. • 2015 (July 7): Thunderstorm/Hail - A strong thunderstorm developed at the head of the Rogue Valley on the evening of 717115. This storm spawned damaging winds from Ashland to Medford and small hail as well. A member of the public reported trees down at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Medford). The Mail Tribune newspaper and the police scanner indicated that numerous trees were knocked down in the Medford area. Some fell into power lines, causing multiple power outages. Other fell into vehicles and homes. Lightning also was the suspected cause of at least one structure fire. • 2016 (Jun 6): Thunderstorm - KDRV-TV reported a large tree was blown down, closing Highway 62 until it was cleared. Several additional, small windstorm events have occurred since the previous NHMP, see the Storm Events Database provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for more information. Probability Assessment Windstorms in the county usually occur in the winter from October to March and their extent is determined by their track, intensity (the air pressure gradient they generate) and local terrain. Summer thunderstorms may also bring high winds along with heavy rain and/ or hail. The National Weather Service uses weather forecast models to predict oncoming windstorms, while monitoring storms with weather stations in protected valley locations throughout Oregon. Table 3-14 shows the wind speed probability intervals that structures 33 feet above the ground would expect to be exposed to within a 25, 50 and 100-year period. The table shows that structures in Region 4, which includes Jackson County, can expect to be exposed to 60 mph winds in a 25-year recurrence interval (4% annual probability). Table 3-14 Probability of Severe Wind Events (Region 4) 25-Year Event 50-Year Event 100-Year Event (491. annual (2% annual (1% annual probability) probability) probability) Region 4: 60 mph 70 mph 80 mph Southwest Oregon Source: Oregon State Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2009 Based on the available data and research for Jackson County the NHMP Steering Committee determined the probability of experiencing a windstorm is "high", meaning one incident is likely within the next 10 to 35-year period; this rating has not changed since the previous NHMP. Previously, windstorms were not rated individually, instead being included in the collective severe weather rating. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-37 Vulnerabilities Many buildings, utilities and transportation systems within Jackson County are vulnerable to wind damage. This is especially true in open areas, such as natural grasslands or farmlands. It is also true in forested areas, along tree-lined roads and electrical transmission lines and on residential parcels where trees have been planted or left for aesthetic purposes. Structures most vulnerable to high winds include insufficiently anchored manufactured homes and older buildings in need of roof repair. Fallen trees are especially troublesome. They can block roads and rails for long periods of time, impacting emergency operations. In addition, up-rooted or shattered trees can down power and/or utility lines and effectively bring local economic activity and other essential facilities to a standstill. Much of the problem may be attributed to a shallow or weakened root system in saturated ground. In Jackson County, trees are more likely to blow over during the winter (wet season). As such, the NHMP Steering Committee rated the county as having a "moderate" vulnerability to windstorm hazards, meaning that between 1-10% of the region's population or assets would be affected by a major disaster; this rating has decreased since the previous NHMP. Previously, windstorms were not rated individually, instead being included in the collective severe weather rating. More information on this hazard can be found in the Risk Assessment for Region 4, Southwest Oregon, of the Oregon NHMP (2015). Page 3-38 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Winter Storm Significant Changes Since Previous NHMP: The winter storm hazard section has been edited to reference new history since the previous NHMP. This section has also been reformatted. Previously, winter storms were not rated individually, instead being included in the collective severe weather probability and vulnerability ratinas. Table 3-15 Winter Storm Summary Type Climatic Speed of Onset Slow to moderate Location Countywide Extent Minor to severe Prior Occurrence 7 moderate to severe events from 2012-2016 Probability 100% for minor events, -15% for moderate to severe events Sources: Oregon NHMP, National Weather Service, analysis by OPDR Characteristics Winter storms affecting Jackson County are generally characterized by a combination of heavy rains and high winds throughout the county, sometimes with snowfall, especially at higher elevations. Heavy rains can result in localized or widespread flooding, as well as debris slides and landslides. High winds commonly result in tree falls which primarily affect the electric power system, but which may also affect roads, buildings and vehicles. This chapter deals primarily with the snow and ice effects of winter storms. The winter storms that affect Jackson County typically are not local events affecting only small geographic areas. Rather, winter storms are usually large cyclonic low-pressure systems that move in from the Pacific Ocean and affect large areas of Oregon and/or the whole Pacific Northwest. These storms are most common from October through March. Ice storms are comprised of cold temperatures and moisture, but subtle changes can result in varying types of ice formation which may include freezing rain, sleet and hail. Of these, freezing rain can be the most damaging of ice formations. Outside of mountainous areas, significant snow accumulations are much less likely in western Oregon than on the east side of the Cascades. However, if a cold air mass moves northwest through the Columbia Gorge and collides with a wet Pacific storm, then a larger than average snow fall may result. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-39 I Location and Extent The National Climatic Data Center has established climate zones in the United States for areas that have similar temperature and precipitation characteristics. Oregon's latitude, topography and proximity to the Pacific Ocean give the state diversified climates. Figure 3-9 shows that Jackson County is located within Zone 3: Southwestern Valleys. Figure 3-9 Oregon Climate Divisions :OAST LOR"ITT t 7N7~tAL Zrnr 7 . . rtT;:. Zone NORTTWAST YVTI,P~MI:I"Iti OR-rill. ' VAMEY SCAI S a. Zone 2M'•« SOCTITI Q-ISI'RAL SOlT17ffAST • • Zane 7 Zcwe 9 IIIQi PIATI:AU 9DlT[i[WFS[E7tr! Zane 5 yVAII.I•YS . = i~ a II - Source: Oregon Climate Service, The principal types of winter storms that occur include: • Snowstorms: require three ingredients: cold air, moisture and air disturbance. The result is snow, small ice particles that fall from the sky. In Oregon, the further inland and north one moves, the more snowfall can be expected. Blizzards are included in this category. • Ice storms: are a type of winter storm that forms when a layer of warm air is sandwiched by two layers of cold air. Frozen precipitation melts when it hits the warm layer and refreezes when hitting the cold layer below the inversion. Ice storms can include sleet (when the rain refreezes before hitting the ground) or freezing rain (when the rain freezes once hitting the ground). • Extreme Cold: Dangerously low temperatures accompany many winter storms. This is particularly dangerous because snow and ice storms can cause power outages, leaving many people without adequate heating. Page 3-40 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP I I it Unlike most other hazards, it is not simple to systematically map winter storm hazard zones. The entire County is susceptible to damaging severe weather. Winter storms that bring snow and ice can impact infrastructure, business and individuals. Those resources that exist at higher elevations will experience more risk of snow and ice, but the entire County can face damage from winter storms and, for example, the hail or life threateningly cold temperatures that winter storms bring. History Winter storms occur yearly; more destructive storms occur once or twice per decade, most recently in 2015.22 Table 3-16 shows winter storms that occurred within and/or near Jackson County between 2007-201223 Table 346 History of Winter Storms (2007-2012) Snow/ Rain Location Date Type Accumulation Wind Speed Deaths Injuries (inches) (knots) Jackson County 1/16/2007 Heavy Snow 4.5 - 0 0 Jackson County 2/21/2007 Heavy Snow 6.0-9.0 0 0 Jackson County 2/22/2007 Heavy Snow 4.0-6.0 0 0 Jackson County 12/25-12/26/07 Heavy Snow 3.5 0 0 Jackson County 12/27/2007 Heavy Snow 3.5 0 0 Prospect 1/6-1/8/08 Heavy Snow 6.0-8.0 0 0 Jackson County 1/27/2008 Heavy Snow 4.0-10.0 0 0 Jackson County 2/2/2008 Heavy Snow 4.5 0 0 Jackson County 12/13/2008 Heavy Snow 5.5 0 0 Jackson County 12/15/2008 Heavy Snow 4.5 0 0 Jackson County 12/18-12/19/08 Heavy Snow 3.5-9.0 0 0 Jackson County 12/21/2008 Heavy Snow Up to 12.0 0 0 Jackson County 2/12-2/13/09 Heavy Snow 4.0-7.0 0 0 Jackson County 12/5-12/11/09 Extreme Cold/ Ice - 1 0 Jackson County 11/22-11/23/10 Heavy Snow 5.0 0 0 Jackson County 12/29/2010 Heavy Snow 4.0-8.5 0 0 Jackson County 2/23-2/25/11 Heavy Snow 4.0-12.0 0 0 Jackson County 2/29/2012 Heavy Snow 6.0-12.0 0 0 Jackson County 3/12-3/13/12 Heavy Snow 5.0-6.0 0 0 Source: National Climatic Data Center. Storm Events Database. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/choosedates.isP?statefips=41 % 2COREGON There have been seven (7) winter storm events, emergency declarations, or presidential disaster declarations since the previous NHMP (as shown in italics below):24 22 https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/listevents 23 Taylor, George H. and Ray Hatton, 1999, The Oregon Weather Book; The Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States, [Online Database]. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina. Available at http://www.sheldus.org; U.S. Department of Commerce. National Climatic Data Center. Available at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cql-win/wwCgi.dll?WW2VentVstormS; National Weather Service Forecast Office. Available at httP://www.wrh.noaa.gov/Pqr/paststorms/wind.php 24 Taylor, George H. and Ray Hatton, 1999, The Oregon Weather Book; The Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States, [Online Database]. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina. Available at http://www.sheldus.org; U.S. Department of Commerce. National Climatic Data Center. Available at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cqi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent-stormS; National Weather Service Forecast Office. Available at http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/pqr/paststorms/wind.php Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-41 I i I 2012 (Dec 20 -Dec 21): A long lasting winter storm occurred during this interval, caused by a series of closely spaced storms. Trail and Ashland reported 6.5 inches of snow in 24 hours while Gold Hill reported 5.9 inches in 24 hours. Significant snow was reported in the mountains during this period, causing numerous highway closures including Interstate 5 through Siskiyou Summit. • 2013 (Dec 6 - Dec 7): A long lasting winter storm occurred during this interval, caused by a series of closely spaced storms. The communities of Gold Hill, Trail, Eagle Point, Phoenix, Ashland, Rogue River, Shady Cove, Ruch, White City, Butte Falls and Prospect reported between 3.5 and 14 inches of snow within 24 hours. Multiple vehicle accidents resulting from winter conditions occurred along Old Highway 99 from Grants Pass to Gold Hill and on Highway 62 from Medford to Eagle Point. • 2014 (Jan 11): A strong front brought strong winds and heavy snow to portions of the southern Oregon Cascades. • 2015 (Nov 24 - Nov 25): The first big winter storm of the season brought heavy snow to some locations in southern Oregon. • 2015 (Dec 12 - Dec 13): A series of systems brought heavy precipitation to southern Oregon. The communities of Applegate, Phoenix, Medford, Ashland and Butte Falls reported between 3 and 9 inches of snow within 24 hours. Numerous power outages were reported around the county and area roads were closed due to snow and fallen trees. • 2015 (Dec 21 - Dec 24): A series of storms made for a long lasting winter storm over southwest and south central Oregon. At first, the snow was limited to higher elevations but lowered with time to some of the west side valley floors. • 2016-2017 (Dec.-Jan): A series of storms impacted the Rogue Valley including high winds, ice, freezing temperatures, and snow accumulation of 12-24 inches in parts of the valley floor. Probability Assessment The recurrence interval for a moderate to severe winter storm is about once every year; however, there can be many localized storms between these periods. Severe winter storms occur in western Oregon regularly from November through February. Jackson County experiences winter storms a couple times every year, to every other year. Based on the available data and research for Jackson County the NHMP Steering Committee determined the probability of experiencing a winter storm is "high", meaning one incident is likely within the next 10 to 35-year period; this rating has not changed since the previous NHMP's severe weather rating. Previously, winter storms were not rated individually, instead being included in the collective severe weather rating. Vulnerabilities Given current available data, no quantitative assessment of the risk of winter storm was possible at the time of this NHMP update. However, assessing the risk to the County from winter storms should remain an ongoing process determined by community characteristics and physical vulnerabilities. Weather forecasting can give County resources (emergency vehicles, warming shelters) time to prepare for an impending storm, but the changing character of the County population and resources will determine the impact of winter storms on life and property in Jackson County. Page 3-42 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP The most likely impact of snow and ice events on Jackson County are road closures limiting access/egress to/from some areas, especially roads to higher elevations. Winter storms with heavy wet snow or high winds and ice storms may also result in power outages from downed transmission lines and/or poles. Winter storms which bring snow, ice and high winds can cause significant impacts on life and property. Many severe winter storm deaths occur as a result of traffic accidents on icy roads, heart attacks may occur from exertion while shoveling snow and hypothermia from prolonged exposure to the cold. The temporary loss of home heating can be particularly hard on the elderly, young children and other vulnerable individuals. Property is at risk due to flooding and landslides that may result if there is a heavy snowmelt. Additionally, ice, wind and snow can affect the stability of trees, power and telephone lines and TV and radio antennas. Down trees and limbs can become major hazards for houses, cars, utilities and other property. Such damage in turn can become major obstacles to providing critical emergency response, police, fire and other disaster recovery services. Severe winter weather also can cause the temporary closure of key roads and highways, air and train operations, businesses, schools, government offices and other important community services. Below freezing temperatures can also lead to breaks in un-insulated water lines serving schools, businesses, industries and individual homes. All of these effects, if lasting more than several days, can create significant economic impacts for the affected communities and the surrounding region. In the rural areas of Oregon severe winter storms can isolate small communities, farms and ranches. At the time of this update, sufficient data was not available to determine winter storm vulnerability in terms of explicit types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure or critical infrastructure. As such, the NHMP Steering Committee rated the County as having a "moderate" vulnerability to winter storm hazards, meaning that between 1 and 10% of the region's population or assets would be affected by a major disaster; this rating has decreased since the previous NHMP. Previously, winter storms were not rated individually, instead being included in the collective severe weather rating. More information on this hazard can be found in the Risk Assessment for Region 4, Southwest Oregon, of the Oregon NHMP (2015). Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-43 Volcano Significant Changes Since Previous NHMP: There have been no significant changes to this section since the previous NHMP. Table 3-17 Volcano Summary Type Geologic Speed of Onset Slow to rapid Location Cascade Mountains Extent Moderate to severe Prior Occurrence 0 events from 2012-2017 Probability <1% annual Sources: Oregon NHMP, USGS, analysis by OPDR Characteristics The Pacific Northwest, lies within the "ring of fire," an area of very active volcanic activity surrounding the Pacific Basin. Volcanic eruptions occur regularly along the ring of fire, in part because of the movement of the Earth's tectonic plates. The Earth's outermost shell, the lithosphere, is broken into a series of slabs known as tectonic plates. These plates are rigid, but they float on a hotter, softer layer in the Earth's mantle. As the plates move about on the layer beneath them, they spread apart, collide, or slide past each other. Volcanoes occur most frequently at the boundaries of these plates and volcanic eruptions occur when molten material, or magma, rises to the surface. The primary threat to lives and property from active volcanoes is from violent eruptions that unleash tremendous blast forces, generate mud and debris flows, or produce flying debris and ash clouds. The immediate danger area in a volcanic eruption generally lies within a 20- mile radius of the blast site. Location and Extent Volcanic eruption is not an immediate threat to the residents of Jackson County, as there are no active volcanoes within the county. Nevertheless, the secondary threats caused by volcanoes in the Cascade region must be considered. Volcanic ash can contaminate water supplies, cause electrical storms, create health problems and collapse roofs. Jackson County is located on the Pacific Rim. Tectonic movement within the earth's crust can renew nearby dormant volcanoes resulting in ash fallout. Volcanic activity is possible from Mount Hood and Mount Saint Helens, Three Sisters, Mount Bachelor and the Newberry Crater areas. Because the distance to these potentially active volcanic areas is so great, the only adverse effect that would impact areas of Jackson County is ash fallout, with perhaps some impact on water supplies. The area affected by ash fallout depends upon the Page 3-44 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP height attained by the eruption column and the atmospheric conditions at the time of the eruption. Geologic hazard maps have been created for most of the volcanoes in the Cascade Range by the USGS Volcano Program at the Cascade Volcano Observatory in Vancouver, WA and are available at http://vuIcan.wr.usgs.gov/Publications/hazards reports.html. Scientists use wind direction to predict areas that might be affected by volcanic ash; during an eruption that emits ash, the ash fall deposition is controlled by the prevailing wind direction. The predominant wind pattern over the Cascades originates from the west and previous eruptions seen in the geologic record have resulted in most ash fall drifting to the east of the volcanoes. Regional tephra fall shows the annual probability of ten centimeters or more of ash accumulation from Pacific Northwest volcanoes. Figure 3-10 depicts the potential and geographical extent of volcanic ash fall in excess of ten centimeters from a large eruption of Mt. St. Helens. Additionally, Lassen Peak and Mount Shasta are active and potentially active volcanoes, respectively located in northern California. The proximity of these volcanic features suggests that, in the rare event of an eruption, Jackson County could be affected by ash fall and other air quality impacts. Figure 3-10 Regional Tephra-fall Maps _ Ytturt ~akee ~ K1trV ~ w.- YOUnl~aktr f 1.100 _ r~ 1• f' 1 1 i -l I1 In 50C I 1 I 1 In 1.000 h • I Ypu~Nrt~ylt~~{t I t I 11n 5.000 I I ~ I r l k 10,000 1. JSr ~tloare(Nand I ~ ~'f"_•^-~YOUrt./tl~ersor♦ ,L.,. G dcaM I Thep SWtn'..; -I , 1...., NtwbfttY.VOlt~tq 1 ~ ~ ~ I I I 1 I y _.I I `1 I I I I rJ e ~ I t :1, 4Mdldret u it I I ~1 Arm®I dde rt{ua~d 10m -In: ~J l e.1i II Iaax dteFBn tram r~dthe aarr Caaylk •e -.,ttn Pt `akaae- 41)AanaN shiliR d0, &p,i ce I z- 10.4 wt- rnx. u( VT 1, a f,Tnr d rc. F CS aS edcsnz. Source: USGS "Volcano Hazards in the Mount Jefferson Region, Oregon" Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-45 I History Mount Hood and Mount St. Helens are two active volcanoes near Jackson County. Mount Hood is several hundred miles north of the county and is more than 500,000 years old. It has had two significant eruptive periods, one about 1,500 years ago and another about 200 years ago. Mount St. Helens is in southern Washington State and has been active throughout its 50,000-year lifetime. In the past 200 years, seven of the Cascade volcanoes have erupted, including (from north to south): Mt. Baker, Glacier Peak, Mt. Rainier, Mount St. Helens (Washington), Mt. Hood (Oregon), Mt. Shasta and Mt. Lassen (California). There has been no recent volcanic activity near the county. The 1980 explosion of Mount St. Helens in southern Washington State is the latest on record; both Mount St. Helens and Mount Hood remain listed as active volcanoes. Probability Assessment The United States Geological Survey-Cascades Volcano Observatory (CVO) produced volcanic hazard zonation reports for Mount St. Helens and Mount Hood in 1995 and 1997. The reports include a description of potential hazards that may occur to immediate communities. The CVO created an updated annual probability of tephra (ash) fall map for the Cascade region in 2001, which could be a rough guide for Jackson County in forecasting potential tephra hazard problems. The map identifies the location and extent of the hazard. The CVO Volcanic tephra fall map is based on the combined likelihood of tephra-producing eruptions occurring at Cascade volcanoes. Probability zones extend farther east of the range because winds blow from westerly directions most of the time. The map shows annual probabilities for a fall of one centimeter (about 0.4 inch). The patterns on the map show the dominating influence of Mount St. Helens as a tephra producer. Because small eruptions are more numerous than large eruptions, the probability of a thick tephra fall at a given locality is lower than that of a thin tephra fall. The annual probability of a fall of one centimeter or more of tephra is about 1 in 10,000 for Jackson County. This is small when compared to other risks faced by the County. The USGS map on the previous page illustrates potential tephra fall in the region. Based on the available data and research for Jackson County the NHMP Steering Committee determined the probability of experiencing volcanic activity is "low", meaning one incident is likely within the next 75 to 100-year period; this rating has not changed since the previous NHMP. Vulnerabilities Risks for Jackson County associated with regional volcanic activity would be ash fall, air quality and possible economic or social disruption due to air traffic issues due to the ash cloud. At the time of this update, sufficient data was not available to determine volcanic eruption vulnerability in terms of explicit types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure or critical infrastructure. Page 3-46 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP I _ 1 Though unlikely, the impacts of a significant ash fall are substantial. Persons with respiratory problems are endangered, transportation, communications and other lifeline services are interrupted, drainage systems become overloaded/clogged, buildings can become structurally threatened and the economy takes a major hit. Any future eruption of a nearby volcano (e.g., Hood, St. Helens, or Adams) occurring during a period of easterly winds would likely have adverse consequences for the county. As such, the NHMP Steering Committee rated the county as having a "low" vulnerability to volcanic activity, meaning that less than 1% of the region's population or assets would be affected by a major disaster (volcanic ash); this rating has not changed since the previous NHMP. More information on this hazard can be found in the Risk Assessment for Region 4, Southwest Oregon, of the Oregon NHMP (2015). Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-47 Wildfire Significant Changes Since Previous NHMP: The wildfire hazard has been edited to reference the recently updated Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Protection Plan (RVIFP) and analysis from the Upper Rogue Watershed Multi- Hazard Risk Report. This section has also been reformatted. Table 3-18 Wildfire Summary Type Climatic, Human Caused Speed of Onset Moderate to rapid Location Countywide, Wildland Urban Interface Extent Minor to extreme Prior Occurrence 6 major events from 2012-2017 Probability 100% for minor-moderate events, 70-80% for extreme events Sources: Oregon NHMP, Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2017), analysis by OPDR Characteristics Wildfires occur in areas with large amounts of flammable vegetation that require a suppression response due to uncontrolled burning. Fire is an essential part of Oregon's ecosystem, but can also pose a serious threat to life and property particularly in the state's growing rural communities. Wildfire can be divided into three categories: interface, wildland and firestorms. The increase in residential development in interface areas has resulted in greater wildfire risk. Fire has historically been a natural wildland element and can sweep through vegetation that is adjacent to a combustible home. New residents in remote locations are often surprised to learn that in moving away from built-up urban areas, they have also left behind readily available fire services providing structural protection. Recent fires in Oregon and across the western United States have increased public awareness over the potential losses to life, property and natural and cultural resources that fire can pose. The following three factors contribute significantly to Wildfire behavior and can be used to identify Wildfire hazard areas. Topography: As slope increases, the rate of wildfire spread increases. South-facing slopes are also subject to more solar radiation, making them drier and thereby intensifying wildfire behavior. However, ridgetops may mark the end of wildfire spread, since fire spreads more slowly or may even be unable to spread downhill. Fuel: The type and condition of vegetation plays a significant role in the occurrence and spread of wildfires. Certain types of plants are more susceptible to burning or will burn with greater intensity. Dense or overgrown vegetation increases the amount of combustible i Page 3-48 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP material available to fuel the fire (referred to as the "fuel load"). The ratio of living to dead plant matter is also important. The risk of fire is increased significantly during periods of prolonged drought as the moisture content of both living and dead plant matter decreases. The fuel's continuity, both horizontally and vertically, is also an important factor. Weather: The most variable factor affecting wildfire behavior is weather. Temperature, humidity, wind and lightning can affect chances for ignition and spread of fire. Extreme weather, such as high temperatures and low humidity, can lead to extreme wildfire activity. By contrast, cooling and higher humidity often signals reduced Wildfire occurrence and easier containment. The frequency and severity of wildfires is also dependent upon other hazards, such as lightning, drought, equipment use, railroads, recreation use, arson and infestations. If not promptly controlled, wildfires may grow into an emergency or disaster. Even small fires can threaten lives and resources and destroy improved properties. In addition to affecting people, wildfires may severely affect livestock and pets. Such events may require emergency watering/feeding, evacuation and shelter. The indirect effects of wildfires can be catastrophic. In addition to stripping the land of vegetation and destroying forest resources, large, intense fires can harm the soil, waterways and the land itself. Soil exposed to intense heat may lose its capability to absorb moisture and support life. Exposed soils erode quickly and enhance siltation of rivers and streams, thereby enhancing flood potential, harming aquatic life and degrading water quality. Lands stripped of vegetation are also subject to increased debris flow hazards, as described above. Location and Extent . Wildfire hazard areas are commonly identified in regions of the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). The interface is the urban-rural fringe where homes and other structures are built into a densely forested or natural landscape. If left unchecked, it is likely that fires in these areas will threaten lives and property. One challenge Jackson County faces is from the increasing number of houses being built in the urban/rural fringe as compared to twenty years ago. The "interface" between urban or suburban areas and the resource lands has significantly increased the threat to life and propertyfrom fires. Responding to fires in the expanding Wildland Urban interface area may tax existing fire protection systems beyond original design or current capability. The ease of fire ignition further determines ranges of the wildfire hazard due to natural or human conditions and the difficulty of fire suppression. The wildfire hazard is also magnified by several factors related to fire suppression/control, such as the surrounding fuel load, weather, topography and property characteristics. Fire susceptibility throughout the county dramatically increases in late summer and early autumn as summer thunderstorms with lightning strikes increases and vegetation dries out, decreasing plant moisture content and increasing the ratio of dead fuel to living fuel. However, various other factors, including humidity, wind speed and direction fuel load and fuel type and topography can contribute to the intensity and spread of wildland. In addition, common causes of wildfires include arson and negligence from industrial and recreational activities. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-49 The RVIFP defines a Community at Risk, utilizing the definition provided by the Health Forests Restoration Act (2003), "as a geographic area within and surrounding permanent dwellings (at least 1 home per 40 acres) with basic infrastructure and services, under a common fire protection jurisdiction, government, or tribal trust or allotment, for which there is a significant threat due to wildfire."25 The CAR designation for the RVIFP is based on the RBS which follows the uniform CAR framework for Oregon that is augmented with data on where people live from the Westwide Wildfire Risk Assessment and 2010 Decennial Census data (see Figure 3-11).26 Figure 3-11 Wildfire Risk Assessment - Communities at Risk ❑ RVIFP Boundary a ❑ Community at Risk (RBS. 2015) N s ~il# is N ~y & S .`Ashland ~~.Sl n 'fit U` OREGON RVIFP 0 2.5 5 10 oMiles Source: Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2017) The Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) was developed using the 2004 Southwest Oregon Interagency Fire Management Plan (SWOFMP) as a starting point due to its ability to provide strategically defensible positions for wildfire suppression at the county level.27 The WUI boundary is based off of where people live or could live and is based on zoning rather than the arbitrary %2 and 1 % miles buffers used in the CAR designations which did not provide for adequate fuel treatment opportunities to protect communities from large wildfires. The WUI as delineated in the RVIFP is shown in Figure 3-12. 25 Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2017) 26 Ibid. 21 Ibid. Page 3-50 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Figure 3-12 Wildland-Urban Interface RVIFP Boundary _ N Wildland Urban Interface (Napuib, 2017) r -P' f r .I I ICI' li F:xr~x-(` r OREGON r' ORF4 FIAFF 0 2.5 5 10 Source: Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2017) History Jackson County has a long history of wildfires in the county. In May of 1987, strong thunderstorms brought 60 to 70-mph winds to Jackson County, damaging buildings in Eagle Point and fanning multiple fires. In July of that same summer, intense thunderstorms brought hail, lightning and rain.28 Lightning started numerous fires in the Umpqua and Rogue River National Forests. One fire lasted for five days. A third round of thunderstorms struck in late August of that summer. Over 900 fires were reported in the Siskiyou and Cascade Mountains, which destroyed more than 130,000 acres of forest and continued to burn well into September. That year, tens of thousands of acres in Jackson County were blackened and 218,000 acres burned throughout Oregon.29 Often, accurate records of wildfire history do not exist. For instance, before the early 1960's, only those fires that were especially damaging were recorded. The RVIFP used United States Forest Service (USFS) and Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) data to generate ignition history from 1992-2016 for Jackson and Josephine counties. For the period studied there were an average of 296 wildfires with an average of 7,808 acres burned.30 The number of fire starts ranged from 186 to 598 per year, with a standard 28 Taylor, George and Hatton, Raymond, The Oregon Weather Book: A State of Extremes, Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University Press, pp. 174, (1999). 29 Planning for Natural Hazards: Oregon Technical Resource Guide, Community Planning Workshop, (July 2000). 30 Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2017) Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-51 deviation of 104; from that the RVIFP deduced that the number of fires for any future year would range from 89 to 503. The number of fire ignitions reported from 1992 to 2016 and total acres burned for Jackson and Josephine counties is shown in Figure 3-13. Figure 3-13 All Fire Reported in lachson ind Josephine Counties (1992-2016) ~x e~ r r~' lA~ F y1.~~ 1 111 11 V too 1t J 111 ~a Data for fires that reached to 36 acres or more (about 64 fires since 1992) show that most fires have been successfully suppressed. However, where fires have escaped the initial suppression efforts they have grown large and accounted for the majority of acres burned in the fire season.31 While the majority of fire ignitions occurred along travel corridors and the edges of major urban areas, the fires that escape initial suppression efforts tend to be in more remote areas and are more likely to occur in some portions of the landscape than others (see Figure 3-14). 11 Ibid. Page 3-52 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP I Figure 3-14 Large 36 acres) Fire Occurrence (1992-2015) • Fire Occurrence (1992 to 2015) ❑RVIFP Boundary N 01 ' • JI.Ac "d11, • • • • l catral Point ' M-if nuf • • t, • 61 S • • A&W" Y OREGON ti' u u N a j mnFP 0 2"5 5 10 016bs Source: Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2017) Since the creation of the previous NHMP in 2012, there have been six (6) documented wildfire events varying in impact and extent, presidential emergency declarations and statewide states of emergency. Significant wildfire events between 2000 and 2011 are shown in Table 3-19. More recent wildfire information is provided after the table. The East Evans Creek (1992), Hull Mountain (1994) and Squires Peak (2002) fires are considered to be three of Oregon's most destructive Wildland/ Urban Interface fires; burning over 20,800 acres, costing $20.2 million and burning 54 structures.32 32 Jackson County BOC, Jackson County Integrated Fire Plan (2006) Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-53 Table 3-19 Significant Fires in Jackson County (2000-201 1) Conflagration Communities Mobilization Federal Name Date FEMA Acres Threatened Cost Funding Cause North River Road 8/18/2011 - Rogue River $80,951 $0 Undetermined Oak Knoll 8/24/2010 20 Ashland - - Human - Arson South County Complex 8/28/2009 Ashland, Medford $423,811 $312,666 Undetermined Doubleday 2008 1,244 Butte Falls - - Lightning Wasson 2005 1,500 Traffic Accident - Cove Road 2003 FEMA-2496 FMAGP 700 Lightning Timbered Rock 7/27/2002 FEMA-2454 27,111 north Shady $237,457 $169,576 Lightning FMAGP Cove Squire Peak/ Wall Creek/ 7/16/2002 FEMA-2445- 3,125 east of Ruch $266,918 $191,787 Lightning Lost Creek FMAGP East Antelope 2002 1,947 - - Power Line Quartz 2001 6,162 - - Lightning - Antioch 8/8/2000 - 376 Antioch $15,319 $0 Human burning vehicle Source: OPDR, "State of Oregon Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan: Fire Chapter", 2012. There have been six (6) significant wildfire events, emergency declarations, or presidential disaster declarations since the previous NHMP (as shown in italics below): • 2014 (July 30 - July 31): The Beaver Complex was made up of the Salt Creek and Oregon Gulch fires, both of which were started by lightning on the evening of 0713012014. Both fires were active and threatening residences. Executive Order No. 14-08 - Invocation of Emergency Conflagration Act for the Beaver Complex Fire in Jackson County. The fires covered 35,302 acres and cost $22.2 million to contain. (FEMA FMA-5066 - Oregon Gulch Fire) • 2014 (Aug 11 -Aug 20): The Rogue River Drive Wildfire was started by lightning on 0811112014. The fire covered about 500 acres and cost $1.9 million dollars to contain. Executive Order No. 14-10 - Invocation of Emergency Conflagration Act for the Rogue River Drive Fire in Jackson County. • 2014 (Sept 1 - Sept 26): The 790 Wildfire was started by lightning in the Sky Lakes Wilderness Area on 0713112014. Since it was in a wilderness area, it was allowed to burn until it reached National Forest land. The fire covered 2,277 acres and cost $2.7 million dollars to contain. • 2015 (June 26 - July 10): The Bunker Hill Complex fire was initiated by lightning on 0612612015. The fire covered 388 acres and cost $5.0 million dollars to contain. • 2015 (Aug 1 -Sept 23): The National Creek Complex wildfire consisted of two fires (the National Fire and the Crescent Fire) initiated by dry lightning on 0810112015. The fire covered 20,945 acres and cost $20.9 million to contain. • 2017 (Aug. 14 - current): The Miller Complex wildfire consisted of four fires (the Abney, Burnt Peak, Creedence and Knox) initiated by dry lightning on 0811412017. The fire covered 39,250+ acres. Page 3-54 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Table 3-20 shows that roughly one-third of all fires were caused by lightning between 1992 and 2016), while two-thirds of fires are human caused (ranging from arson and debris burning to equipment use and fires caused along powerlines). Table 3-30 Fires by Cause with Number of fires and acres burned (1992-2016) # OF ACRES COUNT # OF ACRES CMW Anon 5,697 374 16sceffaneous 10,780 912 Campfire 418 395 fiissirglUndefined 2,276 143 Children 1,395 319 Powerfine 1,953 16 Debris Burring 2551 653 Ralroad 24 26 Equipment Use 15,404 1488 Recreationist 47 66 Fireworks 259 24 Smoidng 547 445 JwenBes 5 14 Stnrchne 8 23 Lightning 153,303 2503 Source: Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2017) Probability Assessment Certain conditions must be present for significant interface fires to occur. The most common are hot, dry and windy weather; the inability of fire protection forces to contain or suppress the fire; the occurrence of multiple fires that overwhelm committed resources; and a large fuel load (dense vegetation). Once a fire has started, several conditions influence its behavior, including fuel, topography, weather, drought and development. Many of these conditions are demonstrated across large areas within Jackson County, creating a significant collective risk. Based on the available data and research for Jackson County, the NHMP Steering Committee determined the probability of experiencing a Wildfire is "high", meaning one incident is likely within the next 10 to 35-year period; this rating has not changed since the previous NHMP. Vulnerability Assessment The Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2017, RVIFP) profiles communities throughout the county to determine which face the highest risk of a wildfire event. The RVIFP used the Rogue Basin Cohesive Forest Restoration Strategy: A collaborative Vision for Resilient Landscapes and Fire Adapted Communities (RBS) to assess wildfire risk with mitigation to enhance forest ecology. Utilizing the RBS the RVIFP Risk Assessment Committee approaches the yearly wildfire risk assessment with a comprehensive review of risk assessment methods and examples from communities throughout the United States. The committee also conducts an inventory of existing data for risk, hazard, values, structural vulnerability and protection capability. The analysis takes into consideration a combination of factors defined below: • Ignition Risk: Potential and frequency for wildfire ignitions (based on past occurrences); • Hazard: Conditions that may contribute to wildfire (vegetative fuels, crown fire potential, weather/ climate, topography, insect and disease); Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-55 • Values: People, property, natural and other resources that could suffer losses in a wildfire event.; and • Protection Capability: Ability to mitigate losses, prepare for, respond to and suppress wildland and structural fires. In 2009, Jackson and Josephine counties collaborated on developing an updated wildfire risk assessment that was updated in 2015 with the RBS risk assessment spearheaded by the Southern Oregon Forest Restoration Collaborative: Two-County Risk Assessment. In 2009, Jackson and Josephine County wildfire partners collaborated on an update of the joint risk assessment using the two- county fuel-mapping project data completed in 2008. With support from Jackson County GIS staff and Title III funds, updates of all the key data sets (ignition risk, hazard, protection capability and values at risk) were completed for both Jackson and Josephine Counties. Both county risk/fuels committees reviewed the data and model parameters. The primary goals of the assessment update that were accomplished in 2009 included incorporation of the new calibrated Landfire data and advanced fire modeling tools and consistent use of the assessment methodology across the two-county area. The two counties also share a Mutual Aid Agreement for fire response. The RVIFP is updated annually and contains extensive analysis. Therefore, the current RVIFP risk assessment is incorporated herein by reference. In accordance with CFR 401.6 and as part of the 2017 NHMP update process, the NHMP Steering Committee considered fire risk using the same evaluation method as other hazards included in the NHMP to allow for a comparative analysis of hazard risk. The update of the RVIFP includes updates to the Risk Assessment, mitigation activities, priority fuels actions and highest priority areas for mitigation. The Integrated Fire Plan development process also included an analysis of Jackson County's relative fire hazard risk. For more information on wildfire risk and fuels reduction projects see the Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2017). To prioritize the location of treatments the RBS modeling efforts evaluated five different landscape level objectives to optimize the resulting fuel treatment:33 • Local fire community risk (to prioritize fuel treatments within communities at risk to fire); • Large wildfire community risk (to prioritize fuels reduction in the landscapes that deliver fires that threaten community assets with fires larger than 35 acres); • Landscape resilience (to prioritize treatments that balance open and closed forest habitats); • Protecting and promoting Northern Spotted Owl habitat (to prioritize to maintain existing habitat and reduce adjacent wildfire risk while promoting complex forest structure), and • Climate resilient landscapes (to prioritize landscapes that are most climate resilient). 33 Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2017) Page 3-56 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Using the landscape objectives priority planning areas are identified in the following maps (Figure 3-15), darker browns indicate greater priority. The larger map shows priority if all landscape objectives are combined in a single entry. Figure 3-IS Rogue Basin Cohesive Forest Restoration Strategy Priority Planning Areas m Namrc ROGUE BASIN COHESIVE FOREST Climate Resilient RESTORATION STRATEGY Landscapes so~c Objectives of Mechanical Treatments (~7 All Lands Scenario Si J~ _I Rti,~ 'Northern Spotted ~ Owl Habitat ,N ~ r PLANNING AREA PRIORITY Y Wilderness r--1 Low f High National Park 1=1 City limits Local Fire Community Risk Large Wildfire Resilient Forests Community Rlsk .r7 7 VAR Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2017) Multi-Hazard Risk Report: Upper Rogue Watershed The Risk Report (Volume II, Appendix H) identifies that there are 2,545 buildings (0 essential facilities) exposed to High wildfire risk for a total potential loss of $129.3 million (a loss ratio of 23%). In addition, about 3,042 residents may be displaced (29% of the population). For the town of Prospect 235 buildings (0 essential facilities) are exposed to high wildfire risk for a total potential loss of $10 million (a loss ratio of 50%) and about 408 people may be displaced (90% of the population). As such, the NHMP Steering Committee rated the county as having a "moderate" vulnerability to wildfire hazards, meaning that between 1-10% of the County's population or assets would be affected by a major disaster; this rating has not changed since the previous NHMP. More information on this hazard can be found in the Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2017) and the Risk Assessment for Region 4, Southwest Oregon, of the Oregon NHMP (2015). Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-57 I Federal Disaster and Emergency Declarations Reviewing past events can provide a general sense of the hazards that have caused significant damage in the county. Where trends emerge, disaster declarations can help inform hazard mitigation project priorities. President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved the first federal disaster declaration in May 1953 following a tornado in Georgia. Since then, federally declared disasters have been approved within every state as a result of natural hazard related events. As of June 2017, FEMA has approved a total of 33 major disaster declarations, 69 fire management assistance declarations and two (2) emergency declarations in Oregon.' When governors askfor presidential declarations of major disaster or emergency, they stipulate which counties in their state they want included in the declaration. Table 3-21 summarizes the major disasters declared in Oregon that affected Jackson County, since 1955. The table shows that there have been four (4) major disaster declarations for the County. All of which were related to weather events resulting primarily in flooding, snow and landslide related damage. Fire Management Assistance may be provided after a State submits a request for assistance to the FEMA Regional Director at the time a "threat of major disaster" for a fire emergency exists. There are ten (10) fire management assistance declarations on record for the county. An Emergency Declaration is more limited in scope and without the long-term federal recovery programs of a Major Disaster Declaration. Generally, federal assistance and funding are provided to meet a specific emergency need orto help prevent a major disaster from occurring. Jackson County has two recorded Emergency Declarations related to the 1977 Drought and 2005 Hurricane Katrina evacuation. Jd FEMA, Declared Disasters by Year or State, http://www.fema.gov/news/disaster_totals_annual.femapmarkS. Accessed March 2, 2016. Page 3-58 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Table 3-21 FEMA Major Disaster (DR) and Emergency (EM) and Fire Management Assistance (FMA) Declarations for Jackson County Declaration Declaration Incident Period Individual Public Assistance Number Date From To Incident Assistance Cate ories Heavy rams a DR-184 12/24/1964 12/24/1964 12/24/1964 nd Yes A, B, C, D, E, F, 6 flooding Severe Storms, DR-413 1/25/1974 1/25/1974 1/25/1974 Snowmelt, Yes A, B, C, D, E, F, G Flooding DR-1160 1/23/1997 12/25/1996 1/6/1997 Severe Winter Yes A, B, C, D, E, F, G Storms/Flooding Severe Storms, DR-1632 3/20/2006 12/18/2005 1/21/2006 Flooding, None A, B, C, D, E, F, G Landslides, and Mudslides FM-2014 9/7/1973 9/7/1973 - Hillsview Fire None FM-2063 9/2/1987 8/30/1987 Savage Creek Fire None FM-2064 9/2/1987 8/30/1987 Sykes Creek Fire None FM-2083 8/4/1992 8/3/1992 East Evans Creek None Fire FM-2112 8/24/1994 8/24/1994 Hull Mountain Fire None FM-2445 7/17/2002 7/16/2002 7/21/2002 Squires Peak Fire None B FM-2454 7/28/2002 7/27/2002 8/5/2002 Timbered Rock None B Fire FM-2496 9/6/2003 9/5/2003 9/8/2003 Cove Road Fire None B, H FM-2838 9/22/2009 9/21/2009 9/24/2009 South County Fire None B, H Complex FM-5066 8/1/2014 7/31/2014 7/31/2014 Oregon Gulch Fire None EM-3039 4/29/1977 4/29/1977 4/29/1977 Drought None A,B EM-3228 9/7/2005 8/29/2005 10/1/2005 Hurricane Katrina None B Evacuation Source: FEMA, Oregon Disaster History. Major Disaster Declarations. Vulnerability Summary Community vulnerabilities are an important component of the NHMP risk assessment. For more in-depth information regarding specific community vulnerabilities see Volume I, Section 2 and Volume III. Changes to population, economy, built environment, critical facilities, and infrastructure have not significantly influenced vulnerability. New development has complied with the standards of the Oregon Building Code and the county's development code including their floodplain ordinance. Data sources for the following community vulnerability information can be found in Volume I, Section 2 unless otherwise noted below. Population The socio-demographic qualities of the community population such as language, race and ethnicity, age, income and educational attainment are significant factors that can influence the community's ability to cope, adapt to and recoverfrom natural disasters. Historically, 80 Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-59 percent of the disaster burden falls on the public.35 Of this number, a disproportionate burden is placed upon special needs groups, particularly children, the elderly, the disabled, minorities and low-income persons. Population vulnerabilities can be reduced or eliminated with proper outreach and community mitigation planning. Population Vulnerabilities • As of 2015, approximately 19% of Jackson County's population is over the age of 64; that number is projected to rise to about 27% (or roughly 71,000 individuals) by 2035. • The Jackson County age dependency ratio38 is 58.7, which is higher than that of the State of Oregon (50.4) indicating a higher percentage of dependent aged people to that of working aged. The ratio is expected to rise to 74.9 by 2035. • Approximately 29% of Jackson County population lives alone; this percentage is greatest in Rogue River (44%). • Jackson County and the majority of incorporated cities show that real median income is decreasing, with the largest rates of decrease in Butte Falls (-28%), Rogue River (-20%) and Shady Cove (-16%). • Jacksonville, differing from county trend, has shown a 11% increase in median household income. • Approximately 19% of the total Jackson County population lived at or below the poverty line in 2015, with 27% are children. Butte Falls has the highest percentage of total population in poverty (34%, 146). • While over 89% of the population over 25 has graduated high school or higher, about 24% have a bachelors degree or higher. • Approximately 17% of the Jackson County population is estimated to have a disability. Of that, 15,760 individuals over 65 (7% of total county population) are disabled. • Approximately 48% of all homeless individuals and families in Jackson County are unsheltered as of 2015. Economy Economic diversification, employment and industry are measures of economic capacity. However, economic resilience to natural disasters is far more complex than merely restoring employment or income in the local community. Building a resilient economy requires an understanding of how the component parts of employment sectors, workforce, resources and infrastructure are interconnected in the existing economic picture. The current and anticipated financial conditions of a community are strong determinants of community resilience, as a strong and diverse economic base increases the ability of individuals, families and the community to absorb disaster impacts for a quick recovery. "Hazards Workshop Session Summary #16 Disasters Diversity and Equity, University of Colorado, Boulder (2000). as Dependency Ratio: the ratio of population typically not in the workforce (less than 15, greater than 64) Page 3-60 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Economic Vulnerabilities • Over 56% of Jackson County renters spend more than 30% of their income on housing. The city with the highest percentage of renters spending 30% or more of their income on housing is Shady Cove (79%). • According to the Oregon Employment Department, Jackson County unemployment has decreased from -13% in 2009 to about 6% in 2016. • About 20% of the workforce comes into the county from outside of the county and about 18% of the population travels to outside of the county for work. • The top five industry sectors in Jackson County with the most employees, as of 2016, are Trade, Transportation & Utilities (22%, 19,125), Education and Health Services (18%, 14,926), Retail Trade (16%, 13,503), Leisure and Hospitality (13%, 10,774) and Manufacturing (9%, 7,676). • The largest revenue sectors in Jackson County are Retail Trade ($3.2 billion), Manufacturing ($1,6 billion) and Healthcare and Social Assistance ($1.4 billion). • The Education and Health Services sector is expected to have the most growth from 2014 to 2024 at 15%. Construction (12%) and Professional and Business Services (12%) are the next closest growth sectors in terms of employment. Environment The capacity of the natural environment is essential in sustaining all forms of life including human life, yet it often plays an underrepresented role in community resiliencyto natural hazards. The natural environment includes land, air, water and other natural resources that support and provide space to live, work and recreate.37 Natural capital such as wetlands and forested hill slopes play significant roles in protecting communities and the environment from weather-related hazards, such as flooding and landslides. When natural systems are impacted or depleted by human activities, those activities can adversely affect community resilience to natural hazard events. Environmental Vulnerabilities • Forest ecosystems are vulnerable to drought, wildfire and severe storm impacts. • Water and air quality may be affected in both long and short-term measures as a result of direct and indirect impacts from natural hazards. Built Environment, Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Critical facilities (i.e. police, fire and government facilities), housing supply and physical infrastructure are vital during a disaster and are essential for proper functioning and response. The lack or poor condition of infrastructure can negatively affect a community's ability to cope, respond and recover from a natural disaster. Following a disaster, communities may experience isolation from surrounding cities and counties due to infrastructure failure. These conditions force communities to rely on local and immediately available resources. 37 Mayunga, J. "Understanding and Applying the Concept of Community Disaster Resilience: A capital-based approach. Summer Academy for Social Vulnerability and Resilience Building," (2007). Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-61 Housing Vulnerabilities • Mobile home and other non-permanent residential structures account for 14% of the housing in Jackson County. In Shady Cove, mobile homes account for about 40% and 32% within Butte Falls. These structures are particularly vulnerable to certain natural hazards, such as earthquake, windstorms and heavy flooding events. • Based on U.S. Census data, approximately 61% of the residential housing in Jackson County was built before the current seismic building standards of 1990.38 • Approximately 30% of residential structures were constructed prior to the local implementation of the flood elevation requirements of the 1970's (county Flood Insurance Rate Maps -FIRMs- were not completed until the late 19705 and early 1980s). • The housing vacancy rate in Jackson County was estimated at 7% in 2015. Approximately 19% of the housing units in Butte Falls (37 units) and 8% in Eagle Point (287 units), Gold Hill (43 units) and Rogue River (111 units) were estimated to be vacant. Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Vulnerabilities • Virtually all state and county roads and bridges in Jackson County are vulnerable to multiple hazards including flood, landslide and earthquake. Impacts to the transportation system can result in the isolation of vulnerable populations, limit access to critical facilities such as hospitals and adversely impact local commerce, employment and economic activity. • There are three (3) general hospitals in the county with 24/7 emergency room and inpatient services, located in Ashland and Medford. • There are three power plants located in Jackson County including one located in White City, which uses biomass as its energy source. There is some redundancy in power transmission but limited redundancy in the power distribution network, especially in relation to the more rural or unincorporated areas of the county. • There are fifteen (15) "high threat potential" dams (Volume I, Section 2) and twenty (20) "significant threat potential" dams; the county has twenty-eight (28) dams categorized as "low threat potential. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Vulnerability FEMA modernized the Jackson County Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) in May 2011 (revised January 19, 2018). Table 3-22 and Figure 3-16 show that as of November 2016, Jackson County (including NFIP participating incorporated cities) has 1,828 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policies in force (713 within the unincorporated county). of those, 809 are for properties that were developed before development of the initial FIRM (402 within the unincorporated county). The last Community Assistance Visit (CAV) for Jackson County was on September 19, 2006. The County is a member of the Community Rating System (CRS) and has a Class 7 rating. The table shows that the majority of flood insurance policies are for residential structures, primarily single-family homes. 38 Ibid. Page 3-62 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP There have been 197 paid claims in the county totaling just under $2.3 million ($1.3 million within the unincorporated county); 132 Pre-FIRM claims paid (63 within the unincorporated county) and ten (10) substantial damage claims paid to date (7 within the unincorporated county). In addition, there are eight (8) Repetitive Loss (RL) Properties39 located in Jackson County, three (3) RL properties located in the unincorporated county, two (2) are in Eagle Point and one (1) in each of the cities of Central Point, Jacksonville and Shady Cove. There are no Severe Repetitive Loss Properties.40 The County complies with the NFIP through enforcement of their flood damage prevention ordinance and their floodplain management program. Table 3-22 Flood Insurance Detail Policies by Building Type Effective Initial Total Pre-FIRM Single 2to4 Other Non- inusRated Zone Jurisdiction FIRM and FIS FIRM Date Policies Policies Family Family Residential Residential t.- Ja cks cn County - - i,829 309 11568 - 128 i 2, Unincorporated 5/3/2011 4/1/1982 713 402 646 13 2 52 36 Ashland 5/3/2011 6/1/1981 114 32 78 1 22 13 3 Butte Falls 6/30/1976 6/30/1976 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Central Point 5/3/2011 9/30/1980 288 139 277 8 0 3 21 Eagle Point 5/3/2011 9/30/1980 84 42 74 10 0 0 6 Gold HIII 5/3/2011 9/17/1980 5 2 5 0 0 0 0 Jacksonville 5/3/2011 12/4/1979 49 17 32 0 14 3 8 Medford 5/3/2011 4/15/1981 282 117 217 8 24 33 22 Phoenix 5/3/2011 5/3/1982 21 13 18 1 0 2 1 Rogue River 5/3/2011 1/2/1980 60 14 26 0 29 5 1 Shady Cove 5/3/2011 9/30/1980 115 22 104 0 0 11 16 ,lent %3/2017. 2/1/1930 9 90 3 0 12 15evere i Last Substantial Repetitive Repetitive I Community insurance mTotal Pre-FIRM (Damage Total Paid Loss L(CRS Class Assistance tion in Force Claims (Claims Paid !Claims (Amount Structures (Properties Rating Visit U ni ncc r po ra Led $ 164,294,800 95 63 7 $ 1,263,051 3 0 7 9/19/2006 Ashland $ 34,959,700 16 12 0 $ 369,591 0 0 7 9/24/1997 Butte Fa Its $ 42,000 0 0 0 $ - 0 0 8/31/2011 Central Point $ 70,739,100 28 20 0 $ 149,792 1 0 6 6/16/2004 Eagle Point $ 20,526,500 28 17 0 $ 264,770 2 0 4/5/1995 Gold Hill $ 1,370,000 0 0 0 $ - 0 0 9/27/2011 Jacksonville $ 10,990,700 3 3 0 $ 6,498 1 0 8/15/1994 Medford $ 74,010,700 13 9 1 $ 88,145 0 0 8 9/29/2011 Phoenix $ 2,850,800 2 2 1 $ 36,200 0 0 3/3/2002 Rogue River $ 10,984,900 6 3 1 $ 103,241 0 0 7 7/11/2011 Shady Cove $ 28,628,300 5 2 0 $ 41,847 1 0 5/18/2001 Talent $ 23,325,900 1 1 0 $ 14,525 0 0 9 9/28/2011 Source: Information compiled by Department of Land Conservation and Development, November 2016. 39 A Repetitive Loss (RL) property is any insurable building for which two or more claims of more than $1,000 were paid by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) within any rolling ten-year period, since 1978. A RL property may or may not be currently insured by the NFIP. 40 A Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) property is a single family property (consisting of 1 to 4 residences) that is covered under flood insurance by the NFIP and has incurred flood-related damage for which 4 or more separate claims payments have been paid under flood insurance coverage, with the amount of each claim payment exceeding $5,000 and with cumulative amount of such claims payments exceeding $20,000; or for which at least 2 separate claims payments have been made with the cumulative amount of such claims exceeding the reported value of the property. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-63 Figure 3-I6 NFIP Policies, Repetitive Loss, & Severe Repetitive Loss Properties i Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) rr a National Flood Insurance Policies and Repetitive Losses 1 ' NFIP Policies in Force: f Approximately 2020 ` 1f • A ` Douglas Co l4\J/-( 62?) i 1 ,a - ~ I ~Ro9ve R 1 o ' • hady, Cove le 0 U a • I • • B tte~alls • • Eagle Point Y Ro ,UL • • • •J t . <i!f/ • i gue a• ~ • je ~-`CZ e B i 4!! I ROque Rw Rivt r~ i.~Hi.f' • ~y• +~j ivy •C~ntral PUint •f •r r~<<~~ut Medford • \ ~ ~a"cksonville-~•, Tt••~~~ II ~ e S' i 238 rr~\•s• • (Talerit•~~.',4•~.~_'• t •b Ashland i1%• Legend r t t. J 66 • NFIP Policy 1 A Repetative Loss • 1 11 SFHA t - - Counties Dept. of 1, - Cities Conservation Rivers 0 5 10 2 and Miles -I. CALIFORNIA Development Highways IN Copynght ~ 2014 Esri Source: Department of Land Conservation and Development, data circa 2014, October 2016 Page 3-64 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Risk Assessment Multi jurisdictional Risk Assessment- §201.6(c) (2) (iii): For multi-jurisdictional plans, the risk assessment must assess each jurisdiction's risks where they vary from the risks facing the entire planning area. Probability Summary The table below presents the probability scores for each of the natural hazards present in Jackson County for which descriptions are provided herein and in Volume III with detail for the participating cities. Table 3-23 Natural Hazard Probability Assessment Summary Drought High High High High High Earthquake (Cascadia) High High High High High Earthquake (Crustal) Low Low Low Low Low Emerging Infectious Disease Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Flood High High Low High Moderate Landslide High High Low Low High Volcano Low Low Low Low Low Wildfire High High High Moderate High Windstorm High High High High High Winter Storm High High High High High Drought High High High High Earthquake (Cascadia) High High High High Earthquake (Crustal) Low Low Low Low Emerging Infectious Disease Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Flood High High High High Landslide High Low High High Volcano Low Low Low Low Wildfire Moderate High High High Windstorm High High High High Winter Storm High High High High Source: Jackson County and City NHMP Steering Committees 2017. Vulnerability Summary Vulnerability assesses the extent to which people are susceptible to injury or other impacts resulting from a hazard as well as the exposure of the built environment or other community assets (social, environmental, economic, etc.) to hazards. The exposure of community assets to hazards is critical in the assessment of the degree of risk a community has to each hazard. Identifying the populations, facilities and infrastructure at risk from various hazards can assist the County in prioritizing resources for mitigation and can assist in directing damage assessment efforts after a hazard event has occurred. The exposure of County and City assets to each hazard and potential implications are explained in each hazard section. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-65 Vulnerability includes the percentage of population and property likely to be affected under an "average" occurrence of the hazard. Jackson County evaluated the best available vulnerability data to develop the vulnerability scores presented below. For the purposes of this NHMP, the County and cities utilized the Oregon Military Department - Office of Emergency Management (OEM) Hazard Analysis methodology vulnerability definitions to determine hazard probability. The table below presents the vulnerability scores for each of the natural hazards present in Jackson County and the participating cities. Table 3-24 Community Vulnerability Assessment Summary Butte Hazard Jackson County Ashland Falls s Drought Moderate Hirsh Moderate Moderate 7High Earthquake (Cascadia) High High High High Earthquake (Crustal) Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Emerging Infectious Disease High High High High High Flood Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low Landslide Low High Low Low Moderate Volcano Low Low Low Low Low Wildfire Moderate High High Moderate High Windstorm Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate High Winter Storm Moderate Moderate High High High Drought Moderate High High Moderate Earthquake (Cascadia) High High High High Earthquake (Crustal) Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Emerging Infectious Disease High High High High Flood Moderate Moderate High Moderate Landslide Low Low High Moderate Volcano Low Low Low Low Wildfire Low High High Low Windstorm Moderate Moderate High Moderate Winter Storm High Moderate High Moderate Source: Jackson County and City NHMP Steering Committees 2017. For local governments, conducting the hazard analysis is a useful step in planning for hazard mitigation, response and recovery. The method provides the jurisdiction with sense of hazard priorities, but does not predict the occurrence of a particular hazard. Hazard Analysis Matrix The hazard analysis matrix involves estimating the damage, injuries and costs likely to be incurred in a geographic area over a period of time. Risk has two measurable components: (1) the magnitude of the harm that may result, defined through the vulnerability assessment (assessed in the previous sections) and (2) the likelihood or probability of the harm occurring. The table below presents the entire updated hazard analysis matrix for Jackson County. The hazards are listed in rank order from high to low. The table shows that hazard scores are influenced by each of the four categories combined. With considerations for past Page 3-66 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP historical events, the probability or likelihood of a hazard event occurring, the vulnerability to the community and the maximum threat or worst-case scenario, earthquake (Cascadia), Pandemic/Epidemic and Wildland Fire events rank as the top hazard threats to the County (top tier). Drought, winter storm and windstorm events rank in the middle (middle tier). Flood, Earthquake (Crustal), Landslide and Volcano comprise the lowest ranked hazards in the county (bottom tier). Table 3-25 Hazard Analysis Matrix - Jackson County Maximum Total Thr4l Hazard Hazard History Vulnerability Threat Probability Score Tiers Eaithquake(CHscadla) ? 5P 100 7J 722 #1 Emerging Infectious Disease 12 50 100 49 211 #2 Top Wildfire 20 35 60 70 185 #3 Tier Winter Storm 20 30 60 70 180 #4 Flood 20 20 60 70 170 #5 Drought 20 30 50 63 163 #6 Middle Windstorm 20 20 50 70 160 #7 Tier Landslide 10 15 30 70 125 #8 Earthquake (Crustal) 2 25 50 21 98 #9 Bottom Volcano 2 5 50 7 64 #10 Tier Source: Jackson County Steering Committee (2017); Analysis and Ranking by CPDR For local governments, conducting the hazard analysis is a useful step in planning for hazard mitigation, response and recovery. The method provides the jurisdiction with a sense of hazard priorities, but does not predict the occurrence of a particular hazard. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 3-67 I City Specific Risk Assessment Multi jurisdictional Risk Assessment-42O1.6(c) (2) (iii): For multi-jurisdictional plans, the risk assessment must assess each jurisdiction's risks where they vary from the risks facing the entire planning area. The eight (8) participating cities in Jackson County (Volume III) held local Steering Committee meetings and completed a jurisdiction specific hazard analysis. The multi- jurisdictional risk assessment information is located herein and within the Risk Assessment section of each city's addendum. Hazard Analysis Methodology The hazard analysis methodology in Oregon (primarily to inform Emergency Operations Planning) was first developed by FEMA circa 1983 and gradually refined by the Oregon Military Department's Office of Emergency Management over the years. The methodology produces scores that range from 24 (lowest possible) to 240 (highest possible). Vulnerability and probability are the two key components of the methodology. Vulnerability examines both typical and maximum credible events and probability endeavors to reflect how physical changes in the jurisdiction and scientific research modify the historical record for each hazard. Vulnerability accounts for approximately 60% of the total score and probability approximately 40%. We include the hazard analysis summary here to ensure consistency between the EOP and NHMP. The Oregon method provides the jurisdiction with a sense of hazard priorities, or relative risk. It doesn't predict the occurrence of a hazard, but it does "quantify" the risk of one hazard compared with another. By doing this analysis, planning can first be focused where the risk is greatest. In this analysis, severity ratings and weight factors, are applied to the four categories of history, vulnerability, maximum threat (worst-case scenario) and probability (Volume II, Appendix Q. Page 3-68 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP SECTION 4: MITIGATION STRATEGY This section outlines Jackson County's strategy to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards. Specifically, this section presents a mission and specific goals and actions thereby addressing the mitigation strategy requirements contained in 44 CFR 201.6(c). The NHMP Steering Committee reviewed and updated the mission, goals and action items documented in this NHMP. Additional planning process documentation is in Volume II, Appendix B. Mitigation Plan Mission The NHMP mission states the purpose and defines the primary functions of Jackson County's NHMP. It is intended to be adaptable to any future changes made to the NHMP and need not change unless the community's environment or priorities change. The mission of the Jackson County NHMP is: Protect life, property and the environment, reduce risk and prevent loss from natural hazard events through coordination and cooperation among public and private partners. The 2017 NHMP Steering Committee reviewed the previous NHMP's mission statement and agreed to retain it without modifications. Mitigation Plan Goals Mitigation plan goals are more specific statements of direction that Jackson County citizens and public and private partners can take while working to reduce the County's risk from natural hazards. These statements of direction form a bridge between the broad mission statement and action items. The goals listed here serve as checkpoints as agencies and organizations begin implementing mitigation action items. Stakeholder participation was a key aspect in developing the original NHMP goals in 2006. Meetings with the project Steering Committee, stakeholder interviews and public workshops all served as methods to obtain input and priorities in developing goals for reducing risk and preventing loss for natural hazards in Jackson County. The 2017 Jackson County NHMP Steering Committee reviewed the previous NHMP goals in comparison to the State Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (2015) goals and determined that they would retain their original goals without modifications. All the NHMP goals are important and are listed below in no order of priority. Establishing community priorities within action items neither negates nor eliminates any goals, but it establishes which action items to consider implementing first, should funding become available. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 4-1 Below is a list of the NHMP goals: GOAL 1: EMERGENCY SERVICES Minimize life safety issues by promoting, strengthening and coordinating emergency response plans. GOAL 2: EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Further the public's awareness and understanding of natural hazards and potential risk, including economic vulnerability and mitigation efforts. GOAL 3: PREVENTION Reduce the threat of loss of life and property from natural hazards by incorporating information on known hazards and providing incentives to make hazard mitigation planning a priority in land use policies and decisions, including plan implementation. GOAL 4: PROPERTY PROTECTION Lessen impact from natural disasters on individual properties, businesses and public facilities by increasing awareness at the individual level and encouraging activities that can prevent damage and loss of life from natural hazards. GOAL 5: PARTNERSHIP AND COORDINATION Identify mitigation or risk reduction measures that address multiple areas (i.e., environment, transportation, telecommunications); Coordinate public/private sector participation in planning and implementing mitigation projects throughout the county; and seek funding and resource partnerships for future mitigation efforts. GOAL 6: NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION Preserve and rehabilitate natural systems to serve natural hazard mitigation functions (i.e., floodplains, wetlands, watershed and urban interface areas). GOAL 7: STRUCTURAL PROTECTIONS When applicable, utilize structural mitigation activities to minimize risks associated with natural hazards. Action Item Development Process Development of action items was a multi-step, iterative process that involved brainstorming, discussion, review and revisions. Action items can be developed through many sources. The figure below illustrates some of these sources. Page 4-2 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP li I I I Figure 4-1 Development of Action Items O t5 ~ c - O Sleennp U.nee S~aYenolder Pubic Comnunly Mailed Household local Pe-ds Plan- Regional Rik As n-Wd vrod eo ,mia Merv"" F.- Surveys Polv... and Pepod: SensAviyRepod u Potential Action Item 1 Pool i5 - Most of the action items were first created during the previous NHMP planning processes. During these processes, steering committees developed maps of local vulnerable populations, facilities and infrastructure in respect to each identified hazard. Review of these maps generated discussion around potential actions to mitigate impacts to the vulnerable areas. The Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience (OPDR) provided guidance in the development of action items by presenting and discussing actions that were used in other communities. OPDR also took note of ideas that came up in Steering Committee meetings and drafted specific actions that met the intent of the Steering Committee. All actions were then reviewed by the Steering Committee, discussed at length and revised as necessary before becoming a part of this document. Priority Actions Action items identified through the planning process are an important part of the mitigation plan. Action items are detailed recommendations for activities that local departments, citizens and others could engage in to reduce risk. Due to resource constraints, Jackson County and participating cities are listing a set of high priority actions (Table 4-1) to focus attention on an achievable set of high leverage activities over the next five-years. This NHMP identifies priority actions based on an evaluation of high impact hazards, resource availability and FEMA identified best practices. See Volume Ill for the Priority Actions for each participating city. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 4-3 Table 4-1 Jackson County Priority Action Items Action Lead Potential Funding Mitigation Action Item Timeline Partner Organization(s) Item ID Organization Source(s) Priority Actions Multi-Hazard (MH) ARC, CERT, RVCOG, Emergency Response Sustain an education and outreach program for Agencies, Utilities and local jurisdictions about natural hazards and assist Local Emergency Telecommunications MH #1 Ongoing General Fund, FEMA, DLCD them in developing emergency operations, public Management Companies, RVCOG, OEM, information, and hazard mitigation plans. FEMA, Media, HHS, NWS, ODOT, OSU, RVFPC, SAR, Schools County and City Emergency Develop and maintain a GIS inventory of all critical Management Agencies, facilities, large employers/public assembly areas County Roads, ODOT, City MH #2 and lifelines, and use GIS to evaluate their Ongoing County GIS Public Works, Emergency General Fund vulnerability by comparing them with hazard-prone Response Agencies, areas. RVCOG, ODF, BLM, USFS, OWRD Wildfire (WF) Fire and Rescue Districts, Coordinate fire mitigation action items through the WI F41 Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Ongoing Local Emergency State Office of Emergency General Fund, ON Protection Plan. Management Management, Oregon Department of Forestry Source Jackson County NHMP Steering Committee, updated 2017 Page 4-4 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Action Item Pool The action item pool (Table 4-2) presents additional mitigation actions. Most of these actions carry forward from prior versions of this NHMP. This expanded list of actions is available for local consideration as resources, capacity, technical expertise and/or political support become available. See Volume 111 for the Action Item Pool for each participating city. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 4-5 Table 4-2 Jackson County Action Item Pool Action Lead Potential Funding Mitigation Action Item Timeline Partner Organization(s) 11 Item ID Organization Source(s) Action Item Pool Multi-Hazard (MH) Integrate the Mitigation Plan findings into planning I General Fund, DLCD MH #3 and regulatory documents and programs including Ongoing County Planning County GIS, FEMA, DLCD Technical Assistance Grant the Comprehensive Plan (particularly Goal 7). Enhance hazard resistant construction methods (wind, winter storm, landslide, etc.) where possible Utility and County Roads, Telecommunications MH #4 to reduce damage to utilities and critical facilities. Ongoing Local Planning, Companies, ODOT, City General Fund In part, this may be accomplished by encouraging electric utility providers to convert existing PP&L Public Works, USFS, BLM, overhead lines to underground lines. ODF, Fire Drought(DR) Jackson Soil and Support Local Agencies Training on Water Water County Agencies, Medford Water Commission, OSU Conservation Measures and Drought Management Conservation DR #1 Long Term Extension Service, Fruit General Fund, OWRD Practices and ensure long-range Water Resources District, Jackson Development and adaptation strategies. County Growers, Water Districts, SWCD Watermaster Earthquake (EQ) Building Officials, Local Local Planning, Emergency EQ #1 Implement structural and non-structural retrofits to Ongoing Administration, Response Agencies, General Fund, PDM, HMGP, , critical and essential facilities. Building Owners Builder's Association, SRGP American Red Cross, DOGAMI, OEM, IFA Emerging Infectious Disease (EID) No specific action item developed for this hazard. See multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Source Jackson County NHMP Steering Committee, updated 2017 Page 4-6 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Table 4-2 Jackson County Action Item Pool (continued) Action Lead Potential Funding Mitigation Action Item Timeline Partner Organization(s) Item ID Organization Source(s) Action Item Pool ;Flood (FL) Conduct workshops for target audiences on National Flood Insurance Programs, mitigation Local Emergency FL #1 activities, and potential assistance from FEMA's Ongoing Local Planning General Fund, FMA, HMGP Flood Mitigation Assistance and Hazard Mitigation Management Grant Programs. FL #2 Update the Flood Insurance Rate (FIRM) Maps for Mid-Term County Planning Local Planning, DOGAMI, FEMA (Risk MAP), DLCD Jackson County as funding becomes available. (3-5 Years) County GIS, FEMA Encourage private property owners to restore County Parks and Planning, natural systems within the floodplain, and to Long Term FEMA, Watershed Councils, FL #3 manage riparian areas and wetlands for flood (5+ years) Local Planning DLCD, RVCOG, Cities, General Fund, FEMA, DEQ abatement and upland function (vegetation USACE, DSL, DEQ, EPA, management). ODFW, JSWCD FEMA, Local Emergency Use local, state, and federal grant funds to acquire FL #4 or elevate individual properties adjacent to/ within Ongoing Local Planning Management, County General Fund, PDM, HMGP 100-year floodplain as opportunities arise. Administrator's Office, OEM, DLCD, OECDD Continue to increase Jackson County's CRS Local Emergency Watershed Councils, OEM, General Fund, DLCD FL #5 (Community Rating System) rating overtime Ongoing Management, DLCD, OECDD, USACE, Technical Assistance Grant through activities outlined by FEMA. Local Planning FEMA County Roads, Watershed Councils, WRD, Preserve water quantity and quality by using storm FL #6 water best management practices (Low Impact Ongoing RVCOG, DEQ, USACE, Irrigation Districts, General Fund, DEQ, PDM, County and City State Parks, Rogue Valley HMGP, FMA Development/ Green Infrastructure) Planning Sewer Services, JCWWD Source Jackson County NHMP Steering Committee, updated 2017 Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 4-7 Table 4-2 Jackson County Action Item Pool (continued) Action Lead Potential Funding Mitigation Action Item Timeline Partner Organization(s) Item ID Organization Source(s) Action Item Pool ,Landslide (LS) Utilize the updated regional landslide risk maps (DOGAMI 0-16-02) to identify hazard areas and collaborate with the Oregon Department of DOGAMI, County Planning, LS #1 Geology and Mineral Industries to work on Short Term County GIS County Emergency General Fund, PDM, HMGP, landslide risk reduction efforts; determine areas (1-2 years) Management, ODF, SOU FEMA (Risk MAP), DLCD and buildings at risk to landslides and propose Comprehensive Plan and land use policies accordingly. Severe Weather(SW, Windstorm and Winter Storm) No specific action item developed for this hazard. See multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Volcano (VE) No specific action item developed for this hazard. See multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Wildfire (WF) See priority actions and multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Source Jackson County NHMP Steering Committee, updated 2017 Page 4-8 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP SECTION 5: PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE This section details the formal process that will ensure that the NHMP remains an active and relevant document. The plan implementation and maintenance process includes a schedule for monitoring and evaluating the NHMP semi-annually, as well as producing an updated plan every five years. Finally, this section describes how the County will integrate public participation throughout the NHMP maintenance and implementation process. Implementing the NHMP The success of the Jackson County NHMP depends on how well the outlined action items are implemented. In an effort to ensure that the activities identified are implemented, the following steps will be taken: 1) the NHMP will be formally adopted, 2) a Steering Committee will be assigned, 3) a convener shall be designated, 4) semi-annual meetings will be held, 5) the identified activities will be prioritized and evaluated, and 6) the NHMP will be implemented through existing plans, programs and policies. NHMP Adoption The Jackson County NHMP was developed and will be implemented through a collaborative process. After the NHMP is locally reviewed and deemed complete, the Jackson County Emergency Manager, or their designee, shall submit it to the State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO) at the Oregon Military Department-Office of Emergency Management (OEM). OEM submits the NHMP to FEMA-Region X for review. This review addresses the federal criteria outlined in the FEMA Interim Final Rule 44 CFR Part 201. Upon acceptance by FEMA, the County will adopt the NHMP via resolution. At that point, the County will gain eligibility for the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program, the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and Flood Mitigation Assistance program funds. Following adoption by the County, the participating jurisdictions should convene local decision makers and adopt the Jackson County Multijurisdictional NHMP. Convener The Jackson County Emergency Managerwill take responsibility for NHMP implementation and will facilitate the Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee meetings and will assign tasks such as updating and presenting the NHMP to the rest of the members of the Steering Committee (see City Addenda for city conveners). NHMP implementation and evaluation will be a shared responsibility among all of the assigned Steering Committee Members. The Convener's responsibilities include: • Coordinate Steering Committee meeting dates, times, locations, agendas and member notification; • Document the discussions and outcomes of committee meetings; • Serve as a communication conduit between the Steering Committee and the public/stake holders; Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 5-1 • Identify emergency management-related funding sources for natural hazard mitigation projects; and • Utilize the Risk Assessment as a tool for prioritizing proposed natural hazard risk reduction projects. Steering Committee The Jackson County Convener will form a Natural Hazard Coordinating Body for updating and implementing the NHMP. The Steering Committee responsibilities include: • Attend future maintenance and NHMP update meetings (or designating a representative to serve in your place); • Serve as the local evaluation committee for funding programs such as the Pre- Disaster Mitigation Grant Program, the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds and Flood Mitigation Assistance program funds; • Prioritize and recommend funding for natural hazard risk reduction projects; • Evaluate and update the NHMP in accordance with the prescribed maintenance schedule; • Develop and coordinate ad hoc and/or standing subcommittees as needed; and • Coordinate public involvement activities. Members The following jurisdictions, agencies and/or organizations were represented and served on the Steering Committee during the development of the Jackson County NHMP (for a list of individuals see Acknowledgements): • Jackson County Emergency Management • Jackson County Development Services • Jackson County GIS • Jackson County Health and Human Services • Jackson County Roads and Parks • Cow Creek Band of the Umpqua Tribe of Indians • Rogue Valley Council of Governments • City of Ashland • Town of Butte Falls • City of Central Point • City of Eagle Point • City of Jacksonville • City of Medford • City of Phoenix • City of Rogue River • City of Shady Cove • City of Talent • American Red Cross • Applegate Valley Fire District • Asante • Ashland School District • Emergency Communications of Southern Oregon Page 5-2 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP • Jackson County Library District • Jackson County Soil and Water Conservation District • Jackson County Vector Control District • Medford Fire and Rescue • Medford Water Commission • Rogue Community College • Rogue Valley Sewer • Rogue Valley Transportation District • Rogue Waste, Inc • Oregon Department of Transportation • Oregon Water Resources Department, District 13 • National Weather Service • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers To make the coordination and review of the Jackson County NHMP as broad and useful as possible, the Steering Committee will engage additional stakeholders and other relevant hazard mitigation organizations and agencies to implement the identified action items. Specific organizations have been identified as partners in the action item matrices. Implementation through existing programs The NHMP includes a range of action items that, when implemented, will reduce loss from hazard events in the county. Within the NHMP, FEMA requires the identification of existing programs that might be used to implement these action items. Jackson County and the participating cities currently address statewide planning goals and legislative requirements through their comprehensive land use plans, capital improvement plans, mandated standards and building codes. To the extent possible, Jackson County and participating cities will work to incorporate the recommended mitigation action items into existing programs and procedures. Many of the recommendations contained in the NHMP are consistent with the goals and objectives of the participating City and County's existing plans and policies. Where possible, Jackson County and participating cities should implement the recommended actions contained in the NHMP through existing plans and policies. Plans and policies already in existence often have support from residents, businesses and policy makers. Many land-use, comprehensive and strategic plans get updated regularly and can adapt easily to changing conditions and needs. Implementing the action items contained in the NHMP through such plans and policies increases their likelihood of being supported and implemented. Examples of plans, programs or agencies that may be used to implement mitigation activities include: • City and County Budgets • Community Wildfire Protection Plans • Comprehensive Land Use Plans • Economic Development Action Plans • Zoning Ordinances and Building Codes For additional examples of plans, programs or agencies that may be used to implement mitigation activities refer to list of plans in Volume I, Section 2. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 5-3 NHMP Maintenance NHMP maintenance is a critical component of the NHMP. Proper maintenance of the NHMP ensures that it will maximize the County and participating Cities' efforts to reduce the risks posed by natural hazards. This section was developed by OPDR and includes a process to ensure that a regular review and update of the NHMP occurs. The Steering Committee and local staff are responsible for implementing this process, in addition to maintaining and updating the NHMP through a series of meetings outlined in the maintenance schedule below. Meetings The Steering Committee will meet on a semi-annual basis to complete the following tasks. During the first meeting the Steering Committee will: • Review existing action items to determine appropriateness for funding; • Educate and train new members on the NHMP and mitigation in general; • Identify issues that may not have been identified when the NHMP was developed; and • Prioritize potential mitigation projects using the methodology described below. During the second meeting, the Steering Committee will: • Review existing and new risk assessment data; • Discuss methods for continued public involvement; and • Document successes and lessons learned during the year. These meetings are an opportunity for the Cities to report back to the County on progress that has been made towards their components of the NHMP. The convener will be responsible for documenting the outcome of the semi-annual meetings in Volume II, Appendix B. The process the Steering Committee will use to prioritize mitigation projects is detailed in the section below. The NHMP's format allows the County and participating Cities to review and update sections when new data becomes available. New data can be easily incorporated, resulting in a NHMP that remains current and relevant to the participating jurisdictions. Project Prioritization Process The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires that jurisdictions identify a process for prioritizing potential actions. Potential mitigation activities often come from a variety of sources; therefore, the project prioritization process needs to be flexible. Committee members, local government staff, other planning documents or the risk assessment may be the source to identify projects. Figure 5-1 illustrates the project development and prioritization process. Page 5-4 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Figure 5-1 Action Item and Project Review Process STEP 1: co Examine ftinding requirenicnis U) Li U O s,rEP 2: a Complete risk assessinent evaluation Z O P__ 6L U w 1 J W U W O 4 STEP 4: Complete quantitative. qualitative. ti PROJECT FUNDING & IMPLEMENTATION Source: Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience, 2008. Step I: Examine funding requirements The first step in prioritizing the NHMP's action items is to determine which funding sources are open for application. Several funding sources may be appropriate for the County's proposed mitigation projects. Examples of mitigation funding sources include but are not limited to: FEMA's Pre-Disaster Mitigation competitive grant program (PDM), Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), National Fire Plan (NFP), Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), local general funds and private foundations, among others. Please see Volume II, Appendix E for a more comprehensive list of potential grant programs. Because grant programs open and close on differing schedules, the Steering Committee will examine upcoming funding streams' requirements to determine which mitigation activities would be eligible. The Steering Committee may consult with the funding entity, Oregon Military Department - Office of Emergency Management (OEM), or other appropriate state or regional organizations about project eligibility requirements. This examination of funding sources and requirements will happen during the Steering Committee's semi-annual NHMP maintenance meetings. Step 2: Complete risk assessment evaluation The second step in prioritizing the NHMP's action items is to examine which hazards the selected actions are associated with and where these hazards rank in terms of community risk. The Steering Committee will determine whether or not the NHMP's risk assessment supports the implementation of eligible mitigation activities. This determination will be Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 5-5 based on the location of the potential activities, their proximity to known hazard areas and whether community assets are at risk. The Steering Committee will additionally consider whether the selected actions mitigate hazards that are likely to occur in the future, or are likely to result in severe/catastrophic damages. Step 3: Steering Committee Recommendation Based on the steps above, the Steering Committee will recommend which mitigation activities should be moved forward. If the Steering Committee decides to move forward with an action, the coordinating organization designated in the matrix will be responsible for taking further action and, if applicable, documenting success upon project completion. The Steering Committee will convene a meeting to review the issues surrounding grant applications and to share knowledge and/or resources. This process will afford greater coordination and less competition for limited funds. Step 4: Complete quantitative and qualitative assessment and economic analysis The fourth step is to identify the costs and benefits associated with the selected natural hazard mitigation strategies, measures or projects. Two categories of analysis that are used in this step are: (1) cost-benefit analysis and (2) cost-effectiveness analysis. Conducting cost- benefit analysis for a mitigation activity assists in determining whether a project is worth undertaking now, in order to avoid disaster-related damages later. Cost-effectiveness analysis evaluates how best to spend a given amount of money to achieve a specific goal. Determining the economic feasibility of mitigating natural hazards provides decision makers with an understanding of the potential benefits and costs of an activity, as well as a basis upon which to compare alternative projects. Figure 5.2 shows decision criteria for selecting the appropriate method of analysis. Figure 5-2 Benefit Cost Decision Criteria PROPOSED ACTION 1 No is funding available? _ Yes 1 1 Holding pattern until FEMA or OEM funded? funding available No Yes 1 1 Cost-effectiveness Benefit-Cost Analysis analysis evaluating: ratio<i ratio>I Social 1 1 Technical Administrative Seek alternate Pursue $ Political fundingsource legal Economic Implement Environmental Action Source: Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience, 2010. Page 5-6 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP If the activity requires federal funding for a structural project, the Steering Committee will use a FEMA-approved cost-benefit analysis tool to evaluate the appropriateness of the activity. A project must have a cost-benefit ratio of greater than one in order to be eligible for FEMA grant funding. For non-federally funded or nonstructural projects, a qualitative assessment will be completed to determine the project's cost effectiveness. The Steering Committee will use a multivariable assessment technique called STAPLE/E to prioritize these actions. STAPLE/E stands for Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic and Environmental. Assessing projects based upon these seven variables can help define a project's qualitative cost effectiveness. OPDR at the University of Oregon's Community Service Center has tailored the STAPLE/E technique for use in natural hazard action item prioritization. Continued Public Involvement and Participation The participating jurisdictions are dedicated to involving the public directly in the continual reshaping and updating of the Jackson County NHMP. Although members of the Steering Committee represent the public to some extent, the public will also have the opportunity to continue to provide feedback about the NHMP. To ensure that these opportunities will continue, the County and participating jurisdictions will: • Post copies of their plan on corresponding websites; • Place articles in the local newspaper directing the public where to view and provide feedback; and • Use existing newsletters such as schools and utility bills to inform the public where to view and provide feedback. In addition to the involvement activities listed above, Jackson County will ensure continued public involvement by posting the Jackson County NHMP on the county's website (http://www.Jackson.org/emergency). The NHMP will also be archived and posted on the University of Oregon Libraries' Scholar's Bank Digital Archive (https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu). Five-Year Review of NHMP This NHMP will be updated every five years in accordance with the update schedule outlined in the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. The Jackson County MNHMP is due to be updated by [date] 2023. The Convener will be responsible for organizing the Steering Committee to address NHMP update needs. The Steering Committee will be responsible for updating any deficiencies found in the NHMP and for ultimately meeting the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000's NHMP update requirements. The following'toolkit' can assist the Convener in determining which NHMP update activities can be discussed during regularly-scheduled NHMP maintenance meetings and which activities require additional meeting time and/or the formation of sub-committees. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 5-7 Table 5-1 Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Toolkit Modify this section to include a description of the plan update process. Document how the planning team reviewed and Is the planning process description still relevant? analyzed each section of the plan, and whether each section was revised as part of the update process. (This toolkit will help you do that). Decide how the public will be involved in the plan update Do you have a public involvement strategy for the plan process. Allow the publican opportunity to comment on the update process? plan process and prior to plan approval. Have public involvement activities taken place since the Document activities in the "planning process" section of the plan plan was adopted? update Are there new hazards that should be addressed? Add new hazards to the risk assessment section Have there been hazard events in the community since Document hazard history in the risk assessment section the plan was adopted? Have new studies or previous events identified changes in Document changes in location and extent in the risk assessment any hazard's location or extent? section Has vulnerability to any hazard changed? Document changes in vulnerability in the risk assessment section Have development patterns changed? Is there more Document changes in vulnerability in the risk assessment development in hazard prone areas? section Do future annexations include hazard prone areas? Document changes in vulnerability in the risk assessment section Are there new high risk populations? Document changes in vulnerability in the risk assessment section Are there completed mitigation actions that have Document changes in vulnerability in the risk assessment decreased overall vulnerability? section Did the plan document and/or address National Flood Document any changes to flood loss property status Insurance Program repetitive flood loss properties? Source: Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience, 2010. Page 5-8 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Table 5-1 Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Toolkit (continued) 1) Update existing data in risk assessment section, or Did the plan identify the number and type of existing and 2) determine whether adequate data exists. If so, add future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities in information to plan. If not, describe why this could not be done hazards areas? at the time of the plan update Did the plan identify data limitations? If yes, the plan update must address them: either state how deficiencies were overcome or why they couldn't be addressed 1) Update existing data in risk assessment section, or Did the plan identify potential dollar losses forvulnerable 2) determine whether adequate data exists. If so, add structures? information to plan. If not, describe why this could not be done at the time of the plan update Are the plan goals still relevant? Document any updates in the plan goal section Document whether each action is completed or pending. For What is the status of each mitigation action? those that remain pending explain why. For completed actions, provide a 'success' story. Add new actions to the plan. Make sure that the mitigation plan Are there new actions that should be added? includes actions that reduce the effects of hazards on both new and existing buildings. Is there an action dealing with continued compliance with If not, add this action to meet minimum NFIP planning the National Flood Insurance Program? requirements Are changes to the action item prioritization, Document these changes in the plan implementation and implementation, and/or administration processes maintenance section needed? Do you need to make any changes to the plan Document these changes in the plan implementation and maintenance schedule? maintenance section Is mitigation being implemented through existing If the community has not made progress on process of planning mechanisms (such as comprehensive plans, or implementing mitigation into existing mechanisms, further capital improvement plans)? refine the process and document in the plan. Source: Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience, 2010. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page 5-9 This page intentionally left blank. I Page 5-10 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Volume II: Appendices This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF ASHLAND ADDENDUM Purpose This is an update of the Ashland addendum to the Jackson County Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (MNHMP, NHMP. This addendum supplements information contained in Volume I (Basic Plan) which serves as the NHMP foundation and Volume II (Appendices) which provide additional information. This addendum meets the following requirements: • Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption §201.6(c)(5), • Multi-Jurisdictional Participation §201.6(a)(3), • Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Strategy §201.6(c)(3)(iv) and • Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment §201.6(c)(2)(iii). Updates to Ashland's addendum are further discussed throughout the NHMP and within Volume II, Appendix B, which provides an overview of alterations to the document that took place during the update process. Mitigation Plan Mission The NHMP mission states the purpose and defines the primary functions of the NHMP. It is intended to be adaptable to any future changes made to the NHMP and need not change unless the community's environment or priorities change. The City concurs with the mission statement developed during the Jackson County planning process (Volume I, Section 4): Protect life, property and the environment, reduce risk and prevent loss from natural hazard events through coordination and cooperation among public and private partners. Mitigation Plan Goals Mitigation plan goals are more specific statements of direction that Jackson County citizens and public and private partners can take while working to reduce the City's risk from natural hazards. These statements of direction form a bridge between the broad mission statement and particular action items. The goals listed here serve as checkpoints as agencies and organizations begin implementing mitigation action items. The City concurs with the goals developed during the Jackson County planning process (Volume I, Section 4). All of the NHMP goals are important and are listed below in no particular order of priority. Establishing community priorities within action items neither negates nor eliminates any goals, but it establishes which action items to consider to implement first, should funding become available. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page AA-1 Below is a list of the NHMP goals: GOAL 1: EMERGENCY SERVICES Minimize life safety issues by promoting, strengthening and coordinating emergency response plans. GOAL 2: EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Further the public's awareness and understanding of natural hazards and potential risk, including economic vulnerability and mitigation efforts. GOAL 3: PREVENTION Reduce the threat of loss of life and property from natural hazards by incorporating information on known hazards and providing incentives to make hazard mitigation planning a priority in land use policies and decisions, including plan implementation. GOAL 4: PROPERTY PROTECTION Lessen impact from natural disasters on individual properties, businesses and public facilities by increasing awareness at the individual level and encouraging activities that can prevent damage and loss of life from natural hazards. GOAL 5: PARTNERSHIP AND COORDINATION Identify mitigation or risk reduction measures that address multiple areas (i.e., environment, transportation, telecommunications); Coordinate public/private sector participation in planning and implementing mitigation projects throughout the City; and seek funding and resource partnerships for future mitigation efforts. GOAL 6: NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION Preserve and rehabilitate natural systems to serve natural hazard mitigation functions (i.e., floodplains, wetlands, watershed and urban interface areas). GOAL 7: STRUCTURAL PROTECTIONS When applicable, utilize structural mitigation activities to minimize risks associated with natural hazards. NHMP Process, Participation and Adoption This section of the NHMP addendum addresses 44 CFR 201.6(c)(5), Plan Adoption and 44 CFR 201.6(a)(3), Participation. The first update of the Jackson County NHMP was approved by FEMA on February 4, 2013. To maintain compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K), the NHMP required an update by February 3, 2018. Ashland was included with an addendum in the 2012 Jackson County NHMP process. The Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience (OPDR) at the University of Oregon's Community Service Center (CSC) collaborated with the Oregon Military Department's Office of Emergency Management (OEM), Jackson County and Ashland to update their NHMP. This project is funded through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) FY15 Pre- Page AA-2 December 2017 Ashland Addendum i Disaster Mitigation Competitive Grant Program (PDMC-PL-10-PR-2015-003). Members of the Ashland NHMP steering committee also participated in the County NHMP update process (Volume II, Appendix B). By updating the NHMP, locally adopting it and having it re-approved by FEMA, Ashland will maintain eligibility for FEMA Hazard Mitigation, Pre-Disaster Mitigation and Flood Mitigation Assistance grant program funds. The Jackson County NHMP and Ashland addendum, are the result of a collaborative effort between citizens, public agencies, non-profit organizations, the private sector and regional organizations. A project steering committee guided the process of developing the NHMP. The Ashland Interim Fire Chief served as the designated convener of the NHMP update and will take the lead in implementing, maintaining and updating the addendum to the Jackson County NHMP in collaboration with the designated convener of the Jackson County NHMP (Emergency Manager). Representatives from the City of Ashland steering committee met formally and informally, to discuss updates to their addendum (Volume II, Appendix B). The steering committee reviewed and revised the City's addendum, with focus on the NHMP's risk assessment and mitigation strategy (action items). This addendum reflects decisions made at the designated meetings and during subsequent work and communication with Jackson County Emergency Management and the OPDR. The changes are highlighted with more detail throughout this document and within Volume II, Appendix B. Other documented changes include a revision of the City's risk assessment and hazard identification sections, NHMP mission and goals, action items and community profile. The Ashland Steering Committee was comprised of the following representatives: • Convener, David Shepherd, Interim Fire Chief • Mike Morrison, Public Works • Fred Creek, Southern Oregon University • Aaron Ott, Asante • Janice Tacconi, Oregon Shakespeare Festival • Bill Molnar, Ashland Community Development • Meiwen Richard, Ashland Chamber of Commerce • Kate Jackson, Resident • David Sommer, Ashland School District Public participation was achieved with the establishment of the steering committee, which was comprised of City officials representing different departments and sectors and members of the public. The steering committee served as the local review body for the NHMP's development. Community members were provided an opportunity for comment via the NHMP review process and through a survey administered by the OPDR and publicized by the participating jurisdictions (Volume II, Appendix B). I Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page AA-3 I The Jackson County NHMP was approved by FEMA on [Month] [Day], 2018 and the Ashland addendum was adopted via resolution on [Month] [Day], 2018. This NHMP is effective through [Month] [Day], 2023. NHMP Implementation and Maintenance The City Council will be responsible for adopting the Ashland addendum to the Jackson County NHMP. This addendum designates a coordinating body and a convener to oversee the development and implementation of action items. Because the City addendum is part of the County's multi-jurisdictional NHMP, the City will look for opportunities to partner with the County. The City's steering committee will convene after re-adoption of the Ashland NHMP addendum on an annual schedule. The County is meeting on a semi-annual basis and will provide opportunities for the cities to report on NHMP implementation and maintenance during their meetings. The City's Fire Chief will serve as the convener and will be responsible for assembling the steering committee (coordinating body). The steering committee will be responsible for: • Reviewing existing action items to determine suitability of funding; • Reviewing existing and new risk assessment data to identify issues that may not have been identified at NHMP creation; • Educating and training new Steering Committee members on the NHMP and mitigation actions in general; • Assisting in the development of funding proposals for priority action items; • Discussing methods for continued public involvement; and • Documenting successes and lessons learned during the year. The convener will also remain active in the County's implementation and maintenance process (Volume I, Section 5). The City will utilize the same action item prioritization process as the County (Volume I, Section 5 and Volume II, Appendix D). Implementation through Existing Programs Many of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan's recommendations are consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's existing plans and policies. Where possible, Ashland will implement the NHMP's recommended actions through existing plans and policies. Plans and policies already in existence have support from local residents, businesses and policy makers. Many land-use, comprehensive and strategic plans get updated regularly, allowing them to adapt to changing conditions and needs. Implementing the NHMP's action items through such plans and policies increases their likelihood of being supported and implemented. Ashland's acknowledged comprehensive plan is the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan (1982, updated August, 2016). The Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission first acknowledged the plan in 1983. The City implements the plan through the Community Development Code. Ashland currently has the following plans that relate to natural hazard mitigation. For a complete list visit the City's website: Page AA-4 December 2017 Ashland Addendum • Comprehensive Plan (1982, amended 2016) • Municipal Codes o Chapter 2.26 Ashland Wildfire Mitigation Commission o Section 14.06 Water Curtailment o Section 15.10 Flood Damage Prevention Regulations • Community Development Plans • Building Code, 2017 Oregon State Code based on 2015 International Residential Code (IRC) and 2012 International Building Code • Capital Improvement Plan • Emergency Operations Plan • 2034 Transportation System Plan (2012, update underway) • Hosler Dam Emergency Action Plan and Early Warning System • Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2004) • Ashland Forest Plan (2016)Ashland Climate and Energy Action Plan (2017) • Water Management Conservation Plan (2013) • City of Ashland Hazard Mitigation, Green Infrastructure and Low Impact Development (2017) (Volume II, Appendix G) Other plans: • Oregon Shakespeare Festival Long Range Plan (includes information on smoke from wildfires) • Ashland Chamber of Commerce: Business Continuity Plan • Southern Oregon University: Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (2012) Continued Public Participation Keeping the public informed of the City's efforts to reduce its risk to future natural hazard events is important for successful NHMP implementation and maintenance. The City is committed to involving the public in the NHMP review and updated process (Volume I, Section 5). NHMP Maintenance The Jackson County Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan and City addendum will be updated every five years in accordance with the update schedule outlined in the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. During the County NHMP update process, the City will also review and update its addendum (Volume I, Section 5). The convener will be responsible for convening the steering committee to address the questions outlined below. • Are there new partners that should be brought to the table? • Are there new local, regional, state or federal policies influencing natural hazards that should be addressed? • Has the community successfully implemented any mitigation activities since the NHMP was last updated? • Have new issues or problems related to hazards been identified in the community? • Are the actions still appropriate given current resources? Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page AA-5 • Have there been any changes in development patterns that could influence the effects of hazards? • Have there been any significant changes in the community's demographics that could influence the effects of hazards? • Are there new studies or data available that would enhance the risk assessment? • Has the community been affected by any disasters? Did the NHMP accurately address the impacts of this event? These questions will help the steering committee determine what components of the mitigation plan need updating. The steering committee will be responsible for updating any deficiencies found in the NHMP. Mitigation Strategy This section of the NHMP addendum addresses 44 CFR 201.6(c)(3(iv), Mitigation Strategy. The City's mitigation strategy (action items) were first developed during the 2012 NHMP planning process. During this process, the steering committee assessed the City's risk, identified potential issues and developed a mitigation strategy (action items). During the 2017 update process the City re-evaluated their mitigation strategy (action items). During this process action items were updated, noting what accomplishments had been made and whether the actions were still relevant; any new action items were identified at this time (see Volume II, Appendix B for more information on changes to action items). Priority Actions The City is listing a set of high priority actions in an effort to focus attention on an achievable set of high leverage activities over the next five-years (Table AA-1). The City's priority actions are listed below in the following table. Action Item Pool Table AA-2 presents a "pool" of mitigation actions. This expanded list of actions is available for local consideration as resources, capacity, technical expertise and/or political will become available. Page AA-6 December 2017 Ashland Addendum Table AA-I Ashland Priority Action Items Action eline Partner Organization(s) Potential Funding Mitigation Action Item Tim Lead Item ID Organization Source(s) Priority Actions Earthquake (EQ) EQ 41 Emergency Operations Center Upgrades Mid-Term Ashland Fire and Ashland Fire and Rescue Local Funding Resources, (3-5 Years) Rescue SRGP, PDM, HMGP City of Ashland, Chamber of Commerce, Ashland School Long Term Ashland Fire and Local Funding Resources, EQ#2 Seismic Retrofit for Critical Infrastructure District, Southern Oregon (5+ Years) Rescue SRGP, PDM, HMGP University, Oregon Shakespeare Festival Landslide (LS) LS #1 WaterTreatment Plant Relocation Assessment Mid-Term Ashland Public Ashland Community Local Funding Resources, (3-5 Years) Works Development PDM, HMGP Wildfire (WF) WF 41 Mid-Term Ashland Fire and Local Funding Resources, Ashland Defensible Space Initiative Private Contractors (new) (3-S Years) Rescue ODF, PDM, HMGP The Nature Conservancy, Ashland Fire and Local Funding Resources, WF #2 Ashland Forest Resiliency Project Ongoing Rescue USFS, Lomakatsi Restoration ODF Project Source: City of Ashland NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page AA-7 Table AA-2 Ashland Action Item Pool Action Lead Potential Funding Mitigation Action Item Timeline Partner Organization(s) i Item ID Organization Source(s) Action Item Pool Multi-Hazard (MH) MH 41 Community Preparedness Ongoing Ashland Fire and Ashland CERT, Jackson Local Funding Resources, Rescue County EM DLCD MH #2 Emergency Provisions for Responders and Schools Mid-Term Ashland Fire and Ashland School District Local Funding Resources, (3-5 Years) Rescue School District Enhanced Audio Alert System for Southern Oregon Mid-Term Southern Oregon Jackson County Emergency Local Funding Resources, MH #3 Oregon University Systemt, University (3-5 Years) University Management PDM, HMGP Drought(DR) No specific action item developed for this hazard. See multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Earthquake (EQ) EQ#3 Seismic Natural Gas shut-off Valves for the City's Long Term Ashland Public AVISTA Local Funding Resources, i Critical Infrastructure (5+ Years) Works AVISTA City of Ashland, Chamber of Commerce, Ashland School EQ#4 Seismic Risk Assessment Mid-Term Ashland Fire and District, Southern Oregon Local Funding Resources, (3-5 Years) Rescue PDM, HMGP University, Oregon Shakespeare Festival 'Emerging Infectious Disease (EID) No specific action item developed for this hazard. See multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Flood (FL) Develop Increased Floodwater Storage Project along Bear and Ashland Creek. Restore wetlands and use FL#1 Long Term Ashland Public techniques like floodplain benching along Bear and DLCD, DEQ Local Funding Resources (new) Ashland Creek to increase floodwater storage capacity (5+ Years) Works and reduce flood risk. Develop a City Led "Green Streets" Program. Expand Ashland FL#2 the use of GI/LID BMPs in development codes such as Long Term Local Funding Resources, Community Ashland Public Works, RVSS (new) bioswales in city owned right-of-way to minimize (5+ Years) PDM, HMGP, DEQ local and downstream flooding. Development Source: City of Ashland NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Page AA-8 December 2017 Ashland Addendum Table AA-2 Ashland Action Item Pool (continued) Action Lead Potential Funding Mitigation Action Item Timeline Partner Organization(s) Item ID Organization _ Source(s) Action Item Pool Landslide (LS) - See priority actions and multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Severe Weather (SW, Windstorm and Winter Storm) No specific action item developed for this hazard. See multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. !Volcano (VE) No specific action item developed for this hazard. See multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Wildfire (WF) WF #3 Ashland Firewise Communities Ongoing Ashland Fire and HOAs, Oregon Department of Local Funding Resources, Rescue Forestry Firewise, ODF WF #4 Wildfire Mitigation Ordinance Short Term Ashland Fire and Ashland Community Local Funding Resources, (new) (0-2 Years) Rescue Development Firewise, ODF, DLCD Source: Citv of Ashland NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page AA-9 Green Infrastructure and Low Impact Development The Community Service Center (CSC) team worked with the City of Ashland, regional stakeholders and state agency partners to develop and workshop proposed natural hazard mitigation plan (NHMP) action items that utilize green infrastructure (GI) and low impact development (LID) best management practice (BMPs). The proposed action items are intended to reduce risk from natural hazards while providing important water quality, habitat and community benefits. What is GI and LID? Green infrastructure (GI) and low impact development (LID) are cost-effective and resilient approaches to stormwater and associated natural hazard management.' GI and LID techniques can be used to manage weather and climate impacts in ways that also provide many environmental and community benefits. These strategies are traditionally applied to stormwater management for limiting flow, reducing pollution and increasing the environmental health of receiving waterways. LID and GI represent a wide range of tools and techniques that can be applied at the site, neighborhood and regional/watershed scales. In general, the goal of GI and LID best management practices is to minimize impervious area, limit the disturbance of undeveloped lands, prevent runoff from landscapes and hardscape area and protect land and ecosystems.2 Figure AA- I Green Infrastructure - Low Impact Development Continuum Practices that minimize Management that disturbance of natural protects, restores, or vegetation and drainage, mimic mimics the natural water pre-development patterns cycle Regional/Municipal Neighborhood/Communi On-Site pp- f:. roAerson Cree: Weter•FeA, C.tY Portland N.G., A-1.111r1 p a. I,• 1- t Ocean County Sail Cansenetnn Ditt. Saosce: EPA Casc Std S Al re Pro-, EPA 2013 Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Low impact development (LID) refers to systems and practices that use or mimic natural processes that result in the infiltration, evapotranspiration or use of stormwater to protect ' Using Low Impact Development and Green Infrastructure to Get Benefits from FEMA Programs. EPA. htti)s•//www epa gov/nps/using-low-impact-development-and-green-infrastructure-Pet-benefits-fema-programs 2 Low Impact Development in Western Oregon: A Practical Guide for Watershed Health. OR DEQ. http://www.oregon.gov/deg/wq/tmdls/Pages/TMDLs-LID.aspx Page AA-10 December 2017 Ashland Addendum water quality and associated aquatic habitat.3 Low impact development is most commonly applied at the site or neighborhood scale. There are an extensive number of LID best management practices whose use depend on topological, environmental and geological conditions. Common approaches include the use of rain gardens, bioswales, tree boxes, engineered soils and stormwater planters. Green Infrastructure (GI) uses natural and engineered practices to mimic, protect or restore natural processes required to manage water and create healthier urban environments.4 Green infrastructure is most commonly applied at the neighborhood and regional/watershed scale. Green infrastructure best management approaches can include the protection and enhancement of landscapes such as watersheds, wetlands and floodplains. Constructed wetlands, restored and reconnected floodplains and stream buffers are all examples of green infrastructure best management practices. The City of Ashland is already a leader in applying GI/LID strategies to stormwater collection, conveyance, storage and treatment. Collectively, existing GI/LID based projects already help reduce flood impacts at the local level. The Overlap of GI and LID with Natural Hazard Mitigation GI and LID stormwater management best practices seek to treat urban stormwater onsite to improve water quality, provide habitat and manage runoff. While these benefits are perhaps the most widely recognized, there is increasing interest in a much wider range of co-benefits associated with GI and LID. These include natural hazard mitigation, lower lifetime infrastructure costs, improved community livability, reduced energy use and improved air quality. GI and LID techniques can reduce urban heat island effects, improve plant health during droughts reducing fire risks, stabilize soils in landslide prone areas, mitigate localized flooding and reduce downstream flooding occurrences and severity. Table AA-3 illustrates some of the co-benefits of a GI or LID project. Full circles indicate strong positive overlaps, while half circles indicate partial overlaps 3 Urban Runoff: Low Impact Development. EPA. https://www.epa.gov/nps/urban-runoff-low-impact- development 4 What is Green Infrastructure? EPA. https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/what-green-infrastructure Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page AA-11 Table AA-3 Co-Benefits of GI and LID GI and LID Example Best Minimize Impervious Area: Share parking spaces Minimize pavement widths Minimize front yard setbacks Share driveway Minimize building footprint(s) Minimize roadway cross section(s) Limit Disturbance of Undeveloped Land: Sequence construction schedule Conserve fast(er) draining soils Cluster development • _ Preserve/protect trees W _ Minimize foundation(s) Minimize grading Prevent Runoff from Landscape and Hardscape Areas: Rain garden(s) Bioswale(s) Bio-retention (infiltration) basin (Dry) Detention basin . • _ Tree and landscape planting(s) Remove existing pavement Contained planters vegetated roofs (green roofs) Porous Pavement Protect Land and Ecosystems: Conserve open space Protect/preserve wetlands SY • . • Construct wetlands Protect/preserve riparian areas maintain/enhance urban forest (forest parks) Source: Best Management Practice from Low Impact Development in Western Oregon: A Practical Guide for Watershed Health with CSC additions. Co-Benefit scoring from CSC research and should be interpreted as opportunities for further investigation. FEMA and GI/LID In recent years, FEMA has acknowledged the risks and vulnerabilities associated with changing climate trends. Specifically siting "more intense storms, frequent heavy precipitation, heat waves, drought, extreme flooding and higher sea levels,"5 FEMA is focusing efforts on providing information that can help communities manage climate related risks. "FEMA's focus on risk management has expanded to anticipate climate changes and to plan and implement strategy for program development in support of climate resilient 5 Climate Change. FEMA. https://www.fema.gov/climate-change Page AA-12 December 2017 Ashland Addendum infrastructure. FEMA now integrates climate change adaptation into planning for future risk, programs, policies and operations to strengthen the nation's resilience."' Pre-disaster mitigation planning broadly focuses on reducing hazard exposure to people and property. GI and LID best management practices support FEMA goals through the use of strategies and approaches that protect, restore and mimic natural systems. According to a recent FEMA report on innovation in hazard mitigation projects, "Implementation of LID/GI practices can help mitigate flood events by increasing the ability of the landscape to store water on site. Infiltration of these stored waters can also mitigate the effects of drought by replenishing water supply aquifers and enhancing usable water Supply."7 The report goes on to state, "GI can be used at a wide range of landscape scales in place of or in addition to, more traditional stormwater control elements to support the principles of LID (USEPA 2014c). Both LID and GI utilize best management practices (BMPs) that can be combined in a BMP Treatment Train to enhance benefits and reduce costs." For more information on Green Infrastructure and Low Impact Development refer to Volume II, Appendix G. 6Innovative Drought and Flood Mitigation Projects, Final Report, 2017. FEMA. https://www.fema.gov/media- library/assets/documents/129691 7 Ibid. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page AA-13 Risk Assessment This section of the NHMP addendum addresses 44 CFR 201.6(b)(2) - Risk Assessment. In addition, this chapter can serve as the factual basis for addressing Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Hazards. Assessing natural hazard risk has three phases: • Phase 1: Identify hazards that can impact the jurisdiction. This includes an evaluation of potential hazard impacts -type, location, extent, etc. • Phase 2: Identify important community assets and system vulnerabilities. Example vulnerabilities include people, businesses, homes, roads, historic places and drinking water sources. • Phase 3: Evaluate the extent to which the identified hazards overlap with or have an impact on, the important assets identified by the community. The local level rationale for the identified mitigation strategies (action items) is presented herein and within Volume I, Sections 2 and 3. The risk assessment process is graphically depicted in Figure AA-2. Ultimately, the goal of hazard mitigation is to reduce the area of risk, where hazards overlap vulnerable systems. Figure AA-2 Understanding Risk 'USGS Understanding Risk rt)iS L71ER ILLSILIENCE science for a changing world Natural Hazard ,Vulnerable System Potential Catastrophic Exposure, Sensitivity and Chronic Physical Events / Risk and Resilience of: • Past Recurrence Intervals I I • Population • Future Probability I of I • Economic Generation • Speed of Onset 1 I • Built Environment •Magnitude I Disaster, Academic and Research Function • Duration t / • Cultural Assets • Spatial Extent / • Infrastructure Ability, Resources and Willingness to: • Mitigate • Respond • Prepare • Recover Source: USGS- Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience Research Collaboration, 2006 Hazard Analysis The Ashland steering committee developed their hazard vulnerability assessment (HVA), using their previous HVA and the County's HVA (Volume II, Appendix C) as a reference. Changes from the County's HVA were made where appropriate to reflect distinctions in vulnerability and risk from natural hazards unique to Ashland, which are discussed throughout this addendum. Page AA-14 December 2017 Ashland Addendum i Table AA-4 shows the HVA matrix for Ashland listing each hazard in order of rank from high to low. For local governments, conducting the hazard analysis is a useful step in planning for hazard mitigation, response and recovery. The method provides the jurisdiction with sense of hazard priorities, but does not predict the occurrence of a particular hazard. Three chronic hazards (wildfire, landslide and emerging Infectious disease) and one catastrophic hazard (Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake) rank as the top hazard threats to the City (Top Tier). The drought, windstorm, flood and winter storm hazards comprise the next highest ranked hazards (Middle Tier), while the crustal earthquake and volcano hazards comprise the lowest ranked hazards (Bottom Tier). Table AA-4 Hazard Analysis Matrix - Ashland Maximum Total Threat Hazard Hazard Hazard History Vulnerability Threat Probability score Rank Tiers Wildfire 20 50 100 70 10 Earthquake(Cascadia) 2 50 100 70 222 #1 Top Landslide 10 50 100 56 216 #3 Tier Emerging Infectious Disease 12 50 100 49 211 #4 Drought 20 50 60 63 193 #5 Windstorm 20 30 70 70 190 #6 Middle Flood - Riverine 20 30 60 70 180 #7 Tier W inter Storm 20 30 60 70 180 #7 Earthquake (Crustal) 2 25 70 21 118 #9 Bottom Volcano 2 5 50 7 64 #10 Tier Source: Ashland NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Table AA-5 categorizes the probability and vulnerability scores from the hazard analysis for the City and compares the results to the assessment completed by the Jackson County NHMP Steering Committee (Volume ll, Appendix Q. Variations between the City and County are noted in bold text. Table AA-5 Probability and Vulnerability Comparison Ashland Jackson Count Hazard Probability Vulnerability Probability Vulnerability Drought High High High Moderate Earthquake(Cascadia) High High High High Earthquake (Crustal) Low Moderate Low Moderate Emerging Infectious Disease Moderate High Moderate High Flood High Moderate High Moderate Landslide High High High Low Volcano Low Low Low Low Wildfire High High High Moderate Windstorm High Moderate High Moderate Winter Storm High Moderate High Moderate Source: Ashland NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page AA-15 I Community Characteristics Table AA-6 and the following section provides information on City specific demographics and assets. For additional information on the characteristics of Ashland, in terms of geography, environment, population, demographics, employment and economics, as well as housing and transportation see Volume I, Section 2. Many of these community characteristics can affect how natural hazards impact communities and how communities choose to plan for natural hazard mitigation. Considering the City specific assets during the planning process can assist in identifying appropriate measures for natural hazard mitigation. Between 2012 and 2016 the City grew by 295 people (1.5%) and median household income increased by about 2% (Volume I, Section 2). New development has complied with the standards of the Oregon Building Code and the city's development code including their floodplain ordinance. Transportation/Infrastructure In the City of Ashland, transportation has played a major role in shaping the community. From the railroad tracks to the development of Interstate 5, Highway 99 and Highway 66, Ashland's commercial areas developed along primary routes and residential development followed nearby. Today, mobility plays an important role in Ashland and the daily experience of its residents and businesses as they move from point A to point B. In addition to Hwy 99, the City also has two other highways within its borders: Highway 66 and Interstate 5. The current railroad system is serviced through the Union Pacific Railroad system and the Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad (CORP) route. This complements the established Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) and the series of four transit stops located within Ashland. In addition, the City operates several recreational trails within City limits that provide alternative routes for pedestrians and bicyclists in the northwest and southwest regions of the City (around the Ashland Creek and Bear Creek corridors)8. By far, motor vehicles represent the dominant mode of travel through and within Ashland. Economy A diverse range of businesses have chosen to locate in Ashland. Traditionally, Ashland has built its economy on a resource base of timber, favorable climate, attractive landscape, cultural attractions, a well-educated labor force and education. In addition, Ashland's location on Interstate 5 and the Southern Pacific Railroad, its proximity to the Medford Airport and its own local airport give it market access that is more favorable than usual for a rural town. According to the economic profile of the City's Comprehensive Plan, Ashland finds their main economic drivers in the sectors of tourism, manufacturing and commercial retails. 8 City of Ashland Park and Recreation Finder, http://gis.ashland.or.us/AshlandParksandRec/-` City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Economy Element (2016) http://www.ashland.or.us/Files/Ashland Economy Element.pdf Page AA-16 December 2017 Ashland Addendum Table AA-6 Community Characteristics 2012 Population 20,325 Housing Units 2016 Population 20,620 Single-Family 2,595 75% 2035 Forecasted Population* 23,183 Multi-Family 571 17% Race and Ethnic Categories Mobile Homes 292 8% White 91% Year Structure Built Black/ African American 2% Pre-1970 448 13% American Indian and Alaska Native 1% 1970-1989 864 25% Asian 2% 1990 or later 2,146 62% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander < 1% Housing Tenure and Vacancy Some Other Race < 1% Owner-occupied 2,042 64% Two or More Races 4% Renter-occupied 1,129 36% Hispanic or Latino 4% Vacant 287 8% Limited or No English Spoken 1% Ashland is in Jackson County in southwestern Vulnerable Age Groups Oregon. The City has grown steadily since its Less than 15 Years 2,672 13% incorporation in 1874 and has an area today 65 Years and Over 4,173 20% of 6.5 square miles. It is in the southern Disability Status Total Population 2,409 12% region of the county, located about 18 miles Children 20 < 1% northwest of the California border and Seniors 1,070 5% southeast of the City of Medford. The City is within the Rogue watershed. Households by Income Category Ashland experiences a relatively mild climate Less than $15,000 1,763 19% with four distinct seasons that comes from its $15,000-$29,999 1,601 17% position on the west coast of North America $30,000-$44,999 1,270 13% and within the mountains of the region. The $45,000-$59,999 1,044 11% $60,000-$74,999 895 9% town is just off of Interstate 5 and about 15 $76,000-$99,999 1,018 11% miles north of the California border and at the $100,000-$199,999 1,546 16% southern end of the Rogue Valley at $200,000 or more 309 3% approximately 2000 feet above sea level. Mt Median Household Income $45,704 Ashland, part of the Siskiyou Mountain Range, Poverty Rates rises to 7500 feet above Ashland to the south Total Population 3,767 19% and the Cascades Range rises to the north and Children 749 23% east. As a result of its location Ashland has a Seniors 239 6% climate somewhat intermediate to central Housing Cost Burden California and northern Oregon. Ashland Owners with Mortgage 44% Renters 58i° averages only 20 inches of rain per year due Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American to being inland from the coast and in the rain Community Survey; Portland State University, shadow of the nearby mountains. While the Population Research Center. surrounding mountains receive plentiful Note: * = Population forecast within UGB snow, Ashland itself sees less than 10 inches annually. The City of Ashland includes a diversity of land uses but is zoned primarily residential. For more information see Volume I, Section 2. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page AA-17 Community Assets This section outlines the resources, facilities and infrastructure that, if damaged, could significantly impact the public safety, economic conditions and environmental integrity of Ashland. Critical Facilities Facilities that are critical to government response and recovery activities (i.e. life, safety, property and environmental protection). These facilities include: 911 Centers, Emergency Operations Centers, Police and Fire Stations, Public Works facilities, sewer and water facilities, hospitals, bridges, roads, shelters and more. Facilities that, if damaged, could cause serious secondary impacts may also be considered "critical." A hazardous material facility is one example of this type of critical facility. Fire Stations: Hospitals/Immediate Medical Care • Ashland Fire & Rescue Facilities: Stations 1 and 2 • Asante Ashland Community Hospital Law Enforcement: • Southern Oregon University - • Ashland Police Department Health Center Public Works: City Buildings: • Public Works and Street . Ashland Senior Center Division Building (Gathering Point) • Parks and Recreation Building • Ashland Planning Division • Ashland Library (County) Private: Municipal Court • Ashland Shopping Center • Ashland Propane • Food Bank Essential Facilities Facilities that are essential to the continued delivery of key government services and/or that may significantly impact the public's ability to recover from the emergency. These facilities may include: City buildings such as the Public Services Building, the City Hall and other public facilities such as schools. Hospitals/Immediate Medical Care Public Schools: Facilities: • Ashland High School • Rogue Community Health - • Ashland Middle School Ashland . Bellview School • Asante Physician Partners Helman Elementary School • Valley Immediate Care • John Muir School • La Clinica Mobile Unit (Based • Walker Elementary School in Phoenix) • Willow Wind Community Learning Center (CLC) Page AA-18 December 2017 Ashland Addendum Private Schools: • Newman Center • Children's World Bilingual Trinity Episcopal Church Montessori Pre-School and • Ashland Gracepoint Church of Kindergarten the Nazarene • Lithia Springs School • Ashland Foursquare Church • Pilot Rock Christian School • Ashland SDA Church • The Siskiyou School • Our Lady of the Mountain Parish Potential Shelter Sites: . Calvary Baptist Church • All Ashland Schools • Clay Street Community (Red Cross designates Middle Church and High Schools) • First Congressional United • Ashland Bible Church Church of Christ • Ashland Christian Fellowship • Green Springs Christian • Ashland GracePoint Fellowship • Bellview Christian Church • Nevada Street Church of • Christian Church of Ashland Christ • Church of Christ • Alliance Bible Chapel • Family Life Bible Church • Faith Tabernacle Church • First Baptist Church of • National Guard Armory Ashland • YMCA • First Methodist Church • First Presbyterian Church • Grace Lutheran Church Infrastructure: Infrastructure that provides services for the City includes: Transportation Networks: Water Facilities: • Highway 99 • 6 Pump Stations • Highway 66 • 57 Pressure Reducing Stations • Eagle Mill Rd • Water Treatment Plant • Ashland St 4 Water Reservoirs (above • S Mountain Ave ground with 6.7 million • Interstate 5 gallons when full) • E Main St • 1,236 Fire Hydrants • Tolman Creek Rd Reeder Reservoir • Walker Ave • Hosler Dam • Oak St • Waste Water Plant • Hersey St Private Utilities: • Maple St • Wildfire/Flood Evacuation Routes • Avista Natural Gas • 3 Electric Substations Special Service Districts: • Communication Towers • Southern Oregon Education • Recology Ashland Service District Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page AA-19 I Hazard Characteristics Drought The steering committee determined that the City's probability for drought is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to drought is high (which is higher than the County's rating). The probability rating increased and the vulnerability rating did not change since the previous version of this NHMP addendum. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of drought hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event. Due to the climate of Jackson County, past and present weather conditions have shown an increasing potential for drought. Ashland draws its main water supply from Reeder Reservoir. Additionally, the Talent Ashland Phoenix (TAP) Intertie and the Talent Irrigation District (TID) are backup resources available for residential use during times of drought. For more information on the future of Ashland's water supply visit their website: http://www.ashland.or.us/Files/2016%20water%20suppIV.pdf Please review Volume I, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Earthquake (Cascadia) The steering committee determined that the City's probability for a Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) earthquake is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to a CSZ earthquake is high (which is the same as the County's rating). Previously, the earthquake hazard profile was a single risk assessment, which is now divided into two separate earthquake hazards: Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) earthquake and Crustal earthquake. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of earthquake hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event. Generally, an event that affects the County is likely to affect Ashland as well. The causes and characteristics of an earthquake event are appropriately described within the Volume I, Section 3 as well as the location and extent of potential hazards. Previous occurrences are well documented within Volume I, Section 3 and the community impacts described by the County would generally be the same for Ashland as well. The local faults, the county's proximity to the Cascadia Subduction Zone, potential slope instability and the prevalence of certain soils subject to liquefaction and amplification combine to give the County a high-risk profile. Due to the expected pattern of damage resulting from a CSZ event, the Oregon Resilience Plan divides the State into four distinct zones and places Jackson County predominately within the "Valley Zone" (Valley Zone, from the summit of the Coast Range to the summit of the Cascades). Within the Southwest Oregon region, damage and shaking is expected to be strong and widespread - an event will be disruptive to daily life and commerce and the main priority is expected to be restoring services to business and residents.10 Figure AA-3 displays relative shaking hazards from a 1° Ibid. Page AA-20 December 2017 Ashland Addendum Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake event. As shown in the figure below, the majority of the City is expected to experience strong shaking (yellow) in a CSZ event. Figure AA-3 Cascadia Subduction Zone Layers Currently Shown _ i NOW Cascadia Earthquake Hazard i r Cascadia Earthquake Expected Shaking 1 i . Violent ldI, r Y, ale ■ Severe very strong E] Strong Moderate ® Light L 5km fin 4mi Latitude:42.231038 Longitude:-122.734217 - Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (DOGAMI) As noted in the community profile, approximately 68% of residential buildings were built prior to 1990, which increases the City's vulnerability to the earthquake hazard. Information on specific public buildings' (schools and public safety) estimated seismic resistance, determined by DOGAMI in 2007, is shown in Table AA-7; each "X" represents one building within that ranking category. Of the facilities evaluated by DOGAMI using their Rapid Visual Survey (RVS), one (1) has a very high (100% chance) collapse potential and six (6) have a high (greater than 10% chance) collapse potential. In addition to building damages, utility (electric power, water, wastewater, natural gas) and transportation systems (bridges, pipelines) are also likely to experience significant damage. There is a low probability that a major earthquake will result in failure of upstream dams. Utility systems will be significantly damaged, including damaged buildings and damage to utility infrastructure, including water treatment plants and equipment at high voltage substations (especially 230 kV or higher which are more vulnerable than lower voltage substations). Buried pipe systems will suffer extensive damage with approximately one break per mile in soft soil areas. There would be a much lower rate of pipe breaks in other areas. Restoration of utility services will require substantial mutual aid from utilities outside of the affected area. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page AA-21 Table AA-7 Rapid Visual Survey Scores Level of Collapse Potential Low Moderate High Very High Facility Site ID* < 1% >I% >10% 100% Schools Ashland High School (Ashland SD 5) Jack sch07 X, X, X X, X, X, X X (201 S Mountain Ave) - Ashland Middle School (Ashland SD 5) (100 WalkerAve) Jack_sch06 X Bellview Elementary School (Ashland SD 5) (1070 Tolman Creek Rd) Jack_sch03 X Helman Elementary School (Ashland SD 5) Jack sch04 2007 RVS report did not include (705 Helman St) - structural appendix for this facility. Walker Elementary School (Ashland SD 5) Jack sch05 X (364 WalkerAve) Public Safety Ashland Fire & Rescue (City of Ashland) Jack firll X (455 Siskiyou Blvd) Ashland Police Department (City of Ashland) Jack po108 X (1155 F Main St) Level of Collapse Potential Low Moderate High Very High Facility Site ID* < 1% >1% >10% 100% Hospital Ashland Community Hospital (NFP - Ashland) (280 Maple St) ack_hos01 X Southern Oregon University Various (see SOU emergency plan) Source: DOGAMI 2007. Open File Report 0-07-02. Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment Using Rapid Visual Assessment. - Site ID is referenced on the RVS Jackson County Map Mitij,zation Successes The City of Ashland Public Works Department maintains a seismic vulnerability report of public facilities. In addition, Southern Oregon University (SOU) has information on the seismic vulnerability of their infrastructure. SOU has retrofitted several structures on their campus, see their Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan for more information. Earthquake (Crustal) The steering committee determined that the City's probability for a crustal earthquake is low (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to crustal earthquake is moderate (which is the same as the County's rating). Previously, the earthquake hazard profile was a single risk assessment, which is now divided into two separate earthquake hazards: Crustal earthquake and Coscadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) earthquake. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of earthquake hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event. Generally, an event that affects the County is likely to affect Ashland as well. The causes and characteristics of an earthquake event are appropriately described within Volume I, Section 3 as well as the location and Page AA-22 December 2017 Ashland Addendum extent of potential hazards. Previous occurrences are well-documented within Volume I, Section 3 and the community impacts described by the County would generally be the same for Ashland as well. Earthquake-induced damages are difficult to predict and depend on the size, type and location of the earthquake, as well as site-specific building and soil characteristics. Presently, it is not possible to accurately forecast the location or size of earthquakes, but it is possible to predict the behavior of soil at any site. In many major earthquakes, damages have primarily been caused by the behavior of the soil. Figure AA-4 displays relative liquefaction hazards. As shown in the figure below, the area of greatest concern is outside of the City limits (liquefaction hazard orange areas) is to the north and northwest of the City. Figure AA-4 Active Faults and Soft Soils Layers Currently Shown -0 _ Earthquake Hazard pwr` j y a^ ff Active Faults Earthquake Epicenter (1971-2008) el, O 5 - 7 Magnitude O 3 5 T O 2 - 3 p r \ i 0 1 -2 '3 r _j: A,hl-d ♦~~~cy rt~j`:® lp k ~V i R,i' "1 1t 0 0-1 ti ~IC~ fi#~s 40- e High 7It Moderate r trk _ ` Low f, L 1• / AW IA . 1 10 s kmt 3 p I l<kW :~3.2113L1 Lora ituda:-123.J1 BI15 ,f Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (DOGAMI) Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Emerging Infectious Disease The steering committee determined that the City's probability for emerging infectious disease is moderate (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability is high (which is the same as the County's rating). The City did not assess the emerging infectious disease hazard in the previous version of their NHMP. Emerging infectious diseases are those that have recently appeared in a population or those whose incidence or geographic range is rapidly increasing or threatens to increase. Emerging infections may be caused by biological pathogens (e.g., virus, parasite, fungus or bacterium) Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page AA-23 and may be: previously unknown or undetected biological pathogens, biological pathogens that have spread to new geographic areas or populations, previously known biological pathogens whose role in specific diseases was previously undetected and biological pathogens whose incidence of disease was previously declining but whose incidence of disease has reappeared (re-emerging infectious disease)." Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of emerging infectious disease, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. Generally, an event that affects the County is likely to affect the City as well. Low immunization rates within Jackson County, specifically Ashland and the large foreign contingency that visits Ashland due to tourism and Southern Oregon University contribute to the City's vulnerability. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Flood The steering committee determined that the City's probability for flood is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to flood is moderate (which higher than the County's rating). These ratings did not change since the previous version of this NHMP addendum. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of flood hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event. Portions of Ashland have areas of flood plains (special flood hazard areas, SFHA). These include areas along the Bear Creek, Clay Creek and Ashland Creek (Figure AA-5). Furthermore, other portions of Ashland, outside of the mapped floodplains, are also subject to flooding from local storm water drainage. Ashland Creek is the chief source of flooding in Ashland. The creek, which has its origins in the Rogue River National Forest south of the City, is very steep and has a drainage area of approximately 27.5 square miles. The creek flows into Reeder Reservoir south of the City; from the reservoir, the creek flows northward and empties into Bear Creek. Clay Creek rises in the hills to the southeast of Ashland, flows northward at the eastern edge of the City and enters Bear Creek to the north.12 Floods in the past, including the 1974 and 1997 floods on Ashland Creek, have caused failures with the Ashland water-supply system. Reeder Reservoir is created by Hosler Dam and is one of the City's chief concerns for flooding. The City maintains a Hosler Dam Emergency Action Plan and has an Early Warning System including cameras. A failure study (inundation) map is also maintained on the City's website and shows the commercial and residential properties are at risk during a failure event. The City is at risk from two types of flooding: riverine and urban. Riverine flooding occurs when streams overflow their banks and inundate low-lying areas. This is a natural process that adds sediment and nutrients to fertile floodplain areas. It usually results from 11 Baylor College of Medicine, Emerging Infectious Disease, URL: https://www.bcm.edu/departments/molecular- virology-and-microbiology/emerging-infections-and-biodefense/emerging-infectious-diseases, accessed September 17, 2017. 12 FEMA, Flood Insurance Study: Jackson County, Oregon and incorporated Areas, May 2011. Page AA-24 December 2017 Ashland Addendum prolonged periods of precipitation over a wide geographic area. Most areas are generally flooded by low velocity sheets of water. Urban flooding occurs as land is converted to impervious surfaces and hydrologic systems are changed. Precipitation is collected and transmitted to streams at a much faster rate, causing floodwaters that rise rapidly and peak with violent force. During urban flooding, storm drains can back up and cause localized flooding of streets and basements. These flooding events and subsequent damages are commonly caused by the behavior of Ashland Creek and Bear Creek and their tributaries. Additional risks of flood are posed from Clay Creek, Hamilton Creek, Gaerky Creek and Kitchen Creek. These urban creeks flow through many subsurface pipe systems which can be plugged by debris during flood events. Figure AA-5 Special Flood Hazard Area Layers Currently Shown -0 7.'>•:k,a,~ v Flood Hazard h Type and Source of Flood Data -n St Effective FEMA 100 yr Flood 1 \ ? , i v _ Preliminary FEMA 100 yr Flood m F' i+•/ State Digitized Flood Data o ryll Q3 FEMA Flood Data t Main St - th t 7 C t 4r K-1 Go y 40". 7 - - v 2.1 Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (DOGAMI) Floods can have a devastating impact on almost every aspect of the community, including private property damage, public infrastructure damage and economic loss from business interruption. It is important for the City to be aware of flooding impacts and assess its level of risk. The City has been proactive in mitigating flood hazards by purchasing floodplain property. The economic losses due to business closures often total more than the initial property losses that result from flood events. Business owners and their employees are significantly impacted by flood events. Direct damages from flooding are the most common impacts, but indirect damages, such as diminished clientele, can be just as debilitating to a business. Following the January 1997 flood, businesses in Ashland suffered direct damage from high water and reduced water service resulting from damage to the public water system. The FEMA Flood Insurance Study (May 3, 2011) has a brief history of flooding in Jackson County and Ashland (Volume I, Section 3). Following the 1997 floods, the City of Ashland was without a functional drinking water system for several weeks while repair and sanitization work was performed. Businesses that depended on the Ashland water supply were unable to operate and their employees were without work. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page AA-25 The City's central business district is located adjacent to Ashland Creek, which was a chief source of flood problems in the past. Both the 1974 and 1997 flood events caused significant damage to the City and water reservoir.13 Currently, there is no financial impact data available of this infrastructure. It should be noted that major improvements in the culvert at Ashland Creek and Winburn Way will substantially decrease the likelihood of future flooding in the downtown business district. Highway 99 and Interstate 5 are major transportation routes in the Rogue Valley. If major flooding affected all of the bridges in Ashland, traffic flow in an out of the City would be significantly affected, but would not cut all off all avenues. The amount of property in the flood plain is not a large area but damage could be significant as it would affect residential, commercial and public property. Floodwaters can affect building foundations, seep into basements or cause damage to the interior, exterior and contents of buildings, dependent upon the velocity and depth of the water and by the presence of floating debris. The City sewer system can overflow during flood events and cause further property damage. For mitigation planning purposes, it is important to recognize that flood risk for a community is not limited only to areas of mapped floodplains. Other portions of Ashland outside of the mapped floodplains may also be at relatively high risk from over bank flooding from streams too small to be mapped by FEMA or from local storm water drainage. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIPI FEMA updated the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) in 2011 (effective May 3, 2011; revised January 19, 2018). Table AA-8 shows that as of June 2016, Ashland has 114 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policies in force. Of those, 32 are for properties that were constructed before the initial FIRM. The last Community Assistance Visit (CAV) for Ashland was on September 24, 1997. Ashland's Class Rating within the Community Rating System (CRS) is a 7. The table shows that the majority of flood insurance policies are for residential structures, primarily single-family homes. There has been a total of 16 paid claims for $369,591. The City complies with the NFIP through enforcement of their flood damage prevention ordinance and theirfloodplain management program. The Community Repetitive Loss record for Ashland identifies zero (0) Repetitive Loss Properties14 and zero (0) Severe Repetitive Loss Properties15. For details on the repetitive loss properties see Volume I, Section 3. 13 Ibid. a 14 A Repetitive Loss (RL) property is any insurable building for which two or more claims of more than $1,000 were paid by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) within any rolling ten-year period, since 1978. A RL property may or may not be currently insured by the NFIP. 15 A Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) property is a single family property (consisting of 1 to 4 residences) that is covered under flood insurance by the NFIP and has incurred flood-related damage for which 4 or more separate claims payments have been paid under flood insurance coverage, with the amount of each claim payment exceeding $5,000 and with cumulative amount of such claims payments exceeding $20,000; or for which at least 2 separate claims payments have been made with the cumulative amount of such claims exceeding the reported value of the property. Page AA-26 December 2017 Ashland Addendum Table AA-8 Flood Insurance Detail Policies by Building Type Effective Initial Total Pre-FIRM Single 2 to 4 Other Non- Minus Rated Jurisdiction FIRM and FIS FIRM Date Policies Policies Family Family Residential Residential Atone Severe Last Substantial Repetitive Repetitive Community Insurance Total Pre-FIRM Damage Total Paid Loss Loss CR5 Class Assistance Jurisdiction in Force Paid Claims Claims Paid Claims Amount Structures Properties Rating Visit Ashland $ 34,959, 7LC 16 12 0 $ 369,591 0 0 7 9/24/1997 Source: Information compiled by Department of Land Conservation and Development, July 2016. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Landslide The steering committee determined that the City's probability for landslide is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to landslide is high (which is higher than the County's rating). These ratings did not change since the previous version of this NHMP addendum. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of landslide hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. The potential for landslide in Ashland is high and the City's water treatment plant is vulnerable to landslide. The last major landslide event occurred in 1997 associated with the flooding rain events of that year. Landslide susceptibility exposure for Ashland is shown in Figure AA-6. Most of Ashland demonstrates a moderate to high susceptibility to landslide exposure, with corridors of moderate susceptibility concentrated around the outer edges of Highway 99 and Interstate-5. Approximately 18% of Ashland has very high or high and approximately 43% moderate, landslide susceptibility exposure.16 Note that even if a jurisdiction has a high percentage of area in a high or very high landslide exposure susceptibility zone, this does not mean there is a high risk, because risk is the intersection of hazard and assets. 16 DOGAMI Open-File Report, 0-16-02, Landslide Susceptibility Overview Map of Oregon (2016) Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page AA-27 Figure AA-6 Landslide Susceptibility Exposure Layers currently Shown _ 4 Landslide Hazard Landslide Susceptibility / Low - Landsliding Unlikely L Moderate - Landsliding Possible r; x11111nd High - Landsliding Likely ® Very High - Existing Landslide s / 99 Ridge Hell 4* mac Gap Bald M UMM L&.Z 1W 4 S~t7ClB A Reed--f GOM h.. low Heap e ~ SakAe « 5 km 1iRd0(J~"a gage 4m1 z; .c.....,,,,.~.. Source: Oregon Ha Vu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (DOGAMI) Potential landslide-related impacts are adequately described within Volume I, Section 3 and include infrastructural damages, economic impacts (due to isolation and/or arterial road closures), property damages and obstruction to evacuation routes. Rain-induced landslides and debris flows can potentially occur during any winter in Jackson County and thoroughfares beyond City limits are susceptible to obstruction as well. The most common type of landslides in Jackson County are slides caused by erosion. Slides move in contact with the underlying surface, are generally slow moving and can be deep. Rainfall-initiated landslides tend to be smaller; while earthquake induced landslides may be quite large. All soil types can be affected by natural landslide triggering conditions. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Severe Weather Severe weather in can account for a variety of intense and potentially damaging weather events. These events include windstorms and winter storms. The following section describes the unique probability and vulnerability of each identified weather hazard. Other more abrupt or irregular events such as hail are also described in this section. Windstorm The steering committee determined that the City's probability for windstorm is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to windstorm is moderate (which is the same as the County's rating). The City did not assess the windstorm hazard in the previous version of their NHMP as a unique hazard (it was assessed as a component of the severe winter storm and windstorm hazard). The previous rating was applied to both windstorm and winter storm and the ratings were modified slightly to account for the differences in vulnerability and risk to the hazard. Page AA-28 December 2017 Ashland Addendum Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of windstorm hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. Because windstorms typically occur during winter months, they are sometimes accompanied by ice, freezing rain, flooding and very rarely, snow. Other severe weather events that may accompany windstorms, including thunderstorms, hail, lightning strikes and tornadoes are generally negligible for Ashland. Volume I, Section 3 describes the impacts caused by windstorms, including power outages, downed trees, heavy precipitation, building damages and storm-related debris. Additionally, transportation and economic disruptions result as well. Damage from high winds generally has resulted in downed utility lines and trees usually limited to several localized areas. Electrical power can be out anywhere from a few hours to several days. Outdoor signs have also suffered damage. If the high winds are accompanied by rain (which they often are), blowing leaves and debris clog drainage-ways, which in turn causes localized urban flooding. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Winter Storm (Snow/Ice) The steering committee determined that the City's probability for winter storm is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to winter storm is moderate (which is the same as the County's rating). The City did not assess the winter storm hazard in the previous version of their NHMP as a unique hazard (it was assessed as a component of the severe winterstorm and windstorm hazard). The previous rating was applied to both windstorm and winter storm and the ratings were modified slightly to account for the differences in vulnerability and risk to the hazard. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of winter storm hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. Severe winter storms can consist of rain, freezing rain, ice, snow, cold temperatures and wind. They originate from troughs of low pressure offshore that ride along the jet stream during fall, winter and early spring months. Severe winter storms affecting the City typically originate in the Gulf of Alaska or in the central Pacific Ocean. These storms are most common from November through March. Majorwinter storms can and have occurred in the Ashland area, and while they typically do not cause significant damage, they are frequent and have the potential to impact economic activity. Road and rail closures due to winter weather are an uncommon occurrence, but can interrupt commuter and commercial traffic. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page AA-29 Volcano The steering committee determined that the City's probability for a volcanic event is low (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to a volcanic event is low (which is the same as the County's rating). These ratings did not change since the previous version of this NHMP addendum. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of volcanic hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. Generally, an event that affects the County is likely to affect Ashland as well. Ashland is very unlikely to experience anything more than volcanic ash during a volcanic event. Ashland's water supply has a high concentration of Sulphur which could increase during a volcanic event. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Wildfire The steering committee determined that the City's probability for wildfire is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to wildfire is high (which is higher than the County's rating). These ratings did not change since the previous version of this NHMP addendum. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of wildland fire hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. The location and extent of a wildland fire vary depending on fuel, topography and weather conditions. Weather and urbanization conditions are primarily at cause for the hazard level. Notable Wildland fires have occurred in Ashland and it remains a concern due to an increased amount of development along the Wildland-Urban Interface. In addition, the City's watershed is particularly vulnerable and a wildfire in that area would impact its water supply and potentially lead to landslides and increased flooding concerns. Please review Page 17 of the 2016 Ashland Forest Plan for more fire related details. The potential community impacts and vulnerabilities described in Volume I, Section 3 are generally accurate for the City as well. Ashland developed a Community Wildfire Protection Plan in 2004. The Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Protection Plan (RVIFP, updated 2017), assesses wildfire risk, maps wildland urban interface areas and includes actions to mitigate wildfire risk. The City is included in the RVIFP and will update the City's wildfire risk assessment if the fire plan presents better data during future updates an action item is included within Volume I, Section 4 to participate in updates to the integrated fire plan and to continue to maintain and update their RVIFP). Ashland is within an area of high wildfire prone urban landscape. The City hereby incorporates the RVIFP into this addendum by reference to provide greater detail to sensitivity and exposure to the wildfire hazard. Property can be damaged or destroyed with one fire as structures, vegetation and other flammables easily merge to become unpredictable and hard to manage. Other factors that affect ability to effectively respond to a wildfire include access to the location and to water, response time from the fire station, availability of personnel and equipment and weather (e.g., heat, low humidity, high winds and drought). Page AA-30 December 2017 Ashland Addendum The City is involved in an ongoing, six-year project known as the Ashland Forest Resiliency (AFR) Stewardship Project. AFR is a collaboration between the City, The Nature Conservancy, the U.S. Forest Service and Lomakatsi Restoration Project that is working to enhance and protect over 58,000 acres of landscape from Emigrant Lake to Wagner Creek irrespective of ownership. Ashland also participates in Firewise and has a Wildfire Hazard Zone Overlay that dates back to 1992 and is proposed to include the entire City. The City is also considering adopting a wildfire ordinance that would address: • Fire prone vegetation within 3 ft of a structure • 10 ft spacing from tree branches to a chimney • Spacing requirements for existing fire prone trees and shrubs • Additional fuel break size for lots with more than 20% slope Please review Volume I, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Summary Figure AA-7 presents a summary of the hazard analysis for Ashland and compares the results to the assessment completed by Jackson County. The top hazards for the City are wildfire, Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake, landslide and emerging infectious disease. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page AA-31 Figure AA-7 Overall Hazard Analysis Comparison -Ashland/Jackson County 240 " 222 222 216 211 211 193 190 18" 180 180 180 170 163 160 i I 125 118 120 98 64 6r 0 T T.. Wildfire Earthquake Landslide Emerging Drought Windstorm Flood Winter Storm Earthquake Volcano (Cascadia) Infectious (Crustal) Disease ■ Ashland ■ County Source: City of Ashland NHMP Steering Committee and Jackson County NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Page AA-32 December 2017 Ashland Addendum TOWN OF BUTTE FALLS ADDENDUM Purpose Butte Falls' addendum to the Jackson County Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (MNHMP, NHMP) was completed in 2017. This addendum supplements information contained in Volume I (Basic Plan) of this NHMP which serves as the NHMP foundation and Volume II (Appendices) which provide additional information. This addendum meets the following requirements: • Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption §201.6(c)(5), • Multi-Jurisdictional Participation §201.6(a)(3), • Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Strategy §201.6(c)(3)(iv) and • Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment §201.6(c)(2)(iii). Mitigation Plan Mission The NHMP mission states the purpose and defines the primary functions of the NHMP. It is intended to be adaptable to any future changes made to the NHMP and need not change unless the community's environment or priorities change. The Town concurs with the mission statement developed during the Jackson County planning process (Volume 1, Section 4): Protect life, property and the environment, reduce risk and prevent loss from natural hazard events through coordination and cooperation among public and private partners. Mitigation Plan Goals Mitigation plan goals are more specific statements of direction that Jackson County citizens and public and private partners can take while working to reduce the Town's risk from natural hazards. These statements of direction form a bridge between the broad mission statement and particular action items. The goals listed here serve as checkpoints as agencies and organizations begin implementing mitigation action items. The Town concurs with the goals developed during the Jackson County planning process (Volume I, Section 4). All of the NHMP goals are important and are listed below in no particular order of priority. Establishing community priorities within action items neither negates nor eliminates any goals, but it establishes which action items to consider to implement first, should funding become available. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page BA-1 Below is a list of the NHMP goals: GOAL 1: EMERGENCY SERVICES Minimize life safety issues by promoting, strengthening and coordinating emergency response plans. GOAL 2: EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Further the public's awareness and understanding of natural hazards and potential risk, including economic vulnerability and mitigation efforts. GOAL 3: PREVENTION Reduce the threat of loss of life and property from natural hazards by incorporating information on known hazards and providing incentives to make hazard mitigation planning a priority in land use policies and decisions, including plan implementation. GOAL 4: PROPERTY PROTECTION Lessen impact from natural disasters on individual properties, businesses and public facilities by increasing awareness at the individual level and encouraging activities that can prevent damage and loss of life from natural hazards. GOAL 5: PARTNERSHIP AND COORDINATION Identify mitigation or risk reduction measures that address multiple areas (i.e., environment transportation, telecommunications); Coordinate public/private sector participation in planning and implementing mitigation projects throughout the Town; and seek funding and resource partnerships for future mitigation efforts. GOAL 6: NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION Preserve and rehabilitate natural systems to serve natural hazard mitigation functions (i.e., floodplains, wetlands, watershed and urban interface areas). GOAL 7: STRUCTURAL PROTECTIONS When applicable, utilize structural mitigation activities to minimize risks associated with natural hazards. NHMP Process, Participation and Adoption This section of the NHMP addendum addresses 44 CFR 201.6(c)(5), Plan Adoption and 44 CFR 201.6(a)(3), Participation. The first update of the Jackson County NHMP was approved by FEMA on February 4, 2013. To maintain compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K), the NHMP required an update by February 3, 2018. The Butte Falls addendum was added with the 2017 update of the Jackson County MNHMP. The Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience (OPDR) at the University of Oregon's Community Service Center (CSC) partnered with the Oregon Military Department's Office of Emergency Management (OEM), Jackson County and Butte Falls to update their NHMP. This project is funded through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) FY15 Pre- Page BA-2 December 2017 Butte Falls Addendum Disaster Mitigation Competitive Grant Program (PDMC-PL-10-PR-2015-003). Members of the Butte Falls NHMP steering committee also participated in the County NHMP update process (Volume II, Appendix B). By creating a NHMP, locally adopting it and having it approved by FEMA, Butte Falls will gain eligibility for FEMA Hazard Mitigation, Pre-Disaster Mitigation and Flood Mitigation Assistance grant program funds. The Jackson County NHMP and Butte Falls addendum, are the result of a collaborative effort between citizens, public agencies, non-profit organizations, the private sector and regional organizations. A project steering committee guided the process of developing the NHMP. The Mayor served as the designated convener of the NHMP update and will take the lead in implementing, maintaining and updating the addendum to the Jackson County NHMP in collaboration with the designated convener of the Jackson County NHMP (Emergency Manager). Representatives from the Town of Butte Falls steering committee met formally and informally, to discuss updates to their addendum (Volume ll, Appendix B). The steering committee reviewed and revised the Town's addendum, with particular focus on the NHMP's risk assessment and mitigation strategy (action items). The addendum reflects decision made at the designated meetings and during subsequent work and communication with Jackson County Emergency Management and the OPDR. The Butte Falls Steering Committee was comprised of the following representatives: • Convener, Linda Spencer, Town of Butte Falls Mayor • Chris Bray, Town of Butte Falls Public Works • Trish Callahan, Town Council (Business Owner) • Jeff Gorman, Butte Falls Fire • Lori Paxton, Town of Butte Falls Recorder • Fred Phillips, Volunteer Public participation was achieved with the establishment of the steering committee, which was comprised of Town officials representing different departments and sectors and members of the public. The steering committee was closely involved throughout the development of the NHMP and served as the local oversight body for the NHMP's development. Community members were provided an opportunity for comment via the NHMP review process and through a survey administered by the OPDR and publicized by the participating jurisdictions (Volume ll, Appendix F). The Jackson County NHMP was approved by FEMA on [Month] [Day], 2018 and the Butte Falls addendum was adopted via resolution on [Month] [Day], 2018. This NHMP is effective through [Month] [Day], 2023. NHMP Implementation and Maintenance The Town Council will be responsible for adopting the Butte Falls addendum to the Jackson County NHMP. This addendum designates a coordinating body and a convener to oversee the development and implementation of action items. Because the Town addendum is part Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page BA-3 of the County's multi-jurisdictional NHMP, the Town will look for opportunities to partner with the County. The Town's steering committee will convene after re-adoption of the Butte Falls NHMP addendum on an annual schedule. The County is meeting on a semi-annual basis and will provide opportunities for the cities to report on NHMP implementation and maintenance during their meetings. The Town's Mayor will serve as the convener and will be responsible for assembling the steering committee (coordinating body). The steering committee will be responsible for: • Reviewing existing action items to determine suitability of funding; • Reviewing existing and new risk assessment data to identify issues that may not have been identified at NHMP creation; • Educating and training new Steering Committee members on the NHMP and mitigation actions in general; • Assisting in the development of funding proposals for priority action items; • Discussing methods for continued public involvement; and • Documenting successes and lessons learned during the year. The convener will also remain active in the County's implementation and maintenance process (Volume I, Section 5). The Town will utilize the same action item prioritization process as the County (Volume I, Section 5 and Volume II, Appendix D). Implementation through Existing Programs Many of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan's recommendations are consistent with the goals and objectives of the Town's existing plans and policies. Where possible, Butte Falls will implement the NHMP's recommended actions through existing plans and policies. Plans and policies already in existence have support from local residents, businesses and policy makers. Many land-use, comprehensive and strategic plans get updated regularly, allowing them to adapt to changing conditions and needs. Implementing the NHMP's action items through such plans and policies increases their likelihood of being supported and implemented. Butte Falls' acknowledged comprehensive plan is the Town of Butte Falls Comprehensive Plan (1982). The Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission first acknowledged the plan in 1983. The Town implements the plan through the Community Development Code. Butte Falls currently has the following plans that relate to natural hazard mitigation. For a complete list visit the Town's website. • Comprehensive Plan (1982) • Community Development Code (2007) • Building Code, 2017 Oregon State Code based on 2015 International Residential Code (IRC) and 2012 International Building Code • Emergency Operations Plan (2012) • Water System Master Plan (2012) Page BA-4 December 2017 Butte Falls Addendum Continued Public Participation Keeping the public informed of the Town's efforts to reduce its risk to future natural hazard events is important for successful NHMP implementation and maintenance. The Town is committed to involving the public in the plan review and updated process (Volume I, Section 5). NHMP Maintenance The Jackson County Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan and Town addendum will be updated every five years in accordance with the update schedule outlined in the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. During the County NHMP update process, the Town will also review and update its addendum (Volume I, Section 5). The convener will be responsible for convening the steering committee to address the questions outlined below. • Are there new partners that should be brought to the table? • Are there new local, regional, state or federal policies influencing natural hazards that should be addressed? • Has the community successfully implemented any mitigation activities since the NHMP was last updated? • Have new issues or problems related to hazards been identified in the community? • Are the actions still appropriate given current resources? • Have there been any changes in development patterns that could influence the effects of hazards? • Have there been any significant changes in the community's demographics that could influence the effects of hazards? • Are there new studies or data available that would enhance the risk assessment? • Has the community been affected by any disasters? Did the NHMP accurately address the impacts of this event? These questions will help the steering committee determine what components of the mitigation plan need updating. The steering committee will be responsible for updating any deficiencies found in the NHMP. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page BA-5 Mitigation Strategy This section of the NHMP addendum addresses 44 CFR 201.6(c)(3(iv), Mitigation Strategy. The Town's mitigation strategy (action items) were developed during the 2017 NHMP planning process. The steering committee assessed the Town's risk, identified potential issues and developed a mitigation strategy (action items). The Town developed actions specific to their community after first reviewing a list of recommended actions developed by the County or recommended by OPDR. Some actions were developed out of the Upper Rogue Watershed Multi-Hazard Risk Report (Volume II, Appendix H). Priority Actions The Town is listing a set of high priority actions in an effort to focus attention on an achievable set of high leverage activities over the next five-years (Table BA-1). The Town's priority actions are listed below in the following table. Action Item Pool Table BA-2 presents a "pool" of mitigation actions. This expanded list of actions is available for local consideration as resources, capacity, technical expertise and/or political will become available. Page BA-6 December 2017 Butte Falls Addendum Table BA- I Butte Falls Priority Action Items Action Lead Potential Funding Mitigation Action Item Timeline Partner Organization(s) Item ID Organization Source(s) Priority Actions Multi-Hazard (MH) Explore funding sources and grant opportunities for City County Emergency ~ MH #1 community-wide natural hazard mitigation and Ongoing Administration Management, RVCOG, General Fund (Staff Time) resiliency activities NRCS, ODG MH #2 Obtain generators to provide power to maintain Mid-Term City RVCOG, DLCD, FEMA Building Improvement water and sewer systems. (3-5 Years) Administration Grants, HMGP, PDM Drought (DR) Obtain and connect a pump for emergency water Mid-Term City DR #1 connection to Medford Water Commissionsystem. Medford Water Commission General Fund, HMA (3-5 Years) Administration Earthquake (EQ) Implement structural and non-structural retrofits to Short-Term City Building officials, Planning, EQ #1 General Fund, SRGP, PDM critical and essential facilities. (0-2 Years) Administration Public Works Wildfire (WF) WF #1 Remove fuels from vacant lots/ alleys. Ongoing City Property Owners General Fund, ODF Administration Mutual aid agreement with Rogue Valley Fire Short-Term City Rogue Valley Fire Chiefs WF #2 General Fund (Staff Time) Chiefs Association (0-2 Years) Administration Association Source: Town of Butte Falls NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page BA-7 Table BA-2 Butte Falls Action Item Pool Action Lead Potential Funding Mitigation Action Item Timeline Partner Organization(s) Item ID Organization Source(s) Action Item Pool Multi-Hazard (MH) County Emergency MH #3 Sustain a public awareness and education Ongoing City Management, FEMA, OEM, General Fund, FEMA, DLCD campaign about natural hazards. Administration NWS, ODOT, CERT, RVCOG Utilities MH #4 Obtain a generator to provide back-up power to Long-Term City OEM, FEMA, RVCOG Building Improvement maintain school's food supply. (5+ Years) Administration Grants, HMGP, PDM Use hazard information as a basis for city Long-Term City City/County GIS, FEMA, MH #5 ordinances and regulations that govern site- (5+ Years) Administration DLCD General Fund specific land use decisions. Integrate the Mitigation Plan findings into planning MH #6 and regulatory documents and programs including Mid-Term City RVCOG, DLCD, FEMA General Fund, DLCD the Comprehensive Plan (particulalry (3-5 Years) Administration Technical Assistance Grant Goal 7). MH #7 Perform a phased analysis study on Long-Term City DOGAMI General Fund, PDM, FMA, landslide/earthquake risk for water tank. (5+ Years) Administration HMGP, PA Identify current capabilities and research option to County Emergency Mid-Term City General Fund, PDM, FMA, MH #8 secure an early warning system (EWS) for Management, OMD-OEM, (3-5 Years) Administration HMGP, PA flood/landslide risk. DLCD, USACE, Silver Jackets Drought(DR) See priority actions and multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Source: Town of Butte Falls NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Page BA-8 December 2017 Butte Falls Addendum Table BA-2 Butte Falls Action Item Pool (continued) Action Lead F Potential Funding Mitigation Action Item Timeline Partner Organization(s) Item ID Organization _ Source(s) Action Item Pool Earthquake (EQ) Promote building safety through nonstructural City Building officials, American EQ #2 improvements and public education. Ongoing Administration Red Cross, DOGAMI, OEM General Fund Emerging Infectious Disease (EID) No specific action item developed for this hazard. See multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Flood (FL) Promote Green Infrastructure/Low Impact Short-Term City Rogue Valley Sewer FL #1 General Fund, RVSS Development as stormwater mitigation strategy. (0-2 Years) Administration Services Landslide (LS) No specific action item developed for this hazard. See multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Severe Weather(SW, Windstorm and Winter Storm) Promote the benefits of tree-trimming and tree Public Works, Utility City General Fund, HMA, SW #1 replacement programs and help to coordinate local Ongoing companies, ODOT, USFS, Administration Utilities efforts by public and private agencies. ELM, ODF, Fire Volcano (VE) No specific action item developed for this hazard. See multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Wildfire (WF) Coordinate fire mitigation action items through the City Fire Plan Committee and WF #3 Ongoing General Fund, ODF Rogue Valley Integrated Fire Plan. Administration Participating Agencies Source: Town of Butte Falls NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page BA-9 Risk Assessment This section of the NHMP addendum addresses 44 CFR 201.6(b)(2) - Risk Assessment. In addition, this chapter can serve as the factual basis for addressing Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Hazards. Assessing natural hazard risk has three phases: • Phase 1: Identify hazards that can impact the jurisdiction. This includes an evaluation of potential hazard impacts-type, location, extent, etc. • Phase 2: Identify important community assets and system vulnerabilities. Example vulnerabilities include people, businesses, homes, roads, historic places and drinking water sources. • Phase 3: Evaluate the extent to which the identified hazards overlap with or have an impact on, the important assets identified by the community. The local level rationale for the identified mitigation strategies (action items) is presented herein and within Volume I, Sections 2 and 3. The risk assessment process is graphically depicted in Figure BA-1. Ultimately, the goal of hazard mitigation is to reduce the area of risk, where hazards overlap vulnerable systems. Figure BA-I Understanding Risk r R " r USG Understanding Risk `_"6 I'S" ag RESILIENCE science for a changing world Natural Hazard ,Vulnerable System Potential Catastrophic Exposure, Sensitivity and Chronic Physical Events , Risk t and Resilience of: • Past Recurrence Intervals I t • Population • Future Probability I of I • Economic Generation • Speed of Onset I I • Built Environment • Magnitude t Disaster, Academic and Research Function • Duration f • Cultural Assets • Spatial Extent / • Infrastructure Ability, Resources and Willingness to: • Mitigate • Respond • Prepare • Recover Source: USGS- Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience Research Collaboration, 2006 Hazard Analysis The Butte Falls steering committee developed their hazard vulnerability assessment (HVA), using the County's HVA (Volume II, Appendix C) as a reference. Changes from the County's HVA were made where appropriate to reflect distinctions in vulnerability and risk from natural hazards unique to Butte Falls, which are discussed throughout this addendum. Page BA-10 December 2017 Butte Falls Addendum Table BA-3 shows the HVA matrix for Butte Falls listing each hazard listed in order of rank from high to low. For local governments, conducting the hazard analysis is a useful step in planning for hazard mitigation, response and recovery. The method provides the jurisdiction with sense of hazard priorities, but does not predict the occurrence of a particular hazard. Three chronic hazards (wildfire, emerging infectious disease and winter storm) and a catastrophic hazard (Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake) rank as the top hazard threats to the Town (Top Tier). Windstorm and drought comprise the next highest ranked hazards (Middle Tier), while the flood, landslide, crustal earthquake and volcano hazards comprise the lowest ranked hazards (Bottom Tier). Table BA-3 Hazard Analysis Matrix - Butte Falls Hazard Tiers Wildfire 20 50 100 70 240 #1 Earthquake(Cascadia) 2 50 100 70 222 #2 Top Emerging Infectious Disease 12 50 100 49 211 #3 Tier Winter Storm 20 40 80 70 210 #4 Windstorm 20 20 50 70 160 #5 Middle Drought 20 15 50 63 148 #6 Tier Flood 10 10 50 21 91 #7 Landslide 6 15 30 21 72 #8 Bottom Earthquake(Crustal) 2 15 30 21 68 #9 Tier Volcano 2 5 50 7 64 #10 Source: Butte Falls NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Table BA-4 categorizes the probability and vulnerability scores from the hazard analysis for the Town and compares the results to the assessment completed by the Jackson County NHMP Steering Committee (Volume II, Appendix Q. Variations between the Town and County are noted in bold text. Table BA-4 Probability and Vulnerability Comparison Butte Falls Jackson County Hazard Probability Vulnerability Probability Vulnerability Drought High Moderate High Moderate Earthquake (Cascadia) High High High High Earthquake (Crustal) Low Low Low Moderate Emerging Infectious Disease Moderate High Moderate High Flood Low Low High Moderate Landslide Low Low High Low Volcano Low Low Low Low Wildfire High High High Moderate Windstorm High Moderate High Moderate Winter Storm High High High Moderate Source: Butte Falls NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page BA-11 Community Characteristics Table BA-5 and the following section provides information on Town specific demographics and assets. For additional information on the characteristics of Butte Falls, in terms of geography, environment, population, demographics, employment and economics, as well as housing and transportation see Volume I, Section 2. Many of these community characteristics can affect how natural hazards impact communities and how communities choose to plan for natural hazard mitigation. Considering the Town specific assets during the planning process can assist in identifying appropriate measures for natural hazard mitigation. Between 2012 and 2016 the City grew by 5 people (1.2%) and median household income decreased by about 28% (Volume I, Section 2). New development has complied with the standards of the Oregon Building Code and the city's development code including their floodplain ordinance. Transportation/infrastructure In the Town of Butte Falls, transportation has played a major role in shaping the community. Butte Falls' commercial areas developed along primary routes and residential development followed nearby. Today, mobility plays an important role in Butte Falls and the daily experience of its residents and businesses as they move from point A to point B. The Town is primarily serviced through the Butte Falls Highway. In addition, the Butte Falls Discover Loop Tour is a recreational trail system that attracts visitors and provides alternative travel corridors for bikes and pedestrians. By far, motor vehicles represent the dominant mode of travel through and within Butte Falls. Economy Traditionally, Butte Falls has built its economy on logging. According to economic Town data, Butte Falls finds their main economic drivers in the sectors of agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, tourism and education.' I ' City Data.com, Butte Falls, http://www.city-data.com/city/Butte-Falls-Oregon.html and as verified by City staff. Page BA-12 December 2017 Butte Falls Addendum Table BA-5 Community Characteristics OEM= 2012 Population 425 Housing Units 2016 Population 430 Single-Family 110 55% 2035 Forecasted Population* 437 Multi-Family 26 13% Race and Ethnic Categories Mobile Homes 64 32% White 94% Year Structure Built Black/ African American 0% Pre-1970 103 52% American Indian and Alaska Native 0% 1970-1989 28 14% Asian 0% 1990 or later 69 35% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0% Housing Tenure and Vacancy Some Other Race < 1% Owner-occupied 90 60% Two or More Races 5% Renter-occupied 61 40% Hispanic or Latino < 1% Vacant 37 19% Limited or No English Spoken < 1% Butte Falls is located in Jackson County in Vulnerable Age Groups southwestern Oregon. The Town has both Less than 15 Years 64 15% grown and declined in population since its 65 Years and Over 66 15% incorporation in 1911 and has an area today Disability Status of .40 square miles. It is located in the Total Population 101 24% northeast region of the County, located about Children 4 1% 30 miles northeast of the Town of Medford Seniors 18 4% and about 5 miles from the Rogue River- Siskiyou National Forest. The Town and most Households by Income Category of Jackson County are within the Rogue and Less than $15,000 41 27% Umpqua watersheds. $15,000-$29,999 36 24% $30,000-$44,999 23 15% Butte Falls experiences a relatively mild $45,000-$59,999 19 13% climate with four distinct seasons that comes $60,000-$74,999 13 9% from its position on the west coast of North $75,000-$99,999 9 6% America and within the Cascade Range $100,000-$199,999 5 3% mountains. The town is in a fairly $200,000 or more 5 3% mountainous area of the Rogue Valley, Median Household Income $29,375 approximately 2,500 feet above sea level. Mt Poverty Rates McLoughlin, part of the Siskiyou Mountain Total Population 146 34% Range, rises to 9,500 feet to the southeast. Children 48 53% Butte Falls averages more precipitation per Seniors 9 15% month than the state of Oregon especially Housing Cost Burden during November and December. The Town Owners with Mortgage 34% of Butte Falls includes a diversity of land uses Renters 54% but is zoned primarily residential. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey; Portland State University, For more information see Volume I, Section 2. Population Research Center. Note: * = Population forecast within UGB Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page BA-13 Community Assets This section outlines the resources, facilities and infrastructure that, if damaged, could significantly impact the public safety, economic conditions and environmental integrity of Butte Falls. Critical Facilities Facilities that are critical to government response and recovery activities (i.e. life, safety, property and environmental protection). These facilities include: 911 Centers, Emergency Operations Centers, Police and Fire Stations, Public Works facilities, sewer and water facilities, hospitals, bridges, roads, shelters and more. Facilities that, if damaged, could cause serious secondary impacts may also be considered "critical." A hazardous material facility is one example of this type of critical facility. Fire Stations: Government: • Butte Falls Fire Department • USFS Butte Falls Ranger • Fire office District Office (staff up during • Fire garage summer months) Law Enforcement: Town Buildings: • Butte Falls Police Department • Butte Falls Town Hall • Butte Falls Community Hall Public Works: • Butte Falls Community School • Public Works Building Partnership at the Landing (located at Waste Water Treatment Plant) Private: • Butte Falls General Store • Butte Falls Service Station • Cafes in Town (2) Essential Facilities Facilities that are essential to the continued delivery of key government services and/or that may significantly impact the public's ability to recover from the emergency. These facilities may include: Town buildings such as the Public Services Building, the Town Hall and other public facilities such as schools. Hospitals/Immediate Medical Care County Buildings: Facilities: • Butte Falls Library • Community Health Center Potential Shelter Sites: Public Schools: • All Butte Falls Schools • Butte Falls Elementary School (Red Cross designated) • Butte Falls Charter School • Butte Falls Assembly of God • Forest Service Complex • Butte Falls Community Bible II Addendum Page BA-14 December 2017 Butte Fa s Infrastructure: Infrastructure that provides services forthe Town include: Transportation Networks: • John Dyck Bypass • Broad St • Butte Falls Rd (Co. Rd 821) • Butte Falls/Prospect Rd • Fish Lake Rd • Falls Rd Water Facilities: • Complete potable water system • Complete sewage treatment system • Bulk water plan • Water bottling plant Special Service Districts: • Southern Oregon Education Service District • 911 Service District Private Utilities: • Pacific Power • Century Link • DishNet, Direct TV, Satellite • Hunter (schools) Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page BA-15 Hazard Characteristics Drought The steering committee determined that the Town's probability for drought is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to drought is low (which is lower than the County's rating). Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of drought hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event. Due to the climate of Jackson County, past and present weather conditions have shown an increasing potential for drought. The City receives its main water supply from Ginger Springs. The Town has an adequate supply have high quality water and draws 3.6 million gallons per week (mgw). In addition, the Town maintains an emergency connection to Medford Water Commission (however, they do not currently have a pump). For more information on the future of Butte Fall's water supply visit their website. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Earthquake (Cascadia) The steering committee determined that the Town's probability for a Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) earthquake is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to a CSZ earthquake is high (which is the same as the County's rating). Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of earthquake hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event. Generally, an event that affects the County is likely to affect Butte Falls as well. The causes and characteristics of an earthquake event are appropriately described within Volume I, Section 3, as well as the location and extent of potential hazards. Previous occurrences are well documented within Volume I, Section 3 and the community impacts described by the County would generally be the same for Butte Falls as well. The local faults, the County's proximity to the Cascadia Subduction Zone, potential slope instability and the prevalence of certain soils subject to liquefaction and amplification combine to give the County a high-risk profile. Due to the expected pattern of damage resulting from a CSZ event, the Oregon Resilience Plan divides the State into four distinct zones and places Jackson County predominately within the "Valley Zone" (Valley Zone, from the summit of the Coast Range to the summit of the Cascades). Within the Southwest Oregon region, damage and shaking is expected to be strong and widespread - an event will be disruptive to daily life and commerce and the main priority is expected to be restoring services to business and residents. Figure BA-2 displays relative shaking hazards from a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake event. As shown in the figure below, the area of greatest concern within the Town of Butte Falls (darker areas). Page BA-16 December 2017 Butte Falls Addendum Figure BA-2 Cascadia Subduction Zone Layers Currently Shown _ p Cascadla Earthquake Hazard Cascadia Earthquake Expected Shaking ■ Violent ® Severe very Strong Strong a Moderate Q Light Fr r d t r~ ~ 5 0.5 km 0.5 mi Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (DOGAMI) As noted in the community profile, approximately 66% of residential buildings were built prior to 1990, which increases the Town's vulnerability to the earthquake hazard. Information on specific public buildings' (schools and public safety) estimated seismic resistance, determined by DOGAMI in 2007, is shown in Table BA-6; each "X" represents one building within that ranking category. Of the facilities evaluated by DOGAMI using a Rapid Visual Survey (RVS), one (1) has a very high (100% chance) collapse potential. In addition to building damages, utility (electric power, water, wastewater, natural gas) and transportation systems (bridges, pipelines) are also likely to experience significant damage. Utility systems will be significantly damaged, including damaged buildings and damage to utility infrastructure, including water and wastewater treatment plants and equipment at high voltage substations (especially 230 kV or higher which are more vulnerable than lower voltage substations). Buried pipe systems will suffer extensive damage with approximately one break per mile in soft soil areas. There would be a much lower rate of pipe breaks in other areas. Restoration of utility services will require substantial mutual aid from utilities outside of the affected area. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page BA-17 I Table BA-6 Rapid Visual Survey Scores Level of Collapse Potential Low Moderate High Very High Facility Site ID* < 1% >1% >10% 100% Public Safety City Hall (prev. Butte Falls Police Department ) (431 Broad St) Jack_po106 X Butte Falls Volunteer Fire Department Jack fir12 X (431 Broad St) Source: DOGAMI 2007 Open File Report 0-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment Using Rapid Visual Assessment. - Site ID is referenced on the RVS Jackson County Map Mitigation Successes Seismic retrofit grant awards per the Seismic Rehabilitation Grant PrograM2 have been funded to retrofit The Butte Falls High School (Charter School; Phase One of 2015-2017 grant award, $1,492,300) and Butte Falls Volunteer Fire Department (Phase Two of 2015- 2017 grant award, $337,540). Multi-Hazard Risk Report: Upper Rogue Watershed The Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) conducted a multi- hazard risk assessment (Risk Report) for portions of Jackson County (Upper Rogue Watershed) including Butte Falls. The study is funded through the FEMA Risk MAP program and was completed in 2017. The Risk Report provides a quantitative risk assessment that informs communities of their risks related to certain natural hazards. The Town hereby incorporates the risk assessment into this addendum by reference to provide greater detail to hazard sensitivity and exposure (Volume II, Appendix H). The Risk Report identifies that during a CSZ earthquake, approximately 5 buildings will be damaged (0 essential facilities) for a total loss of $216,000 (a loss ratio of 1.7%). In addition, no residents are expected to be displaced. Earthquake (Crustal) The steering committee determined that the Town's probability for a crustal earthquake is low (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to crustal earthquake is low (which is lower than the County's rating). Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of earthquake hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event. Generally, an event that affects the County is likely to affect Butte Falls as well. The causes and characteristics of an earthquake event are appropriately described within Volume I, Section 3, as well as the location and extent of potential hazards. Previous occurrences are well-documented within Volume I, 2 The Seismic Rehabilitation Grant Program (SRGP) is a state of Oregon competitive grant program that provides funding for the seismic rehabilitation of critical public buildings, particularly public schools and emergency services facilities. Page BA-18 December 2017 Butte Falls Addendum Section 3 and the community impacts described by the County would generally be the same for Butte Falls as well. Earthquake-induced damages are difficult to predict and depend on the size, type and location of the earthquake, as well as site-specific building and soil characteristics. Presently, it is not possible to accurately forecast the location or size of earthquakes, but it is possible to predict the behavior of soil at any particular site. In many major earthquakes, damages have primarily been caused by the behavior of the soil. Figure BA-3 displays relative liquefaction hazards. As shown in the figure below, the area of greatest concern near the Town of Butte Falls (liquefaction hazard orange areas) is to the southwest of the Town. Figure BA-3 Active Faults and Soft Soils Layers Currently Shown _ IRW Earthquake Hazard.. Active Faults Earthquake Epicenter (1971-2008) 5 - 7 Magnitude _ EkrB St ~0 3 - 5 Butte z falls o 1- 2 $ o r~.r+ cJUlh 5! e 0-1 k, High ~e~rr«r Moderate J Low . C.S km r,1Kb *i O.S mI "Y L.f , Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (DOGAMI) Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page BA-19 Emerging Infectious Disease The steering committee determined that the Town's probability for emerging infectious disease is moderate (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability is high (which is the same as the County's rating). Emerging infectious diseases are those that have recently appeared in a population or those whose incidence or geographic range is rapidly increasing or threatens to increase. Emerging infections may be caused by biological pathogens (e.g., virus, parasite, fungus or bacterium) and may be: previously unknown or undetected biological pathogens, biological pathogens that have spread to new geographic areas or populations, previously known biological pathogens whose role in specific diseases was previously undetected and biological pathogens whose incidence of disease was previously declining but whose incidence of disease has reappeared (re-emerging infectious disease).3 Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of emerging infectious disease, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. Generally, an event that affects the County is likely to affect the Town as well. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Flood The steering committee determined that the Town's probability for flood is low (which is lower than the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to flood is low (which is the same as the County's rating). Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of flood hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event. There is no portion of Butte Falls that has areas of flood plains (Figure BA-4). Despite the lack of mapped flood hazard, other portions of Butte Falls, outside of the mapped floodplains, are also subject to flooding from local storm water drainage; however, areas that flood do not impact development or infrastructure. Big Butte Creek is the chief source of flooding in Butte Falls, Hukill Creek also travels through the Town's western edge. There is a low potential for flood from this water source, but the canal will likely show signs of stress or potential urban flooding in the event of heavy rains or winter storms. Big Butte Creek is a primary drinking water source for residents of the Rogue Valley. The Eagle Point Irrigation Canal begins just downstream from Butte Falls and diverts 100 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water for irrigation within the Little Butte Creek Watershed. The Town is at minor risk from two types of flooding: riverine and urban. Riverine flooding occurs when streams overflow their banks and inundate low-lying areas. This is a natural process that adds sediment and nutrients to fertile floodplain areas. It usually results from 3 Baylor College of Medicine, Emerging Infectious Disease, URL: https://www.bcm.edu/departments/molecular- virology-and-microbiology/emerging-infections-and-biodefense/emerging-infectious-diseases, accessed September 17, 2017. Page BA-20 December 2017 Butte Falls Addendum prolonged periods of precipitation over a wide geographic area. Most areas are generally flooded by low velocity sheets of water. Urban flooding occurs as land is converted to impervious surfaces and hydrologic systems are changed. Precipitation is collected and transmitted to streams at a much faster rate, causing floodwaters that rise rapidly and peak with violent force. During urban flooding, storm drains can back up and cause localized flooding of streets and basements. Figure BA-4 Special Flood Hazard Area < Layers Currently Shown _ rim Flood Hazard Type and Source of Flood Data Effective FEMA 100 yr Flood Preliminary FEMA 100 yr Flood r e n St State Digitized Flood Data n fee 6ultc "t - c_ Falls Q3 FEMA Flood Data c ~4.a rv = R•n ac fiat -Yru Soot^''' Rq , r lf 0.5 km 0.5 ml Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (DOGAMI) Floods can have a devastating impact on almost every aspect of the community, including private property damage, public infrastructure damage and economic loss from business interruption. It is important for the Town to be aware of flooding impacts and assess its level of risk. The Town has been proactive in mitigating flood hazards by purchasing floodplain property. The economic losses due to business closures often total more than the initial property losses that result from flood events. Business owners and their employees are significantly impacted by flood events. Direct damages from flooding are the most common impacts, but indirect damages, such as diminished clientele, can be just as debilitating to a business. The FEMA Flood Insurance Study (May 3, 2011) has a brief history of flooding in Jackson County and Butte Falls (Volume I, Section 3). Currently, no critical or essential facilities are located in the floodplain. The amount of property in potential flood areas is not a large area but damage could be significant as it would affect residential, commercial and public property. Floodwaters can affect building foundations, seep into basements or cause damage to the interior, exterior and contents of buildings, dependent upon the velocity and depth of the water and by the Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page BA-21 presence of floating debris. The Town sewer system can overflow during flood events and cause further property damage. Multi-Hazard Risk Report: Upper Rogue Watershed The Risk Report (Volume 11, Appendix H) does not include potential loss due to flood since there are no mapped floodplains within the Town. For mitigation planning purposes, it is important to recognize that flood risk for a community is not limited only to areas of mapped floodplains. Other portions of Butte Falls outside of the mapped floodplains may also be at relatively high riskfrom over bank flooding from streams too small to be mapped by FEMA or from local storm water drainage. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) The effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Butte Falls was created in 1976 (effective June 30, 1976); note Butte Falls was not included in the Jackson County Flood Insurance Study of 2011, revised January 19, 2018. Table BA-7 shows that Butte Falls has one (1) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policy in force. Of those, zero (0) are for properties that were constructed before the initial FIRM. The last Community Assistance Visit (CAV) for ' Butte Falls was on August 31, 2011. The table shows that the flood insurance policy is for a single-family residential structure. There has been a total of zero (0) paid claims. The City complies with the NFIP through enforcement of their flood damage prevention ordinance and their floodplain management program. The Community Repetitive Loss record for Butte Falls identifies zero (0) Repetitive Loss Properties4 and zero (0) Severe Repetitive Loss Properties5. For details on the repetitive loss properties Volume I, Section 3. 4A Repetitive Loss (RL) property is any insurable building for which two or more claims of more than $1,000 were paid by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) within any rollingten-year period, since 1978. A RL property may or may not be currently insured by the NFIP. 5 A Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) property is a single family property (consisting of 1 to 4 residences) that is covered underflood insurance by the NFIP and has incurred flood-related damage forwhich 4 or more separate claims payments have been paid underflood insurance coverage, with the amount of each claim payment exceeding $5,000 and with cumulative amount of such claims payments exceeding $20,000; orfor which at least 2 separate claims payments have been made with the cumulative amount of such claims exceeding the reported value of the property. Page BA-22 December 2017 Butte Falls Addendum r Table BA-7 Flood Insurance Detail Policies by Bmlding Type ~ Effective Initial Total Pre FIRM Single 2 to 4 Other Non- Minus Rated j Jurisdiction FIRM and FIS FIRM Date Policies Policies Family Family Residential Residential A Zone i _ 1 Severe Last Substantial (Repetitive Repetitive Community Insurance Total Pre-FIRM Damage Total Paid Loss Loss CRS Class Assistance Jurisdiction in Force Paid Claims Claims Paid Claims Amount Structures Pro erties Rating visit ia :L's rzi 8utteFa lIs $ 42,000 00 0$ 0 IO 8/31/2011 Source: Information compiled by Department of Land Conservation and Development, July 2016. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Landslide The steering committee determined that the Town's probability for landslide is low (which is lower than the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to landslide is low (which is the same as the County's rating). Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of landslide hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. Landslide susceptibility exposure for Butte Falls is shown in Figure BA-5. Most of Butte Falls demonstrates a low susceptibility to landslide exposure, with corridors of moderate and high susceptibility concentrated around the edges of the Town. Approximately 7% of Butte Falls has high and approximately 10% moderate, landslide susceptibility exposures. The chief concern for landslide is along Butte Falls Road west of town between mile post 11 and 12 (landslides in past has sunken the road and guard rails). An additional concern is in the southeast corner of town where a water is located on steep slopes; however, the slopes in this area have not experienced landslides. Note that even if a jurisdiction has a high percentage of area in a high or very high landslide exposure susceptibility zone, this does not mean there is a high risk, because risk is the intersection of hazard and assets. 6 DOGAMI Open-File Report, 0-16-02, Landslide Susceptibility Overview Map of Oregon (2016) Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page BA-23 i Figure BA-5 Landslide Susceptibility Exposure Layers Currently Shown _ I NOW! Im" Landslide Hazard Landslide Susceptibility ❑ Low - Landsliding Unlikely El Moderate - Landsliding Possible ❑ High - Landsliding Likely . ® Very High - Existing Landslide w F Butte Fall, i Beekman Flat "Yr~ Sr~:Ah SI 2 uq O J o a' i 0.5 km Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (DOGAMI) i Page BA-24 December 2017 Butte Falls Addendum Severe Weather Severe weather in can account for a variety of intense and potentially damaging weather events. These events include windstorms and winter storms. The following section describes the unique probability and vulnerability of each identified weather hazard. Other more abrupt or irregular events such as hail are also described in this section. Windstorm The steering committee determined that the Town's probability for windstorm is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to windstorm is moderate (which is the same as the County's rating). Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of windstorm hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. Because windstorms typically occur during winter months, they are sometimes accompanied by ice, freezing rain, flooding and snow. Other severe weather events that may accompany windstorms, including thunderstorms, hail and lightning strikes are standard for Butte Falls. Volume I, Section 3 describes the impacts caused by windstorms, including power outages, downed trees, heavy precipitation, building damages and storm-related debris. Additionally, transportation and economic disruptions result as well. Butte Falls regularly experiences high winds and had 75 mph winds in 2008 that left the Town without power for two to three days. Pacific Power has mitigated the risk of power loss by trimming trees near their above ground infrastructure along Butte Falls Highway as it approaches the Town from the west. Damage from high winds generally has resulted in downed utility lines and trees. Electrical power can be out anywhere from a few hours to several days. Outdoor signs have also suffered damage. If the high winds are accompanied by rain (which they often are), blowing leaves and debris clog drainage-ways, which in turn causes localized urban flooding. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Winter Storm (Snow/Ice) The steering committee determined that the Town's probability for winter storm is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to winter storm is high (which is higher than the County's rating). Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of winter storm hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. Severe winter storms can consist of rain, freezing rain, ice, snow, cold temperatures and wind. They originate from troughs of low pressure offshore that ride along the jet stream during fall, winter and early spring months. Severe winter storms affecting the Town typically originate in the Gulf of Alaska or in the central Pacific Ocean. These storms are most common from Novemberthrough March. Major winter storms can and have occurred in the Butte Falls area and while they typically do not cause significant damage, they are frequent and have the potential to impact economic activity. Road closures due to winter weather are an uncommon occurrence, but can interrupt commuter and commercial traffic. Please review Volume I, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page BA-25 Volcano The steering committee determined that the Town's probability for a volcanic event is low (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to a volcanic event is low (which is the same as the County's rating). Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of volcanic hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. Generally, an event that affects the County is likely to affect Butte Falls as well. Butte Falls is very unlikely to experience anything more than volcanic ash during a volcanic event. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Wildfire The steering committee determined that the Town's probability for wildfire is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to wildfire is high (which is higher than the County's rating). Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of wildfire hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. The location and extent of a wildfire vary depending on fuel, topography and weather conditions. Weather and urbanization conditions are primarily at cause for the hazard level. Wildfires near Butte Falls in recent times have included the Double Day wildfire in 2008 which approached the Town from the south. The potential community impacts and vulnerabilities described in Volume I, Section 3 are generally accurate for the Town as well. The Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Protection Plan (RVIFP, updated 2017), assesses wildfire risk, maps wildland urban interface areas and includes actions to mitigate wildfire risk. The Town is included in the RVIFP and will update the Town's wildfire risk assessment if the RVIFP presents better data during future updates (an action item is included within Volume I, Section 4 to participate in updates to the integrated fire plan and to continue to maintain and update their RVIFP). The forest service and Town are actively reducing fuels in and around town but anticipate an increase in wildfire risk with maturation of the forest near town. The Town hereby incorporates the RVIFP into this addendum by reference to provide greater detail to sensitivity and exposure to the wildfire hazard. Property can be damaged or destroyed with one fire as structures, vegetation and other flammables easily merge to become unpredictable and hard to manage. Other factors that affect ability to effectively respond to a wildfire include access to the location and to water, response time from the fire station, availability of personnel and equipment and weather (e.g., heat, low humidity, high winds and drought). Multi-Hazard Risk Report: Upper Rogue Watershed The Risk Report (Volume II. Appendix H) identifies that there are 145 buildings (2 essential facilities; Butte Falls Town Hall and the Volunteer Fire Department) exposed to High wildfire risk for a total potential loss of $6.35 million (a loss ratio of 46%). In addition, about 230 residents may be displaced (54% of the population). Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Page BA-26 December 2017 Butte Falls Addendum Summary Figure BA-6 below presents a summary of the hazard analysis for Butte Falls and compares the results to the assessment completed by Jackson County. The Town rates wildfire as its top hazard, followed by Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake, emerging infectious disease and winter storms. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page BA-27 Figure BA-6 Overall Hazard Analysis Comparison - Butte Falls/Jackson County 240 222 222 211 211 210 185 180 170 160 160 163 ]48 125 120 98 9 1 72 68 64 G4 I I I 0 Wildfire Earthquake Emerging Winter Storm Windstorm Drought Flood Landslide Earthquake Volcano (Cascadia) Infectious (crustal) Disease ■ Butte Falls a County Source: Town of Butte Falls NHMP Steering Committee and Jackson County NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Page BA-28 December 2017 Butte Falls Addendum i This page intentionally left blank. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page BA-29 CITY OF EAGLE POINT ADDENDUM Purpose This is an update of the Eagle Point addendum to the Jackson County Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (MNHMP, NHMP). This addendum supplements information contained in Volume I (Basic Plan) which serves as the NHMP foundation and Volume II (Appendices) which provide additional information. This addendum meets the following requirements: • Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption §201.6(c)(5), • Multi-Jurisdictional Participation §201.6(a)(3), • Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Strategy §201.6(c)(3)(iv) and • Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment §201.6(c)(2)(iii). Updates to Eagle Point's' addendum are further discussed throughout the NHMP and within Volume II, Appendix B, which provides an overview of alterations to the document that took place during the update process.. Mitigation Plan Mission The NHMP mission states the purpose and defines the primary functions of the NHMP. It is intended to be adaptable to any future changes made to the NHMP and need not change unless the community's environment or priorities change. The City concurs with the mission statement developed during the Jackson County planning process (Volume I, Section 4): Protect life, property and the environment, reduce risk and prevent loss from natural hazard events through coordination and cooperation among public and private partners. Mitigation Plan Goals Mitigation plan goals are more specific statements of direction that Jackson County citizens and public and private partners can take while working to reduce the City's risk from natural hazards. These statements of direction form a bridge between the broad mission statement and particular action items. The goals listed here serve as checkpoints as agencies and organizations begin implementing mitigation action items. The City concurs with the goals developed during the Jackson County planning process (Volume I, Section 4). All of the NHMP goals are important and are listed below in no particular order of priority. Establishing community priorities within action items neither negates nor eliminates any goals, but it establishes which action items to considerto implement first, should funding become available. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page EA-1 Below is a list of the NHMP goals: GOAL 1: EMERGENCY SERVICES Minimize life safety issues by promoting, strengthening and coordinating emergency response plans. GOAL 2: EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Further the public's awareness and understanding of natural hazards and potential risk, including economic vulnerability and mitigation efforts. GOAL 3: PREVENTION Reduce the threat of loss of life and property from natural hazards by incorporating information on known hazards and providing incentives to make hazard mitigation planning a priority in land use policies and decisions, including plan implementation. GOAL 4: PROPERTY PROTECTION Lessen impact from natural disasters on individual properties, businesses and public facilities by increasing awareness at the individual level and encouraging activities that can prevent damage and loss of life from natural hazards. GOAL 5: PARTNERSHIP AND COORDINATION Identify mitigation or risk reduction measures that address multiple areas (i.e., environment transportation, telecommunications); Coordinate public/private sector participation in planning and implementing mitigation projects throughout the City; and seek funding and resource partnerships for future mitigation efforts. GOAL 6: NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION Preserve and rehabilitate natural systems to serve natural hazard mitigation functions (i.e., floodplains wetlands, watershed and urban interface areas). GOAL 7: STRUCTURAL PROTECTIONS When applicable, utilize structural mitigation activities to minimize risks associated with natural hazards. NHMP Process, Participation and Adoption This section of the NHMP addendum addresses 44 CFR 201.6(c)(5), Plan Adoption and 44 CFR 201.6(a)(3), Participation. The first update of the Jackson County NHMP was approved by FEMA on February 4, 2013. To maintain compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K), the NHMP required an update by February 3, 2018. Eagle Point was included with an addendum in the 2012 Jackson County NHMP process. The Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience (OPDR) at the University of Oregon's Community Service Center (CSC) partnered with the Oregon Military Department's Office of Emergency Management (OEM), Jackson County and Eagle Point to update their NHMP. This project is funded through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) FY15 Pre- Page EA-2 December 2017 Eagle Paint Addendum Disaster Mitigation Competitive Grant Program (PDMC-PL-10-PR-2015-003). Members of the Eagle Point NHMP steering committee also participated in the County NHMP update process (Volume II, Appendix B). By updating the NHMP, locally adopting it and having it re-approved by FEMA, Eagle Point will maintain eligibility for FEMA Hazard Mitigation, Pre-Disaster Mitigation and Flood Mitigation Assistance grant program funds. The Jackson County NHMP and Eagle Point addendum, are the result of a collaborative effort between citizens, public agencies, non-profit organizations, the private sector and regional organizations. A project steering committee guided the process of developing the NHMP. The Eagle Point Police Chief served as the designated convener of the NHMP update and the City Administrator will take the lead in implementing, maintaining and updating the addendum to the Jackson County NHMP in collaboration with the designated convener of the Jackson County NHMP (Emergency Manager). Representatives from the City of Eagle Point steering committee met formally and informally, to discuss updates to their addendum (Volume II, Appendix B). The steering committee reviewed and revised the City's addendum, with particular focus on the NHMP's risk assessment and mitigation strategy (action items). This addendum reflects decisions made at the designated meetings and during subsequent work and communication with Jackson County Emergency Management and the OPDR. The changes are highlighted with more detail throughout this document and within Volume II, Appendix B. Other documented changes include a revision of the City's risk assessment and hazard identification sections, NHMP mission and goals, action items and community profile. The Eagle Point Steering Committee was comprised of the following representatives: • Convener, Vern Thompson, Police Chief • Robert Miller, Public Works Director • Mike Upston, Planning Director Public participation was achieved with the establishment of the steering committee, which was comprised of City officials representing different departments and sectors and members of the public. The steering committee was closely involved throughout the development of the NHMP and served as the local oversight body for the NHMP's development. Community members were provided an opportunity for comment via the NHMP review process and through a survey administered by the OPDR and publicized by the participating jurisdictions (see Appendix B for more information). The Jackson County NHMP was approved by FEMA on [Month] [Day], 2018 and the Eagle Point addendum was adopted via resolution on [Month] [Day], 2018. This NHMP is effective through [Month] [Day], 2023. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page EA-3 NHMP Implementation and Maintenance The City Council will be responsible for adopting the Eagle Point addendum to the Jackson County NHMP. This addendum designates a coordinating body and a convener to oversee the development and implementation of action items. Because the City addendum is part of the County's multi-jurisdictional NHMP, the City will look for opportunities to partner with the County. The City's steering committee will convene after re-adoption of the Eagle Point NHMP addendum on an annual schedule. The County is meeting on a semi-annual basis and will provide opportunities for the cities to report on NHMP implementation and maintenance during their meetings. The Eagle Point City Administrator will serve as the convener and will be responsible for assembling the steering committee (coordinating body). The steering committee will be responsible for: • Reviewing existing action items to determine suitability of funding; • Reviewing existing and new risk assessment data to identify issues that may not have been identified at NHMP creation; • Educating and training new Steering Committee members on the NHMP and mitigation actions in general; • Assisting in the development of funding proposals for priority action items; • Discussing methods for continued public involvement; and • Documenting successes and lessons learned during the year. The convener will also remain active in the County's implementation and maintenance process (Volume I, Section 5). The City will utilize the same action item prioritization process as the County (Volume I, Section 5 and Volume II, Appendix D). Implementation through Existing Programs Many of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan's recommendations are consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's existing plans and policies. Where possible, Eagle Point will implement the NHMP's recommended actions through existing plans and policies. Plans and policies already in existence have support from local residents, businesses and policy makers. Many land-use, comprehensive and strategic plans get updated regularly, allowing them to adapt to changing conditions and needs. Implementing the NHMP's action items through such plans and policies increases their likelihood of being supported and implemented. Eagle Point's acknowledged comprehensive plan is the City of Eagle Point Comprehensive Plan (2013). The City implements the plan through the Community Development Code. Eagle Point currently has the following plans that relate to natural hazard mitigation. For a complete list visit the City's website: • Comprehensive Plan (Amended 2013) • Municipal Code • Building Code, 2017 Oregon State Code based on 2015 International Residential Code (IRC) and 2012 International Building Code Page EA-4 December 2017 Eagle Point Addendum • Flood Mitigation Action Plan • Emergency Operations Plan (2012) • Transportation System Plan (2010, update expected in 2017) • Regional Problem Solving (RPS) Plan (2012) Continued Public Participation Keeping the public informed of the City's efforts to reduce its risk to future natural hazard events is important for successful NHMP implementation and maintenance. The City is committed to involving the public in the NHMP review and updated process (Volume I, Section 5). NHMP Maintenance The Jackson County Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan and City addendum will be updated every five years in accordance with the update schedule outlined in the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. During the County plan update process, the City will also review and update its addendum (see Volume I, Section 5, Plan Implementation and Maintenance, for more information). The convener will be responsible for convening the steering committee to address the questions outlined below. • Are there new partners that should be brought to the table? • Are there new local, regional, state or federal policies influencing natural hazards that should be addressed? • Has the community successfully implemented any mitigation activities since the NHMP was last updated? • Have new issues or problems related to hazards been identified in the community? • Are the actions still appropriate given current resources? • Have there been any changes in development patterns that could influence the effects of hazards? • Have there been any significant changes in the community's demographics that could influence the effects of hazards? • Are there new studies or data available that would enhance the risk assessment? • Has the community been affected by any disasters? Did the NHMP accurately address the impacts of this event? These questions will help the steering committee determine what components of the mitigation plan need updating. The steering committee will be responsible for updating any deficiencies found in the NHMP. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page EA-5 Mitigation Strategy This section of the NHMP addendum addresses 44 CFR 201.6(c)(3(iv), Mitigation Strategy. The City's mitigation strategy (action items) were first developed during the 2012 NHMP planning process. During this process, the steering committee assessed the City's risk, identified potential issues and developed a mitigation strategy (action items). During the 2017 update process the City re-evaluated their mitigation strategy (action items). During this process action items were updated, noting what accomplishments had been made and whether the actions were still relevant; any new action items were identified at this time (see Volume II, Appendix B for more information on changes to action items). Some actions were developed out of the Upper Rogue Watershed Multi-Hazard Risk Report (Volume II, Appendix H), while additional action items were developed from a 2016 Areas of Mitigation Interest report (Volume II, Appendix 1). Priority Actions The City is listing a set of high priority actions to focus attention on an achievable set of high leverage activities over the next five-years (Table EA-1). The City's priority actions are listed below in the following table. Action Item Pool Table EA-2 presents a "pool" of mitigation actions. This expanded list of actions is available for local consideration as resources, capacity, technical expertise and/or political will become available. Most of these actions carry forward from prior versions of this NHMP (Jackson County and/ or Eagle Point NHMPs). Page EA-6 December 2017 Eagle Point Addendum Table EA-I Eagle Point Priority Action Items Action Lead Potential Funding Mitigation Action Item Timeline Partner Organization(s) Item ID Organization Source(s) Priority Actions Drought(DR) Planning, Administration, Develop a drought preparedness and response plan Legal Counsel, Water Short Term Local Funding Resources, DR #1 to include a city ordinance restricting water during Public Works Districts, Irrigation and (0-2 Years) OWRD periods of low water availability. Watershed Councils, Medford Water Commission Flood (FL) Promote and enhance the use of natural flood prone open space or wetlands as flood storage Building, Code Local Funding Resources, FL #1 areas. Add potential open space preservation areas Ongoing Planning, Public Enforcement, Jackson DLCD, OEM, FEMA, OPRD within the north segment of the City where Works County, ODOT, DEQ (Local Government Grant floodways are identified as wide and potential Program) contributors to flooding and flood effects. Long Term Planning, County GIS, Local Funding Resources, FL #2 Protect City facilities in flood prone areas. (S+ Years) Public Works Jackson County, DLCD DLCD, OEM, FEMA (HMGP, PDM) FL #3 Increase street drainage system capacity on new Local Funding Resources, (New) road improvements in flood prone areas. Ongoing Public Works Oregon DOT DLCD, OEM, FEMA (HMGP, . PDM) FL #4 Improve water retention capacity through new Local Funding Resources, (New) headwall design to reduce water flow in flood Ongoing Public Works DLCD, DLCD DLCD, OEM, FEMA (HMGP, prone areas. PDM) Source: City of Eagle Point NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page EA-7 Table EA-2 Eagle Point Action Item Pool Action Lead Potential Funding Mitigation Action Item Timeline Partner Organization(s) Item ID Organization Source(s) Action Item Pool Multi-Hazard (MH) Public Works, Planning, Maintain public information programs to inform the JCFD#3, Jackson County Local Funding Resources, MH #1 Ongoing City Administrator DEM, Red Cross, Humane public about the mitigation of all natural hazards DLCD, FEMA Society, Shelters, School District Integrate the goals and action items from the Local Funding Resources, Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan into existing Mid-Term Public Works, Building MH #2 Planning DLCD Technical Assistance regulatory documents and programs where (3-5 Years) Codes Division Grant appropriate (Comprehensive Plan) Incorporate flood risk and hazard mitigation Local Funding Resources, MH #3 Mid-Term Public Works, Building (New) concepts into the local Comprehensive Plan when (3-5 Years) Planning Codes Division DLCD Technical Assistance updated in the future. Grant Enhance hazard resistant construction methods (wind, winter storm, landslide, etc.) where possible to reduce damage to utilities and critical facilities. City Planning, MH #4 Ongoing Utility companies Local Funding Resources In part, this may be accomplished by encouraging Public Works electric utility providers to convert existing overhead lines to underground lines. Drought (DR) See priority actions and multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Earthquake (EQ) Promote non-structural mitigation for buildings to Short Term Code Enforcement, Public EQ #1 prevent damage from earthquakes (0-2 Years) City Administrator Works, Planning, Building, Local Funding Resources Jackson County DEM City Hall, insurance Local Funding Resources, EQ #2 Promote earthquake insurance Ongoing City Administrator companies, FEMA, DLCD, OEM, FEMA mortgage companies Source: City of Eagle Point NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Page EA-8 December 2017 Eagle Point Addendum Table EA-2 Eagle Point Action Item Pool (continued) Action Lead Potential Funding Mitigation Action Item Timeline Partner Organization(s) Item ID Fogn,t i ion Source(s) Action Item Pool Promote and coordinate earthquake hazard risk Short Term Public Works, Building, FEMA Risk MAP, DOGAMI, EQ#3 Planning Administration, DOGAMI, mapping for Jackson County and cities (0-2 Years) DLCD, OEM, HMGP, PDM Jackson County Promote structural mitigation to prevent structural Planning, Public Works, Local Funding Resources, EQ #4 damage to city buildings in effort to provide Ongoing Building Administration, DOGAMI, SRGP business continuity Jackson County Emerging Infectious Disease (EID) No specific action item developed for this hazard. See multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Flood (FL) Inform the public about the National Flood Public Works, Code FL #5 Insurance Program and ensure compliance through Ongoing Planning Enforcement, Building, Local Funding Resources, enforcement of local floodplain management Jackson County; FEMA; DLCD, FEMA, ASFPM ordinances. NFIP; CRS/ISO; DLCD Public Works, Code Local Funding Resources, Consider participation in the NFIP's Community Short Term Enforcement, County GIS, FL #6 Planning DLCD Technical Assistance Rating System (CRS) (0-2 Years) Jackson County; FEMA; Grant NFIP; CRS/ISO; DLCD Preserve water quantity and quality by using storm Planning, Jackson County; Local Funding Resources, FL #7 water best management practices (Low Impact Ongoing Public Works DEQ; Rogue Valley Sewer DLCD, FEMA, ASFPM, DEQ Development/ Green Infrastructure). Services Determine if the pinch point at the Antelope Creek I FL #8 Bridge is enough of a concern to warrant the Short Term Public Works Planning, DLCD Local Funding Resources (New) investigation of potential solutions to relieve the (0-2 Years) pinch point. Identify current capabilities and research option to Mid County Emergency Local Funding secure an early warning system (EWS) for dam -Term Public Works Management, OMD-OEM, ng Resources, (New) failure or flood. (3 5 Years) DLCD, USACE, Silver Jackets PDM, FMA, HMGP, PA Source: City of Eagle Point NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page EA-9 Table EA-2 Eagle Point Action Item Pool (continued) Action Lead Potential Funding Mitigation Action Item Timeline Partner Organization(s) Item ID Organization Source (s) Action Item Pool Landslide (LS) No specific action item developed for this hazard. See multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Severe Weather (SW, Windstorm and Winter Storm) Promote the benefits of tree-trimming and tree Planning, Utility companies, Short Term Local Funding Resources, SW #1 replacement programs and help to coordinate local Public Works local Arborists, landscaping (0-Z Years) HMA, Utilities efforts by public and private agencies. services and tree services Volcano (VE) No specific action item developed for this hazard. See multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Wildfire (WF) Public Works, Administration, Jackson Partner with Jackson County on Implementation of County, JCFD#3, Bureau of Fire and Rescue Districts, WF #1 Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Ongoing Planning Land Management - State Office of Emergency Protection Plan and outreach projects Medford District, Oregon Management, Oregon Department of Forestry, Department of Forestry Office of State Fire Marshall Administration, Public Reduce wildfire fuels/Investigate "Firewise Works, Jackson County, WF #2 Community" Program Ongoing Planning JCFD#3, Office of State Fire Local Funding Resources Marshall, Oregon Department of Forestry Source: City of Eagle Point NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Page EA-10 December 2017 Eagle Point Addendum Risk Assessment This section of the NHMP addendum addresses 44 CFR 201.6(b)(2) - Risk Assessment. In addition, this chapter can serve as the factual basis for addressing Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Hazards. Assessing natural hazard risk has three phases: • Phase 1: Identify hazards that can impact the jurisdiction. This includes an evaluation of potential hazard impacts -type, location, extent, etc. • Phase 2: Identify important community assets and system vulnerabilities. Example vulnerabilities include people, businesses, homes, roads, historic places and drinking water sources. • Phase 3: Evaluate the extent to which the identified hazards overlap with or have an impact on, the important assets identified by the community. The local level rationale for the identified mitigation strategies (action items) is presented herein and within Volume I, Sections 2 and 3. The risk assessment process is graphically depicted in Figure EA-1 below. Ultimately, the goal of hazard mitigation is to reduce the area of risk, where hazards overlap vulnerable systems. Figure EA-1 Understanding Risk U S G S Understanding Risk DISASII,t RLSILILNCL 1~% science for a changing world Natural Hazard ~\Vulnerable System Potential Catastrophic Exposure, Sensitivity and Chronic Physical Events / Risk and Resilience of: • Past Recurrence Intervals I t • Population • Future Probability I of I • Economic Generation • Speed of Onset I I • Built Environment •Magnitude t Disaster, Academic and Research Function • Duration t / • Cultural Assets • Spatial Extent / • Infrastructure Ability, Resources and Willingness to: • Mitigate • Respond • Prepare • Recover Source: USGS- Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience Research Collaboration, 2006 Hazard Analysis The Eagle Point steering committee developed their hazard vulnerability assessment (HVA), using their previous HVA and the County's HVA (Volume Il, Appendix C) as a reference. Changes from the County's HVA were made where appropriate to reflect distinctions in vulnerability and risk from natural hazards unique to Eagle Point, which are discussed throughout this addendum. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page EA-11 Table EA-3 shows the HVA matrix for Eagle Point listing each hazard in order of rank from high to low. For local governments, conducting the hazard analysis is a useful step in planning for hazard mitigation, response and recovery. The method provides the jurisdiction with sense of hazard priorities, but does not predict the occurrence of a particular hazard. Two chronic hazards (emerging infectious disease and winter storm) and one catastrophic hazard (Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake) rank as the top hazard threats to the City (Top Tier). Windstorm, flood, drought and wildfire comprise the next highest ranked hazards (Middle Tier), while the crustal earthquake, volcano and landslide hazards comprise the lowest ranked hazards (Bottom Tier). Table EA-3 Hazard Analysis Matrix - Eagle Point Maximum Total Threat Hazard Hazard Hazard History Vulnerability Threat Probability Score Rank Tiers F *I q.ia Ca;raciia) 2 SO M) /0 22 tl Top Emerging Infectious Disease 12 50 100 49 211 #2 Tier Winter Storm 20 50 60 70 200 #3 Windstorm 20 20 60 70 170 #4 Flood 20 20 50 70 160 #5 Middle Drought 10 20 50 63 143 #6 Tier Wildfire 20 20 50 35 125 #7 Ea rthquake(Crustal) 2 25 50 21 98 #8 Bottom Volcano 2 5 50 7 64 #9 Tier Landslide 2 5 10 21 38 #10 Source: Eagle Point NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Table EA-4 categorizes the probability and vulnerability scores from the hazard analysis for the City and compares the results to the assessment completed by the Jackson County NHMP Steering Committee (Volume II, Appendix C). Variations between the City and County are noted in bold text. Table EA-4 Probability and Vulnerability Comparison Eagle Point Jackson County Hazard Probability Vulnerability Probability Vulnerability Drought High Moderate High Moderate Ea rthquake (Cascadi a) High High High High Ea rthquake (Crusta 1) Low Moderate Low Moderate Emerging Infectious Disease Moderate High Moderate High Flood High Moderate High Moderate Landslide Low Low High Low Volcano Low Low Low Low Wildfire Moderate Moderate High Moderate Windstorm High Moderate High Moderate Winter Storm High High High Moderate Source: Eagle Point NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Page EA-12 December 2017 Eagle Point Addendum Community Characteristics Table EA-5 and the following section provides information on City specific demographics and assets. For additional information on the characteristics of Eagle Point, in terms of geography, environment, population, demographics, employment and economics, as well as housing and transportation see Volume I, Section 2. Many of these community characteristics can affect how natural hazards impact communities and how communities choose to plan for natural hazard mitigation. Considering the City specific assets during the planning process can assist in identifying appropriate measures for natural hazard mitigation. Between 2012 and 2016 the City grew by 215 people (2.5%) and median household income decreased by about 3% (Volume I, Section 2). New development has complied with the standards of the Oregon Building Code and the city's development code including their floodplain ordinance. Transportation/Infrastructure In the City of Eagle Point, transportation has played a major role in shaping the community. Eagle Point's commercial areas developed along primary routes and residential development followed nearby. Today, mobility plays an important role in Eagle Point and the daily experience of its residents and businesses as they move from point A to point B. The central travel corridor is along Highway 62. Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) provides public transit. By far, motor vehicles represent the dominant mode of travel through and within Eagle Point. Economy A diverse range of businesses have chosen to locate in Eagle Point. In addition, Eagle Point's proximity to the Medford Airport give it market access that is more favorable than usual for a rural town. According to the economic profile of the City's Comprehensive Plan, Eagle Point finds their main economic drivers in the sectors of tourism, manufacturing and commercial retail. i Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page EA-13 Table EA-5 Community Characteristics 2012 Population 8,550 Housing Units 2016 Population 8,765 Single-Family 7,369 71% 2035 Forecasted Population* 14,839 Multi-Family 2,687 26% Race and Ethnic Categories Mobile Homes 316 3% White 91% Year Structure Built Black/African American 0% Pre-1970 4,073 39% American Indian and Alaska Native 1% 1970-1989 2,966 29% Asian 1% 1990 or later 3,333 32% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander < 1% Housing Tenure and Vacancy Some Other Race < 1% Owner-occupied 5,131 54% Two or More Races 7% Renter-occupied 4,315 46% Hispanic or Latino 5% Vacant 609 6% Limited or No English Spoken 0% Eagle Point is in Jackson County in Vulnerable Age Groups southwestern Oregon. The City has grown Less than 15 Years 1,919 22% steadily since its incorporation in 1911 and 65 Years and Over 1,244 14% has an area today of 2.57 square miles. It is in Disability Status the north central region of the county, Total Population 1,635 19% located about 15 miles northeast of the City Children 102 1% Seniors 641 7% of Medford and immediately northeast of the unincorporated community of White City. The City and most of Jackson County are within Households by Income Category the Rogue and Umpqua watersheds. Less than $15,000 264 8% $15,000-$29,999 625 20% Eagle Point experiences a relatively mild $30,000-$44,999 414 13% climate with four distinct seasons that comes $45,000-$59,999 385 12% from its position on the west coast of North $60,000-$74,999 497 16% America and within the mountains of the $75,000-$99,999 343 11% region. The town is just off Highway 62 and $100,000-$199,999 600 19% about 40 miles north of the California border $200,000 or more 43 1% and at the southern end of the Rogue Valley Median Household Income $55,474 at approximately 1,305 feet above sea level. Poverty Rates Because of its location, Eagle Point has a Total Population 1,891 22% climate somewhat intermediate to central Children 949 42% California and northern Oregon. Eagle Point Seniors 75 6% averages about 35 inches of rain per year due Housing Cost Burden to being inland from the coast and in the rain Owners with Mortgage 26% shadow of the nearby mountains. The City of Renters 59% Eagle Point includes a diversity of land uses Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American but is zoned primarily residential. Community Survey; Portland State University, Population Research Center. For more information see Volume I, Section 2. Note: * = Population forecast within UGB Page EA-14 December 2017 Eagle Point Addendum I ~i Community Assets This section outlines the resources, facilities and infrastructure that, if damaged, could significantly impact the public safety, economic conditions and environmental integrity of Eagle Point. Critical Facilities Facilities that are critical to government response and recovery activities (i.e. life, safety, property and environmental protection). These facilities include: 911 Centers, Emergency Operations Centers, Police and Fire Stations, Public Works facilities, sewer and water facilities, hospitals, bridges, roads, shelters and more. Facilities that, if damaged, could cause serious secondary impacts may also be considered "critical." A hazardous material facility is one example of this type of critical facility. Fire Stations: Private: • Jackson County Fire District #3 • Ray's • Walmart Law Enforcement/City Buildings • Ace Hardware • Eagle Point/City Hall Police Department (EOC) Essential Facilities Facilities that are essential to the continued delivery of key government services and/or that may significantly impact the public's ability to recover from the emergency. These facilities may include: City buildings such as the Public Services Building, the City Hall and other public facilities such as schools. Hospitals/Immediate Medical Care Public Schools: Facilities: • Eagle Point High School • Providence Medical Group- • Eagle Point Middle School Eagle Point • Eagle Rock Elementary School • Providence Eagle Point • Hillside Elementary School Physical Therapy Lake Creek Learning Center • Eagle Point Eye Care Upper Rogue Center for • Eagle Point Medical Center Educational Opportunities • Optimal Behavioral Health • Willow Wind Community • Jackson County Physical Learning Center (CLQ Therapy • Crater Lake Charter Academy • Complete Care Chiropractic/ Physical Therapy Private Schools: • St. John Lutheran Church and City/ County Buildings: School • Eagle Point Library • Eagle Point Museum Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page EA-15 Potential Shelter Sites: • Saint John Lutheran Church • Church on the Hill • Eagle Point Assembly of God • Eagle Point Community Bible, Church • Butte Creek Baptist Church • Campus Life • LDS Church Infrastructure: Infrastructure that provides services for the City include: Transportation Networks: Special Service Districts: • Highway 62 • Southern Oregon Education • Royal Ave Service District • Shasta Ave • Talent Irrigation District • Crystal Drive • Fire District #5 • Dianne Way • Phoenix/ Talent School District • Hannon Road • Medford Water Commission • Robert Trent Jones Blvd. Private Utilities: • Alta Vista Road • Stephens Road • Pacific Power • Main St. Avista • Charter/Dish/Direct TV Water Facilities: . Rogue Valley Sewer • 4 tanks (stormwater) . 1 Pump Stations • Ashland Sanitary • 1 Test well near Highway 62 • RVS Transfer Station r Page EA-16 December 2017 Eagle Point Addendum Hazard Characteristics Drought The steering committee determined that the City's probability for drought is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to drought is moderate (which is the same as the County's rating). The probability rating increased and the vulnerability decreased since the previous version of this NHMP addendum. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of drought hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event. Due to the climate of Jackson County, past and present weather conditions have shown an increasing potential for drought. The City receives its main water supply from Big Butte Springs through the Medford Water Commission, supplemented by the Rogue River in the summer months. For more information on the future of Eagle Point's water supply visit their website. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Earthquake (Cascadia) The steering committee determined that the City's probability for a Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) earthquake is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to a CSZ earthquake is high (which is the same as the County's rating). Previously, the earthquake hazard profile was a single risk assessment, which is now divided into two separate earthquake hazards: crustal earthquake and Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) earthquake. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of earthquake hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event. Generally, an event that affects the County is likely to affect Eagle Point as well. The causes and characteristics of an earthquake event are appropriately described within Volume I, Section 3 as well as the location and extent of potential hazards. Previous occurrences are well documented within Volume I, Section 3 and the community impacts described by the County would generally be the same for Eagle Point as well. The local faults, the county's proximity to the Cascadia Subduction Zone, potential slope instability and the prevalence of certain soils subject to liquefaction and amplification combine to give the county a high-risk profile. Due to the expected pattern of damage resulting from a CSZ event, the Oregon Resilience Plan divides the State into four distinct zones and places Jackson County predominately within the "Valley Zone" (Valley Zone, from the summit of the Coast Range to the summit of the Cascades). Within the Southwest Oregon region, damage and shaking is expected to be strong and widespread - an event will be disruptive to daily life and commerce and the main priority is expected to be restoring services to business and residents.' Figure EA-2 displays relative shaking hazards from a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake event. As shown in the figure below, the area of i Ibid. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page EA-17 greatest concern within the City of Eagle Point (darker areas) is along the Little Butte Creek corridor. Figure EA-2 Cascadia Subduction Zone IL -I Layers Currently Shown _ Cascadia Earthquake Hazard Cascadia Earthquake Expected Shaking . Violent ■ Severe Very Strong Strong Point Moderate + ~ttven O Light 3 k m 2mi Source: Oregon FiazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (DOGAMI As noted in the community profile, approximately 38% of residential buildings were built prior to 1990, which increases the City's vulnerability to the earthquake hazard. Information on specific public buildings' (schools and public safety) estimated seismic resistance, determined by DOGAMI in 2007, is shown in Table EA-6; each "X" represents one building within that ranking category. Of the facilities evaluated by DOGAMI using a Rapid Visual Survey (RVS), zero (0) have a very high (100% chance) collapse potential and four (4) have a high (greater than 10% chance) collapse potential. In addition to building damages, utility (electric power, water, wastewater, natural gas) and transportation systems (bridges, pipelines) are also likely to experience significant damage. Utility systems will be significantly damaged, including damaged buildings and damage to utility infrastructure, including water and wastewater treatment plants and equipment at high voltage substations (especially 230 kV or higher which are more vulnerable than lower voltage substations). Buried pipe systems will suffer extensive damage with approximately one break per mile in soft soil areas. There would be a much lower rate of pipe breaks in other areas. Restoration of utility services will require substantial mutual aid from utilities outside of the affected area. Page EA-18 December 2017 Eagle Point Addendum Table EA-6 Rapid Visual Survey Scores Level of Collapse Potential Low Moderate High Very High !Facility Site ID* 1%) (>1%) (>10%) (100%) Schools Eagle Point High School (Eagle Point SD 9) Jack_sch19 X X, X, x (203 N Platt Ave) Eagle Point Middle School (Eagle Point SD 9) (477 Reese Creek Road) Jack_sch18 X Eagle Rock Elementary School (Eagle Point SD 9) Jack sch39 X (1280 Barton Rd) Little Butte School (Eagle Point SD 9) Jack sch44 X X X (12 N Shasta Ave) - NO LONGER IN USE Source: DOGAMI 2007. Open File Report 0-07-02. Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment Using Rapid Visual Assessment. - Site ID is referenced on the RVS Jackson County Map Mitigation Successes Seismic retrofit grant awards per the Seismic Rehabilitation Grant Programz have been funded to retrofit Jackson County Fire District 3 - Eagle Point Station (Phase Two of 2015- 2017 grant award, $46,760). Multi-Hazard Risk Report: Upper Rogue Watershed The Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) conducted a multi- hazard risk assessment (Risk Report) for portions of Jackson County (Upper Rogue Watershed) including Eagle Point. The study was funded through the FEMA Risk MAP program and was completed in 2017. The Risk Report provides a quantitative risk assessment that informs communities of their risks related to certain natural hazards. The City hereby incorporates the risk assessment into this addendum by reference to provide greater detail to hazard sensitivity and exposure (Volume II, Appendix H). The Risk Report identifies that during a CSZ earthquake, approximately 284 buildings will be damaged (0 essential facilities) for a total loss of $12.1 million (a loss ratio of 2.6%). In addition, about 164 residents may be displaced (2% of the population). Earthquake (Crustal) The steering committee determined that the City's probability for a crustal earthquake is low (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to crustal earthquake is moderate (which is the same as the County's rating). Previously, the earthquake hazard profile was a single risk assessment which is now divided into two separate earthquake hazards: crustal earthquake and Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) earthquake. 2 The Seismic Rehabilitation Grant Program (SRGP) is a state of Oregon competitive grant program that provides funding for the seismic rehabilitation of critical public buildings, particularly public schools and emergency services facilities. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page EA-19 Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of earthquake hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event. Generally, an event that affects the County is likely to affect Eagle Point as well. The causes and characteristics of an earthquake event are appropriately described within Volume I, Section 3 as well as the location and extent of potential hazards. Previous occurrences are well documented within Volume I, Section 3 and the community impacts described by the County would generally be the same for Eagle Point as well. Earthquake-induced damages are difficult to predict and depend on the size, type and location of the earthquake, as well as site-specific building and soil characteristics. Presently, it is not possible to accurately forecast the location or size of earthquakes, but it is possible to predict the behavior of soil at any particular site. In many major earthquakes, damages have primarily been caused by the behavior of the soil. Figure EA-3 displays relative liquefaction hazards, the majority of the City is within an area of moderate soft soils (liquefaction hazard orange areas). Figure EA-3 Active Faults and Soft Soils Layers Currently Shown Earthquake Hazard wz Active Faults 1 _ ~ t~Ion Earthquake Epicenter (1971-2008) Rd t!nt` ter"I 0 5 - 7 Magnitude = r F- Q 3-5 7 Carl,. PrriCtt Q 2 3 Dry, Rd Adi 0- 1 High ,A~ta',rzs.ti ~ Moderate Low I.'0 l , h ■ ltyt# r _ ?111' n... ~t = 3km - Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (DOGAMI) Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Page EA-20 December 2017 Eagle Point Addendum Emerging Infectious Disease The steering committee determined that the City's probability for emerging infectious disease is moderate (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability is high (which is the same as the County's rating). The City did not assess the emerging infectious disease hazard in the previous version of their NHMP. Emerging infectious diseases are those that have recently appeared in a population or those whose incidence or geographic range is rapidly increasing or threatens to increase. Emerging infections may be caused by biological pathogens (e.g., virus, parasite, fungus or bacterium) and may be: previously unknown or undetected biological pathogens, biological pathogens that have spread to new geographic areas or populations, previously known biological pathogens whose role in specific diseases was previously undetected and biological pathogens whose incidence of disease was previously declining but whose incidence of disease has reappeared (re-emerging infectious disease).' Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of emerging infectious disease, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. Generally, an event that affects the County is likely to affect the City as well. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Flood The steering committee determined that the City's probability for flood is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to flood is moderate (which is higher than the County's rating). These ratings did not change since the previous version of this NHMP addendum. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of flood hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event. Portions of Eagle Point have areas of flood plains (special flood hazard areas, SFHA). These areas are mostly concentrated along the Little Butte Creek corridor and Buchannan Ditch, with additional flood potential seen along Antelope Creek to the south of the City (Figure EA-4). Furthermore, other portions of Eagle Point, outside of the mapped floodplains, are also subject to flooding from local storm water drainage. The City is at risk from two types of flooding: riverine and urban. Riverine flooding occurs when streams overflow their banks and inundate low-lying areas. This is a natural process that adds sediment and nutrients to fertile floodplain areas. It usually results from prolonged periods of precipitation over a wide geographic area. Most areas are generally flooded by low velocity sheets of water. Urban flooding occurs as land is converted to impervious surfaces and hydrologic systems are changed. Precipitation is collected and transmitted to streams at a much faster rate, causing floodwaters that rise rapidly and peak with violent force. During urban flooding, storm drains can back up and cause localized 3 Baylor College of Medicine, Emerging Infectious Disease, URL: https://www.bcm.edu/departments/molecular-virology-and- microbiology/emerging-infections-and - biodefense/emerging-infectious-diseases, accessed September 17, 2017. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page EA-21 flooding of streets and basements. These flooding events and subsequent damages are commonly caused by the behavior of Little Butte Creek, Antelope Creek and their tributaries. Figure EA-4 Special Flood Hazard Area Layers Currently Shown © Flood Hazard _ Batton Rd ttrrtr rsr.,,. Type and Source of Flood Data Effective FEMA 100 yr Flood f_a~le Preliminary FEMA 100 yr Flood hO1O t Linn Rd State Digitized Flood Data 3t Stevens Rd Q3 FEMA Flood Data ' I RA EagW Pbinl Go1l Courm Alta k,;51 a RJ t I5 n l Ite %lug* -.clt' Rd E Dutton Rd VVIt i t e 3km (~11 N. A,,,nueH = A _ y 2 m ij'k_~ e Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (DOGAMI) Floods can have a devastating impact on almost every aspect of the community, including private property damage, public infrastructure damage and economic loss from business interruption. It is important for the City to be aware of flooding impacts and assess its level of risk. The City has been proactive in mitigating flood hazards by purchasing floodplain property. Little Butte Creek is the chief source of flooding in Eagle Point. The creek, which has its origins in the Rogue River, is relatively flat and has a drainage area of approximately 354 square miles throughout the entire county. The economic losses due to business closures often total more than the initial property losses that result from flood events. Business owners and their employees are significantly impacted by flood events. Direct damages from flooding are the most common impacts, but indirect damages, such as diminished clientele, can be just as debilitating to a business. The FEMA Flood Insurance Study (May 3, 2011) has a brief history of flooding in Jackson County and Eagle Point (Volume I, Section 3). Currently, no critical or essential facilities are located in the floodplain. Any new development and substantial improvements to existing development, within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) is required to have two-feet of Page EA-22 December 2017 Eagle Point Addendum freeboard.4 The ordinance also limits the development of critical facilities within the AE zone and imposes a three-foot freeboard or be built to the height of the 500-year flood, whichever is higher.5 If major flooding affected all of the bridges in Eagle Point, traffic flow in an out of the City would be significantly affected, but would not cut all off all avenues. The risk report identifies the Main Street Pedestrian Bridge (Antelope Creek Bridge) as a pinch point, "The bridge sits on large concrete piers near the edge of the streambed on both sides, which could potentially trap debris during flood events and cause water to channel unnaturally and back up upstream. "The amount of property in the flood plain is not a large area but damage could be significant as it would affect residential, commercial and public property. Floodwaters can affect building foundations, seep into basements or cause damage to the interior, exterior and contents of buildings, dependent upon the velocity and depth of the water and by the presence of floating debris. The City sewer system can overflow during flood events and cause further property damage. Multi-Hazard Risk Report: Upper Rogue Watershed The Risk Report (Volume II, Appendix H) identifies that during a "1% Annual Chance" Flood event (100-Year Flood) approximately 29 buildings will be damaged (0 essential facilities) for a total loss of $34,000 (a loss ratio of less than 1%). In addition, about 67 residents may be displaced (less than 1% of the population). For mitigation planning purposes, it is important to recognize that flood risk for a community is not limited only to areas of mapped floodplains. Other portions of Eagle Point outside of the mapped floodplains may also be at relatively high risk from over bank flooding from streams too small to be mapped by FEMA or from local storm water drainage. In addition, the City is at low risk to flooding from dam inundation from Fish Lake Dam. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) FEMA updated the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) in 2011 (effective May 3, 2011; revised January 19, 2018). Table EA-7 shows that as of June 2016, Eagle Point has 84 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policies in force. Of those, 42 are for properties that were constructed before the initial FIRM. The last Community Assistance Visit (CAV) for Eagle Point was on April 5, 1995. Eagle Point does not currently participate in the Community Rating System (CRS). The table shows that the majority of flood insurance policies are for residential structures, primarily single-family homes. There has been a total of 28 paid claims for $264,770. The City complies with the NFIP through enforcement of their flood damage prevention ordinance and their floodplain management program. 4 Eagle Point Municipal Code, Flood Hazard Prevention, Chapter 15.20, http://www.codepublishing.com/OR/EaglePoint/- 5 Ibid. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page EA-23 The Community Repetitive Loss record for Eagle Point identifies two (2) Repetitive Loss Properties6 and zero (0) Severe Repetitive Loss Properties7. For details on the repetitive loss properties see Volume I, Section 3. Table EA-7 Flood Insurance Detail Pices by Building Type Effective Initial Total Pre-FIRM 2 to 4 Other Jurisdiction FIRM and FIS FIRM ate Policies Policies mFamily Residential Residential A Zone Severe Last Substantial Repetitive Repetitive Community Insurance Total Pre-FIRM Damage L:m alPaid Loss Loss CRS Class Assistance Jurisdiction in Force Paid Claims Claims Paid Claims ount Structures Properties Rating Visit EaglePolnt $ 20,526,500 28 17 o $ 264,770 2 0 4/5/1995 Source: Information compiled by Department of Land Conservation and Development, July 2016. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Landslide The steering committee determined that the City's probability for landslide is low (which is lower than the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to landslide is low (which is the same as the County's rating). The probability rating has decreased since the previous version of this NHMP addendum. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of landslide hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. The potential for landslide in Eagle Point is almost negligible with the possible exception of very small areas immediately adjacent to stream channels and along distinct slope increases within the City. The structures and infrastructure within these susceptible areas of the City are particularly vulnerable to damages from landslides. Landslide susceptibility exposure for Eagle Point is shown in Figure EA-5. Most of Eagle Point demonstrates a low susceptibility to landslide exposure, with corridors of moderate susceptibility concentrated around the outer edges of the Little Butte Creek corridor and in the immediate north and south portions of the City along the municipal boundary. 6 A Repetitive Loss (RL) property is any insurable building for which two or more claims of more than $1,000 were paid by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) within any rolling ten-year period, since 1978. A RL property may or may not be currently insured by the NFIP. 7 A Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) property is a single family property (consisting of 1 to 4 residences) that is covered under flood insurance by the NFIP and has incurred flood-related damage for which 4 or more separate claims payments have been paid under flood insurance coverage, with the amount of each claim payment exceeding $5,000 and with cumulative amount of such claims payments exceeding $20,000; or for which at least 2 separate claims payments have been made with the cumulative amount of such claims exceeding the reported value of the property. I Page EA-24 December 2017 Eagle Point Addendum it Approximately 5% of Eagle Point has high and approximately 62% moderate, landslide susceptibility exposure.8 Note that even if a jurisdiction has a high percentage of area in a high or very high landslide exposure susceptibility zone, this does not mean there is a high risk, because risk is the intersection of hazard and assets. Figure EA-5 Landslide Susceptibility Exposure Layers Currently Shown _ Landslide Hazard^ Landslide Susceptibility Low - Landsliding Unlikely , ,t,,G,. Moderate - Landsliding Possible High - Landsliding Likely ❑ F:.gle Point, Very High - Existing Landslide ! Y e 40. Stever ' 00- 1 b syF ~r - • ~ cis _ ' Altd vU.., - i~?1 3km 2 mi /i Source: Oregon FiazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (DOGAMI) Multi-Hazard Risk Report: Upper Rogue Watershed The Risk Report (Volume II, Appendix H) identifies that there are 26 buildings (0 essential facilities) exposed to High or Very High landslide susceptibility for a total potential loss of $2.65 million (a loss ratio of less than 1%). In addition, about 43 residents may be displaced (less than 1% of the population). Potential landslide-related impacts are adequately described within Volume I, Section 3 and include infrastructural damages, economic impacts (due to isolation and/or arterial road closures), property damages and obstruction to evacuation routes. Rain-induced landslides and debris flows can potentially occur during any winter in Jackson County and thoroughfares beyond City limits are susceptible to obstruction as well. The most common type of landslides in Jackson County are slides caused by erosion. Slides move in contact with the underlying surface, are generally slow moving and can be deep. 8 DOGAMI Open-File Report, 0-16-02, Landslide Susceptibility Overview Map of Oregon (2016) Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page EA-25 Rainfall-initiated landslides tend to be smaller; while earthquake induced landslides may be quite large. All soil types can be affected by natural landslide triggering conditions. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Severe Weather Severe weather in can account for a variety of intense and potentially damaging weather events. These events include windstorms and winter storms. The following section describes the unique probability and vulnerability of each identified weather hazard. Other more abrupt or irregular events such as hail are also described in this section. Windstorm The steering committee determined that the City's probability for windstorm is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to windstorm is moderate (which is the same as the County's rating). The City did not assess the windstorm hazard in the previous version of their NHMP as a unique hazard (it was assessed as a component of the severe winter storm and windstorm hazard). The previous rating was applied to both windstorm and winter storm and the ratings were modified slightly to account for the differences in vulnerability and risk to the hazard. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of windstorm hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. Because windstorms typically occur during winter months, they are sometimes accompanied by ice, freezing rain, flooding and very rarely, snow. Othersevere weather events that may accompany windstorms, including thunderstorms, hail, lightning strikes and tornadoes are generally negligible for Eagle Point. Volume I, Section 3 describes the impacts caused by windstorms, including power outages, downed trees, heavy precipitation, building damages and storm-related debris. Additionally, transportation and economic disruptions result as well. Damage from high winds generally has resulted in downed utility lines and trees. Electrical power can be out anywhere from a few hours to several days. Outdoor signs have also suffered damage. If the high winds are accompanied by rain (which they often are), blowing leaves and debris clog drainage-ways, which in turn causes localized urban flooding. Please review Volume I, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Winter Storm (Snow/Ice) The steering committee determined that the City's probability for winterstorm is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to winter storm is high (which is higher than the County's rating). The City did not assess the winterstorm hazard in the previous version of their NHMP as a unique hazard (it was assessed as a component of the severe winter storm and windstorm hazard). The previous rating was applied to both windstorm and winter storm and the ratings were modified slightly to account for the differences in vulnerability and risk to the hazard. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of winter storm hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. Severe winter Page EA-26 December 2017 Eagle Point Addendum storms can consist of rain, freezing rain, ice, snow, cold temperatures and wind. They originate from troughs of low pressure offshore that ride along the jet stream during fall, winter and early spring months. Severe winter storms affecting the City typically originate in the Gulf of Alaska or in the central Pacific Ocean. These storms are most common from November through March. Major winter storms can and have occurred in the Eagle Point area and while they typically do not cause significant damage, they are frequent and have the potential to impact economic activity. Road and rail closures due to winter weather are an uncommon occurrence, but can interrupt commuter and commercial traffic. The City maintains roads with a snow-plow and sanding capability. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Volcano The steering committee determined that the City's probability for a volcanic event is low (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to a volcanic event is low (which is the same as the County's rating). These ratings did not change since the previous version of this NHMP addendum. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of volcanic hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. Generally, an event that affects the County is likely to affect Eagle Point as well. Eagle Point is very unlikely to experience anything more than volcanic ash during a volcanic event. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Wildfire The steering committee determined that the City's probability for wildfire is moderate (which is lower than the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to wildfire is moderate (which is the same as the County's rating). These ratings did not change since the previous version of this NHMP addendum. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of wildland fire hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. There have been no large wildland events in or near Eagle Point. The location and extent of a wildland fire vary depending on fuel, topography and weather conditions. Weather and urbanization conditions are primarily at cause for the hazard level. Wildland fires in Eagle Point are rare. The potential community impacts and vulnerabilities described in Volume I, Section 3 are generally accurate for the City as well. The Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Protection Plan (RVIFP, updated 2017), assesses wildfire risk, maps wildland urban interface areas and includes actions to mitigate wildfire risk. The City is included in the RVIFP and will update the City's wildfire risk assessment if the fire plan presents better data during future updates (an action item is included within Volume I, Section 4 to participate in updates to the integrated fire plan and to continue to maintain and update their RVIFP). Eagle Point is within an area of low wildfire prone urban landscape. The City hereby incorporates the RVIFP into this addendum by reference to provide greater detail to sensitivity and exposure to the wildfire hazard. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page EA-27 Property can be damaged or destroyed with one fire as structures, vegetation and other flammables easily merge to become unpredictable and hard to manage. Other factors that affect ability to effectively respond to a wildfire include access to the location and to water, response time from the fire station, availability of personnel and equipment and weather (e.g., heat, low humidity, high winds and drought). Multi-Hazard Risk Report: Upper Rogue Watershed The Risk Report (Volume II, Appendix H) identifies that there are 603 buildings (0 essential facilities) exposed to high wildfire risk for a total potential loss of $101 million (a loss ratio of 21%). In addition, about 1,362 residents may be displaced (16% of the population). Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Summary Figure EA-6 presents a summary of the hazard analysis for Eagle Point and compares the results to the assessment completed by Jackson County. The top hazards for the City are Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake, emerging infectious disease and winter storms. Page EA-28 December 2017 Eagle Point Addendum Figure EA-6 Overall Hazard Analysis Comparison - Eagle Point/Jackson County 240 222 222 211 211 200 185 180 170 170 160 160 163 1435 125 125 120 98 98 G4 64 0 L Earthquake Emerging Winter Storm Windstorm Flood Drought Wildfire Earthquake Volcano Landslide (Cascadia) Infectious (Crustal) Disease ■ Eagle Point ■ County Source: City of Eagle Point NHMP Steering Committee and Jackson County NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page EA-29 I, This page intentionally left blank. Page EA-30 December 2017 Eagle Point Addendum CITY OF JACKSONVILLE ADDENDUM Purpose Jacksonville's addendum to the Jackson County Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (MNHMP, NHMP) was completed in 2017. This addendum supplements information contained in Volume I (Basic Plan) which serves as the NHMP foundation and Volume II (Appendices) which provide additional information. This addendum meets the following requirements: • Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption §201.6(c)(5), • Multi-Jurisdictional Participation §201.6(a)(3), • Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Strategy §201.6(c)(3)(iv) and • Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment §201.6(c)(2)(iii). Mitigation Plan Mission The NHMP mission states the purpose and defines the primary functions of the NHMP. It is intended to be adaptable to any future changes made to the NHMP and need not change unless the community's environment or priorities change. The City concurs with the mission statement developed during the Jackson County planning process Volume I, Section 4: Protect life, property and the environment, reduce risk and prevent loss from natural hazard events through coordination and cooperation among public and private partners. Mitigation Plan Goals Mitigation plan goals are more specific statements of direction that Jackson County citizens and public and private partners can take while working to reduce the City's risk from natural hazards. These statements of direction form a bridge between the broad mission statement and particular action items. The goals listed here serve as checkpoints as agencies and organizations begin implementing mitigation action items. The City concurs with the goals developed during the Jackson County planning process (Volume 1, Section 4). All of the NHMP goals are important and are listed below in no particular order of priority. Establishing community priorities within action items neither negates nor eliminates any goals, but it establishes which action items to consider to implement first, should funding become available. Below is a list of the NHMP goals: GOAL 1: EMERGENCY SERVICES Minimize life safety issues by promoting, strengthening and coordinating emergency response plans. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page JA-1 GOAL 2: EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Further the public's awareness and understanding of natural hazards and potential risk, including economic vulnerability and mitigation efforts. GOAL 3: PREVENTION Reduce the threat of loss of life and property from natural hazards by incorporating information on known hazards and providing incentives to make hazard mitigation planning a priority in land use policies and decisions, including plan implementation. GOAL 4: PROPERTY PROTECTION Lessen impact from natural disasters on individual properties, businesses and public facilities by increasing awareness at the individual level and encouraging activities that can prevent damage and loss of life from natural hazards. GOAL 5: PARTNERSHIP AND COORDINATION Identify mitigation or risk reduction measures that address multiple areas (i.e., environment, transportation, telecommunications); Coordinate public/private sector participation in planning and implementing mitigation projects throughout the City; and seek funding and resource partnerships for future mitigation efforts. GOAL 6: NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION Preserve and rehabilitate natural systems to serve natural hazard mitigation functions (i.e., floodplains, wetlands, watershed and urban interface areas). GOAL 7: STRUCTURAL PROTECTIONS When applicable, utilize structural mitigation activities to minimize risks associated with natural hazards. NHMP Process, Participation and Adoption This section of the NHMP addendum addresses 44 CFR 201.6(c)(5), Plan Adoption and 44 CFR 201.6(a)(3), Participation. The first update of the Jackson County NHMP was approved by FEMA on February 4, 2013. To maintain compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K), the NHMP required an update by February 3, 2018. The Jacksonville addendum was added with the 2017 update of the Jackson County MNHMP. The Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience (OPDR) at the University of Oregon's Community Service Center (CSC) partnered with the Oregon Military Department's Office of Emergency Management (OEM), Jackson County and Jacksonville to update their NHMP. This project is funded through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) FY15 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Competitive Grant Program (PDMC-PL-10-PR-2015-003). Members of the Jacksonville NHMP steering committee also participated in the County NHMP update process (Volume II, Appendix B). Page JA-2 December 2017 Jacksonville Addendum By creating a NHMP, locally adopting it and having it approved by FEMA, Jacksonville will gain eligibility for FEMA Hazard Mitigation, Pre-Disaster Mitigation and Flood Mitigation Assistance grant program funds. The Jackson County NHMP and Jacksonville addendum, are the result of a collaborative effort between citizens, public agencies, non-profit organizations, the private sector and regional organizations. A project steering committee guided the process of developing the NHMP. The Jacksonville Fire Chief served as the designated convener of the NHMP update and will take the lead in implementing, maintaining and updating the addendum to the Jackson County NHMP in collaboration with the designated convener of the Jackson County NHMP (Emergency Manager). Representatives from the City of Jacksonville steering committee met formally and informally, to discuss updates to their addendum (Volume II, Appendix B). The steering committee reviewed and revised the City's addendum, with particular focus on the NHMP's risk assessment and mitigation strategy (action items). This addendum reflects decisions made at the designated meetings and during subsequent work and communication with Jackson County Emergency Management and the OPDR. The Jacksonville Steering Committee was comprised of the following representatives: • Convener, Devin Hull, Jacksonville Fire Chief • Stacey Bray, City of Jacksonville Administration • Dick Converse, City of Jacksonville Planning • Ian Foster, City of Jacksonville Planning Public participation was achieved with the establishment of the steering committee, which was comprised of City officials representing different departments and sectors and members of the public. The steering committee was closely involved throughout the development of the NHMP and served as the local oversight body for the NHMP's development. Community members were provided an opportunity for comment via the NHMP review process and through a survey administered by the OPDR and publicized by the participating jurisdictions (Volume II, Appendix B). The Jackson County NHMP was approved by FEMA on [Month] [Day], 2018 and the Jacksonville addendum was adopted via resolution on [Month] [Day], 2018. This NHMP is effective through [Month] [Day], 2023. NHMP Implementation and Maintenance The City Council will be responsible for adopting the Jacksonville addendum to the Jackson County NHMP. This addendum designates a coordinating body and a convener to oversee the development and implementation of action items. Because the City addendum is part of the County's multi-jurisdictional NHMP, the City will look for opportunities to partner with the County. The City's steering committee will convene after re-adoption of the Jacksonville NHMP addendum on an annual schedule. The County is meeting on a semi-annual basis and will provide opportunities for the cities to report on NHMP implementation and Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page JA-3 maintenance during their meetings. The City's Fire Chief will serve as the convener and will be responsible for assembling the steering committee (coordinating body). The steering committee will be responsible for: • Reviewing existing action items to determine suitability of funding; • Reviewing existing and new risk assessment data to identify issues that may not have been identified at NHMP creation; • Educating and training new Steering Committee members on the NHMP and mitigation actions in general; • Assisting in the development of funding proposals for priority action items; • Discussing methods for continued public involvement; and • Documenting successes and lessons learned during the year. The convener will also remain active in the County's implementation and maintenance process (Volume I, Section 5). The City will utilize the same action item prioritization process as the County (Volume I, Section 5 and Volume II, Appendix D). Implementation through Existing Programs Many of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan's recommendations are consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's existing plans and policies. Where possible, Jacksonville will implement the NHMP's recommended actions through existing plans and policies. Plans and policies already in existence have support from local residents, businesses and policy makers. Many land-use, comprehensive and strategic plans get updated regularly, allowing them to adapt to changing conditions and needs. Implementing the NHMP's action items through such plans and policies increases their likelihood of being supported and implemented. Jacksonville's acknowledged comprehensive plan is the City of Jacksonville Comprehensive Plan. The Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission first acknowledged the plan in 1983. The City implements the plan through the Community Development Code. Jacksonville currently has the following plans that relate to natural hazard mitigation. For a complete list visit the City's website: • Comprehensive Plan • Transportation System Plan (2009) • Community Development Code • Building Code, 2017 Oregon State Code based on 2015 International Residential Code (IRC) and 2012 International Building Code • Urban Renewal Plan (2014) • Emergency Operations Plan (2012) • Water System Master Plan (2016) Page JA-4 December 2017 Jacksonville Addendum Continued Public Participation Keeping the public informed of the City's efforts to reduce its risk to future natural hazard events is important for successful NHMP implementation and maintenance. The City is committed to involving the public in the NHMP review and updated process (Volume I, Section 5). NHMP Maintenance The Jackson County Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan and City addendum will be updated every five years in accordance with the update schedule outlined in the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. During the County NHMP update process, the City will also review and update its addendum (Volume I, Section 5). The convener will be responsible for convening the steering committee to address the questions outlined below. • Are there new partners that should be brought to the table? • Are there new local, regional, state or federal policies influencing natural hazards that should be addressed? • Has the community successfully implemented any mitigation activities since the NHMP was last updated? • Have new issues or problems related to hazards been identified in the community? • Are the actions still appropriate given current resources? • Have there been any changes in development patterns that could influence the effects of hazards? • Have there been any significant changes in the community's demographics that could influence the effects of hazards? • Are there new studies or data available that would enhance the risk assessment? • Has the community been affected by any disasters? Did the NHMP accurately address the impacts of this event? These questions will help the steering committee determine what components of the mitigation plan need updating. The steering committee will be responsible for updating any deficiencies found in the NHMP. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page JA-5 Mitigation Strategy This section of the NHMP addendum addresses 44 CFR 201.6(c)(3(iv), Mitigation Strategy. The City's mitigation strategy (action items) were developed during the 2017 NHMP planning process. The steering committee assessed the City's risk, identified potential issues and developed a mitigation strategy (action items). The City developed actions specific to their community after first reviewing a list of recommended actions developed by the County or recommended by OPDR. Priority Actions The City is listing a set of high priority actions in an effort to focus attention on an achievable set of high leverage activities over the next five-years (Table JA-1). Action Item Pool Table JA-2 presents a "pool" of mitigation actions. This expanded list of actions is available for local consideration as resources, capacity, technical expertise and/or political will become available. Page JA-6 December 2017 Jacksonville Addendum it Table )A-I Jacksonville Priority Action Items Action Lead Potential Funding Mitigation Action Item Timeline l Item LD Organization Partner Organization(s) Source(s) Priority Actions 'Multi-Hazard (MH) Integrate the Mitigation Plan findings into planning and regulatory documents and programs including General Fund, DLCD MH #1 the Comprehensive Plan (particularly Mid-Term City Planning RVCOG, DLCD, FEMA Goal 7) and development code. Particular attention Technical Assistance Grant will be paid to the wildfire hazard. Landslide (LS) LS #1 Investigate the development and implementation Long-Term City Planning DLCD, DOGAMI General Fund, DLCD oa city landslide ordinance. Technical Assistance Grant Wildfire (WF) Public Works, Administration, Jackson County,Fire Districts, Coordinate fire mitigation action items through the City Emergency Bureau of Land Local Funding Resources, WF #1 recommendations of the Rogue Valley Integrated Ongoing Management Management - Medford Fire Districts, ON Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Agencies District, Oregon Department of Forestry, Office of State Fire Marshall Source: City of Jacksonville NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page JA-7 Table JA-2 Jacksonville Action Item Pool Action Lead Potential Funding Mitigation Action Item Timeline Partner Organization(s) Item ID Organization Source(s) Action Item Pool Multi-Hazard (MH) City County Emergency Sustain a public awareness and education Administration/ Management, FEMA, OEM, MH #2 campaign about natural hazards. Ongoing Emergency NWS, ODOT, CERT, RVCOG General Fund, FEMA, DLCD Management Utilities Agencies j Enhance hazard resistant construction methods (wind, winter storm, landslide, etc.) where possible New construction is to reduce damage to utilities and critical facilities. City Planning, MH #3 Ongoing Utility Companies required to underground In part, this may be accomplished by encouraging Public Works electric utility providers to convert existing Utilities overhead lines to underground lines. Drought (DR) No specific action item developed for this hazard. See multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Earthquake (EQ) Building officials, Implement structural and non-structural retrofits to EQ #1 critical and essential facilities. Long-Term City Planning Administration, Public General Fund, SRGP, PDM i Works Emerging Infectious Disease (EID) No specific action item developed for this hazard. See multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Flood (FL) Encourage private property owners to restore natural systems within the floodplain, and to RVCOG, FEMA, Watershed FL #1 Long-Term City Planning General Fund manage riparian areas and wetlands for flood Councils, neighboring cities abatement. Use federal grant funds to acquire or elevate, or otherwise mitigate, individual repetitive loss or FL #2 Long-Term City Planning FEMA, DLCD FMA severe repetitive loss properties, within 100-year floodplain as opportunities arise. Source: City of Jacksonville NHMP Steering Committee, 2017 Page JA-8 December 2017 Jacksonville Addendum Table JA-2 Jacksonville Action Item Pool (continued) Action Lead Potential Funding Mitigation Action Item Timeline Partner Organization(s) Item ID Organization Source(s) Action Item Pool Landslide (LS) See priority actions and multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. !Severe Weather(SW, Windstorm and Winter Storm) Promote the benefits of tree-trimming and tree City Vegetation Utility companies, ODOT, SW #1 replacement programs and help to coordinate local Ongoing Management Public Works, USFS, BLM, General Fund i efforts by public and private agencies. nagement ODF, Fire ;Volcano (VE) No specific action item developed for this hazard. See multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Wildfire (WF) See priority actions and multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Source: City of Jacksonville NHMP Steering Committee, 2017 Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page JA-9 Risk Assessment This section of the NHMP addendum addresses 44 CFR 201.6(b)(2) - Risk Assessment. In addition, this chapter can serve as the factual basis for addressing Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Hazards. Assessing natural hazard risk has three phases: • Phase 1: Identify hazards that can impact the jurisdiction. This includes an evaluation of potential hazard impacts -type, location, extent, etc. • Phase 2: Identify important community assets and system vulnerabilities. Example vulnerabilities include people, businesses, homes, roads, historic places and drinking water sources. • Phase 3: Evaluate the extent to which the identified hazards overlap with or have an impact on, the important assets identified by the community. The local level rationale for the identified mitigation strategies (action items) is presented herein and within Volume I, Sections 2 and 3. The risk assessment process is graphically depicted in Figure JA-1 below. Ultimately, the goal of hazard mitigation is to reduce the area of risk, where hazards overlap vulnerable systems. Figure JA- I Understanding Risk ~USGS Understanding Risk ~itin,Iil ~ RESILILNCE science lar a changing w kf Natural Hazard ~\Vulnerable System Potential Catastrophic Exposure, Sensitivity and Chronic Physical Events / Risk \ and Resilience of: • Past Recurrence Intervals I 1 • Population • Future Probability I of I • Economic Generation • Speed of Onset I I • Built Environment • Magnitude 1 Disaster, Academic and Research Function • Duration t / • Cultural Assets • Spatial Extent I • Infrastructure Ability, Resources and Willingness to: • Mitigate • Respond • Prepare • Recover Source: USGS- Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience Research Collaboration, 1006 Hazard Analysis The Jacksonville steering committee developed their hazard vulnerability assessment (HVA), using the County's HVA (Volume ll, Appendix C) as a reference. Changes from the County's HVA were made where appropriate to reflect distinctions in vulnerability and risk from natural hazards unique to Jacksonville, which are discussed throughout this addendum. Page JA-10 December 2017 Jacksonville Addendum Table JA-3 shows the HVA matrix for Jacksonville listing each hazard in order of rank from high to low. For local governments, conducting the hazard analysis is a useful step in planning for hazard mitigation, response and recovery. The method provides the jurisdiction with sense of hazard priorities, but does not predict the occurrence of a particular hazard. One catastrophic hazard (Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake) and four chronic hazards (emerging infectious disease, wildfire, windstorm and winter storm) rank as the top hazard threats to the City (Top Tier). The landslide and drought comprise the next highest ranked hazards (Middle Tier), while the flood, earthquake (crustal) and volcano hazards comprise the lowest ranked hazards (Bottom Tier). Table 1A-3 Hazard Analysis Matrix - Jacksonville Leat'r Total Threat Hazard Hazard Probability Score Rank Tiers 7rthqua adia) 2 50 100 70 222 #1 us Disease 12 50 100 49 211 #2 Top 20 40 80 70 210 #3 Tier Windstorm 20 40 80 70 210 #4 Winter Storm 20 40 70 70 200 #5 Landslide 14 25 60 56 155 #6 Middle Drought 20 15 50 63 148 #7 Tier Flood 16 10 40 49 115 #8 Bottom Earthquake(Crustal) 2 25 50 21 98 #9 Tier Volcano 2 5 50 7 64 #10 Source: Jacksonville NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Table JA-4 categorizes the probability and vulnerability scores from the hazard analysis for the City and compares the results to the assessment completed by the Jackson County NHMP Steering Committee (Volume II, Appendix Q. Variations between the City and County are noted in bold text. Table JA-4 Probability and Vulnerability Comparison Jacksonville Jackson County Hazard Probability Vulnerability Probability Vulnerability Drought Ilign Low High Moderate Earthquake(Cascadia) High High High High Earthquake (Crustal) Low Moderate Low Moderate Emerging Infectious Disease Moderate High Moderate High Flood Moderate Low High Moderate Landslide High Moderate High Low Volcanic Eruption Low Low Low Low Wildfire High High High Moderate Windstorm High High High Moderate Winter Storm High High High Moderate Source: Jacksonville NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page JA-11 Community Characteristics Table JA-5 and the following section provides information on City specific demographics and assets. For additional information on the characteristics of Jacksonville, in terms of geography, environment, population, demographics, employment and economics, as well as housing and transportation see Volume I, Section 2. Many of these community characteristics can affect how natural hazards impact communities and how communities choose to plan for natural hazard mitigation. Considering the City specific assets during the planning process can assist in identifying appropriate measures for natural hazard mitigation. Between 2012 and 2016 the City grew by 105 people (3.7%) and median household income increased by about 11% (Volume I, Section 2). New development has complied with the standards of the Oregon Building Code and the city's development code including their floodplain ordinance. Transportation/Infrastructure In the City of Jacksonville, transportation has played a major role in shaping the community. Jacksonville's commercial areas developed along primary routes and residential development followed nearby. Today, mobility plays an important role in Jacksonville and the daily experience of its residents and businesses as they move from point A to point B. The existing transportation system is complemented by the established Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) and the transit stop located within Jacksonville. In addition, the City has formed the Jacksonville Woodlands Association to operate several recreational trails within a series of protected parcels surrounding 70% of the town's historic district'. By far, motor vehicles represent the dominant mode of travel through and within Jacksonville. Economy A diverse range of businesses have chosen to locate in Jacksonville. Traditionally, Jacksonville has built its economy as a gold rush town with favorable climate, attractive landscape and cultural attractions. In addition, Jacksonville's proximity to the Medford give it market access that is more favorable than usual for a rural town. According to the economic profile of the City's Comprehensive Plan, Jacksonville finds their main economic drivers in the sectors of Construction; Health Care and Social Assistance; and Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting'. ' Jacksonville Woodlands Association, http://www.ivwoodlands.org/ 'http://www.jacksonvilleor.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Chapter-Six-Economic-Element.pdf Page JA-12 December 2017 Jacksonville Addendum I Table JA-5 Community Characteristics 2 , 2012 Population 2,815 Housing Units 2016 Population 2,920 Single-Family 1,018 63% 2035 Forecasted Population* 4,316 Multi-Family 359 22% Race and Ethnic Categories Mobile Homes 231 14% White 95% Year Structure Built Black/ African American 1% Pre-1970 526 33% American Indian and Alaska Native 0% 1970-1989 488 30% Asian 4% 1990 or later 594 37% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0% Housing Tenure and Vacancy Some Other Race 0% Owner-occupied 1,077 70% Two or More Races 0% Renter-occupied 462 30% Hispanic or Latino 1% Vacant 69 4% Limited or No English Spoken 0% Jacksonville is in Jackson County in Vulnerable Age Groups southwestern Oregon. The City has grown Less than 15 Years 210 7% 65 Years and Over 1,276 44% steadily since its incorporation in 1860 and Disability Status has an area today of 1.82 square miles. It is in Total Population 705 25% the central region of the county, located Children 57 29/. about 5 miles west of Medford or and about Seniors 549 19% 25 miles east of Grants Pass or. The City and most of Jackson County are within the Rogue and Umpqua watersheds. Households by Income Category Less than $15,000 184 12% Jacksonville experiences a relatively mild $15,000-$29,999 256 17% climate with four distinct seasons that comes $30,000-$44,999 274 18% from its position on the west coast of North $45,000-$59,999 253 16% $60,000-$74,999 132 9% America and within the mountains of the $75,000-$99,999 145 9% region. The town is at the northeastern edge $100,000-$199,999 228 15% of the Siskiyou Mountains at approximately $200, 000 or more 67 4% 1,500 feet above sea level. Because of its Median Household Income $46,901 location Jacksonville has a climate somewhat Poverty Rates intermediate to central California and Total Population 121 4% northern Oregon. Jacksonville averages only Children o o% 20 inches of rain per year due to being inland Seniors 48 4% from the coast and in the rain shadow of the Housing Cost Burden nearby mountains. Owners with Mortgage 63% Renters 59% The City of Jacksonville includes a diversity of Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American land uses but is zoned primarily residential. A Community Survey; Portland State University, notable vulnerability shown in Table JA-5 is Population Research Center. Note: * = Population forecast within UGB the high percentage (44%) of residents age 65 or older. For more information see Volume I, Section 2. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page JA-13 Community Assets This section outlines the resources, facilities and infrastructure that, if damaged, could significantly impact the public safety, economic conditions and environmental integrity of Jacksonville. Critical Facilities Facilities that are critical to government response and recovery activities (i.e. life, safety, property and environmental protection). These facilities include: 911 Centers, Emergency Operations Centers, Police and Fire Stations, Public Works facilities, sewer and water facilities, hospitals, bridges, roads, shelters and more. Facilities that, if damaged, could cause serious secondary impacts may also be considered "critical." A hazardous material facility is one example of this type of critical facility. Fire Stations: City Buildings: • Fire Department • Community Center Law Enforcement: • City Hall (new; 206 N. 5th St) -administration, planning, • Police Department parks • City Hall (old; 205 W. Main St) Private: -City Offices • Ray's Food Place • Public Works Essential Facilities Facilities that are essential to the continued delivery of key government services and/or that may significantly impact the public's aty to recover from the emergency. These facilities may include: City buildings such as the Public Services Building, the City Hall and other public facilities such as schools. Hospitals/Immediate Medical Care Facilities: City/County/Other: • Active Medical • Jacksonville Library (County) • Jacksonville Physical Therapy • Jacksonville Vision Clinic Potential Shelter Sites: • Jacksonville Veterinary • Elementary School Hospital • Calvary Church Assembly of God First Aid Shelter Public Schools: • First Presbyterian Church • Jacksonville Elementary (Shelter) School Page JA-14 December 2017 Jacksonville Addendum Infrastructure: Infrastructure that provides services for the City includes: Transportation Networks: • Highway 238 • California St • Oregon St • Cady Rd • N 5tn St • S 3rd St • Stage Rd Water Facilities: • Water Reservoirs (4); 3.45 million gallons total Special Service Districts: • Southern Oregon Education Service District • Medford Water Commission • Medford Irrigation District • Rogue Valley Sewer Private Utilities: • Pacific Power • Avista Natural Gas • Telecommunications Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page JA-15 Hazard Characteristics Drought The steering committee determined that the City's probability for drought is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to drought is low (which is lower than the County's rating). Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of drought hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event. Due to the climate of Jackson County, past and present weather conditions have shown an increasing potential for drought. The City receives its main water supply from Big Butte Springs through the Medford Water Commission, supplemented by the Rogue River in the summer months. For more information on the future of Jacksonville's water supply visit their website. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Earthquake (Cascadia) The steering committee determined that the City's probability for a Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) earthquake is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to a CSZ earthquake is high (which is the same as the County's rating). Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of earthquake hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event. Generally, an event that affects the County is likely to affect Jacksonville as well. The causes and characteristics of an earthquake event are appropriately described within Volume I, Section 3, as well as the location and extent of potential hazards. Previous occurrences are well documented within Volume I, Section 3 and the community impacts described by the County would generally be the same for Jacksonville as well. The local faults, the county's proximity to the Cascadia Subduction Zone, potential slope instability and the prevalence of certain soils subject to liquefaction and amplification combine to give the county a high-risk profile. Due to the expected pattern of damage resulting from a CSZ event, the Oregon Resilience Plan divides the State into four distinct zones and places Jackson County predominately within the "Valley Zone" (Valley Zone, from the summit of the Coast Range to the summit of the Cascades). Within the Southwest Oregon region, damage and shaking is expected to be strong and widespread - an event will be disruptive to daily life and commerce and the main priority is expected to be restoring services to business and residents.' Figure JA-2 displays relative shaking hazards from a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake event. As shown in the figure below, the area of greatest concern within the City of Jacksonville (darker areas) is along the mountainous areas to the northeast of the City. I ibid. Page JA-16 December 2017 Jacksonville Addendum Figure JA-2 Cascadia Subduction Zone Layers Currently Shown -0 Cascadla Earthquake Hazard Cascadia Earthquake Expected Shaking ® Violent . Severe Very Strong Strong ( Moderate Light 1km Iml Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (DOGAMI) As noted in the community profile, approximately 63% of residential buildings were built prior to 1990, which increases the City's vulnerability to the earthquake hazard. Information on specific public buildings' (schools and public safety) estimated seismic resistance, determined by DOGAMI in 2007, is shown in Table JA-6; each "X" represents one building within that ranking category. Of the facilities evaluated by DOGAMI using a Rapid Visual Survey (RVS), no buildings have a very high (100% chance) collapse potential, however, three (3) buildings have a high (greater than 10% chance) collapse potential. In addition to building damages, utility (electric power, water, wastewater, natural gas) and transportation systems (bridges, pipelines) are also likely to experience significant damage. There is a low probability that a major earthquake will result in failure of upstream dams. Utility systems will be significantly damaged, including damaged buildings and damage to utility infrastructure, including water and wastewater treatment plants and equipment at high voltage substations (especially 230 kV or higher which are more vulnerable than lower voltage substations). Buried pipe systems will suffer extensive damage with approximately one break per mile in soft soil areas. There would be a much lower rate of pipe breaks in other areas. Restoration of utility services will require substantial mutual aid from utilities outside of the affected area. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page JA-17 Table JA-6 Rapid Visual Survey Scores Level of Collapse Potential Low 1%) Moderate High Very High Facility site ID* >1% >10% 100% Schools Jac.,,ai ville Elementary School (Medford SD S49C) ack_sch27 X X,X,X (655 Hueners Ln) Public Safety Jacksonville Fire Department (City of Jacksonville) Jack fir16 X (180 N 3rd St) Source: DOGAMI 2007. Open File Report 0-07-02. Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment Using Rapid Visual Assessment. - Site ID is referenced on the RVS Jackson County Map Earthquake (Crustal) The steering committee determined that the City's probability for a crustal earthquake is low (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to crustal earthquake is moderate (which is the same as the County's rating). Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of earthquake hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event. Generally, an event that affects the county is likely to affect Jacksonville as well. The causes and characteristics of an earthquake event are appropriately described within Volume I, Section 3, as well as the location and extent of potential hazards. Previous occurrences are well-documented within Volume I, Section 3 and the community impacts described by the County would generally be the same for Jacksonville as well. Earthquake-induced damages are difficult to predict and depend on the size, type and location of the earthquake, as well as site-specific building and soil characteristics. Presently, it is not possible to accurately forecast the location or size of earthquakes, but it is possible to predict the behavior of soil at any particular site. In many major earthquakes, damages have primarily been caused by the behavior of the soil. Figure JA-3 displays relative liquefaction hazards, a portion of the City is within an area of moderate soft soils (liquefaction hazard orange areas). I Page JA-18 December 2017 Jacksonville Addendum I Figure JA-3 Active Faults and Soft Soils L„ Layers Currently shown -0 0 Earthquake Hazard „1< ve Active Faults _Timber In i Earthquake Epicenter (1971-2008) rRo O 5 - 7 Magnitude ~a~p Gad - Y O 3-5 ~t V Ss O 2-3 o 1 - 2 Jac Raonr~M Cem.~ery 0- 1 u { .ill High FaArr Moderate #Hwvlm- Wooda < L 14 m J e Low . t .Yrodd ^ 4 r~' 1 ;i7ff ti 01 VI! Ikm l ml Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (DOGAMI) Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page JA-19 Emerging Infectious Disease The steering committee determined that the City's probability for emerging infectious disease is moderate (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability is high (which is the same as the County's rating). Emerging infectious diseases are those that have recently appeared in a population or those whose incidence or geographic range is rapidly increasing or threatens to increase. Emerging infections may be caused by biological pathogens (e.g., virus, parasite, fungus or bacterium) and may be: previously unknown or undetected biological pathogens, biological pathogens that have spread to new geographic areas or populations, previously known biological pathogens whose role in specific diseases was previously undetected and biological pathogens whose incidence of disease was previously declining but whose incidence of disease has reappeared (re-emerging infectious disease).4 Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of emerging infectious disease, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. Generally, an event that affects the County is likely to affect the City as well. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Flood The steering committee determined that the City's probability for flood is moderate (which is lower than the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to flood is low (which is the same as the County's rating). Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of flood hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event. Portions of Jacksonville have areas of flood plains (special flood hazard areas, SFHA). These include areas along the South Fork Jackson Creek and Daisy Creek (Figure JA-4). Furthermore, other portions of Jacksonville, outside of the mapped floodplains, are also subject to flooding from local storm water drainage. Jackson Creek is the chief source of flooding in Jacksonville. The creek, which has its origins in the Bear Creek tributary of the Rogue River, is relatively even in terrain and is projected to flood only within a very narrow corridor. The City is at risk from two types of flooding: riverine and urban. Riverine flooding occurs when streams overflow their banks and inundate low-lying areas. This is a natural process that adds sediment and nutrients to fertile floodplain areas. It usually results from prolonged periods of precipitation over a wide geographic area. Low velocity sheets of water generally flood most areas that are prone to flooding. Urban flooding occurs as land is converted to impervious surfaces and hydrologic systems are changed. Precipitation is collected and transmitted to streams at a much faster rate, causing floodwaters that rise 4 Baylor College of Medicine, Emerging Infectious Disease, URL: https://www.bcm.edu/departments/molecular-virolo~y-and-microbiology/emerging-infections-and- biodefense/emerging-infectious-diseases, accessed September 17, 2017. Page JA-20 December 2017 Jacksonville Addendum rapidly and peak with violent force. During urban flooding, storm drains can back up and cause localized flooding of streets and basements. Figure JA-4 Special Flood Hazard Area ---y-, Layers Currently Shown LlnnAs~o. N.,n 1 n Ro Flood Hazard Type and Source of Flood Data '1'W yt" Effective FEMA 100 yr Flood Preliminary FEMA 100 yr Flood State Digitized Flood Data JKk.. dW C-1-y Q3 FEMA Flood Data 8ra~iC, oL.r; Yom, ~ ...1 1: 8"W- ~'t Wood( .fit 6Mb , ^ r -0 Q ,pun ttall~ v aHOPI i s km 1 ~ 1 mi Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (DOGAMI) Floods can have a devastating impact on almost every aspect of the community, including private property damage, public infrastructure damage and economic loss from business interruption. It is important for the City to be aware of flooding impacts and assess its level of risk. The City has been proactive in mitigating flood hazards by purchasing floodplain property. The economic losses due to business closures often total more than the initial property losses that result from flood events. Flood events significantly impact business owners and their employees. Direct damages from flooding are the most common impacts, but indirect damages, such as diminished clientele, can be just as debilitating to a business. No critical or essential facilities are in the floodplain. Currently, there is no financial impact data available of this infrastructure. Highway 238 is the main connector between Jacksonville and the services and amenities found in Medford and other urban centers. If major flooding affected all of the main transportation routes in Jacksonville, traffic flow in an out of the City would be significantly affected, but would not cut all off all avenues. The amount of property in the flood plain is not a large area but damage could be significant as it would affect residential, commercial and public property. Floodwaters can affect building foundations, seep into basements or cause damage to the interior, exterior and contents of buildings, dependent upon the velocity and depth of the water and by the presence of floating debris. The City sewer system can overflow during flood events and cause further property damage. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page JA-21 For mitigation planning purposes, it is important to recognize that flood risk for a community is not limited only to areas of mapped floodplains. Other portions of Jacksonville outside of the mapped floodplains may also be at relatively high risk from over bank flooding from streams too small to be mapped by FEMA or from local storm water drainage. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) FEMA updated the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) in 2011 (effective May 3, 2011; revised January 19, 2018). Table JA-7, below shows that as of June 2016, Jacksonville has 49 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policies in force. Of those, 17 are for properties that were constructed before the initial FIRM. The last Community Assistance Visit (CAV) for Jacksonville was on August 15, 1994. The table shows that the majority of flood insurance policies are for residential structures, primarily single- family homes. There has been a total of three (3) paid claims for $6,498. The City complies with the NFIP through enforcement of their flood damage prevention ordinance and their floodplain management program. The Community Repetitive Loss record for Jacksonville identifies one (1) Repetitive Loss Properties' and zero (0) Severe Repetitive Loss Properties6. For details on the repetitive loss properties see Volume I, Section 3. Table JA-7 Flood Insurance Detail Polities by Building Type Effective Initial Total Pre-FIRM Single 2to4 Other Non- Minus Rated Jurisdiction FIRM and FIS FIRM Date Policies Policies Family Family Residential Residential A Zone Jackson County - - 1,828 809 1,568 44 91 125 126 Jacksonville 5/3/2011 12/4/1979 49 17 32 0 14 3 8 Severe Last Substantial Repetitive Repetitive Community Insurance Total Pre-FIRM Damage Loss Loss CRS Class Assistance Jurisdiction in Force Paid Claims Claims Paid Claims Total Paid Amount Structures Properties Rating Visit 4- -Jacksonville $ 10,990,700 34 3' 0 $ 6,498 1 0 8/15/1994 Source: Information compiled by Department of Land Conservation and Development, July 2016. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Landslide The steering committee determined that the City's probability for landslide is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to landslide is moderate (which is higher than the County's rating). 5 A Repetitive Loss (RL) property is any insurable building for which two or more claims of more than $1,000 were paid by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) within any rolling ten-year period, since 1978. A RL property may or may not be currently insured by the NFIP. 6 A Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) property is a single family property (consisting of 1 to 4 residences) that is covered under flood insurance by the NFIP and has incurred flood-related damage for which 4 or more separate claims payments have been paid under flood insurance coverage, with the amount of each claim payment exceeding $5,000 and with cumulative amount of such claims payments exceeding $20,000; or for which at least 2 separate claims payments have been made with the cumulative amount of such claims exceeding the reported value of the property. Page JA-22 December 2017 Jacksonville Addendum Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of landslide hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. The potential for landslide in Jacksonville is almost negligible except for very small areas immediately adjacent to stream channels. However, such areas have little or no development or infrastructure. Landslide susceptibility exposure for Jacksonville is shown in Figure JA-5. Jacksonville demonstrates a mix of low, moderate and high susceptibility to landslide exposure, with corridors of high and moderate susceptibility concentrated around the outer western and southwestern edges of the City. Approximately 18% of Jacksonville has high and approximately 32% moderate, landslide susceptibility exposure.' Note that even if a jurisdiction has a high percentage of area in a high or very high landslide exposure susceptibility zone, this does not mean there is a high risk, because risk is the intersection of hazard and assets. There is little history of landslide activity in Jacksonville, however, development pressure is encroaching upon areas that are more susceptible to landslide activity particularly during heavy rain events. Figure JA-5 Landslide Susceptibility Exposure a ' Layers Currently Shown -0 Landslide Hazard Landslide Susceptibility FYI r-,~,d°ee - ~m Low - Landsliding Unlikely = - y Vrwrg3` . Vai'2 r Moderate - Landsliding Possible ❑ ~ . .mac t?a~"~' ` au;r. '3 ❑ High - Landsliding Likely ~s Very High - Existing Landslide . 1 /"e' t 4j ir' h w a f A E 'a ,..>>t t c € i t l km t`L M , 1 mi 'x, ~ 't IA)illi~.., t G..n. Ysin Mi.-L nlr nr+ Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (DOGAMI) Potential landslide-related impacts are adequately described within Volume I, Section 3 and include infrastructural damages, economic impacts (due to isolation and/or arterial road closures), property damages and obstruction to evacuation routes. Rain-induced landslides 7 DOGAMI Open-File Report, 0-16-02, Landslide Susceptibility Overview Map of Oregon (2016) Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page JA-23 and debris flows can potentially occur during any winter in Jackson County and thoroughfares beyond City limits are susceptible to obstruction as well. The most common type of landslides in Jackson County are slides caused by erosion. Slides move in contact with the underlying surface, are generally slow moving and can be deep. Rainfall-initiated landslides tend to be smaller; while earthquake induced landslides may be quite large. All soil types can be affected by natural landslide triggering conditions. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Severe Weather Severe weather in can account for a variety of intense and potentially damaging weather events. These events include windstorms and winter storms. The following section describes the unique probability and vulnerability of each identified weather hazard. Other more abrupt or irregular events such as hail are also described in this section. Windstorm The steering committee determined that the City's probability for windstorm is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to windstorm is high (which is higher than the County's rating). Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of windstorm hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. Because windstorms typically occur during winter months, they are sometimes accompanied by ice, freezing rain, flooding and very rarely, snow. Other severe weather events that may accompany windstorms, including thunderstorms, hail, lightning strikes and tornadoes are generally negligible for Jacksonville. Volume I, Section 3 describes the impacts caused by windstorms, including power outages, downed trees, heavy precipitation, building damages and storm-related debris. Additionally, transportation and economic disruptions result as well. Microbursts also occur in Jacksonville creating strong winds, particularly from the northeast. Damage from high winds generally has resulted in downed utility lines and trees. Electrical power can be out anywhere from a few hours to several days. Outdoor signs have also suffered damage. If the high winds are accompanied by rain (which they often are), blowing leaves and debris clog drainage-ways, which in turn causes localized urban flooding. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Winter Storm (Snow/Ice) The steering committee determined that the City's probability for winter storm is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to winter storm is high (which is higher than the County's rating). Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of winter storm hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. Severe winter storms can consist of rain, freezing rain, ice, snow, cold temperatures and wind. They originate from troughs of low pressure offshore that ride along the jet stream during fall, Page JA-24 December 2017 Jacksonville Addendum winter and early spring months. Severe winter storms affecting the City typically originate in the Gulf of Alaska or in the central Pacific Ocean. These storms are most common from November through March. Major winter storms can and have occurred in the Jacksonville area and while they typically do not cause significant damage, they are frequent and have the potential to impact economic activity. Road closures due to winter weather are a common occurrence (particularly along 3rd 4th and 5th streets) and can interrupt commuter and commercial traffic. Jacksonville maintains roads with a John Deere tractor with a plow hookup and sanding equipment. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. I Volcano The steering committee determined that the City's probability for a volcanic event is low (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to a volcanic event is low (which is the same as the County's rating). Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of volcanic hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. Generally, an event that affects the County is likely to affect Jacksonville as well. Jacksonville is very unlikely to experience anything more than volcanic ash during a volcanic event. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Wildfire The steering committee determined that the City's probability for wildfire is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to wildfire is high (which is higher than the County's rating). Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of wildfire hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. The location and extent of a potential wildfire vary depending on fuel, topography and weather conditions. Weather and urbanization conditions are primarily at cause for the hazard level. Wildfires near Jacksonville are common. The potential community impacts and vulnerabilities described in Volume I, Section 3 are generally accurate for the City as well. The Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Protection Plan (RVIFP, updated 2017), assesses wildfire risk, maps wildland urban interface areas and includes actions to mitigate wildfire risk. The City is included in the RVIFP and will update the City's wildfire risk assessment if the fire plan presents better data during future updates (an action item is included within Volume I, Section 4 to participate in updates to the integrated fire plan and to continue to maintain and update their RVIFP). Jacksonville is within an area of high wildfire prone urban landscape. The City hereby incorporates the RVIFP into this addendum by reference to provide greater detail to sensitivity and exposure to the wildfire hazard. The City participates in Firewise and has a defensible space (fuel break) ordinance per the Jacksonville Code. Property can be damaged or destroyed with one fire as structures, vegetation and other flammables easily merge to become unpredictable and hard to manage. Other factors that Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page JA-25 affect ability to effectively respond to a wildfire include access to the location and to water, response time from the fire station, availability of personnel and equipment and weather (e.g., heat, low humidity, high winds and drought). Please review Volume I, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Summary Figure JA-6 presents a summary of the hazard analysis for Jacksonville and compares the results to the assessment completed by Jackson County. The top hazards for the City are Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake, emerging infectious disease, wildfire, windstorm and winter storm. Page JA-26 December 2017 Jacksonville Addendum Figure JA-6 Overall Hazard Analysis Comparison - Jacksonville/Jackson County zao 222 222 211 211 210 210 200 185 180 170 160 163 155; w 148 125 i 120 t 115 98 98 i i 6n cn i i Earthquake Emerging Wildfire Windstorm Winter Storm Landslide Drought Flood Earthquake Volcano (Cascadia) Infectious (Crustal) Disease ■ Jacksonville ■ County Source: City of Jacksonville NHMP Steering Committee and Jackson County NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page JA-27 This page intentionally left blank. Page JA-28 December 2017 Jacksonville Addendum CITY OF PHOENIX ADDENDUM Purpose Phoenix's addendum to the Jackson County Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (MNHMP, NHMP) was completed in 2017. This addendum supplements information contained in Volume I (Basic Plan) which serves as the NHMP foundation and Volume II (Appendices) which provide additional information. This addendum meets the following requirements: • Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption §201.6(c)(5), Multi-Jurisdictional Participation §201.6(a)(3), • Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Strategy §201.6(c)(3)(iv) and • Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment §201.6(c)(2)(iii). Mitigation Plan Mission The NHMP mission states the purpose and defines the primary functions of the NHMP. It is intended to be adaptable to any future changes made to the NHMP and need not change unless the community's environment or priorities change. The City concurs with the mission statement developed during the Jackson County planning process (Volume I, Section 4): , Protect life, property and the environment, reduce risk and prevent loss from natural hazard events through coordination and cooperation among public and private partners. Mitigation Plan Goals Mitigation plan goals are more specific statements of direction that Jackson County citizens and public and private partners can take while working to reduce the City's risk from natural hazards. These statements of direction form a bridge between the broad mission statement and particular action items. The goals listed here serve as checkpoints as agencies and organizations begin implementing mitigation action items. The City concurs with the goals developed during the Jackson County planning process (Volume I, Section 4). All of the NHMP goals are important and are listed below in no particular order of priority. Establishing community priorities within action items neither negates nor eliminates any goals, but it establishes which action items to consider to implement first, should funding become available. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page PA-1 I Below is a list of the NHMP goals: GOAL 1: EMERGENCY SERVICES Minimize life safety issues by promoting, strengthening and coordinating emergency response plans. GOAL 2: EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Further the public's awareness and understanding of natural hazards and potential risk, including economic vulnerability and mitigation efforts. GOAL 3: PREVENTION Reduce the threat of loss of life and property from natural hazards by incorporating information on known hazards and providing incentives to make hazard mitigation planning a priority in land use policies and decisions, including plan implementation. GOAL 4: PROPERTY PROTECTION Lessen impactfrom natural disasters on individual properties, businesses and public facilities by increasing awareness at the individual level and encouraging activities that can prevent damage and loss of life from natural hazards. GOAL 5: PARTNERSHIP AND COORDINATION Identify mitigation or risk reduction measures that address multiple areas (i.e., environment transportation, telecommunications); Coordinate public/private sector participation in planning and implementing mitigation projects throughout the City; and seek funding and resource partnerships forfuture mitigation efforts. GOAL 6: NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION Preserve and rehabilitate natural systems to serve natural hazard mitigation functions (i.e., floodplains, wetlands, watershed and urban interface areas). GOAL 7: STRUCTURAL PROTECTIONS When applicable, utilize structural mitigation activities to minimize risks associated with natural hazards. NHMP Process, Participation and Adoption This section of the NHMP addendum addresses 44 CFR 201.6(c)(5), Plan Adoption and 44 CFR 201.6(a)(3), Participation. The first update of the Jackson County NHMP was approved by FEMA on February 4, 2013. To maintain compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K), the NHMP required an update by February 3, 2018. The Phoenix addendum was added with the 2017 update of the Jackson County MNHMP. The Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience (OPDR) at the University of Oregon's Community Service Center (CSC) partnered with the Oregon Military Department's Office of Emergency Management (OEM), Jackson County and Phoenix to update their NHMP. This project is funded through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) FY15 Pre- Page PA-2 December 2017 Phoenix Addendum i II Disaster Mitigation Competitive Grant Program (PDMC-PL-10-PR-2015-003). Members of the Phoenix NHMP steering committee also participated in the County NHMP update process (Volume II, Appendix B). By creating a NHMP, locally adopting it and having it approved by FEMA, Phoenix will gain eligibility for FEMA Hazard Mitigation, Pre-Disaster Mitigation and Flood Mitigation Assistance grant program funds. The Jackson County NHMP and Phoenix addendum, are the result of a collaborative effort between citizens, public agencies, non-profit organizations, the private sector and regional organizations. A project steering committee guided the process of developing the NHMP. The Phoenix Public Works Director served as the designated convener of the NHMP update and the Planning Director will take the lead in implementing, maintaining and updating the addendum to the Jackson County NHMP in collaboration with the designated convener of the Jackson County NHMP (Emergency Manager). Representatives from the City of Phoenix steering committee met formally and informally, to discuss updates to their addendum (Volume II, Appendix B). The steering committee reviewed and revised the City's addendum, with particular focus on the NHMP's risk assessment and mitigation strategy (action items). This addendum reflects decisions made at the designated meetings and during subsequent work and communication with Jackson County Emergency Management and the OPDR. The Phoenix Steering Committee was comprised of the following representatives: • Convener, Ray DiPasquale, Public Works Director • Evan MacKenzie, Planning Director • Dave Kanner, (interim) City Manager • Derek Bowker, Police Chief • Chris Luz, Mayor • Micki Summerhays, Planning Commissioner Public participation was achieved with the establishment of the steering committee, which was comprised of City officials representing different departments and sectors and members of the public. The steering committee was closely involved throughout the development of the NHMP and served as the local oversight body forthe NHMP's development. Community members were provided an opportunity for comment via the NHMP review process and through a survey administered by the OPDR and publicized by the participating jurisdictions (Volume II, Appendix B). The NHMP was submitted to the Planning Commission for review and then to the City Council for adoption by resolution. The Jackson County NHMP was approved by FEMA on [Month] [Day], 2018 and the Phoenix addendum was adopted via resolution on [Month] [Day], 2018. This NHMP is effective through [Month] [Day], 2023. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page PA-3 NHMP Implementation and Maintenance The City Council will be responsible for adopting the Phoenix addendum to the Jackson County NHMP. This addendum designates a coordinating body and a convener to oversee the development and implementation of action items. Because the City addendum is part of the County's multi-jurisdictional NHMP, the City will look for opportunities to partner with the County. The City's steering committee will convene after re-adoption of the Phoenix NHMP addendum on an annual schedule. The County is meeting on a semi-annual basis and will provide opportunities for the cities to report on NHMP implementation and maintenance during their meetings. The City's Planning Director will serve as the convener and will be responsible for assembling the steering committee (coordinating body). The steering committee will be responsible for: • Reviewing existing action items to determine suitability of funding; • Reviewing existing and new risk assessment data to identify issues that may not have been identified at NHMP creation; • Educating and training new Steering Committee members on the NHMP and mitigation actions in general; • Assisting in the development of funding proposals for priority action items; • Discussing methods for continued public involvement; and • Documenting successes and lessons learned during the year. The convener will also remain active in the County's implementation and maintenance process (Volume I, Section 5). The City will utilize the same action item prioritization process as the County (Volume I, Section 5 and Volume II, Appendix D). Implementation through Existing Programs Many of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan's recommendations are consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's existing plans and policies. Where possible, Phoenix will implement the NHMP's recommended actions through existing plans and policies. Plans and policies already in existence have support from local residents, businesses and policy makers. Many land-use, comprehensive and strategic plans get updated regularly, allowing them to adapt to changing conditions and needs. Implementing the NHMP's action items through such plans and policies increases their likelihood of being supported and implemented. i Phoenix's acknowledged comprehensive plan is the City of Phoenix Comprehensive Plan (2016, effective August, 2016). The Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission first acknowledged the plan in 1984. The City implements the plan through the Community Development Code. Phoenix currently has the following plans that relate to natural hazard mitigation. For a complete list visit the City's website. • Comprehensive Plan (1984, amendment process underway, expected in 2017) • Land Development Code Page PA-4 December 2017 Phoenix Addendum • Building Code, 2017 Oregon State Code based on 2015 International Residential Code (IRC) and 2012 International Building Code • Emergency Operations Plan (2013) • Transportation System Plan (2016) • Water System Master Plan (2007) Continued Public Participation Keeping the public informed of the City's efforts to reduce its risk to future natural hazard events is important for successful NHMP implementation and maintenance. The City is committed to involving the public in the NHMP review and updated process (Volume I, Section 5). NHMP Maintenance The Jackson County Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan and City addendum will be updated every five years in accordance with the update schedule outlined in the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. During the County NHMP update process, the City will also review and update its addendum (Volume I, Section 5). The convener will be responsible for convening the steering committee to address the questions outlined below. • Are there new partners that should be brought to the table? • Are there new local, regional, state or federal policies influencing natural hazards that should be addressed? • Has the community successfully implemented any mitigation activities since the NHMP was last updated? • Have new issues or problems related to hazards been identified in the community? • Are the actions still appropriate given current resources? • Have there been any changes in development patterns that could influence the effects of hazards? • Have there been any significant changes in the community's demographics that could influence the effects of hazards? • Are there new studies or data available that would enhance the risk assessment? • Has the community been affected by any disasters? Did the NHMP accurately address the impacts of this event? These questions will help the steering committee determine what components of the mitigation plan need updating. The steering committee will be responsible for updating any deficiencies found in the NHMP. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page PA-5 r Mitigation Strategy This section of the NHMP addendum addresses 44 CFR 201.6(c)(3(iv), Mitigation Strategy. The City's mitigation strategy (action items) were developed during the 2017 NHMP planning process. The steering committee assessed the City's risk, identified potential issues and developed a mitigation strategy (action items). The City developed actions specific to their community after first reviewing a list of recommended actions developed by the County or recommended by OPDR. Priority Actions The City is listing a set of high priority actions in an effort to focus attention on an achievable set of high leverage activities over the next five-years (Table PA-1). The City's priority actions are listed below in the following table. Action Item Pool Table PA-2 presents a "pool" of mitigation actions. This expanded list of actions is available for local consideration as resources, capacity, technical expertise and/or political will become available. Page PA-6 December 2017 Phoenix Addendum Table PA- I Phoenix Priority Action Items Action Lead Potential Funding Mitigation Action Item Timeline Partner Organization(s) Item ID Organization Source(s) ~ I F Priority Actions Multi-Hazard (MH) Integrate the Mitigation Plan findings into planning MH #1 and regulatory documents and programs including Mid-Term City Planning RVCOG, DLCD, FEMA General Fund, DLCD the Comprehensive Plan (particularly Technical Assistance Grant Goal 7). Earthquake (EQ) EQ #1 Implement structural and non-structural retrofits to Long-Term City Building officials, Planning, General Fund, SRGP, PDM critical and essential facilities. Administration Public Works Flood (FL) Ensure continued compliance in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) through enforcement of City Administration, Public FL 41 local floodplain management ordinances and take Short-Term City Planning Works General Fund steps to participate in the Community Rating System (CRS). Wildfire (WF) Coordinate fire mitigation action items through the City Emergency Jackson County Emergency WF #1 Jackson County Integrated Fire Plan Ongoing Management Management, JCFD #5 Fire Districts, ODF Agencies Source: City of Phoenix NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page PA-7 Table PA-2 Phoenix Action Item Pool Action Lead Potential Funding Mitigation Action Item Timeline Partner Organization(s) Item ID _ Organization Source(s) Action Item Pool Multi-Hazard (MH) City Emergency County Emergency Sustain a public awareness and education Management, FEMA, OEM, MH #1 Ongoing Management General Fund, FEMA, DLCD campaign about natural hazards. Agencies NWS, ODOT, CERT, RVCOG i Utilities Use hazard information as a basis for county MH #2 ordinances and regulations that govern site- Long-Term City Planning County GIS, FEMA, DLCD General Fund specific land use decisions. Enhance hazard resistant construction methods (wind, winter storm, landslide, etc.) where possible MH #3 to reduce damage to utilities and critical facilities. Ongoing City Planning, Utility Companies HMA In part, this may be accomplished by encouraging Public Works electric utility providers to convert existing overhead lines to underground lines. Drought (DR) No specific action item developed for this hazard. See multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Earthquake (EQ) Promote building safety through nonstructural City Emergency Building officials, American EQ#2 improvements and public education. Ongoing Management Red Cross, DOGAMI, OEM General Fund, HMA Agencies Emerging Infectious Disease (EID) No specific action item developed for this hazard. See multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Flood (FL) Encourage private property owners to restore natural systems within the floodplain, and to RVCOG, FEMA, Watershed FL #2 Long-Term City Planning General Fund, FMA, HMA manage riparian areas and wetlands for flood Councils, neighboring cities abatement. Source: City of Phoenix NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Page PA-8 December 2017 Phoenix Addendum III Table PA-2 Phoenix Action Item Pool (continued) Action Lead Potential Funding Mitigation Action Item Timeline Partner Organization(s) i Item ID Organization Source(s) Action Item Pool Landslide (LS) Increase public education related to landslide General Fund, DOGAMI, LS #1 hazards by distributing landslide informational Ongoing City Planning RVCOG DLCD brochures. LS #2 Investigate the development and implementation Long-Term City Planning RVCOG General Fund, DLCD of a city landslide ordinance. Technical Assistance Grant Severe Weather(SW, Windstormand Winter Storm) Map areas where extreme weather, such as road County Road Department, SW #1 Short-Term City Public Works General Fund icing and wind damage occurs. ODOT Region 8 Promote the benefits of tree-trimming and tree City Vegetation Utility companies, ODOT, SW #2 replacement programs and help to coordinate local Ongoing M Public Works, USFS, BLM, General Fund efforts by public and private agencies. Management ODF, Fire Volcano (VE) No specific action item developed for this hazard. See multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Wildfire (WF) See priority actions and multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Source: City of Phoenix NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page PA-9 Risk Assessment This section of the NHMP addendum addresses 44 CFR 201.6(b)(2) - Risk Assessment. In addition, this chapter can serve as the factual basis for addressing Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 7 -Areas Subject to Natural Hazards. Assessing natural hazard risk has three phases: • Phase 1: Identify hazards that can impact the jurisdiction. This includes an evaluation of potential hazard impacts -type, location, extent, etc. • Phase 2: Identify important community assets and system vulnerabilities. Example vulnerabilities include people, businesses, homes, roads, historic places and drinking water sources. • Phase 3: Evaluate the extent to which the identified hazards overlap with or have an impact on, the important assets identified by the community. The local level rationale for the identified mitigation strategies (action items) is presented herein and within Volume I, Sections 2 and 3. The risk assessment process is graphically depicted in Figure PA-1. Ultimately, the goal of hazard mitigation is to reduce the area of risk, where hazards overlap vulnerable systems. Figure PA-I Understanding Risk U S G S Understanding Risk 6'kSn iji ~ RLSILIENC I science for a changing world - Natural Hazard ~\Vulnerable System Potential Catastrophic Exposure, Sensitivity and Chronic Physical Events , Risk and Resilience of: • Past Recurrence Intervals I t • Population • Future Probability I of I • Economic Generation • Speed of Onset I I • Built Environment •Magnitude t Disaster, Academic and Research Function • Duration / • Cultural Assets • Spatial Extent / • Infrastructure Ability, Resources and Willingness to: • Mitigate • Respond • Prepare • Recover Source: USGS- Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience Research Collaboration, 2006 Hazard Analysis The Phoenix steering committee developed their hazard vulnerability assessment (HVA), using the County's HVA (Volume II, Appendix C) as a reference. Changes from the County's HVA were made where appropriate to reflect distinctions in vulnerability and risk from natural hazards unique to Phoenix, which are discussed throughout this addendum. Page PA-10 December 2017 Phoenix Addendum Table PA-3 shows the HVA matrix for Phoenix listing each hazard in order of rank from high to low. For local governments, conducting the hazard analysis is a useful step in planning for hazard mitigation, response and recovery. The method provides the jurisdiction with sense of hazard priorities, but does not predict the occurrence of a particular hazard. one catastrophic hazard (Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake) and two chronic hazards (emerging infectious disease and winter storm) rank as the top hazard threats to the City (Top Tier). The windstorm, drought, flood and wildfire hazards comprise the next highest ranked hazards (Middle Tier), while the landslide, crustal earthquake and volcano hazards comprise the lowest ranked hazards (Bottom Tier). Table PA-3 Hazard Analysis Matrix - Phoenix Maximum Total Threat Hazard Hazard Hazard History Vulnerability Threat Probability Score Rank Tiers Earn quake (Ca~cadi<) P 100 70 ? 11 't] Top Emerging Infectious Disease 12 50 100 49 211 #2 Tier Winter Storm 20 40 80 70 210 #3 Windstorm 20 20 50 70 160 #4 Drought 20 25 50 63 158 #5 Middle Flood 16 20 50 63 149 #6 Tier Wildfire 16 15 50 49 130 #7 Landslide 2 15 30 56 103 #8 Bottom Earthquake (Crustal) 2 25 50 21 98 #9 Tier Volcano 2 5 50 7 64 #10 Source: Phoenix NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Table PA-4 categorizes the probability and vulnerability scores from the hazard analysis for the City and compares the results to the assessment completed by the Jackson County NHMP Steering Committee (Volume II, Appendix Q. Variations between the City and County are noted in bold text. Table PA-4 Probability and Vulnerability Comparison Drought High Moderate High Moderate Earthquake(Cascadia) High High High High Earthquake (Crustal) Low Moderate Low Moderate Emerging Infectious Disease Moderate High Moderate High Flood High Moderate High Moderate Landslide High Low High Low Volcano Low Low Low Low Wildfire Moderate Low High Moderate Windstorm High Moderate High Moderate Winter Storm High High High Moderate Source: Phoenix NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page PA-11 Community Characteristics Table PA-5 and the following section provides information on City specific demographics and assets. For additional information on the characteristics of Phoenix, in terms of geography, environment, population, demographics, employment and economics, as well as housing and transportation see Volume I, Section 2. Many of these community characteristics can affect how natural hazards impact communities and how communities choose to plan for natural hazard mitigation. Considering the City specific assets during the planning process can assist in identifying appropriate measures for natural hazard mitigation. Between 2012 and 2016 the City grew by 15 people (0.3%) and median household income decreased by about 1% (Volume I, Section 2). New development has complied with the standards of the Oregon Building Code and the city's development code including their floodplain ordinance. Transportation/Infrastructure In the City of Phoenix, transportation has played a major role in shaping the community. Phoenix's commercial areas developed along primary routes and residential development followed nearby. Today, mobility plays an important role in Phoenix and the daily experience of its residents and businesses as they move from point A to point B. The current railroad system is serviced through the Union Pacific Railroad system and the Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad (CORP) route. This complements the established Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) and the transit stop located within Phoenix. In addition, the City is located along the Bear Creek Greenway multi-use trail that provides alternative routes for pedestrians and bicyclists. By far, motor vehicles represent the dominant mode of travel through and within Phoenix. Economy A diverse range of businesses have chosen to locate in Phoenix. Traditionally, Phoenix has built its economy on a resource base of timber, favorable climate, attractive landscape, cultural attractions, a well-educated labor force and education. In addition, Phoenix's location on Interstate 5 and the Southern Pacific Railroad and its proximity to the Medford Airport give it market access that is more favorable than usual for a rural town. According to the economic profile of the City's Comprehensive Plan, Phoenix finds their main economic drivers in the sectors of manufacturing, retail trade and public administration.' 1 City of Phoenix, Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Economic Element (1996, amended 1998) http://www.phoenixoregon.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/building/planning/page/351/comp_plan_ec onomic_element.pdf Page PA-12 December 2017 Phoenix Addendum Table PA-5 Community Characteristics 2012 Population 4,570 Housing Units 2016 Population 4,585 Single-Family 1,236 54% 2035 Forecasted Population* 6,883 Multi-Family 582 25% Race and Ethnic Categories Mobile Homes 481 21% White 93% Year Structure Built Black/ African American < 1% Pre-1970 288 13% American Indian and Alaska Native < 1% 1970-1989 1,114 49% Asian 0% 1990 or later 897 39% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0% Housing Tenure and Vacancy Some Other Race < 1% Owner-occupied 1,375 63% Two or More Races 6% Renter-occupied 801 37% Hispanic or Latino 12% Vacant 123 5% Limited or No English Spoken 4% Phoenix is in Jackson County in southwestern Vulnerable Age Groups Oregon. The City has grown since its Less than 15 Years 564 12% 65 Years and Over 1,270 28% incorporation in 1910 and has an area today Disability Status of 1.25 square miles. It is located in the South- Total Population 940 21% central region of the county, located about 25 Children 66 1°~ miles northwest of the California border and Seniors 411 9% about 5 miles southeast of the City of Medford. The City and most of Jackson County are within the Rogue and Umpqua Households by Income Category ° watersheds. Less than $15,000 633 29% $15,000-$29,999 385 18% $30,000-$44,999 370 17% Phoenix experiences a relatively mild climate $45,000-$59,999 204 9% with four distinct seasons that comes from its $60,000-$74,999 184 8% position on the west coast of North America $75,000-$99,999 150 7% and within the mountains of the region. The $100,000-$199,999 246 11% town is just off of Interstate 5 at the southern $200,000 or more 4 0% end of the Rogue Valley at approximately Median Household Income $32,035 1,500 feet above sea level. As a result of its Poverty Rates location Phoenix has a climate somewhat Total Population 1,160 25% intermediate to central California and Children 256 31% Seniors 75 1% northern Oregon. Phoenix averages only 20 Housing Cost Burden inches of rain per year due to being inland Owners with Mortgage 42% from the coast and in the rain shadow of the Renters 63% nearby mountains. While the surrounding Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American mountains receive plentiful snow, Phoenix Community Survey; Portland State University, itself sees around 4 inches annually. Population Research Center. Note: * = Population forecast within UGB The City of Phoenix includes a diversity of land uses but is zoned primarily residential. For more information see Volume I, Section 2. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page PA-13 Community Assets This section outlines the resources, facilities and infrastructure that, if damaged, could significantly impact the public safety, economic conditions and environmental integrity of Phoenix. Critical Facilities Facilities that are critical to government response and recovery activities (i.e. life, safety, property and environmental protection). These facilities include: 911 Centers, Emergency Operations Centers, Police and Fire Stations, Public Works facilities, sewer and water facilities, hospitals, bridges, roads, shelters and more. Facilities that, if damaged, could cause serious secondary impacts may also be considered "critical." A hazardous material facility is one example of this type of critical facility. Fire Stations: Essential City Facilities: • Jackson County Fire Public Works Office (EOC) District #5 -Station 3 Municipal Court Law Enforcement: City Shops • Phoenix Police Department Private: • The Home Depot • Ray's Food Place • Rite Aid (Pharmacy) Essential Facilities Facilities that are essential to the continued delivery of key government services and/orthat may significantly impact the public's ability to recoverfrom the emergency. These facilities may include: City buildings such as the Public Services Building, the City Hall and other public facilities such as schools. Hospitals/Immediate Medical Care Potential Shelter Sites: Facilities: • All Phoenix Schools • Providence Phoenix Family • Central Neighborhood Church Practice • South Valley Church Public Schools: • First Baptist Church • His Valley Church • Phoenix High School • phoenix Chapel • Phoenix Elementary School • Covenant Life Ministries • Armadillo Technical Institute • First Presbyterian Church City/County Buildings: • New Song Community Church Phoenix Library • Coptic Christian • ' Page PA-14 December 2017 Phoenix Addendum Infrastructure: Infrastructure that provides services for the City include: Transportation Networks: • Highway 99/ Bear Creek Dr • Interstate 5 • Fern Valley Rd • N Phoenix Rd • Colver Rd • Grove Rd • 1:t St • 4tn St Special Service Districts: • Southern Oregon Education Service District • Medford Water Commission • Medford Irrigation District • Talent Irrigation District • Rogue Valley Sewer Private Utilities: • Pacific Power • Avista ~I Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page PA-15 Hazard Characteristics Drought The steering committee determined that the City's probability for drought is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to drought is moderate (which is the same as the County's rating). Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of drought hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event. Due to the climate of Jackson County, past and present weather conditions have shown an increasing potential for drought. The City receives its main water supply from Big Butte Springs through the Medford Water Commission, supplemented by the Rogue River in the summer months. For more information on the future of Phoenix's water supply visit their website. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Earthquake (Cascadia) The steering committee determined that the City's probability for a Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) earthquake is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to a CSZ earthquake is high (which is the same as the County's rating). Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of earthquake hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event. Generally, an event that affects the County is likely to affect Phoenix as well. The causes and characteristics of an earthquake event are appropriately described within Volume I, Section 3, as well as the location and extent of potential hazards. Previous occurrences are well documented within Volume I, Section 3 and the community impacts described by the County would generally be the same for Phoenix as well. The local faults, the county's proximity to the Cascadia Subduction Zone, potential slope instability and the prevalence of certain soils subject to liquefaction and amplification combine to give the County a high-risk profile. Due to the expected pattern of damage resulting from a CSZ event, the Oregon Resilience Plan divides the State into four distinct zones and places Jackson County predominately within the "Valley Zone" (Valley Zone, from the summit of the Coast Range to the summit of the Cascades). Within the Southwest Oregon region, damage and shaking is expected to be strong and widespread - an event will be disruptive to daily life and commerce and the main priority is expected to be restoring services to business and residents.' Figure PA-2 displays relative shaking hazards from a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake event. As shown in the figure below, the majority of the City is expected to experience very strong shaking in a CSZ event. 2 Ibid. Page PA-16 December 2017 Phoenix Addendum Figure PA-2 Cascadia Subduction Zone Layers Currently Shown -0 - Caceadla Earthquake Hazard - Cascadia Earthquake Expected Shaking ■ Violent ■ Severe Q Very Strong 0 Strong ® Moderate Light -`t _17-p Sakes FIf t Ikm 1 mi c~.i uc Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (DOGAMI) As noted in the community profile, approximately 61% of residential buildings were built prior to 1990, which increases the City's vulnerability to the earthquake hazard. Information on specific public buildings' (schools and public safety) estimated seismic resistance, determined by DOGAMI in 2007, is shown in Table PA-6; each "X" represents one building within that ranking category. Of the facilities evaluated by DOGAMI using RVS, two (2) have a very high (100% chance) collapse potential and three (3) have a high (greater than 10% chance) collapse potential. In addition to building damages, utility (electric power, water, wastewater, natural gas) and transportation systems (bridges, pipelines) are also likely to experience significant damage. The City has a concrete water reservoir, a water tower and 6.5 miles of pipe that connects to the Medford Water Commission that is vulnerable to earthquake. Utility systems will be significantly damaged, including damaged buildings and damage to utility infrastructure, including water treatment plants and equipment at high voltage substations (especially 230 kV or higher which are more vulnerable than lower voltage substations). Buried pipe systems will suffer extensive damage with approximately one break per mile in soft soil areas. There would be a much lower rate of pipe breaks in other areas. Restoration of utility services will require substantial mutual aid from utilities outside of the affected area. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page PA-17 Table PA-6 Rapid Visual Survey Scores Level of Collapse Potential 1 Low 1%) Moderate High Very High Facility Site ID* >1% >10% 100% Schools p ;iix r I(,;nentary Schucl (Pnocnix-Talent SD 4) Jack_sch46 X,X,X,X X X (215 N Rose St) Phoenix High School (Phoenix-Talent SD 4) Jack_sch02 X X,X X 745 N Rose St Public Safety Jackson County Fire District #5 Jack fir03 X 116W2ndSt Source: DOGAMI 2007 Open File Report 0-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment Using Rapid Visual Assessment. - Site ID is referenced on the RVS Jackson County Map Earthquake (Crustal) The steering committee determined that the City's probability for a crustal earthquake is low (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to crustal earthquake is moderate (which is the same as the County's rating). Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of earthquake hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event. Generally, an event that affects the County is likely to affect Phoenix as well. The causes and characteristics of an earthquake event are appropriately described within Volume I, Section 3, as well as the location and extent of potential hazards. Previous occurrences are well-documented within Volume I, Section 3 and the community impacts described by the County would generally be the same for Phoenix as well. Earthquake-induced damages are difficult to predict and depend on the size, type and location of the earthquake, as well as site-specific building and soil characteristics. Presently, it is not possible to accurately forecast the location or size of earthquakes, but it is possible to predict the behavior of soil at any particular site. In many major earthquakes, damages have primarily been caused by the behavior of the soil. Figure PA-3 displays relative liquefaction hazards, the majority of the City is within an area of moderate soft soils (liquefaction hazard; orange areas). Page PA-18 December 2017 Phoenix Addendum Figure PA-3 Active Faults and Soft Soils Layers Currently Shown -0 , S Earthquake Hazard Camp"a Active Faults\ o Earthquake Epicenter (1971-2008) _ r O 5 - 7 Magnitude t C) 3 - 5 14 ~ i J~. c, 2 - 3 \ r...,.. o 1-2 e 0-1 High Moderate Low -AL um Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (DOGAMI) Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Emerging Infectious Disease The steering committee determined that the City's probability for emerging infectious disease is moderate (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability is high (which is the same as the County's rating). Emerging infectious diseases are those that have recently appeared in a population or those whose incidence or geographic range is rapidly increasing or threatens to increase. Emerging infections may be caused by biological pathogens (e.g., virus, parasite, fungus or bacterium) and may be: previously unknown or undetected biological pathogens, biological pathogens that have spread to new geographic areas or populations, previously known biological pathogens whose role in specific diseases was previously undetected and biological pathogens whose incidence of disease was previously declining but whose incidence of disease has reappeared (re-emerging infectious disease).' 3 Baylor College of Medicine, Emerging Infectious Disease, URL: littps://R,Ww bcm edu/departments/molecular-virology-and-microbioloF_y/emerging-infections-and- biodefense/emerging-infectious-diseases, accessed September 17, 2017. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page PA-19 Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of emerging infectious disease, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. Generally, an event that affects the County is likely to affect the City as well. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Flood The steering committee determined that the City's probability for flood is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to flood is moderate (which is the same as the County's rating). Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of flood hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event. Portions of Phoenix have areas of flood plains (special flood hazard areas, SFHA). These include areas along the Bear Creek, Coleman Creek and Anderson Creek (Figure PA-4). Furthermore, other portions of Phoenix, outside of the mapped floodplains, are also subject to flooding from local storm water drainage. Note: Rogue Valley Sewer Services provides sewer and stormwater services to the City and provides information on low-impact development. Figure PA-4 Special Flood Hazard Area Layers Currently Shown _ © Cedar SI IBM Hazard 14 Type and Source of Flood Data Effective FEMA 100 yr Flood -Fam19 R~ 1 j Preliminary FEMA 100 yr Flood State Digitized Flood Data Q3 FEMA Flood Data\ I'll oeuiX w' 4" _ \ 1 \ 4'~. 7 4- ` - Camp Bakes Rd Fir I_ Ikm I 1 ml ~ Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (DOGAMI) The City is at risk from two types of flooding: riverine and urban. Riverine flooding occurs when streams overflow their banks and inundate low-lying areas. This is a natural process that adds sediment and nutrients to fertile floodplain areas. It usually results from prolonged periods of precipitation over a wide geographic area. Most areas are generally flooded by low velocity sheets of water. Urban flooding occurs as land is converted to Page PA-20 December 2017 Phoenix Addendum impervious surfaces and hydrologic systems are changed. Precipitation is collected and transmitted to streams at a much faster rate, causing floodwaters that rise rapidly and peak with violent force. During urban flooding, storm drains can back up and cause localized flooding of streets and basements. These flooding events and subsequent damages are commonly caused by the behavior of Bear Creek and Coleman Creek and their tributaries. Floods can have a devastating impact on almost every aspect of the community, including private property damage, public infrastructure damage and economic loss from business interruption. It is important forthe City to be aware of flooding impacts and assess its level of risk. The City has been proactive in mitigating flood hazards by purchasing floodplain property. The economic lasses due to business closures often total more than the initial property losses that result from flood events. Business owners and their employees are significantly impacted by flood events. Direct damages from flooding are the most common impacts, but indirect damages, such as diminished clientele, can be just as debilitating to a business. The FEMA Flood Insurance Study (May 3, 2011) has a brief history of flooding in Jackson County and Phoenix (Volume I, Section 3). Currently, no critical or essential facilities are located in the floodplain. The City has two mobile home parks that were impacted by flooding in 1964 and 1997. Mitigation efforts that took place have decreased flooding in those areas adjacent to Bear Creek. Highway 99 and Interstate 5 are major transportation routes in the Rogue Valley. If major flooding affected all of the bridges in Phoenix, traffic flow in an out of the City would be significantly affected, but would not cut all off all avenues. The amount of property in the flood plain is not a large area but damage could be significant as it would affect residential, commercial and public property. Floodwaters can affect building foundations, seep into basements or cause damage to the interior, exterior and contents of buildings, dependent upon the velocity and depth of the water and by the presence of floating debris. The City sewer system can overflow during flood events and cause further property damage. For mitigation planning purposes, it is important to recognize that flood risk for a community is not limited only to areas of mapped floodplains. Other portions of Phoenix outside of the mapped floodplains may also be at relatively high risk from over bank flooding from streams too small to be mapped by FEMA or from local storm water drainage. In addition, the City is at low risk to flooding from dam inundation of Hosler Dam and Emigrant Lake. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) FEMA updated the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) in 2011 (effective May 3, 2011; revised January 19, 2018). Table PA-7 shows that as of June 2016, Phoenix has 21 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policies in force. Of those, 13 are for properties that were constructed before the initial FIRM. The last Community Assistance Visit (CAV) for Phoenix was on March 3, 2002. Phoenix does not participate in the Community Rating System (CRS). The table shows that the majority of flood insurance policies are for residential structures, primarily single-family homes. There has been a total of two paid claims for $36,200. The City complies with the NFIP through enforcement of their flood damage prevention ordinance and their floodplain management program. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page PA-21 I The Community Repetitive Loss record for Phoenix identifies zero (0) Repetitive Loss Properties4 and zero (0) Severe Repetitive Loss Properties.5 For details on the repetitive loss properties see Volume I, Section 3. Table PA-7 Flood Insurance Detail Policies by Building Type Effective Initial Total Pre-FIRM Single 2 to 4 Other Non- Minus Rated Jurisdiction FIRM and FIS FIRM Date Policies Policies Family Family Residential Residential A Zone Severe Last Substantial Repetitive Repetitive Community Insurance Total Pre-FIRM Damage Loss lLoss CRS Class Assistance Jurisdiction in Force Paid Claims Claims Paid Claims Total Paid Amount Structures Properties Rating Visit Phoenix $ 2,850,800 2 1 $ 36,200 0 0 3/3/2002 Source: Information compiled by Department of Land Conservation and Development, July 2016. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Landslide The steering committee determined that the City's probability for landslide is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to landslide is low (which is the same as the County's rating). Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of landslide hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. The potential for landslide in Phoenix is almost negligible with the possible exception of very small areas immediately adjacent to stream channels. However, such areas have little or no development or infrastructure. Landslide susceptibility exposure for Phoenix is shown in Figure PA-5. Most of Phoenix demonstrates a low susceptibility to landslide exposure, with corridors of moderate susceptibility concentrated around Bear Creek and Coleman Creek. Approximately 3% of Phoenix has high and approximately 21% moderate, landslide susceptibility exposure.6 Note that even if a jurisdiction has a high percentage of area in a high or very high landslide exposure susceptibility zone, this does not mean there is a high risk, because risk is the intersection of hazard and assets. 4 A Repetitive Loss (RL) property is any insurable building for which two or more claims of more than $1,000 were paid by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) within any rolling ten-year period, since 1978. A RL property may or may not be currently insured by the NFIP. 5 A Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) property is a single family property (consisting of 1 to 4 residences) that is covered under flood insurance by the NFIP and has incurred flood-related damage for which 4 or more separate claims payments have been paid under flood insurance coverage, with the amount of each claim payment exceeding $5,000 and with cumulative amount of such claims payments exceeding $20,000; or for which at least 2 separate claims payments have been made with the cumulative amount of such claims exceeding the reported value of the property. 6 DOGAMI Open-File Report, 0-16-02, Landslide Susceptibility Overview Map of Oregon (2016) Page PA-22 December 2017 Phoenix Addendum Figure PA-5 Landslide Susceptibility Exposure Layers Currently Shown P MM Mile 4 P' Landslide Hazard J b L- c 3 i i ed r 51 Landslide susceptibility , P Y y Low - Landsliding Unlikely 4. a 1r Moderate - Landsliding Possible High - Landsliding Likely Very High - Existing Landslide' { '''..II I't Tjy I'll oelli, ri Cae,Wrl'iU 9 ttr~ • .1 s 4L ~~pp~i i..r Camp B~Icer R8£ f j 8 3 4 y a/ r T I k. lmi - L/flllam 7 n...ne^Yafn M:rLa Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (DOGAMI) Potential landslide-related impacts are adequately described within Volume I, Section 3 and include infrastructural damages, economic impacts (due to isolation and/or arterial road closures), property damages and obstruction to evacuation routes. Rain-induced landslides and debris flows can potentially occur during any winter in Jackson County and thoroughfares beyond City limits are susceptible to obstruction as well. The most common type of landslides in Jackson County are slides caused by erosion. Slides move in contact with the underlying surface, are generally slow moving and can be deep. Rainfall-initiated landslides tend to be smaller; while earthquake induced landslides may be quite large. All soil types can be affected by natural landslide triggering conditions. Please review Volume lf, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Severe Weather Severe weather in can account for a variety of intense and potentially damaging weather events. These events include windstorms and winter storms. The following section describes the unique probability and vulnerability of each identified weather hazard. Other more abrupt or irregular events such as hail are also described in this section. Windstorm The steering committee determined that the City's probability for windstorm is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to windstorm is moderate (which is the same as the County's rating). Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page PA-23 Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of windstorm hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. Because windstorms typically occur during winter months, they are sometimes accompanied by ice, freezing rain, flooding and very rarely, snow. Other severe weather events that may accompany windstorms, including thunderstorms, hail, lightning strikes and tornadoes are generally negligible for Phoenix. Volume I, Section 3 describes the impacts caused by windstorms, including power outages, downed trees, heavy precipitation, building damages and storm-related debris. Additionally, transportation and economic disruptions result as well. Damage from high winds generally has resulted in downed utility lines and trees. Electrical power can be out anywhere from a few hours to several days. Outdoor signs have also suffered damage. If the high winds are accompanied by rain (which they often are), blowing leaves and debris clog drainage-ways, which in turn causes localized urban flooding. Please review Volume I, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Winter Storm (Snow/Ice) The steering committee determined that the City's probability for winter storm is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to winter storm is high (which is higher than the County's rating). Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of winter storm hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. Severe winter storms can consist of rain, freezing rain, ice, snow, cold temperatures and wind. They originate from troughs of low pressure offshore that ride along the jet stream during fall, winter and early spring months. Severe winter storms affecting the City typically originate in the Gulf of Alaska or in the central Pacific Ocean. These storms are most common from November through March. Major winter storms can and have occurred in the Phoenix area, and while they typically do not cause significant damage, they are frequent and have the potential to impact economic activity. The last major storm was in December, 2013 which impacted schools for two to three days. Road and rail closures due to winter weather are an uncommon occurrence, but can interrupt commuter and commercial traffic. The City maintains roads with a plow and two sanding trucks. Please review Volume Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Volcano The steering committee determined that the City's probability for a volcanic event is low (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to a volcanic event is low (which is the same as the County's rating). The City assessed the volcanic eruption hazard in the County's portion of this NHMP and accepted the County's ratings since volcanos are considered a regional hazard and will affect the City similarly to the County. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of volcanic hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. Generally, an event Page PA-24 December 2017 Phoenix Addendum that affects the County is likely to affect Phoenix as well. Phoenix is very unlikely to experience anything more than volcanic ash during a volcanic event. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Wildfire The steering committee determined that the City's probability for wildfire is moderate (which is lower than the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to wildfire is low (which is lower than the County's rating). Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of wildland fire hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. The location and extent of a wildland fire vary depending on fuel, topography and weather conditions. Weather and urbanization conditions are primarily at cause for the hazard level. Wildland fires in Phoenix are somewhat rare. However, air inversions are relatively common during the summer and may bring wildfire smoke from miles away into the City. The potential community impacts and vulnerabilities described in Volume I, Section 3 are generally accurate for the City as well. The Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Protection Plan (RVIFP, updated 2017), assesses wildfire risk, maps wildland urban interface areas and includes actions to mitigate wildfire risk. The City is included in the RVIFP and will update the City's wildfire risk assessment if the fire plan presents better data during future updates (an action item is included within Volume I, Section 4 to participate in updates to the integrated fire plan and to continue to maintain and update their RVIFP). Phoenix is within an area of low wildfire prone urban landscape. The City hereby incorporates the RVIFP into this addendum by reference to provide greater detail to sensitivity and exposure to the wildfire hazard. Property can be damaged or destroyed with one fire as structures, vegetation and other flammables easily merge to become unpredictable and hard to manage. Other factors that affect ability to effectively respond to a wildfire include access to the location and to water, response time from the fire station, availability of personnel and equipment and weather (e.g., heat, low humidity, high winds and drought). Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Summary Figure PA-6 presents a summary of the hazard analysis for Phoenix and compares the results to the assessment completed by Jackson County. The top three hazards for the City are the Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake, emerging infectious disease and winter storm. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page PA-25 Figure PA-6 Overall Hazard Analysis Comparison - Phoenix/Jackson County 240 222 222 211 211 210 180 185 170 160 160 158 163 149 130 125 120 103 98 98 64 64 Earthquake Emerging Winter Storm Windstorm Drought Flood Wildfire Landslide Earthquake Volcano (Cascadia) Infectious (Crustal) Disease ■ Phoenix 0 County Source: City of Phoenix NHMP Steering Committee and Jackson County NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Page PA-26 December 2017 Phoenix Addendum CITY OF ROGUE RIVER ADDENDUM Purpose This is an update of the Rogue River addendum to the Jackson County Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (MNHMP, NHMP). This addendum supplements information contained in Volume I (Basic Plan) which serves as the NHMP foundation and Volume II (Appendices) which provide additional information. This addendum meets the following requirements: • Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption §201.6(c)(5), • Multi-Jurisdictional Participation §201.6(a)(3), • Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Strategy §201.6(c)(3)(iv) and • Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment §201.6(c)(2)(iii). Updates to Rogue River's addendum are further discussed throughout the NHMP and within Volume 11, Appendix B, which provides an overview of alterations to the document that took place during the update process. Mitigation Plan Mission The plan mission states the purpose and defines the primary functions of the NHMP. It is intended to be adaptable to any future changes made to the NHMP and need not change unless the community's environment or priorities change. The City concurs with the mission statement developed during the Jackson County planning process (Volume I, Section 4): Protect life, property and the environment, reduce risk and prevent loss from natural hazard events through coordination and cooperation among public and private partners. Mitigation Plan Goals Mitigation plan goals are more specific statements of direction that Jackson County citizens and public and private partners can take while working to reduce the City's risk from natural hazards. These statements of direction form a bridge between the broad mission statement and particular action items. The goals listed here serve as checkpoints as agencies and organizations begin implementing mitigation action items. The City concurs with the goals developed during the Jackson County planning process (Volume I, Section 4). All of the NHMP goals are important and are listed below in no particular order of priority. Establishing community priorities within action items neither negates nor eliminates any goals, but it establishes which action items to consider to implement first, should funding become available. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page RA-1 Below is a list of the NHMP goals: GOAL 1: EMERGENCY SERVICES Minimize life safety issues by promoting, strengthening and coordinating emergency response plans. GOAL 2: EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Further the public's awareness and understanding of natural hazards and potential risk, including economic vulnerability and mitigation efforts. GOAL 3: PREVENTION Reduce the threat of loss of life and property from natural hazards by incorporating information on known hazards and providing incentives to make hazard mitigation planning a priority in land use policies and decisions, including plan implementation. GOAL 4: PROPERTY PROTECTION Lessen impact from natural disasters on individual properties, businesses and public facilities by increasing awareness at the individual level and encouraging activities that can prevent damage and loss of life from natural hazards. GOAL 5: PARTNERSHIP AND COORDINATION Identify mitigation or risk reduction measures that address multiple areas (i.e., environment, transportation, telecommunications); Coordinate public/private sector participation in planning and implementing mitigation projects throughout the City; and seek funding and resource partnerships for future mitigation efforts. GOAL 6: NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION Preserve and rehabilitate natural systems to serve natural hazard mitigation functions (i.e., floodplains, wetlands, watershed and urban interface areas). GOAL 7: STRUCTURAL PROTECTIONS When applicable, utilize structural mitigation activities to minimize risks associated with natural hazards. NHMP Process, Participation and Adoption This section of the NHMP addendum addresses 44 CFR 201.6(c)(5), Plan Adoption and 44 CFR 201.6(a)(3), Participation. The first update of the Jackson County NHMP was approved by FEMA on February 4, 2013. To maintain compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K), the NHMP required an update by February 3, 2018. Rogue River was included with an addendum in the 2012 Jackson County NHMP process. The Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience (OPDR) at the University of Oregon's Community Service Center (CSC) partnered with the Oregon Military Department's Office of Emergency Management (OEM), Jackson County and Rogue River to update their NHMP. This project is funded through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) FY15 Page RA-2 December 2017 Rogue River Addendum Pre-Disaster Mitigation Competitive Grant Program (PDMC-PL-10-PR-2015-003). Members of the Rogue River NHMP steering committee also participated in the County NHMP update process (Volume II, Appendix B). By updating the NHMP, locally adopting it and having it re-approved by FEMA, Rogue River will maintain eligibility for FEMA Hazard Mitigation, Pre-Disaster Mitigation and Flood Mitigation Assistance grant program funds. The Jackson County NHMP and Rogue River addendum, are the result of a collaborative effort between citizens, public agencies, non-profit organizations, the private sector and regional organizations. A project steering committee guided the process of developing the NHMP. The Rogue River City Manager served as the designated convener of the NHMP update and the Public Works Director will take the lead in implementing, maintaining and updating the addendum to the Jackson County NHMP in collaboration with the designated convener of the Jackson County NHMP (Emergency Manager). Representatives from the City of Rogue River steering committee met formally and informally, to discuss updates to their addendum (Volume II, Appendix B). The steering committee reviewed and revised the City's addendum, with particular focus on the NHMP's risk assessment and mitigation strategy (action items). This addendum reflects decisions made at the designated meetings and during subsequent work and communication with Jackson County Emergency Management and the OPDR. The changes are highlighted with more detail throughout this document and within Volume II, Appendix B. Other documented changes include a revision of the City's risk assessment and hazard identification sections, NHMP mission and goals, action items and community profile. The Rogue River Steering Committee was comprised of the following representatives: • Convener, Mark Reagles, City Administrator • Mike Bollweg, Public Works Director • Bonnie Honea, Finance Director • James Price, Rogue River Fire District • Dean Stirm, Planning Commissioner • Pam VarnArsdale, Mayor Public participation was achieved with the establishment of the steering committee, which was comprised of City officials representing different departments and sectors and members of the public. The steering committee was closely involved throughout the development of the NHMP and served as the local oversight body for the NHMP's development. Community members were provided an opportunity for comment via the NHMP review process and through a survey administered by the OPDR and publicized by the participating jurisdictions (Volume II, Appendix B). The Jackson County NHMP was approved by FEMA on [Month] [Day], 2018 and the Rogue River addendum was adopted via resolution on [Month] [Day], 2018. This NHMP is effective through [Month] [Day], 2023. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page RA-3 NHMP Implementation and Maintenance The City Council will be responsible for adopting the Rogue River addendum to the Jackson County NHMP. This addendum designates a coordinating body and a convener to oversee the development and implementation of action items. Because the City addendum is part of the County's multi-jurisdictional NHMP, the City will look for opportunities to partner with the County. The City's steering committee will convene after re-adoption of the Rogue River NHMP addendum on an annual schedule. The County is meeting on a semi-annual basis and will provide opportunities for the cities to report on NHMP implementation and maintenance during their meetings. The City's Public Works Director will serve as the convener and will be responsible for assembling the steering committee (coordinating body). The steering committee will be responsible for: • Reviewing existing action items to determine suitability of funding; • Reviewing existing and new risk assessment data to identify issues that may not have been identified at NHMP creation; • Educating and training new Steering Committee members on the NHMP and mitigation actions in general; • Assisting in the development of funding proposals for priority action items; • Discussing methods for continued public involvement; and • Documenting successes and lessons learned during the year. The convener will also remain active in the County's implementation and maintenance process (Volume I, Section 5). The City will utilize the same action item prioritization process as the County (Volume I, Section 5 and Volume II, Appendix D). Implementation through Existing Programs Many of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan's recommendations are consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's existing plans and policies. Where possible, Rogue River will implement the NHMP's recommended actions through existing plans and policies. Plans and policies already in existence have support from local residents, businesses and policy makers. Many land-use, comprehensive and strategic plans get updated regularly, allowing them to adapt to changing conditions and needs. Implementing the NHMP's action items through such plans and policies increases their likelihood of being supported and implemented. Rogue River's acknowledged comprehensive plan is the City of Rogue River Comprehensive Plan administered by the Rogue River Planning Commission. The City implements the plan through the Community Development Code. Rogue River currently has the following plans that relate to natural hazard mitigation. For a complete list visit the City's website: • Comprehensive Plan (1990, amended 2005, available through request) • Municipal Code (in update, flood ordinance may be updated) • Capital Improvement Plan (available through Public Works) Page RA-4 December 2017 Rogue River Addendum • Building Code, 2017 Oregon State Code based on 2015 International Residential Code (IRC) and 2012 International Building Code • Emergency Operations Plan • Water CIP • Wastewater CIP • Street CIP • Storm Drain CIP Continued Public Participation Keeping the public informed of the City's efforts to reduce its risk to future natural hazard events is important for successful NHMP implementation and maintenance. The City is committed to involving the public in the NHMP review and updated process (Volume I, Section 5). NHMP Maintenance The Jackson County Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan and City addendum will be updated every five years in accordance with the update schedule outlined in the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. During the County plan update process, the City will also review and update its addendum (Volume I, Section 5). The convener will be responsible for convening the steering committee to address the questions outlined below. • Are there new partners that should be brought to the table? • Are there new local, regional, state or federal policies influencing natural hazards that should be addressed? • Has the community successfully implemented any mitigation activities since the NHMP was last updated? • Have new issues or problems related to hazards been identified in the community? • Are the actions still appropriate given current resources? • Have there been any changes in development patterns that could influence the effects of hazards? • Have there been any significant changes in the community's demographics that could influence the effects of hazards? • Are there new studies or data available that would enhance the risk assessment? • Has the community been affected by any disasters? Did the NHMP accurately address the impacts of this event? These questions will help the steering committee determine what components of the mitigation NHMP need updating. The steering committee will be responsible for updating any deficiencies found in the NHMP. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page RA-5 Mitigation Strategy This section of the NHMP addendum addresses 44 CFR 201.6(c)(3(iv), Mitigation Strategy. The City's mitigation strategy (action items) were first developed during the 2012 NHMP planning process. During this process, the steering committee assessed the City's risk, identified potential issues and developed a mitigation strategy (action items). During the 2017 update process the City re-evaluated their mitigation strategy (action items). During this process action items were updated, noting what accomplishments had been made and whether the actions were still relevant; any new action items were identified at this time (see Volume II, Appendix B for more information on changes to action items). Priority Actions The City is listing a set of high priority actions in an effort to focus attention on an achievable set of high leverage activities over the next five-years (Table RA-1). The City's priority actions are listed below in the following table. Action Item Pool Table RA-2 presents a "pool" of mitigation actions. This expanded list of actions is available for local consideration as resources, capacity, technical expertise and/or political will become available. The majority of these actions carry forward from prior versions of this NHMP (Jackson County and/or Rogue River NHMPs). Page RA-6 December 2017 Rogue River Addendum Table RA- I Rogue River Priority Action Items Action Lead Potential Funding Mitigation Action Item Timeline Partner Organization(s) Item ID Organization Source(s) Priority Actions 'Multi-Hazard (MH) MH #1 Wire schools to use city's portable generators Short Term School District City Administration, City Local Funding Resources, (New) (0-2 Years) Building School District Incorporate hazard-resilient development design Local Funding Resources, MH #2 Mid-Term City Administration, City (New) and siting of infrastructure into development code (3-5 Years) City Planning Building DLCD Technical Assistance and ordinances. Grant Drought (DR) Ensure that the water quantity held in established City Administration, Jackson DR #1 Mid-Term (3-5 County Soil and Water water storage facilities is at an amount adequate City Public Works Local Funding Resources (New) for drought preparedness. Years) Conservation District, OWRD Earthquake (EQ) Implement structural and non-structural retrofits to City Public Works, City City Local Funding Resources, EQ #1 critical and essential facilities. Including water Ongoing Administration Building, Rogue River Fire FEMA (HMA), SRGP reservoir (500,000) built in 1974 and bridges. District, Main Building Flood (FL) FL #1 Mitigate streambank erosion near Wards Creek Long Term City Planning, City GIS, City Public Works Local Funding Resources (New) that is impacting adjacent property. (5+ Years) Jackson County, DLCD Ensure continued compliance in the National Flood City Public Works, Jackson FL #2 Insurance Program (NFIP) through enforcement of Ongoing City Planning County, FEMA, NFIP; CRS/ Local Funding Resources local floodplain management ordinances. ISO; DLCD Wildfire (WF) City Administration, City Public Works, ODF, Jackson County, Rogue River Fire Partner with Jackson County on Implementation of District, Bureau of Land Local Funding Resources, WF #1 the Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wiildfire Ongoing City Planning Fire and Rescue Districts, Protection Plan and outreach projects Management - Medford OEM, ODF District, Oregon Department of Forestry, Office of State Fire Marshal Source: City of Rogue River NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page RA-7 i Table RA-I Rogue River Priority Action Items (continued) Action Lead Potential Funding Mitigation Action Item Timeline Partner Organization(s) Item ID Organization Source(s) Action Item Pool Multi-Hazard (MH) City Public Works, Rogue Maintain public education programs to inform the City River Fire District, Jackson MH #3 public about methods of mitigating the impacts of Ongoing Administration County Fire; Jackson Local Funding Resources natural hazards County; Community Organizations Integrate the goals and action items from the City Administration, City Local Funding Resources, Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan into existing MH #4 Ongoing City Planning Public Works, Building DLCD Technical Assistance regulatory documents and programs, where Codes Division Grant appropriate. Integrate conservation and watershed protection MH #5 Short Term City City Planning, City Public into existing wildfire and other mitigation Local Funding Resources (New) (0-2 Years) Administration Works, Fire District approaches. Drought(DR) See priority actions and multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Earthquake (EQ) City Building, Rogue River Short Term Fire District, Insurance EQ #2 Promote earthquake insurance Administration Local Funding Resources (0-2 Years) companies, FEMA, Mortgage companies Promote and coordinate Earthquake Hazard Risk Long Term City Administration, City FEMA Risk MAP, DOGAMI, EQ #3 Map for Jackson County and cities (5+ Years) City Planning Public Works, DOGAMI, DLCD, OEM, HMGP, PDM Jackson County Emerging Infectious Disease No specific action item developed for this hazard. See multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Source: City of Rogue River NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Page RA-8 December 2017 Rogue River Addendum Table RA-2 Rogue River Action Item Pool Action Lead Potential Funding Mitigation Action Item Timeline Partner Organization(s) Item ID Organization Source(s) Action Item Pool Flood (FL) Continue participation in the NFIP's Community City, Public Works, Jackson FL #3 Rating System (CRS) Ongoing City Planning County, FEMA, NFIP; CRS/ Local Funding Resources ISO; DLCD Promote and protect the use of naturally flood Local Funding Resources, FL #4 prone open space or wetlands as flood storage Ongoing City Public Works City Planning, Jackson DLCD, OEM, FEMA, OPRD areas County, DEQ (Local Government Grant Program) Preserve water quantity and quality by using storm Long Term City Planning, Jackson Local Funding Resources, FL #5 water best management practices (Low Impact (5+ Years) City Public Works County; DEQ; Rogue Valley DLCD, FEMA, ASFPM, DEQ Development/ Green Infrastructure). Sewer Services FL #6 Protect city facilities in flood prone areas Ongoing City Public Works City Planning, City GIS, Local Funding Resources, Jackson County, DLCD FMA, PDM, HMGP FL #7 Implement flood control measures by improving City GIS Coordinator, City Local Funding Resources, Ongoing City Public Works Planning, Jackson County, (New) storm drainage and educating the public. FEMA, NFIP; CRS/ ISO DLCD, FEMA, ASFPM, DEQ FL #8 Short Term City Planning, City GIS, Local Funding Resources, (New) Update the city's stormwater master plan (0-2 Years) City Public Works Jackson County, DLCD DLCD Technical Assistance Grant, DEQ Landslide (LS) No specific action item developed for this hazard. See multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Severe Weather (SW, Windstorm and Winter Storm) SW #1 Encourage new developments to include Ongoing City Public Works City Planning, Utility Local Funding Resources, underground power lines. Companies, Developers Utilities, Developers City Planning, City Public SW #2 Education and outreach Disaster Resilient Economy Ongoing City Works, Utility companies, Local Funding Resources Administration Churches, schools, Fire, American Red Cross, FEMA L -1 Source: City of Rogue River NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page RA-9 Table RA-2 Rogue River Action Item Pool (continued) Action Lead Potential Funding Mitigation Action Item Timeline Partner Organization(s) Item ID Organization Source(s) Action Item Pool Volcano (VE) No specific action item developed for this hazard. See multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Wildfire (WF) City Public Works, City Promote wildfire mitigation through public Planning, Rogue River City Local Funding Resources, WF #2 education, fuels reductions and the improvement Ongoing Police Department, Jackson Administration ODF, FEMA of transportation corridors. County, Rogue River Fire Department City Administration, City Public Works, Jackson WF #3 Continue to promote wildfire education and Ongoing City Planning County; Rogue River Fire Local Funding Resources, awareness and the Firewise program District; Oregon Firewise, NFPA Department of Forestry, Office of State Fire Marshal Source: City of Rogue River NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Page RA-10 December 2017 Rogue River Addendum I Risk Assessment This section of the NHMP addendum addresses 44 CFR 201.6(b)(2) - Risk Assessment. In addition, this chapter can serve as the factual basis for addressing Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Hazards. Assessing natural hazard risk has three phases: • Phase 1: Identify hazards that can impact the jurisdiction. This includes an evaluation of potential hazard impacts -type, location, extent, etc. • Phase 2: Identify important community assets and system vulnerabilities. Example vulnerabilities include people, businesses, homes, roads, historic places and drinking water sources. • Phase 3: Evaluate the extent to which the identified hazards overlap with or have an impact on, the important assets identified by the community. The local level rationale for the identified mitigation strategies (action items) is presented herein and within Volume I, Sections 2 and 3. The risk assessment process is graphically depicted in Figure RA-1 below. Ultimately, the goal of hazard mitigation is to reduce the area of risk, where hazards overlap vulnerable systems. Figure RA-I Understanding Risk =:USGS Understanding Risk D' ASTIR g . UESILIENCL' "l- science for a changing world Natural Hazard ~\Vulnerable System Potential Catastrophic Exposure, Sensitivity and Chronic Physical Events / Risk t and Resilience of: • Past Recurrence Intervals I t • Population • Future Probability I of • Economic Generation • Speed of Onset I I • Built Environment •Magnitude t Disaster, Academic and Research Function • Duration t / • Cultural Assets • Spatial Extent • Infrastructure Ability, Resources and Willingness to: • Mitigate • Respond • Prepare • Recover Source: USGS- Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience Research Collaboration, 2006 Hazard Analysis The Rogue River steering committee developed their hazard vulnerability assessment (HVA), using their previous HVA and the County's HVA (Volume ll, Appendix C) as a reference. Changes from the County's HVA were made where appropriate to reflect distinctions in vulnerability and risk from natural hazards unique to Rogue River, which are discussed throughout this addendum. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page RA-11 Table RA-4 shows the HVA matrix for Rogue River listing each hazard in order of rank from high to low. For local governments, conducting the hazard analysis is a useful step in planning for hazard mitigation, response and recovery. The method provides the jurisdiction with sense of hazard priorities, but does not predict the occurrence of a particular hazard. One catastrophic hazard (Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake) and three chronic hazards (wildfire, emerging infectious disease and flood) rank as the top hazard threats to the City (Top Tier). Drought, winter storm and windstorm comprise the next highest ranked hazards (Middle Tier), while crustal earthquake, volcano and landslide comprise the lowest ranked hazards (Bottom Tier). Table RA-3 Hazard Analysis Matrix - Rogue River rd Hazard nk Tiers Wildfire 20 45 90 70 225 #1 Earthquake(Cascadia) 2 50 100 70 222 #2 Top Emerging Infectious Disease 12 50 100 49 211 #3 Tier Flood 20 35 80 70 205 #4 Drought 20 40 70 63 193 #5 Middle Winter Storm 20 30 60 70 180 #6 Tier Windstorm 20 20 50 70 160 #7 Earthquake (Crustal) 2 25 50 21 98 #8 Bottom Volcano 2 5 50 7 64 #9 Tier Landslide 2 5 20 14 41 #10 Source: Rogue River NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Table RA-4 categorizes the probability and vulnerability scores from the hazard analysis for the City and compares the results to the assessment completed by the Jackson County NHMP Steering Committee (Volume II, Appendix C). Variations between the City and County are noted in bold text. Table RA-4 Probability and Vulnerability Comparison Rogue River Jackson County Hazard Probability Vulnerability Probability Vulnerability Drought High High High Moderate Earthquake(Cascadia) High High High High Earthquake (Crustal) Low Moderate Low Moderate Emerging Infectious Disease Moderate High Moderate High Flood High Moderate High Moderate Landslide Low Low High Low Vol ca no Low Low Low Low Wildfire High High High Moderate Windstorm High Moderate High Moderate Winter Storm High Moderate High Moderate Source: Rogue River NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Page RA-12 December 2017 Rogue River Addendum Community Characteristics Table RA-5 and the following section provides information on City specific demographics and assets. For additional information on the characteristics of Rogue River, in terms of geography, environment, population, demographics, employment and economics, as well as housing and transportation see Volume I, Section 2. Many of these community characteristics can affect how natural hazards impact communities and how communities choose to plan for natural hazard mitigation. Considering the City specific assets during the planning process can assist in identifying appropriate measures for natural hazard mitigation. Between 2012 and 2016 the City grew by 55 people (0.6%) and median decreased by about 20% Volume I Section 2 household income y ( New development has complied with the standards of the Oregon Building Code and the city's development code including their floodplain ordinance. Transportation/Infrastructure In the City of Rogue River, transportation has played a major role in shaping the community. Rogue River's commercial areas developed along primary routes and residential development followed nearby. Today, mobility or lack thereof due to heavy traffic, plays an important role in Rogue River and the daily experience of its residents and businesses as they move from point A to point B. The current railroad system is serviced through the Union Pacific Railroad system and the Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad (CORP) route. The Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) provides commuter transit service Monday through Friday via their Rogue Valley Commuter Line. By far, motor vehicles represent the dominant mode of travel through and within Rogue River. Economy A diverse range of businesses have chosen to locate in Rogue River. Rogue River's location on Interstate 5 and its proximity to the Medford Airport give it market access that is more favorable than usual for a rural town. According to economic City data, Rogue River finds their main economic drivers in the sectors of manufacturing, retail trade and construction.' 1http://www.City-data.com/City/Rogue-River-Oregon.htmI Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page RA-13 Table RA-5 Community Characteristics 2012 Population 2,145 Housing Units 2016 Population 2,200 Single-Family 671 50% 2035 Forecasted Population* 3,705 Multi-Family 481 36% Race and Ethnic Categories Mobile Homes 184 14% White 93% Year Structure Built Black/ African American 2% Pre-1970 222 17% American Indian and Alaska Native 2% 1970-1989 760 57% Asian < 1% 1990 or later 354 27% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0% Housing Tenure and Vacancy Some Other Race 1% Two or More Races 2% Owner-occupied 536 46% Renter-occupied 635 54% Hispanic or Latino 13% Vacant 111 8% Limited or No English Spoken 0% Rogue River is in Jackson County in Vulnerable Age Groups southwestern Oregon. The City has grown Less than 15 Years 385 18% 65 Years and Over 596 27% steadily since its incorporation in 1912 and has an area today of 0.97 square miles. It is disability status located in the northern region of the county, Total Population 525 24% Children 10 1% located about 3.5 miles east of the Josephine Seniors 227 10% County border and about 20 miles northwest of the City of Medford. The City and most of Jackson County are within the Rogue and Households by Income Category Umpqua watersheds. Less than $15,000 264 23% $15,000-$29,999 315 27% Rogue River experiences a relatively mild $30,000-$44,999 193 16% climate with four distinct seasons that comes $45,000-$59,999 166 14% from its position on the west coast of North $60,000-$74,999 72 6% America and within the mountains of the $75,000-$99,999 45 4% region. The town is just off of Interstate 5 and $100,000-$199,999 60 5% about 50 miles north of the California border $200,000 or more 5 < 1% and in the heart of the Rogue Valley at Median Household Income $26,753 approximately 1,000 feet above sea level. Poverty Rates Rogue River has a climate somewhat Total Population 616 28% intermediate to central California and Children 191 38% northern Oregon. Rogue River averages Seniors 100 15% around five inches of precipitation per month Housing Cost Burden in the winter and one or less inches in the Owners with Mortgage 56% summer months. Renters 52% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American The City of Rogue River includes a diversity of Community Survey; Portland State University, land uses but is zoned primarily residential. Population Research Center. Note: * = Population forecast within UGB For more information see Volume 1, Section 2. Page RA-14 December 2017 Rogue River Addendum Community Assets This section outlines the resources, facilities and infrastructure that, if damaged, could significantly impact the public safety, economic conditions and environmental integrity of Rogue River. Critical Facilities Facilities that are critical to government response and recovery activities (i.e. life, safety, property and environmental protection). These facilities include: 911 Centers, Emergency Operations Centers, Police and Fire Stations, Public Works facilities, sewer and water facilities, hospitals, bridges, roads, shelters and more. Facilities that, if damaged, could cause serious secondary impacts may also be considered "critical." A hazardous material facility is one example of this type of critical facility. Fire Stations: Private: • Rogue River Fire District #1 • Ray's Food Place (EOC) • Dollar General • Main Building Supply (Ace) Law Enforcement: • Murphy Plywood • Police Department • Rogue River Pharmacy City Buildings: • Lil' Pantry • Community Center • Circle K • City Hall Essential Facilities Facilities that are essential to the continued delivery of key government services and/or that may significantly impact the public's ability to recover from the emergency. These facilities may include: City buildings such as the Public Services Building, the City Hall and other public facilities such as schools. Hospitals/Immediate Medical Care Public Schools: Facilities: • Rogue River Elementary • Rogue River Family Practice (east) Clinic Rogue River Elementary • Rogue River Veterinary (west) Hospital • Rogue River High • Animal Clinic of Rogue River • Rivers Edge Academy Charter School City/ County/Other Buildings: • Rogue River Library • Rogue River Chamber of Commerce and Visitor Center Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page RA-15 Potential Shelter Sites: • Church of Christ of Rogue River • All Rogue River Schools • Hope Presbyterian Church • Rogue Valley Community Church • Rogue River 2 Foursquare Church (Hope Alive) • Jehovah's Witness • New Beginnings • Faith Lutheran • Russian Orthodox Infrastructure: Infrastructure that provides services forthe City includes: Transportation Networks: Special Service Districts: • Southern Oregon Education • Highway 99/Rogue River Hwy • Foothill Blvd Service District • E Main St • Rogue River School District #35 • Interstate 5 . Rogue River Fire District #1 • Wards Creek Grants Pass Irrigation District • W Evans Creek k Rd • Gold Hill Irrigation District • Pine St/E Evans • N River Rd Private Utilities: Water Facilities: • Southern Oregon - Pacific Power • 2 well-fed reservoirs Avista -Natural Gas • Water Treatment Plant (1994) • Charter - Cable • Waste Water Treatment Plant . Hunter - Fiber (1997) • AT&T-Fiber . Century Link - Phone Page RA-16 December 2017 Rogue River Addendum Hazard Characteristics Drought The steering committee determined that the City's probability for drought is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to drought is high (which is higher than the County's rating). These ratings increased since the previous version of this NHMP addendum. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of drought hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event. Due to the climate of Jackson County, past and present weather conditions have shown an increasing potential for drought. The City receives its main water supply directly from the Rogue River and established local wells. For more information on the future of Rogue River's water supply visit their website. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Earthquake (Cascadia) The steering committee determined that the City's probability for a Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) earthquake is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to a CSZ earthquake is high (which is the same as the County's rating). Previously, the earthquake hazard profile was a single risk assessment, which is now divided into two separate earthquake hazards: Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) earthquake and crustal earthquake. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of earthquake hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event. Generally, an event that affects the County is likely to affect Rogue River as well. The causes and characteristics of an earthquake event are appropriately described within Volume I, Section 3, as well as the location and extent of potential hazards. Previous occurrences are well documented within Volume I, Section 3 and the community impacts described by the County would generally be the same for Rogue River as well. The local faults, the county's proximity to the Cascadia Subduction Zone, potential slope instability and the prevalence of certain soils subject to liquefaction and amplification combine to give the County a high-risk profile. Due to the expected pattern of damage resulting from a CSZ event, the Oregon Resilience Plan divides the State into four distinct zones and places Jackson County predominately within the "Valley Zone" (Valley Zone, from the summit of the Coast Range to the summit of the Cascades). Within the Southwest Oregon region, damage and shaking is expected to be strong and widespread - an event will be disruptive to daily life and commerce and the main priority is expected to be restoring services to business and residents.' Figure RA-2 displays relative shaking hazards from a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake event. As shown in the figure below, the area of 2 Ibid. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page RA-17 greatest concern within the City of Rogue River (darker areas) is along the river and mountainous areas. Figure RA-2 Cascadia Subduction Zone Layers Currently Shown _ IMF i Cascadia Earthquake Hazard 1Gyrirtn Cascadia Earthquake Expected Shaking k. ■ Violent } ® Severe r1nS, Z Very strong nZ o Strong Moderate Rogve Light River 1km 1mi rflnfPflr f17.1 Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (DOGAMI) As noted in the community profile, approximately 74% of residential buildings were built prior to 1990, which increases the City's vulnerability to the earthquake hazard. Information on specific public buildings' (schools and public safety) estimated seismic resistance, determined by DOGAMI in 2007, is shown in Table RA-8; each "X" represents one building within that ranking category. Of the facilities evaluated by DOGAMI using a Rapid Visual Survey (RVS), three (3) have a high (greater than 10% chance) collapse potential and zero (0) have a very high (100% chance) collapse potential. In addition to building damages, utility (electric power, water, wastewater, natural gas) and transportation systems (bridges, pipelines) are also likely to experience significant damage. There is a low probability that a major earthquake will result in failure of upstream dams. Utility systems will be significantly damaged, including damaged buildings and damage to utility infrastructure, including water and wastewater treatment plants and equipment at high voltage substations (especially 230 kV or higher which are more vulnerable than lower voltage substations). Buried pipe systems will suffer extensive damage with approximately one break per mile in soft soil areas. There would be a much lower rate of pipe breaks in Page RA-18 December 2017 Rogue River Addendum other areas. Restoration of utility services will require substantial mutual aid from utilities outside of the affected area.3 Table RA-6 Rapid Visual Survey Scores Level of Collapse Potential Low Moderate High Very High Facility Site ID* < 1% >I% >10% 100% Schools Evans Valley School (Rogue River SD 35) Jack sch50 X X (8205 E Evans Creek Rd) - CLOSED - Rogue River Elementary School (Rogue River SD 35) Jack_sch20 Mitigated per 2010-11 SRGP grant (300 Pine St) - East Campus Rogue River High School (Rogue River SD 35) (1898 E Evans Creek Rd) Jack_sch22 X,X Rogue River Elementary School (Rogue River SD 35) Jack sch21 Mitigated per 2015-17 SRGP grant (301 Pine St) - West Campus Public Safety Rogue River Police (133 Broadway) Jack_po102 X Source: DOGAMI 2007. Open File Report 0-07-02. Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment Using Rapid Visual Assessment. - Site ID is referenced on the RVS Jackson County Map Mitigation Successes Seismic retrofit grant awards per the Seismic Rehabilitation Grant Program4 have been funded to retrofit Rogue River West Elementary (Phase One of 2015-2017 grant award, $1,497,500) and Rogue River East Elementary (2010-2011 grant award, $1,500,000). Earthquake (Crustal) The steering committee determined that the City's probability for a crustal earthquake is low (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to crustal earthquake is moderate (which is the same as the County's rating). Previously, the earthquake hazard profile was a single risk assessment, which is now divided into two separate earthquake hazards: crustal earthquake and Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) earthquake. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of earthquake hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event. Generally, an event that affects the County is likely to affect Rogue River as well. The causes and characteristics of an earthquake event are appropriately described within Volume I, Section 3, as well as the location and extent of potential hazards. Previous occurrences are well-documented within 3 Regional All Hazard Mitigation Master Plan for Jackson, Lane and Linn Counties: Phase II (2001) 4 The Seismic Rehabilitation Grant Program (SRGP) is a state of Oregon competitive grant program that provides funding for the seismic rehabilitation of critical public buildings, particularly public schools and emergency services facilities. III Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page RA-19 Volume I, Section 3 and the community impacts described by the County would generally be the same for Rogue River as well. Earthquake-induced damages are difficult to predict and depend on the size, type and location of the earthquake, as well as site-specific building and soil characteristics. Presently, it is not possible to accurately forecast the location or size of earthquakes, but it is possible to predict the behavior of soil at any particular site. In many major earthquakes, damages have primarily been caused by the behavior of the soil. Figure RA-3 displays relative liquefaction hazards. Figure RA-3 displays relative liquefaction hazards, the majority of the City is within an area of moderate soft soils (liquefaction hazard; orange areas). Figure RA-3 Active Faults and Soft Soils Layers Currently shown © I ~ Y6 } t Earthquake Hazard Active Faults Earthquake Epicenter (1971-2008)` 4 W" g S 0 5 - 7 Magnitude 0 3-5 ti t" 2-3 0 1-2 0 0-1 Cv High 3rd St Roc Moderate Rivet Low ■ a 3 F..^r @^ lkm *a~ ~ti Source: Ore -on HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (DOGAMI) Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Page RA-20 December 2017 Rogue River Addendum Emerging Infectious Disease The steering committee determined that the City's probability for emerging infectious disease is moderate (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability is high (which is the same as the County's rating). The City did not assess the emerging infectious disease hazard in the previous version of their NHMP. Emerging infectious diseases are those that have recently appeared in a population or those whose incidence or geographic range is rapidly increasing or threatens to increase. Emerging infections may be caused by biological pathogens (e.g., virus, parasite, fungus or bacterium) and may be: previously unknown or undetected biological pathogens, biological pathogens that have spread to new geographic areas or populations, previously known biological pathogens whose role in specific diseases was previously undetected and biological pathogens whose incidence of disease was previously declining but whose incidence of disease has reappeared (re-emerging infectious disease).5 Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of emerging infectious disease, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. Generally, an event that affects the County is likely to affect the City as well. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Flood The steering committee determined that the City's probability for flood is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to flood is moderate (which is higher than the County's rating). These ratings did not change since the previous version of this NHMP addendum. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of flood hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event. Portions of Rogue River have areas of flood plains (special flood hazard areas, SFHA), closely concentrated around the Rogue River corridor, contouring 1-5. Areas along Evans Creek and Ward Creek (Figure RA-4). Furthermore, other portions of Rogue River, outside of the mapped floodplains, are also subject to flooding from local storm water drainage. The Rogue River is the chief source of flooding in the City of Rogue River. The river, which has its origins in the Rogue River National Forest south of the City and flows from East to West. Evans Creek runs north-south out of the northern portion of Rogue River, with the smaller Ward Creek flowing through the northeastern portion of the City. During the 1964 and 1997 floods the City experienced flood inundation and damage in areas near the river including an RV park, Fleming Park and downtown. The City also experienced flooding in the 2006 flood, but without significant damages. The areas of Rogue River that are particularly flood prone include "the areas just south of and west of the Depot Street Bridge over the 5 Baylor College of Medicine, Emerging Infectious Disease, URL: htti)s://www.bcm.edu/departments/molecular-virology-and-microbiology/emerging-infections-and- biodefense/emerging-infectious-diseases, accessed September 17, 2017. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page RA-21 Rogue River, along the Rogue River and an area just west of Evans Creek, near its mouth" (Figure RA-4).6 The City is at risk from two types of flooding: riverine and urban. Riverine flooding occurs when streams overflow their banks and inundate low-lying areas. This is a natural process that adds sediment and nutrients to fertile floodplain areas. It usually results from prolonged periods of precipitation over a wide geographic area. Most areas are generally flooded by low velocity sheets of water. Urban flooding occurs as land is converted to impervious surfaces and hydrologic systems are changed. Precipitation is collected and transmitted to streams at a much faster rate, causing floodwaters that rise rapidly and peak with violent force. During urban flooding, storm drains can back up and cause localized flooding of streets and basements. These flooding events and subsequent damages are commonly caused by the behavior of Rogue River. Additional risks of flood are posed from Ward Creek and the Evans Creek, however, most of this flooding is due to backwater from the Rogue River.' Figure RA-4 Special Flood Hazard Area Layers Currently Shown _ 71h St _ Flood Hazard ~P- a Pe 5 v Type and Source of Flood Data 8.q r- a R s Effective FEMA 100 yr Flood ti 3rd Sl Z 1 Preliminary FEMA 100 yr Flood Rogue,'.' o River State Digitized Flood Data Q3 FEMA Flood Data 4 Cr 1 km - 1 mly`-- ° „4 r'nnto l~aas.`nnf gal Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (DOGAMI) Floods can have a devastating impact on almost every aspect of the community, including private property damage, public infrastructure damage and economic loss from business interruption. It is important for the City to be aware of flooding impacts and assess its level of risk. The economic losses due to business closures often total more than the initial property losses that result from flood events. Business owners and their employees are significantly impacted by flood events. Direct damages from flooding are the most common impacts, but indirect damages, such as diminished clientele, can be just as debilitating to a business. 6 Jackson County Flood Insurance Study (May 3, 2011) Ibid. Page RA-22 December 2017 Rogue River Addendum Following the January 1997, flood businesses in Rogue River suffered direct damage from high water. The FEMA Flood Insurance Study (May 3, 2011) has a brief history of flooding in Jackson County and Rogue River (Volume I, Section 3). The City's water plant and four sewer pump stations are within the 100-year flood plain, the City's waste water plant and intake structures are just outside. Currently, there is no financial impact data available for this infrastructure. Highway 99 (Rogue River Highway) and Interstate 5 are major transportation routes in the Rogue Valley. If major flooding affected all of the bridges in Rogue River, traffic flow in an out of the City would be significantly affected, but would not cut off all avenues. The amount of property in the flood plain is not a large area but damage could be significant as it would affect residential, commercial and public property. Floodwaters can affect building foundations, seep into basements or cause damage to the interior, exterior and contents of buildings, dependent upon the velocity and depth of the water and by the presence of floating debris. The City sewer system can overflow during flood events and cause further property damage. For mitigation planning purposes, it is important to recognize that flood risk for a community is not limited only to areas of mapped floodplains. Other portions of Rogue River outside of the mapped floodplains may also be at relatively high risk from over bank flooding from streams too small to be mapped by FEMA or from local storm water drainage. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) FEMA updated the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) in 2011 (effective May 3, 2011; revised January 19, 2018). The table below shows that as of June 2016, Rogue River has 60 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policies in force. Of those, 14 are for properties that were constructed before the initial FIRM. The last Community Assistance Visit (CAV) for Rogue River was on JULY 11, 2011. Rogue River's Class Rating within the Community Rating System (CRS) is an 8. The table shows that the majority of flood insurance policies are for residential structures, primarily single-family homes. There has been a total of six (6) paid claims for $103,241. The City complies with the NFIP through enforcement of their flood damage prevention ordinance and their floodplain management program. The Community Repetitive Loss record for Rogue River identifies zero (0) Repetitive Loss Properties8 and zero (0) Severe Repetitive Loss Propertiess. For details on the repetitive loss properties see Volume I, Section 3. 8A Repetitive Loss (RL) property is any insurable building forwhich two or more claims of more than $1,000 were paid bythe National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) within any rolling ten-year period, since 1978. A RL property may or may not be currently insured by the NAP. 9A Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) property is a single family property (consisting of 1 to 4 residences) that is covered underflood insurance by the NFIP and has incurred flood-related damage for which 4 or more separate claims payments have been paid underflood insurance coverage, with the amount of each claim payment exceeding $5,000 and with cumulative amount of such claims payments exceeding $20,000; or for which at least Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page RA-23 I Table RA-7 Flood Insurance Detail Policies by Building Type Effective Initial Total Pre-FIRM Single 2 to 4 Other Non- Minus Rated Jurisdiction FIRM and FIS FIRM Date Policies 11 Policies Family Family Residential Residential A Zone ~j3 1 1 bC 60 Severe Last Substantial Repetitive Repetitive Community Insurance Total Pre-FIRM Damage Total Paid Loss Loss CRS Class Assistance Jurisdiction in Force Paid Claims Claims Paid Claims Amount ]Structures Properties Rating Visit Ja k-~n County 5 - 2,-3 1 Rogue River $ 10,984,900 6 3 1 $ 103,241 0 0 8 7/11/2011 Source: Information compiled by Department of Land Conservation and Development, July 2016. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Landslide The steering committee determined that the City's probability for landslide is low (which is lower than the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to landslide is low (which is the same as the County's rating). These ratings did not change since the previous version of this NHMP addendum. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of landslide hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. The potential for landslide in Rogue River is low to moderate. However, critical transportation routes into the City may be susceptible to landslides. Landslide susceptibility exposure for Rogue River is shown in Figure RA-4. Most of Rogue River demonstrates a low susceptibility to landslide exposure, with corridors of moderate susceptibility concentrated around the outer edges of Highway 99 and Interstate 5 and some areas of high susceptibility along the northern corridor of the Rogue River. Approximately 12% of Rogue River has high and approximately 27% moderate, landslide susceptibility exposure10. Note that even if a jurisdiction has a high percentage of area in a high or very high landslide exposure susceptibility zone, this does not mean there is a high risk, because risk is the intersection of hazard and assets. Potential landslide-related impacts are adequately described within Volume I, Section 3 and include infrastructural damages, economic impacts (due to isolation and/or arterial road closures), property damages and obstruction to evacuation routes. Rain-induced landslides and debris flows can potentially occur during any winter in Jackson County and thoroughfares beyond City limits are susceptible to obstruction as well. The most common type of landslides in Jackson County are slides caused by erosion. Slides move in contact with the underlying surface, are generally slow moving and can be deep. 2 separate claims payments have been made with the cumulative amount of such claims exceeding the reported value of the property. 10 DOGAMI Open-File Report, 0-16-02, Landslide Susceptibility Overview Map of Oregon (2016) Page RA-24 December 2017 Rogue River Addendum Rainfall-initiated landslides tend to be smaller; while earthquake induced landslides may be quite large. All soil types can be affected by natural landslide triggering conditions. Figure RA-5 Landslide Susceptibility Exposure $ Layers Currently Shown I~ ,W Landslide Hazard Landslide Susceptibility; ' d, r I Low - Landsliding Unlikely;- I 'P ❑ Moderate- Landsliding Possible ITT ' E O x High - Landsliding Likely _ cl ® Very High - Existing Landslide. r Rogua. _ Rive. F ' s _4 'is lit 4 lkm lmi IIIahCS`1 RiJ'Y1 Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (DOGAMI) Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Severe Weather Severe weather in can account for a variety of intense and potentially damaging weather events. These events include windstorms and winter storms. The following section describes the unique probability and vulnerability of each identified weather hazard. Other more abrupt or irregular events such as hail are also described in this section. Windstorm The steering committee determined that the City's probability for windstorm is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to windstorm is moderate (which is the same as the County's rating). The City did not assess the windstorm hazard in the previous version of their NHMP as a unique hazard (it was assessed as a component of the severe winter storm and windstorm hazard). The previous severe storm rating was applied to both windstorm and winter storm and the ratings were modified slightly to account for the differences in vulnerability and risk to the hazard. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of windstorm hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. Because windstorms typically occur during winter months, they are sometimes accompanied by ice, Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page RA-25 freezing rain, flooding and very rarely, snow. Other severe weather events that may accompany windstorms, including thunderstorms, hail, lightning strikes and tornadoes are generally negligible for Rogue River. Volume I, Section 3 describes the impacts caused by windstorms, including power outages, downed trees, heavy precipitation, building damages and storm-related debris. Additionally, transportation and economic disruptions result as well. Damage from high winds generally has resulted in downed utility lines and trees. Electrical power can be out anywhere from a few hours to several days. Outdoor signs have also suffered damage. If the high winds are accompanied by rain (which they often are), blowing leaves and debris clog drainage-ways, which in turn causes localized urban flooding. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Winter Storm (Snow/Ice) The steering committee determined that the City's probability for winter storm is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to winter storm is moderate (which is the same as the County's rating). The City did not assess the winter storm hazard in the previous version of their NHMP as a unique hazard (it was assessed as a component of the severe winter storm and windstorm hazard). The previous rating was applied to both windstorm and winter storm and the ratings were modified slightly to account for the differences in vulnerability and risk to the hazard. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of winter storm hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. Severe winter storms can consist of rain, freezing rain, ice, snow, cold temperatures and wind. They originate from troughs of low pressure offshore that ride along the jet stream during fall, winter and early spring months. Severe winter storms affecting the City typically originate in the Gulf of Alaska or in the central Pacific Ocean. These storms are most common from November through March. Major winter storms can and have occurred in the Rogue River area and while they typically do not cause significant damage, they are frequent and have the potential to impact economic activity. Road and rail closures due to winter weather are an uncommon occurrence, but can interrupt commuter and commercial traffic. The City maintains roads with sanding equipment and County snow plows. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Volcano The steering committee determined that the City's probability for a volcanic event is low (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to a volcanic event is low (which is the same as the County's rating). These ratings did not change since the previous version of this NHMP addendum. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of volcanic hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. Generally, an event Page RA-26 December 2017 Rogue River Addendum that affects the County is likely to affect Rogue River as well. Rogue River is very unlikely to experience anything more than volcanic ash during a volcanic event. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Wildfire The steering committee determined that the City's probability for wildfire is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to wildfire is high (which is higher than the County's rating). The vulnerability rating increased since the previous version of this NHMP addendum. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of wildland fire hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. There has been one large wildland event in Rogue River, the 2011 Tin Pan Peak Fire, a 300-acre fire that destroyed businesses as it approached Rogue River from the southeast. The location and extent of a wildland fire vary depending on fuel, topography and weather conditions. Weather and urbanization conditions are primarily at cause for the hazard level. Wildland fires in Rogue River City-limits are rare, however, recent wildfires have threatened subdivisions and mobile home parks on the edge of the City. Additional wildfires occurred circa 1990 (Mill Fire) and August 1992 (East Evans Creek Fire; FM-2083). The potential community impacts and vulnerabilities described in Volume I, Section 3 are generally accurate for the City as well. The Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Protection Plan (RVIFP, updated 2017), assesses wildfire risk, maps wildland urban interface areas and includes actions to mitigate wildfire risk. The City is included in the RVIFP and will update the City's wildfire risk assessment if the fire plan presents better data during future updates (an action item is included within Volume I, Section 4 to participate in updates to the integrated fire plan and to continue to maintain and update their RVIFP). Rogue River is within an area of high wildfire prone urban landscape. Current wildfire mitigation activities include defensible space and fuels reduction projects. The City hereby incorporates the RVIFP into this addendum by reference to provide greater detail to sensitivity and exposure to the wildfire hazard. Property can be damaged or destroyed with one fire as structures, vegetation and other flammables easily merge to become unpredictable and hard to manage. Other factors that affect ability to effectively respond to a wildfire include access to the location and to water, response time from the fire station, availability of personnel and equipment and weather (e.g., heat, low humidity, high winds and drought). Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Summary Figure RA-6 presents a summary of the hazard analysis for Rogue River and compares the results to the assessment completed by Jackson County. The top hazards for the City are wildfire, Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake, emerging infectious disease and flood. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page RA-27 Figure RA-6 Overall Hazard Analysis Comparison - Rogue River/Jackson County 240 225 222 222 211 211 205 193 185 180 180 11U 163 160 160 125 120 98 98 64 64 41 0 Wildfire Earthquake Emerging Flood Drought Winter Storm Windstorm Earthquake Volcano Landslide (Cascadia) Infectious (Crustal) Disease ■ Rogue River ■ County Source: City of Rogue River NHMP Steering Committee and Jackson County NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Page RA-28 December 2017 Rogue River Addendum This page intentionally left blank. Jackson County MNHMP December2017 Page RA-29 CITY OF SHADY COVE ADDENDUM Purpose This is an update of the Shady Cove addendum to the Jackson County Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (MNHMP, NHMP). This addendum supplements information contained in Volume I (Basic Plan) which serves as the NHMP foundation and Volume II (Appendices) which provide additional information. This addendum meets the following requirements: • Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption §201.6(c)(5), • Multi-Jurisdictional Participation §201.6(a)(3), • Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Strategy §201.6(c)(3)(iv) and • Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment §201.6(c)(2)(iii). Updates to Shady Cove's addendum are further discussed throughout the NHMP and within Volume II, Appendix B, which provides an overview of alterations to the document that took place during the update process. Mitigation Plan Mission The NHMP mission states the purpose and defines the primary functions of the NHMP. It is intended to be adaptable to any future changes made to the NHMP and need not change unless the community's environment or priorities change. The City concurs with the mission statement developed during the Jackson County planning process (Volume I, Section 4). Protect life, property and the environment, reduce risk and prevent loss from natural hazard events through coordination and cooperation among public and private partners. Mitigation Plan Goals Mitigation plan goals are more specific statements of direction that Jackson County citizens and public and private partners can take while working to reduce the City's risk from natural hazards. These statements of direction form a bridge between the broad mission statement and particular action items. The goals listed here serve as checkpoints as agencies and organizations begin implementing mitigation action items. The City concurs with the goals developed during the Jackson County planning process (Volume I, Section 4). All of the NHMP goals are important and are listed below in no particular order of priority. Establishing community priorities within action items neither negates nor eliminates any goals, but it establishes which action items to consider to implement first, should funding become available. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page SA-1 Below is a list of the NHMP goals: GOAL 1: EMERGENCY SERVICES Minimize life safety issues by promoting, strengthening and coordinating emergency response plans. GOAL 2: EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Further the public's awareness and understanding of natural hazards and potential risk, including economic vulnerability and mitigation efforts. GOAL 3: PREVENTION Reduce the threat of loss of life and property from natural hazards by incorporating information on known hazards and providing incentives to make hazard mitigation planning a priority in land use policies and decisions, including plan implementation. GOAL 4: PROPERTY PROTECTION Lessen impact from natural disasters on individual properties, businesses and public facilities by increasing awareness at the individual level and encouraging activities that can prevent damage and loss of life from natural hazards. GOALS: PARTNERSHIP AND COORDINATION Identify mitigation or risk reduction measures that address multiple areas (i.e., environment transportation, telecommunications), Coordinate public/private sector participation in planning and implementing mitigation projects throughout the City; and seek funding and resource partnerships for future mitigation efforts. GOAL 6: NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION Preserve and rehabilitate natural systems to serve natural hazard mitigation functions (i.e., floodplains, wetlands, watershed and urban interface areas). GOAL 7: STRUCTURAL PROTECTIONS When applicable, utilize structural mitigation activities to minimize risks associated with natural hazards. NHMP Process, Participation and Adoption This section of the NHMP addendum addresses 44 CFR 201.6(c)(5), Plan Adoption and 44 CFR 201.6(a)(3), Participation The first update of the Jackson County N H M P was approved by FEMA on February 4, 2013. To maintain compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K), the NHMP required an update by February 3, 2018. Shady Cove was included with an addendum in the 2012 Jackson County NHMP process. The Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience (OPDR) at the University of Oregon's Community Service Center (CSC) partnered with the Oregon Military Department's Office of Emergency Management (OEM), Jackson County and Shady Cove to update their NHMP. This project is funded through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) FY15 Page SA-2 December 2017 Shady Cove Addendum Pre-Disaster Mitigation Competitive Grant Program (PDMC-PL-10-PR-2015-003). Members of the Shady Cove NHMP update steering committee also participated in the County NHMP update process (Volume II, Appendix B). By updating the NHMP, locally adopting it and having it re-approved by FEMA, Shady Cove will maintain eligibility for FEMA Hazard Mitigation, Pre-Disaster Mitigation and Flood Mitigation Assistance grant program funds. The Jackson County NHMP and Shady Cove addendum, are the result of a collaborative effort between citizens, public agencies, non-profit organizations, the private sector and regional organizations. A project steering committee guided the process of developing the NHMP. The Shady Cove City Administrator served as the designated convener of the NHMP update and will take the lead in implementing, maintaining and updating the addendum to the Jackson County NHMP in collaboration with the designated convener of the Jackson County NHMP (Emergency Manager). Representatives from the City of Shady Cove steering committee met formally and informally, to discuss updates to their addendum (Volume II, Appendix B). The steering committee reviewed and revised the City's addendum, with particular focus on the NHMP's risk assessment and mitigation strategy (action items). This addendum reflects decisions made at the designated meetings and during subsequent work and communication with Jackson County Emergency Management and the OPDR. The changes are highlighted with more detail throughout this document and within Volume II, Appendix B. Other documented changes include a revision of the City's risk assessment and hazard identification sections, NHMP mission and goals, action items and community profile. The Shady Cove Steering Committee was comprised of the following representatives: • Convener, Aaron Prunty, Administrator • Dick Converse, Planning • Dawn Edwards, Planning Commission • Ed Mayer, Volunteer • Paula Trudeau, Planning Commission • Tom Sanderson, Mayor Public participation was achieved with the establishment of the steering committee, which was comprised of City officials representing different departments and sectors and members of the public. The steering committee was closely involved throughout the development of the NHMP and served as the local oversight body for the NHMP's development. Community members were provided an opportunity for comment via the NHMP review process and through a survey administered by the OPDR and publicized by the participating jurisdictions (Volume II, Appendix B). The Jackson County NHMP was approved by FEMA on [Month] [Day], 2018 and the Shady Cove addendum was adopted via resolution on [Month] [Day], 2018. This NHMP is effective through [Month] [Day], 2023. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page SA-3 NHMP Implementation and Maintenance The City Council will be responsible for adopting the Shady Cove addendum to the Jackson County NHMP. This addendum designates a coordinating body and a convener to oversee the development and implementation of action items. Because the City addendum is part of the County's multi-jurisdictional NHMP, the City will look for opportunities to partner with the County. The City's steering committee will convene after re-adoption of the Shady Cove NHMP addendum on an annual schedule. The County is meeting on a semi-annual basis and will provide opportunities for the cities to report on NHMP implementation and maintenance during their meetings. The city's Administrator will serve as the convener and will be responsible for assembling the steering committee (coordinating body). The steering committee will be responsible for: • Reviewing existing action items to determine suitability of funding; • Reviewing existing and new risk assessment data to identify issues that may not have been identified at NHMP creation; • Educating and training new Steering Committee members on the NHMP and mitigation actions in general; • Assisting in the development of funding proposals for priority action items; • Discussing methods for continued public involvement; and • Documenting successes and lessons learned during the year. The convener will also remain active in the County's implementation and maintenance process (Volume I, Section S). The City will utilize the same action item prioritization process as the County (Volume I, Section 5 and Volume II, Appendix D). Implementation through Existing Programs Many of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan's recommendations are consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's existing plans and policies. Where possible, Shady Cove will implement the NHMP's recommended actions through existing plans and policies. Plans and policies already in existence have support from local residents, businesses and policy makers. Many land-use, comprehensive and strategic plans get updated regularly, allowing them to adapt to changing conditions and needs. Implementing the NHMP's action items through such plans and policies increases their likelihood of being supported and implemented. Shady Cove has recently undergone an update to the City of Shady Cove Comprehensive Plan (2016). The City implements the plan through the Community Development Code.Shady Cove currently has the following plans that relate to natural hazard mitigation. For a complete list visit the City's website: • Comprehensive Plan (2016) • Municipal Code (Flood Ordinance updated in 2017, Riparian Ordinance, 2016) • Emergency Operations Plan (2012) • Stormwater Master Plan • Building Code, 2017 Oregon State Code based on 2015 International Residential Code (IRC) and 2012 International Building Code Page SA-4 December 2017 Shady Cove Addendum Continued Public Participation Keeping the public informed of the City's efforts to reduce its risk to future natural hazard events is important for successful NHMP implementation and maintenance. The City is committed to involving the public in the NHMP review and updated process (Volume I, Section 5). NHMP Maintenance The Jackson County Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan and City addendum will be updated every five years in accordance with the update schedule outlined in the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. During the County NHMP update process, the City will also review and update its addendum (Volume I, Section 5). The convener will be responsible for convening the steering committee to address the questions outlined below. • Are there new partners that should be brought to the table? • Are there new local, regional, state or federal policies influencing natural hazards that should be addressed? • Has the community successfully implemented any mitigation activities since the NHMP was last updated? • Have new issues or problems related to hazards been identified in the community? • Are the actions still appropriate given current resources? • Have there been any changes in development patterns that could influence the effects of hazards? • Have there been any significant changes in the community's demographics that could influence the effects of hazards? • Are there new studies or data available that would enhance the risk assessment? • Has the community been affected by any disasters? Did the NHMP accurately address the impacts of this event? These questions will help the steering committee determine what components of the mitigation plan need updating. The steering committee will be responsible for updating any deficiencies found in the NHMP. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page SA-5 Mitigation Strategy This section of the NHMP addendum addresses 44 CFR 201.6(c)(3(iv), Mitigation Strategy. The City's mitigation strategy (action items) were first developed during the 2012 NHMP planning process. During this process, the steering committee assessed the City's risk, identified potential issues and developed a mitigation strategy (action items). During the 2017 update process the City re-evaluated their mitigation strategy (action items). During this process action items were updated, noting what accomplishments had been made and whether the actions were still relevant; any new action items were identified at this time (see Volume II, Appendix B for more information on changes to action items). Some actions were developed from the Upper Rogue Watershed Multi-Hazard Risk Report (Volume II, Appendix H), while additional action items were developed from a 2016 Areas of Mitigation Interest report (Volume II, Appendix 1). Priority Actions The City is listing a set of high priority actions to focus attention on an achievable set of high leverage activities over the next five-years (Table SA-1). The City's priority actions are listed below in the following table. Action Item Pool Table SA-2 presents a "pool" of mitigation actions. This expanded list of actions is available for local consideration as resources, capacity, technical expertise and/or political will become available. Most of these actions carry forward from prior versions of this NHMP (Jackson County and/ or Shady Cove NHMPs). Page SA-6 December 2017 Shady Cove Addendum Table SA- I Shady Cove Priority Action Items Action Lead Potential Funding Mitigation Action Item Timeline Partner Organization(s) Item ID Organization Source(s) Priority Actions Flood (FL) Ensure continued compliance in the National Flood City Floodplain Local Funding Resources, FL #1 Insurance Program (NFIP) through enforcement of Ongoing Management City Planning, FEMA, DLCD DLCD Technical Assistance local floodplain management ordinances. Grant Severe Weather(SW, Windstormand Winter Storm) City Hazard Mitigation SW #1 Encourage critical facilities to secure emergency Ongoing City Emergency Committee, Granting Local Funding Resources, power. Management organizations, Upper Rogue FEMA (HMA) Community Center Wildfire (WF) City Hazard Mitigation Committee, Fire Dist. #4, Firewise Project Promote public awareness campaigns for individual Coordinator, media, OEM, City Emergency Local Funding Resources, WF #1 property owners living in the Wildland / Urban Ongoing FEMA, DLCD, State Fire Management ODF, Firewise Interface (WUI). Marshal, ODF, BLM, USFS, insurance and real estate industries, Jackson County Sheriff Department. Public Works, Administration, Jackson Partner with Jackson County on Implementation of WF #2 County, Fire Dist. #4, BLM - Fire and Rescue Districts, Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Ongoing Planning (New) Medford District, ODF, OEM, ODF Protection Plan and outreach projects Office of State Fire Marshall Source: City of Shady Cove NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page SA-7 Table SA-2 Shady Cove Action Item Pool Action Lead Potential Funding Mitigation Action Item Timeline Partner Organization(s) Item ID Organization Source(s) Action Item Pool Multi-Hazard (MH) Integrate the Mitigation Plan findings into planning Local Funding Resources, MH #1 and regulatory documents and programs including Mid-Term City Planning RVCOG, DLCD, FEMA DLCD Technical Assistance (New) the Comprehensive Plan (particularly (3-5 Years) Goal 7). Grant Enhance hazard resistant construction methods (wind, winter storm, landslide, etc.) where possible MH #2 to reduce damage to utilities and critical facilities. City Planning, Ongoing Utility Companies Local Funding Resources (New) In part, this may be accomplished by encouraging Public Works electric utility providers to convert existing overhead lines to underground lines. Drought(DR) No specific action item developed for this hazard. See multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Earthquake (EQ) EQ 41 Implement structural and non-structural retrofits to Long-Term City Building officials, Planning, Local Funding Resources, (New) critical and essential facilities. (5+ Years) Administration Public Works FEMA (HMA), SRGP Emerging Infectious Disease (EID) No specific action item developed for this hazard. See multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Flood (FL) Conduct workshops for target audiences on National Flood Insurance Programs, mitigation City Planning, City FL #2 activities, and potential assistance from FEMAs Short Term Floodplain Emergency Management, Local Funding Resources, Flood Mitigation Assistance and Hazard Mitigation (0-2 Years) Management Upper Rogue Watershed FEMA (HMA), SRGP Grant Programs. Include outreach regarding Council , DLCD, OEM, FEMA strapping to mobile home owners. Source: City of Shady Cove NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Page SA-8 December 2017 Shady Cove Addendum Table SA-2 Shady Cove Action Item Pool (continued) Action Lead F Potential Funding Mitigation Action Item Timeline Partner Organization(s) Item ID Organization Source(s) Action Item Pool Planning Commission, Encourage private property owners to restore Floodplain Management, Local Funding Resources, natural systems within the floodplain, and to FEMA, County Emergency ; DLCD, OEM, FEMA, OPRD FL #3 Ongoing City Planning Management, Upper Rogue manage riparian areas and wetlands for flood Watershed, DEQ, ODFW, (Local Government Grant abatement. DLCD, RVCOG, Rogue Fly Program) Fishers, County Parks City Planning, City Public Works, City Floodplain FL #4 Preserve water quality by using stormwater best Long-Term City Planning Management, Rogue Valley Local Funding Resources, management practices (BMP). (5+ Years) Sewer Services, Upper DLCD, FEMA, ASFPM, DEQ Rogue Watershed Council, RVCOG Identify current capabilities and research option to County Emergency FL #5 Mid-Term City Emergency Local Funding Resources, secure an early warning system (EWS) for dam (3 Management, OMD-OEM, PDM (New) failure or flood. 5 Years) Management DLCD, USACE, Silver Jackets , FMA, HMGP, PA Create a dam failure evacuation plan forthe City. Coordinate with Jackson County Emergency County Emergency Local Funding Resources, FL #6 Management and the US Army Corpos of Engineers Short Term City Emergency Management, USACE, Silver PDM, FMA, HMGP, PA, (New) to ensure that current inundation data is used (0-2 Years) Management during risk analysis and encourage collaboration Jackets Silver Jackets and information sharing. Landslide (LS) No specific action item developed for this hazard. See multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Source: City of Shady Cove NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page SA-9 Table SA-2 Shady Cove Action Item Pool (continued) Action Lead Potential Funding Mitigation Action Item Timeline Partner Organization(s) Item ID Organization Source(s) Action Item Pool Severe Weather (SW, Windstorm and Winter Storm) Develop and implement programs to keep trees City Public Works, Utility Short Term City Emergency Local Funding Resources, SW #2 from threatening lives, property, and public (0-2 Years) Management providers, local Arborists HMA, Utilities infrastructure during severe weather events. and tree services Volcano (VE) No specific action item developed for this hazard. See multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Wildfire (WE) City Hazard Mitigation Committee, Jackson County WE #3 Reduce wildfire fuels / Promote and Enhance City Emergency Fire Dist. #4, Firewise Local Funding Resources, "Firewise Community" Program Ongoing Management Project Coordinator, State ODF, Firewise Fire Marshal, ODE, BLM, US Forest Service Distribute public outreach materials informing City Hazard Mitigation WE #4 residents about wildfire hazards and mitigation Short Term City Emergency Committee, Fire Dist. #4, Local Funding Resources, actions they can take to protect their property. (0-2 Years) Management Firewise, ODE, BLM, Forest ODE, Firewise Service Increase communication and coordination with the local Fire District to better prepare for hazard WE #5 events. Consider establishing regular meetings or Short Term City Fire Dist. #4 Local Funding Resources (New) coordination intervals and share concerns and (0-2 Years) Administration experiences in order to provide better response to local needs. Source: City of Shady Cove NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Page SA-10 December 2017 Shady Cove Addendum i Risk Assessment This section of the NHMP addendum addresses 44 CFR 201.6(b)(2) - Risk Assessment. In addition, this chapter can serve as the factual basis for addressing Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 7 -Areas Subject to Natural Hazards. Assessing natural hazard risk has three phases: • Phase 1: Identify hazards that can impact the jurisdiction. This includes an evaluation of potential hazard impacts -type, location, extent, etc. • Phase 2: Identify important community assets and system vulnerabilities. Example vulnerabilities include people, businesses, homes, roads, historic places and drinking water sources. • Phase 3: Evaluate the extent to which the identified hazards overlap with or have an impact on, the important assets identified by the community. The local level rationale for the identified mitigation strategies (action items) is presented herein and within Volume I, Sections 2 and 3. The risk assessment process is graphically depicted in Figure SA-1 below. Ultimately, the goal of hazard mitigation is to reduce the area of risk, where hazards overlap vulnerable systems. Figure SA-I Understanding Risk MUSGS Understanding Risk nISASItR I LSILILNCL science for a changing world Natural Hazard ~\Vulnerable System Potential Catastrophic Exposure, Sensitivity and Chronic Physical Events / Risk and Resilience of: • Past Recurrence Intervals I t • Population • Future Probability I of I Economic Generation • Speed of Onset I I • Built Environment •Magnitude I Disaster, Academic and Research Function • Duration t / • Cultural Assets • Spatial Extent r • Infrastructure Ability, Resources ' and Willingness to: • Mitigate • Respond • Prepare • Recover Source: USGS- Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience Research Collaboration, 2006 Hazard Analysis The Shady Cove steering committee developed their hazard vulnerability assessment (HVA), using their previous HVA and the County's HVA (Volume II, Appendix C) as a reference. Changes from the County's HVA were made where appropriate to reflect distinctions in vulnerability and risk from natural hazards unique to Shady Cove, which are discussed throughout this addendum. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page SA-11 I Table SA-3 shows the HVA matrix for Shady Cove listing each hazard in order of rank from high to low. For local governments, conducting the hazard analysis is a useful step in planning for hazard mitigation, response and recovery. The method provides the jurisdiction with sense of hazard priorities, but does not predict the occurrence of a particular hazard. Two chronic hazards (wildfire and winter storm) and one catastrophic hazard (Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake) rank as the top hazard threats to the City (Top Tier). Emerging infectious disease, flood and windstorm comprise the next highest ranked hazards (Middle Tier), while the landslide, drought, crustal earthquake and volcano hazards comprise the lowest ranked hazards (Bottom Tier). Table SA-3 Hazard Analysis Matrix - Shady Cove Maximum Total Threat Hazard Hazard Hazard History Vulnerability Threat Probability Score Rank Tiers Wildfire 20 50 100 70 2,10 41 Top Earthquake(Cascadia) 2 50 100 70 222 #2 Tier Winter Storm 20 50 80 70 220 #3 Emerging Infectious Disease 12 50 100 49 211 #4 Middle Flood 20 40 80 70 210 #5 Tier Windstorm 20 40 70 70 200 #6 Landslide 2 40 60 56 158 #7 Drought 10 40 30 63 143 #8 Bottom Earthquake (Crustal) 2 25 50 21 98 #9 Tier Volcano 2 5 50 7 64 #10 Source: Shady Cove NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Table SA-4 categorizes the probability and vulnerability scores from the hazard analysis for the City and compares the results to the assessment completed by the Jackson County NHMP Steering Committee (Volume II, Appendix C). Variations between the City and County are noted in bold text. Table SA-4 Probability and Vulnerability Comparison Drought High High High Moderate Earthquake(Cascadia) High High High High Earthquake (Crustal) Low Moderate Low Moderate Emerging Infectious Disease Moderate High Moderate High Flood High High High Moderate Landslide High High High Low Volcano Low Low Low Low Wildfire High High High Moderate Windstorm High High High Moderate Winter Storm High High High Moderate Source: Shady Cove NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Page SA-12 December 2017 Shady Cove Addendum Community Characteristics Table SA-5 and the following section provides information on City specific demographics and assets. For additional information on the characteristics of Shady Cove, in terms of geography, environment, population, demographics, employment and economics, as well as housing and transportation see Volume I, Section 2. Many of these community characteristics can affect how natural hazards impact communities and how communities choose to plan for natural hazard mitigation. Considering the City specific assets during the planning process can assist in identifying appropriate measures for natural hazard mitigation. Between 2012 and 2016 the City grew by 120 people (4.1%) and median household income decreased by about 16% (Volume I, Section 2). New development has complied with the standards of the Oregon Building Code and the city's development code including their floodplain ordinance. Transportation/Infrastructure In the City of Shady Cove, transportation has played a major role in shaping the community. Shady Cove's commercial areas developed along primary routes and residential development followed nearby. By far, motor vehicles represent the dominant mode of travel through and within Shady Cove. Today, mobility plays an important role in Shady Cove and the daily experience of its residents and businesses as they move from point A to point B. In addition, the City operates several recreational trails within City limits that provide alternative routes for pedestrians and bicyclists to connect between the City infrastructure and City parks such as Aunt Caroline's Park and Upper Rogue Regional County Park.' Shady Cove also supports the Shady Cove Airpark which serves as a small private airport for the community and surrounding cities. Economy A diverse range of businesses have chosen to locate in Shady Cove. Shady Cove's location on Highway 62 and its proximity to the Medford Airport give it market access that is more favorable than usual for a rural town. According to economic City data, Shady Cove finds their main economic drivers in the sectors of retail trade, agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting and other services (except public administration).2 0 0 0 http://www.shadycove.net/Com p_Pla n_SecE_Recreation/o20-/o20for/o20merge. pdf 2http://www.City-data.com/City/shady-cove-Oregon.html Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page SA-13 Table SA-5 Community Characteristics lation Characteristics ~Mracteristics 2012 Population 2,920 Housing Units 2016 Population 3,040 Single-Family 751 50% 2035 Forecasted Population* 4,343 Multi-Family 145 10% Race and Ethnic Categories Mobile Homes 608 40% White 97% Year Structure Built Black/ African American 0% Pre-1970 250 17% American Indian and Alaska Native 2% 1970-1989 346 23% Asian 0% 1990 or later 908 60% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 1% Housing Tenure and Vacancy Some Other Race 0% Owner-occupied 1,013 74% Two or More Races 0% Renter-occupied 364 26% Hispanic or Latino 9% Vacant 90 6% Limited or No English Spoken 1% Shady Cove is in Jackson County in Vulnerable Age Groups southwestern Oregon. The City has grown Less than 15 Years 499 16% 65 Years and Over 824 27% steadily since its incorporation in 1972 and has an area today of 2 square miles. It is in Disability Status the north central region of the county, Total Population 692 23% located about 21 miles north of the City of Children 6 0% Seniors 364 12% Medford and about 13 miles south of the nearest border with Douglas County. The City z: and most of Jackson County are within the Households by Income Category Rogue and Umpqua watersheds. Less than $15,000 264 19% $15,000-$29,999 276 20% Shady Cove experiences a relatively mild $30,000-$44,999 366 27% climate with four distinct seasons that comes $45,000-$59,999 105 8% from its position on the west coast of North $60,000-$74,999 84 6% America and within the mountains of the $75,000-$99,999 132 10% region. The town is just off Highway 6 and $100,000-$199,999 54 4% about two miles south of the community of $200,000 or more 0 0% Trail and situated at the southern end of the Median Household Income $31,058 Rogue Valley at approximately 1,400 feet Poverty Rates above sea level. Crater Lake, a national Total Population 692 23% recreational destination, is located about a Children 92 19% 45-minute drive away. Because of its location Seniors 93 12% Shady Cove has a climate somewhat Housing Cost Burden intermediate to central California and Owners with Mortgage 66% northern Oregon. Shady Cove averages about Renters 79% 33 inches of rain per year due to being inland Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American from the coast and in the rain shadow of the Community Survey; Portland State University, nearby mountains. While the surrounding Population Research Center. mountains receive plentiful snow, Shady Cove Note: * = Population forecast within UGB itself sees less than four inches annually. For more information see Volume I, Section 2. The City of Shady Cove includes a diversity of land uses but is zoned primarily residential. Page SA-14 December 2017 Shady Cove Addendum I Community Assets This section outlines the resources, facilities and infrastructure that, if damaged, could significantly impact the public safety, economic conditions and environmental integrity of Shady Cove. Critical Facilities Facilities that are critical to government response and recovery activities (i.e. life, safety, property and environmental protection). These facilities include: 911 Centers, Emergency Operations Centers, Police and Fire Stations, Public Works facilities, sewer and water facilities, hospitals, bridges, roads, shelters and more. Facilities that, if damaged, could cause serious secondary impacts may also be considered "critical." A hazardous material facility is one example of this type of critical facility. Fire Stations: City Buildings: • Jackson County Fire District • Upper Rogue Community Center (Shelter) #4 • City Hall (EOC) Law Enforcement: Private: • Jackson County Sheriff substation • Shady Cove Market • Shady Cove Hardware • Dollar Store • Shady Cove Pharmacy Essential Facilities Facilities that are essential to the continued delivery of key government services and/or that may significantly impact the public's ability to recover from the emergency. These facilities may include: City buildings such as the Public Services Building, the City Hall and other public facilities such as schools. Hospitals/Immediate Medical Care Potential Shelter Sites: Facilities: • All schools • Shady Cove Clinic • Assembly of God • Our Lady of Fatima Parish Public Schools: • Shady Cove Church of Christ • Shady Cove Elementary/ St. Martin's Episcopal Church Middle School Dependence Church • Trail Christian (in County) City/County/Other Buildings: . Jehovah's Witness Hall • Shady Cove Library (County) Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page SA-15 Infrastructure: Infrastructure that provides services for the City include: Transportation Networks: • Highway 62 • Rogue River Dr • Old Ferry Rd • Indian Creek Rd • Shady Cove Airfield (Rogue Air Dr) Water Facilities: • 5 Wastewater Lift Stations • about 1,000 private wells • Waste Water Facility Private Utilities: • Pacific Power • Communication Towers • Avista • Community Water Companies (about 15% of population served by private water) Page SA-16 December 2017 Shady Cove Addendum Hazard Characteristics Drought The steering committee determined that the City's probability for drought is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to drought is high (which is higher than the County's rating). These ratings did not change since the previous version of this NHMP addendum. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of drought hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event. Due to the climate of Jackson County, past and present weather conditions have shown an increasing potential for drought. Shady Cove draws its main water supply from the Rogue River and a series of private wells (there are about 1,000 private wells and about 15% of the population receive water from private water companies). For more information on the future of Shady Cove's water supply visit their website. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Earthquake (Cascadia) The steering committee determined that the City's probability for a Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) earthquake is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to a CSZ earthquake is high (which is the same as the County's rating). Previously, the earthquake hazard profile was a single risk assessment, which is now divided into two separate earthquake hazards: crustal earthquake and Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) earthquake. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of earthquake hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event. Generally, an event that affects the County is likely to affect Shady Cove as well. The causes and characteristics of an earthquake event are appropriately described within Volume I, Section 3, as well as the location and extent of potential hazards. Previous occurrences are well-documented within Volume I, Section 3 and the community impacts described by the County would generally be the same for Shady Cove as well. The local faults, the county's proximity to the Cascadia Subduction Zone, potential slope instability and the prevalence of certain soils subject to liquefaction and amplification combine to give the County a high-risk profile. Due to the expected pattern of damage resulting from a CSZ event, the Oregon Resilience Plan divides the State into four distinct zones and places Jackson County predominately within the "Valley Zone" (Valley Zone, from the summit of the Coast Range to the summit of the Cascades). Within the Southwest Oregon region, damage and shaking is expected to be strong and widespread - an event will be disruptive to daily life and commerce and the main priority is expected to be restoring services to business and residents.' Figure SA-2 displays relative shaking hazards from a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake event. As shown in the figure below, the area of I ibid. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page SA-17 greatest concern within the City of Shady Cove (darker areas) is along the Rogue River corridor, spreading to the northwest side of the river and up the northern slopes bordering the City. Figure SA-2 Cascadia Subduction Zone Layers Currently Shown _ Cascadla Earthquake Hazard Cascadia Earthquake Expected Shaking ® Violent Shady Cove ® Severe Very Strong E] Strong Moderate Light 1km 1 mi Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (DOGAMI As noted in the community profile, approximately 40% of residential buildings were built prior to 1990, which increases the City's vulnerability to the earthquake hazard. Information on specific public buildings' (schools and public safety) estimated seismic resistance, determined by DOGAMI in 2007, is shown in Table SA-6; each "X" represents one building within that ranking category. Of the facilities evaluated by DOGAMI using a Rapid Visual Survey (RVS), two (2) have a high (greater than 10% chance) collapse potential and one (1) has a low (less than 1% chance) collapse potential. In addition to building damages, utility (electric power, water, wastewater, natural gas) and transportation systems (bridges, pipelines) are also likely to experience significant damage. There is a low probability that a major earthquake will result in failure of upstream dams. Utility systems will be significantly damaged, including damaged buildings and damage to utility infrastructure, including water and wastewater treatment plants and equipment at high voltage substations (especially 230 kV or higher which are more vulnerable than lower voltage substations). Buried pipe systems will suffer extensive damage with approximately one break per mile in soft soil areas. There would be a much lower rate of pipe breaks in Page SA-18 December 2017 Shady Cove Addendum other areas. Restoration of utility services will require substantial mutual aid from utilities outside of the affected area.4 Table SA-6 Rapid Visual Survey Scores Level of Collapse Potential Low Moderate High Very High Facility Site ID* < 1% >1% >10% 100% Schools Shady Cove School (Eagle Point SD 9) Jack sch45 X X (37 Schoolhouse Ln) - Public Safety Jackson County Fire District #4 Jack fir01 X (21200 Crater Lake Hwy) - Source: DOGAMI 2007. Open File Report 0-07-02. Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment Using Rapid Visual Assessment. -Site ID is referenced on the RVS Jackson County Map Multi-Hazard Risk Report: Upper Rogue Watershed The Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) conducted a multi- hazard risk assessment (Risk Report) for portions of Jackson County (Upper Rogue Watershed) including Shady Cove. The study was funded through the FEMA Risk MAP program and was completed in 2017. The Risk Report provides a quantitative risk assessment that informs communities of their risks related to certain natural hazards. The City hereby incorporates the risk assessment into this addendum by reference to provide greater detail to hazard sensitivity and exposure (Volume II, Appendix H). The Risk Report identifies that during a CSZ earthquake, approximately 392 buildings will be damaged (2 essential facilities; Jackson County Fire District No. 4 and Shady Cove City Hall) for a total loss of $9.1 million (a loss ratio of 5.9%). In addition, about 111 residents may be displaced (4% of the population). Earthquake (Crustal) The steering committee determined that the City's probability for a crustal earthquake is low (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to crustal earthquake is moderate (which is the same as the County's rating). Previously, the earthquake hazard profile was a single risk assessment which is now divided into two separate earthquake hazards: crustal earthquake and Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) earthquake. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of earthquake hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event. Generally, an event that affects the County is likely to affect Shady Cove as well. The causes and characteristics of an earthquake event are appropriately described within Volume I, Section 3, as well as the location and extent of potential hazards. Previous occurrences are well-documented within Volume I, 4 Regional All Hazard Mitigation Master Plan for Jackson, Lane and Linn Counties: Phase II (2001) Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page SA-19 i Section 3 and the community impacts described by the County would generally be the same for Shady Cove as well. Earthquake-induced damages are difficult to predict and depend on the size, type and location of the earthquake, as well as site-specific building and soil characteristics. Presently, it is not possible to accurately forecast the location or size of earthquakes, but it is possible to predict the behavior of soil at any site. In many major earthquakes, damages have primarily been caused by the behavior of the soil. Figure SA-3 displays relative liquefaction hazards, most of the City is within an area of moderate soft soils (liquefaction hazard; orange areas). Figure SA-3 Active Faults and Soft Soils Layers Currently Shown Earthquake Hazard 1oR v s~ Active Faults z Earthquake Epicenter (1971-2008) ? ,i~,.fa al, sa O 5 - 7 Magnitude ' 0 3-5 0 2-3) o 1-2 ` ~ rte I 0- 1 High Moderate , a ~ aw! LowI I f a 3k- Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (DOGAMI) Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. it I ~I Page SA-20 December 2017 Shady Cove Addendum Emerging Infectious Disease The steering committee determined that the City's probability for Emerging Infectious Disease is moderate (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability is high (which is the same as the County's rating). The City did not assess the Emerging Infectious Disease hazard in the previous version of their NHMP. Emerging infectious diseases are those that have recently appeared in a population or those whose incidence or geographic range is rapidly increasing or threatens to increase. Emerging infections may be caused by biological pathogens (e.g., virus, parasite, fungus or bacterium) and may be: previously unknown or undetected biological pathogens, biological pathogens that have spread to new geographic areas or populations, previously known biological pathogens whose role in specific diseases was previously undetected and biological pathogens whose incidence of disease was previously declining but whose incidence of disease has reappeared (re-emerging infectious disease ).5 Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of emerging infectious disease, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. Generally, an event that affects the County is likely to affect the City as well. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Flood The steering committee determined that the City's probability for flood is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to flood is high (which higher than the County's rating). The probability ratings stayed the same and the vulnerability rating increased, since the previous version of this NHMP addendum. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of flood hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event. Portions of Shady Cove have areas of flood plains (special flood hazard areas, SFHA). These include areas along the Rogue River and Indian Creek (Figure SA-4). Furthermore, other portions of Shady Cove, outside of the mapped floodplains, are also subject to flooding from local storm water drainage. The City is at risk from two types of flooding: riverine and urban. Riverine flooding occurs when streams overflow their banks and inundate low-lying areas. This is a natural process that adds sediment and nutrients to fertile floodplain areas. It usually results from prolonged periods of precipitation over a wide geographic area. Low velocity sheets of water generally flood most areas that are prone to flooding. Urban flooding occurs as land is converted to impervious surfaces and hydrologic systems are changed. Precipitation is collected and transmitted to streams at a much faster rate, causing floodwaters that rise rapidly and peak with violent force. During urban flooding, storm drains can back up and cause localized flooding of streets and basements. 5 Baylor College of Medicine, Emerging Infectious Disease, URL: https://www.bcm.edu/departments/molecular- virology-and-microbiology/emerging-infections-and-biodefense/emerging-infectious-diseases, accessed September 17, 2017. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page SA-21 The Rogue River is the chief source of flooding events in Shady Cove. Shady Cove is also at risk from flooding from failure of the Lost Creek Dam (also known as the William L. Jess Dam). The dam is owned and operated since 1977 by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and is classified as a high hazard potential dam (Volume I, Section 2). A worst-case scenario failure has the potential to have flows nearly 100 feet above normal river level within one hour of failure.6 These flooding events and subsequent damages are commonly caused by the Indian Creek and Long Branch Creek. Figure SA-4 Special Flood Hazard Area Layers Currently Shown _ rssrh . Flood Hazard Type and Source of Flood Data 11 Effective FEMA 100 yr Flood S adv Ve iit Preliminary FEMA 100 yr Flood State Digitized Flood Data Q3 FEMA Flood Data c o G ~r Y 3iJ ,wr Ind Osprey O f. A7 3 km a c 2 mi Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (DOGAMI) Floods can have a devastating impact on almost every aspect of the community, including private property damage, public infrastructure damage and economic loss from business interruption. It is important for the City to be aware of flooding impacts and assess its level of risk. The City has been proactive in mitigating flood hazards by purchasing floodplain property. The economic losses due to business closures often total more than the initial property losses that result from flood events. Flood events significantly impact business owners and their employees. Direct damages from flooding are the most common impacts, but indirect damages, such as diminished clientele, can be just as debilitating to a business. During the December 1964 flood event the State Highway 62 bridge was lost during the flood causing a 6 Wright, Stacy, Identification of Areas of Mitigation Interest (AoMI) and Development of Mitigation Strategies for Shady Cove and Eagle Point, OR. 2016. Page SA-22 December 2017 Shady Cove Addendum hardship to the local lumber industry by interrupting transportation between lumber mills and the Rogue Valley (Medford)'. The FEMA Flood Insurance Study (May 3, 2011) has a brief history of flooding in Jackson County and Shady Cove (Volume I, Section 3). No critical or essential facilities are in the floodplain. There is a central bridge located inside the floodplain (Highway 62 bridge, lost during the 1964 flood; however, the Lost Creek Dam was built after the 1964 flood, and now mitigates risk to this bridge). Highway 62 is a major transportation route between Medford, Ashland and smaller cities to the north of Jackson County. If major flooding affected all the bridges in Shady Cove, traffic flow in and out of the City would be significantly affected, but would not cut off all routes. The amount of property in the flood plain is not a large area (a portion of approximately 273 tax lots) but damage could be significant as it would affect residential, commercial and public property. Floodwaters can affect building foundations, seep into basements or cause damage to the interior, exterior and contents of buildings, dependent upon the velocity and depth of the water and by the presence of floating debris. The City sewer system can overflow during flood events and cause further property damage. Multi-Hazard Risk Report: Upper Rogue Watershed The Risk Report (Volume II. Appendix H) identifies that during a "1% Annual Chance" Flood event (100-Year Flood) approximately 135 buildings will be damaged (0 essential facilities) for a total loss of $240,000 (a loss ratio of less than 1%). In addition, about 245 residents may be displaced (about 8% of the population). For mitigation planning purposes, it is important to recognize that flood risk for a community is not limited only to areas of mapped floodplains. Other portions of Shady Cove outside of the mapped floodplains may also be at relatively high risk from over bank flooding from streams too small to be mapped by FEMA or from local storm water drainage. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIPI FEMA updated the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) in 2011 (effective May 3, 2011; revised January 19, 2018). Table SA-7 shows that as of June 2016, Shady Cove has 115 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policies in force. Of those, 22 are for properties that were constructed before the initial FIRM. The last Community Assistance Visit (CAV) for Shady Cove was on May 18, 2001. Shady Cove does not participate in the Community Rating System (CRS). The table shows that the majority of flood insurance policies are for residential structures, primarily single-family homes. There has been a total of five (5) paid claims for $41,847. The City complies with the NFIP through enforcement of their flood damage prevention ordinance and their floodplain management program. I Ibid. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page SA-23 The Community Repetitive Loss record for Shady Cove identifies one (1) Repetitive Loss Property" and zero (0) Severe Repetitive Loss Propertiesg. For details on the repetitive loss properties see Volume I, Section 3. Table SA-7 Flood Insurance Detail Policies by Building Type Effective Initial Total Pre-FIRM Single 2 to 4 Other Non- Minus Rated Jurisdiction FIRM and FIS FIRM Date Polities Policies Family Family Residential Residential AZone Jackson County - - ShadyCove 5/3/2011 9/30/1980 115 22 104 0 0 11 J5 Severe Last Substantial Repetitive Repetitive Community Insurance Total Pre-FIRM Damage Total Paid Loss Loss CRS Class Assistance Jurisdiction in Force Paid Claims Claims Paid Claims Amount Structures Properties Rating Visit Jackson County $ 452,723,400 197 132 LC y 1,337,060 3 11 - Shady Cove $ 28,628,300 5 2 0 $ 41,847 1 0 5/18/2001 Source: Information compiled by Department of Land Conservation and Development, July 2016. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Landslide The steering committee determined that the City's probability for landslide is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to landslide is high (which is higher than the County's rating). These ratings have both increased since the previous version of this NHMP addendum. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of landslide hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. The potential for landslide in Shady Cove is almost negligible with the possible exception of very small areas immediately adjacent to stream channels. However, such areas have little or no development or infrastructure. The City is concerned about roads that are subsiding along Highway 62 south of the City. Landslide susceptibility exposure for Shady Cove is shown in Figure SA-5. Most of Shady Cove demonstrates a low to moderate susceptibility to landslide exposure, with corridors of high susceptibility. Approximately 13% of Shady Cove has high and approximately 34% moderate, landslide susceptibility exposure.'' "A Repetitive Loss (RL) property is any insurable building for which two or more claims of more than $1,000 were paid by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) within any rolling ten-year period, since 1978. A RL property may or may not be currently insured by the NFIP. 9 A Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) property is a single family property (consisting of 1 to 4 residences) that is covered under flood insurance by the NFIP and has incurred flood-related damage for which 4 or more separate claims payments have been paid under flood insurance coverage, with the amount of each claim payment exceeding $5,000 and with cumulative amount of such claims payments exceeding $20,000; or for which at least 2 separate claims payments have been made with the cumulative amount of such claims exceeding the reported value of the property. t' DOGAMI Open-File Report, 0-16-02, Landslide Susceptibility Overview Map of Oregon (2016) Page SA-24 December 2017 Shady Cove Addendum Note that even if a jurisdiction has a high percentage of area in a high or very high landslide ' exposure susceptibility zone, this does not mean there is a high risk, because risk is the intersection of hazard and assets. Figure SA-5 Landslide Susceptibility Exposure Layers Currently Shown © i,,„, Landslide Hazard LO F+ ti a ~y Landslide Susceptibility • msMny L Low - Landsliding Unlikely 1 Moderate - Landsliding Possible ( I - High - Landsliding Likely ® Very High - Existing Landslide { ! o ; / s r $1, t,,6, ISNA P" Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (DOGAMI) Multi-Hazard Risk Report: Upper Rogue Watershed The Risk Report (Volume II, Appendix H) identifies that there are 124 buildings (0 essential facilities) exposed to High or Very High landslide susceptibility for a total potential loss of $15.5 million (a loss ratio of just over 10%). In addition, about 242 residents may be displaced (about 8% of the population). Potential landslide-related impacts are adequately described within Volume I, Section 3 and include infrastructural damages, economic impacts (due to isolation and/or arterial road closures), property damages and obstruction to evacuation routes. Rain-induced landslides and debris flows can potentially occur during any winter in Jackson County and thoroughfares beyond City limits are susceptible to obstruction as well. The most common type of landslides in Jackson County are slides caused by erosion. Slides move in contact with the underlying surface, are generally slow moving and can be deep. Rainfall-initiated landslides tend to be smaller; while earthquake induced landslides may be quite large. All soil types can be affected by natural landslide triggering conditions. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page SA-25 Severe Weather Severe weather in can account for a variety of intense and potentially damaging weather events. These events include windstorms and winter storms. The following section describes the unique probability and vulnerability of each identified weather hazard. Other more abrupt or irregular events such as hail are also described in this section. Windstorm The steering committee determined that the City's probability for windstorm is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to windstorm is high (which is higher than the County's rating). The City did not assess the windstorm hazard in the previous version of their NHMP as a unique hazard (it was assessed as a component of the severe winter storm and windstorm hazard). The previous rating was applied to both windstorm and winter storm and the ratings were modified slightly to account for the differences in vulnerability and risk to the hazard. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of windstorm hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. Because windstorms typically occur during winter months, they are sometimes accompanied by ice, freezing rain, flooding and very rarely, snow. Other severe weather events that may accompany windstorms, including thunderstorms, hail, lightning strikes and tornadoes are generally negligible for Shady Cove. Volume I, Section 3 describes the impacts caused by windstorms, including power outages, downed trees, heavy precipitation, building damages and storm-related debris. Additionally, transportation and economic disruptions result as well. Damage from high winds generally has resulted in downed utility lines and trees. Electrical power can be out anywhere from a few hours to several days. Outdoor signs have also suffered damage. If the high winds are accompanied by rain (which they often are), blowing leaves and debris clog drainage-ways, which in turn causes localized urban flooding. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Winter Storm (Snow/Ice) The steering committee determined that the City's probability for winter storm is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to winter storm is high (which is higher than the County's rating). The City did not assess the winter storm hazard in the previous version of their NHMP as a unique hazard (it was assessed as a component of the severe winter storm and windstorm hazard). The previous rating was applied to both windstorm and winter storm and the ratings were modified slightly to account for the differences in vulnerability and risk to the hazard. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of winter storm hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. Severe winter storms can consist of rain, freezing rain, ice, snow, cold temperatures and wind. They originate from troughs of low pressure offshore that ride along the jet stream during fall, winter and early spring months. Severe winter storms affecting the City typically originate in Page SA-26 December 2017 Shady Cove Addendum the Gulf of Alaska or in the central Pacific Ocean. These storms are most common from November through March. Major winter storms can and have occurred in the Shady Cove area, and while they typically do not cause significant damage, they are frequent and have the potential to impact economic activity. Road closures due to winter weather are an uncommon occurrence, but can interrupt commuter and commercial traffic. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Volcano The steering committee determined that the City's probability for a volcanic event is low (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to a volcanic event is low (which is the same as the County's rating). These ratings did not change since the previous version of this NHMP addendum. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of volcanic hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. Generally, an event that affects the County is likely to affect Shady Cove as well. Shady Cove is very unlikely to experience anything more than volcanic ash during a volcanic event. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Wildfire The steering committee determined that the City's probability for wildfire is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to wildfire is high (which is higher than the County's rating). These ratings did not change since the previous version of this NHMP addendum. Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of wildfire hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. The location and extent of a wildfire vary depending on fuel, topography and weather conditions. Weather and urbanization conditions are primarily at cause for the hazard level. Wildfires in Shady Cove are relatively common. Recent wildfires that approached the City include Cleveland Ridge (2016) and a fire in 2015 that approached Rogue River Drive. The potential community impacts and vulnerabilities described in Volume I, Section 3 are generally accurate for the City as well. The Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Protection Plan (RVIFP, updated 2017), assesses wildfire risk, maps wildland urban interface areas and includes actions to mitigate wildfire risk. The City is included in the RVIFP and will update the City's wildfire risk assessment if the fire plan presents better data during future updates (an action item is included within Volume I, Section 4 to participate in updates to the integrated fire plan and to continue to maintain and update their RVIFP). Shady Cove is within an area of considerable wildfire prone urban landscape. The City hereby incorporates the RVIFP into this addendum by reference to provide greater detail to sensitivity and exposure to the wildfire hazard. Property can be damaged or destroyed with one fire as structures, vegetation and other flammables easily merge to become unpredictable and hard to manage. Other factors that Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page SA-27 affect ability to effectively respond to a wildfire include access to the location and to water, response time from the fire station, availability of personnel and equipment and weather (e.g., heat, low humidity, high winds and drought). Multi-Hazard Risk Report: Upper Rogue Watershed The Risk Report (Volume II, Appendix H) identifies that there are 391 buildings (1 essential facility; Jackson County Fire District No. 4) exposed to high wildfire risk for a total potential loss of $30.7 million (a loss ratio of 20%). In addition, about 700 residents may be displaced (24% of the population). Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Summary Figure SA-6 presents a summary of the hazard analysis for Shady Cove and compares the results to the assessment completed by Jackson County. The top hazards for the City are wildfire, Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake, winter storm, emerging infectious disease and flood. Page SA-28 December 2017 Shady Cove Addendum Figure SA-6 Overall Hazard Analysis Comparison - Shady Cove/Jackson County 240 T 222 222 220 211 211 200 200 18> 180 170 160 158 163 143M 125 i 120 j 98 98 i i 6R 64 i I I 0 Wildfire Earthquake WinterStonn Emerging Flood Windstorm Landslide Drought Earthquake Volcano (Cascadia) Infectious (Crustal) Disease ■ Shady Cove ■ County Source: City of Shady Cove NHMP Steering Committee and Jackson County NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page SA-29 This page intentionally left blank. Page SA-30 December 2017 Shady Cove Addendum CITY OF TALENT ADDENDUM Purpose Talent's addendum to the Jackson County Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (MNHMP, NHMP) was completed in 2017. This addendum supplements information contained in Volume I (Basic Plan) which serves as the NHMP foundation and Volume II (Appendices) which provide additional information. This addendum meets the following requirements: • Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption §201.6(c)(5), • Multi-Jurisdictional Participation §201.6(a)(3), • Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Strategy §201.6(c)(3)(iv) and • Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment §201.6(c)(2)(iii). Mitigation Plan Mission The NHMP mission states the purpose and defines the primary functions of the NHMP. It is intended to be adaptable to any future changes made to the NHMP and need not change unless the community's environment or priorities change. The City concurs with the mission statement developed during the Jackson County planning process (Volume I, Section 4): Protect life, property and the environment, reduce risk and prevent loss from natural hazard events through coordination and cooperation among public and private partners. Mitigation Plan Goals Mitigation plan goals are more specific statements of direction that Jackson County citizens and public and private partners can take while working to reduce the City's risk from natural hazards. These statements of direction form a bridge between the broad mission statement and particular action items. The goals listed here serve as checkpoints as agencies and organizations begin implementing mitigation action items. The City concurs with the goals developed during the Jackson County planning process (Volume I, Section 4). All of the NHMP goals are important and are listed below in no particular order of priority. Establishing community priorities within action items neither negates nor eliminates any goals, but it establishes which action items to consider to implement first, should funding become available. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page TA-1 Below is a list of the NHMP goals: GOAL 1: EMERGENCY SERVICES Minimize life safety issues by promoting, strengthening and coordinating emergency response plans. GOAL 2: EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Further the public's awareness and understanding of natural hazards and potential risk, including economic vulnerability and mitigation efforts. GOAL 3: PREVENTION Reduce the threat of loss of life and property from natural hazards by incorporating information on known hazards and providing incentives to make hazard mitigation planning a priority in land use policies and decisions, including plan implementation. GOAL 4: PROPERTY PROTECTION Lessen impact from natural disasters on individual properties, businesses and public facilities by increasing awareness at the individual level and encouraging activities that can prevent damage and loss of life from natural hazards. GOAL 5: PARTNERSHIP AND COORDINATION Identify mitigation or risk reduction measures that address multiple areas (i.e., environment, transportation, telecommunications); Coordinate public/private sector participation in planning and implementing mitigation projects throughout the City; and seek funding and resource partnerships for future mitigation efforts. GOAL 6: NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION Preserve and rehabilitate natural systems to serve natural hazard mitigation functions (i.e., floodplains, wetlands, watershed and urban interface areas). GOAL 7: STRUCTURAL PROTECTIONS When applicable, utilize structural mitigation activities to minimize risks associated with natural hazards. NHMP Process, Participation and Adoption This section of the NHMP addendum addresses 44 CFR 201.6(c)(5), Plan Adoption and 44 CFR 201.6(a)(3), Participation. The first update of the Jackson County NHMP was approved by FEMA on February 4, 2013. To maintain compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K), the NHMP required an update by February 3, 2018. The Talent addendum was added with the 2017 update of the Jackson County MNHMP. The Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience (OPDR) at the University of Oregon's III Community Service Center (CSC) partnered with the Oregon Military Department's Office of Emergency Management (OEM), Jackson County and Talent to update their NHMP. This project is funded through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) FY15 Pre- i Page TA-2 December 2017 Talent Addendum Disaster Mitigation Competitive Grant Program (PDMC-PL-10-PR-2015-003). Members of the Talent NHMP steering committee also participated in the County NHMP update process (Volume II, Appendix B). By creating a NHMP, locally adopting it and having it approved by FEMA, Talent will gain eligibility for FEMA Hazard Mitigation, Pre-Disaster Mitigation and Flood Mitigation Assistance grant program funds. The Jackson County NHMP and Talent addendum, are the result of a collaborative effort between citizens, public agencies, non-profit organizations, the private sector and regional organizations. A project steering committee guided the process of developing the NHMP. The Talent Police Chief/Emergency Manager served as the designated convener of the NHMP update and will take the lead in implementing, maintaining and updating the addendum to the Jackson County NHMP in collaboration with the designated convener of the Jackson County NHMP (Emergency Manager). Representatives from the City of Talent steering committee met formally and informally, to discuss updates to their addendum (Volume II, Appendix B). The steering committee reviewed and revised the City's addendum, with particular focus on the NHMP's risk assessment and mitigation strategy (action items). This addendum reflects decisions made at the designated meetings and during subsequent work and communication with Jackson County Emergency Management and the OPDR. The Talent Steering Committee was comprised of the following representatives: • Convener, Curtis Whipple, Police Chief/Emergency Manager • Zac Moody, Planner • Jennifer Snook, Police Department • Brett Marshall • Vince Lockett • Charles Hanley • Joi Riley • Kittie Harrison • Chance Metcalf Public participation was achieved with the establishment of the steering committee, which was comprised of City officials representing different departments and sectors and members of the public. The steering committee was closely involved throughout the development of the NHMP and served as the local oversight body for the NHMP's development. Community members were provided an opportunity for comment via the NHMP review process and through a survey administered by the OPDR and publicized by the participating jurisdictions (Volume ll, Appendix B). The Jackson County NHMP was approved by FEMA on [Month] [Day], 2018 and the Talent addendum was adopted via resolution on [Month] [Day], 2018. This NHMP is effective through [Month] [Day], 2023. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page TA-3 NHMP Implementation and Maintenance The City Council will be responsible for adopting the Talent addendum to the Jackson County NHMP. This addendum designates a coordinating body and a convener to oversee the development and implementation of action items. Because the City addendum is part of the County's multi-jurisdictional NHMP, the City will look for opportunities to partner with the County. The City's steering committee will convene after re-adoption of the Talent NHMP addendum on an annual schedule. The County is meeting on a semi-annual basis and will provide opportunities for the cities to report on NHMP implementation and maintenance during their meetings. The Police Chief/Emergency Manager will serve as the convener and will be responsible for assembling the steering committee (coordinating body). The steering committee will be responsible for: • Reviewing existing action items to determine suitability of funding; • Reviewing existing and new risk assessment data to identify issues that may not have been identified at NHMP creation; • Educating and training new Steering Committee members on the NHMP and mitigation actions in general; • Assisting in the development of funding proposals for priority action items; • Discussing methods for continued public involvement; and • Documenting successes and lessons learned during the year. The convener will also remain active in the County's implementation and maintenance process (Volume I, Section 5). The City will utilize the same action item prioritization process as the County (Volume I, Section 5 and Volume II, Appendix D). Implementation through Existing Programs Many of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan's recommendations are consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's existing plans and policies. Where possible, Talent will implement the NHMP's recommended actions through existing plans and policies. Plans and policies already in existence have support from local residents, businesses and policy makers. Many land-use, comprehensive and strategic plans get updated regularly, allowing them to adapt to changing conditions and needs. Implementing the NHMP's action items through such plans and policies increases their likelihood of being supported and implemented. Talent's acknowledged comprehensive plan is the City of Talent Comprehensive Plan. The City implements the plan through the Community Development Code. The last update of the flood ordinance was in 2011. Talent currently has the following plans that relate to natural hazard mitigation. For a complete list visit the City's website. • Comprehensive Plan (currently being amended) • Community Development Code • Capital Improvements Plan (2008-2013) Page TA-4 December 2017 Talent Addendum • Emergency Operations Plan (2012) • Transportation System Plan (2015) • Stormwater Master Plan (1999) • Water System Master Plan (2004) • Regional Problem Solving (RPS) Plan (2012) • Building Code, 2017 Oregon State Code based on 2015 International Residential Code (IRC) and 2012 International Building Code Continued Public Participation Keeping the public informed of the City's efforts to reduce its risk to future natural hazards events is important for successful NHMP implementation and maintenance. The City is committed to involving the public in the NHMP review and updated process (Volume I, Section 5). NHMP Maintenance The Jackson County Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan and City addendum will be updated every five years in accordance with the update schedule outlined in the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. During the County NHMP update process, the City will also review and update its addendum (Volume I, Section 5). The convener will be responsible for convening the steering committee to address the questions outlined below. • Are there new partners that should be brought to the table? • Are there new local, regional, state or federal policies influencing natural hazards that should be addressed? • Has the community successfully implemented any mitigation activities since the NHMP was last updated? • Have new issues or problems related to hazards been identified in the community? • Are the actions still appropriate given current resources? • Have there been any changes in development patterns that could influence the effects of hazards? • Have there been any significant changes in the community's demographics that could influence the effects of hazards? • Are there new studies or data available that would enhance the risk assessment? • Has the community been affected by any disasters? Did the NHMP accurately address the impacts of this event? These questions will help the steering committee determine what components of the mitigation plan need updating. The steering committee will be responsible for updating any deficiencies found in the NHMP. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page TA-5 Mitigation Strategy This section of the NHMP addendum addresses 44 CFR 201.6(c)(3(iv), Mitigation Strategy. The City's mitigation strategy (action items) were developed during the 2017 NHMP planning process. The steering committee assessed the City's risk, identified potential issues and developed a mitigation strategy (action items). The City developed actions specific to their community after first reviewing a list of recommended actions developed by the County or recommended by CPDR. Priority Actions The City is listing a set of high priority actions in an effort to focus attention on an achievable set of high leverage activities over the next five-years (Table TA-1). The City's priority actions are listed below in the following table. Action Item Pool Table TA-2 presents a "pool" of mitigation actions. This expanded list of actions is available for local consideration as resources, capacity, technical expertise and/or political will become available. Page TA-6 December 2017 Talent Addendum Table TA- I Talent Priority Action Items Action Lead Potential Funding Mitigation Action Item Timeline Partner Organization(s) Item ID T Organization Source(s) Priority Actions Multi-Hazard (MH) MH #1 Pursue funding to replace existing water tank. Short-Term Public Works Planning, City General Fund, FEMA (PDM, (0-2 Years) Administration HMGP) Pursue funding for enhancement of city resources MH #2 including emergency water supply system, critical Long Term Public Works Planning, City General Fund, FEMA (PDM, infrastructure retrofitting, and emergency (5+ Years) Administration HMGP), SRGP generators both traditional and solar. Identify and pursue funding and personnel to MH #3 enhance communication efforts including radio Long Term Emergency Planning, Public Works, City General Fund equipment, HAM radio operation/ equipment, and (5+ Years) Manager Administration community warning system. Develop and enhance current education programs Planning, Public Works, Fire aimed at mitigating natural hazards. Programs Short-Term Emergency District 5, Red Cross, MH #4 should focus on evacuations, disaster awareness, General Fund (0-2 Years) Manager County Emergency simulated training with partner agencies, and Management, RVCOG identifying vulnerable populations. Develop emergency fuel supply plan including Short-Term Emergency MH #5 supplying, management, rationing and identifying (0-2 Years) Manager Planning, Public Works General Fund essential needs. Flood (FL) Review the City of Talent Flood Plan to ensure Mid-Term General Fund, DLCD FL #1 corrective and preventative measures for reducing City Planning Public Works (3-5 Years) Technical Assistance Grant flooding and flood damage are current. Source: City of Talent NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page TA-7 Table TA-2 Talent Action Item Pool Action Lead Potential Funding Mitigation Action Item Timeline Partner Organization(s) Item ID Organization Source(s) Action Item Pool Multi-Hazard (MH) Integrate the Mitigation Plan findings into planning MH #6 and regulatory documents and programs including Mid-Term City Planning RVCOG, DLCD, FEMA General Fund, DLCD the Comprehensive Plan (particularly (3-5 Years) Technical Assistance Grant Goal 7). Use hazard information as a basis for ordinances MH #7 and regulations that govern site-specific land use Long-Term City Planning County GIS, FEMA, DLCD General Fund decisions. (5+ Years) Drought(DR) No specific action item developed for this hazard. See multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Earthquake (EQ) Promote building safety through nonstructural City Emergency Building officials, American EQ 41 improvements and public education. Ongoing Management Red Cross, DOGAMI, OEM General Fund, SRGP Agencies EQ #2 Implement structural and non-structural retrofits to Long-Term City Building officials, Planning, General Fund, SRGP, PDM critical and essential facilities. (5+ Years) Administration Public Works Emerging Infectious Disease (EID) No specific action item developed for this hazard. See multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Flood (FL) Encourage private property owners to restore natural systems within the floodplain, and to RVCOG, FEMA, Watershed FL #2 Long-Term City Planning General Fund manage riparian areas and wetlands for flood Councils, neighboring cities abatement. Source: City of Talent NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Page TA-8 December 2017 Talent Addendum Table TA-2 Talent Action Item Pool (continued) Action Lead Potential Funding Mitigation Action Item Timeline Partner Organization(s) Item ID Organization Source(s) L Action Item Pool Landslide (LS) LS #1 Investigate the development and implementation Long Term City Planning DLCD General Fund, DLCD of a city landslide ordinance. Technical Assistance Grant Severe Weather (SW, Windstormand Winter Storm) Map areas where extreme weather, such as road SW #1 Short-Term City Public Works County Roads General Fund icing and wind damage occurs. Promote the benefits of tree-trimming and tree City Vegetation Utility companies, ODOT, SW #2 replacement programs and help to coordinate local Ongoing Management Public Works, USFS, BLM, General Fund efforts by public and private agencies. nagement ODF, Fire Volcano (VIE) No specific action item developed for this hazard. See multi-hazard actions for applicable mitigation strategies. Wildfire (WF) Coordinate fire mitigation action items through the Emergency Jackson County Emergency WF #1 Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Ongoing Fire Districts, ODF Protection Plan Manager Management Source: City of Talent NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page TA-9 Risk Assessment This section of the NHMP addendum addresses 44 CFR 201.6(b)(2) - Risk Assessment. In addition, this chapter can serve as the factual basis for addressing Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Hazards. Assessing natural hazard risk has three phases: • Phase 1: Identify hazards that can impact the jurisdiction. This includes an evaluation of potential hazard impacts-type, location, extent, etc. • Phase 2: Identify important community assets and system vulnerabilities. Example vulnerabilities include people, businesses, homes, roads, historic places and drinking water sources. • Phase 3: Evaluate the extent to which the identified hazards overlap with or have an impact on, the important assets identified by the community. The local level rationale for the identified mitigation strategies (action items) is presented herein and within Volume I, Sections 2 and 3. The risk assessment process is graphically depicted in Figure TA-1 below. Ultimately, the goal of hazard mitigation is to reduce the area of risk, where hazards overlap vulnerable systems. Figure TA-1 Understanding Risk `Z` USGS Understanding Risk ~)11AtiILlt . , R[SILILNCL science Poi a changing wMd Natural Hazard ~\Vulnerable System Potential Catastrophic Exposure, Sensitivity and Chronic Physical Events I Risk and Resilience of: • Past Recurrence Intervals I t • Population • Future Probability I of I Economic Generation • Speed of Onset I I • Built Environment • Magnitude 1 Di sa ster I Academic and Research Function • Duration / • Cultural Assets • Spatial Extent i • Infrastructure Ability, Resources and Willingness to: • Mitigate • Respond • Prepare • Recover Source: USGS- Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience Research Collaboration, 2006 Hazard Analysis The Talent steering committee developed their hazard vulnerability assessment (HVA), using the County's HVA (Volume II, Appendix C) as a reference. Changes from the County's HVA were made where appropriate to reflect distinctions in vulnerability and risk from natural hazards unique to Talent, which are discussed throughout this addendum. Page TA-10 December 2017 Talent Addendum Table TA-3 shows the HVA matrix for Talent listing each hazard in order of rank from high to low. For local governments, conducting the hazard analysis is a useful step in planning for hazard mitigation, response and recovery. The method provides the jurisdiction with sense of hazard priorities, but does not predict the occurrence of a particular hazard. One catastrophic hazard (Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake) and two chronic hazards (emerging infectious disease and winter storm) rank as the top hazard threats to the City (Top Tier). The wildfire, flood, windstorm, drought and landslide hazards comprise the next highest ranked hazards (Middle Tier), while the crustal earthquake and volcano hazards comprise the lowest ranked hazards (Bottom Tier). Table TA-3 Hazard Analysis Matrix - Talent Maximum Hazard Hazard History Vulnerability Threat Tiers Farthquake(Cas(adia) 2 50 100 70 222 #1 Top Emerging Infectious Disease 12 50 100 49 211 #2 Tier Winter Storm 20 30 60 70 180 #3 Wildfire 16 15 60 70 161 #4 Flood 20 20 50 70 160 #5 Middle Windstorm 20 20 50 70 160 #5 Tier Drought 20 25 50 63 158 #7 Landslide 14 20 40 70 144 #8 Earthquake (Crustal) 2 25 50 21 98 #9 Bottom Volcano 2 5 50 7 64 #10 Tier Source: Talent NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Table TA-4 categorizes the probability and vulnerability scores from the hazard analysis for the City and compares the results to the assessment completed by the Jackson County NHMP Steering Committee (Volume II, Appendix Q. Variations between the City and County are noted in bold text. Table TA-4 Probability and Vulnerability Comparison wDrought High Moderate High Moderate Earthquake(Cascadia) High High High High Earthquake (Crustal) Low Moderate Low Moderate Emerging Infectious Disease Moderate High Moderate High Flood High Moderate High Moderate Landslide High Moderate High Low Volcano Low Low Low Low Wildfire High Low High Moderate Windstorm High Moderate High Moderate Winter Storm High Moderate High Moderate Source: Talent NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page TA-11 Community Characteristics Table TA-5 and the following section provides information on City specific demographics and assets. For additional information on the characteristics of Talent, in terms of geography, environment, population, demographics, employment and economics, as well as housing and transportation see Volume I, Section 2. Many of these community characteristics can affect how natural hazards impact communities and how communities choose to plan for natural hazard mitigation. Considering the City specific assets during the planning process can assist in identifying appropriate measures for natural hazard mitigation. Between 2012 and 2016 the City grew by 190 people (3.1%) and median household income increased by about 7% (Volume I, Section 2). New development has complied with the standards of the Oregon Building Code and the city's development code including their floodplain ordinance. Transportation/Infrastructure In the City of Talent, transportation has played a major role in shaping the community. Talent's commercial areas developed along primary routes and residential development followed nearby. Today, mobility plays an important role in Talent and the daily experience of its residents and businesses as they move from point A to point B. The current railroad system is serviced through the Union Pacific Railroad system and the Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad (CORP) route. This complements the established Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) and the transit stop located within Talent. In addition, the City is located along the Bear Creek Greenway multi-use trail that provides alternative routes for pedestrians and bicyclists.' By far, motor vehicles represent the dominant mode of travel through and within Talent. Economy A diverse range of businesses have chosen to locate in Talent. Traditionally, Talent has built its economy on a favorable climate and attractive landscape. Talent's location near Interstate 5, Highway 99. and the Southern Pacific Railroad shaped the development of the City. The majority of commercial development occurs along Highway 99 and along the corridor to Interstate 5. According to the economic profile of the City's Comprehensive Plan, Talent finds their main economic drivers in the sectors of government services, professional offices, minor retail and personal services.2 Some light industry exists currently, but manufacturing is limited. ' Website: Jackson County Greenway, http://iacksonCountyor.org/parks/Greenwav/Bear-Creek-Greenwav-Map 2 City of Talent Comprehensive Plan (2016) Page TA-12 December 2017 Talent Addendum Table TA-5 Community Characteristics Housing Chara ~ 2012 Population 6,115 Housing Units 2016 Population 6,305 Single-Family 1,833 65% 2035 Forecasted Population* 9,020 Multi-Family 535 19% Race and Ethnic Categories Mobile Homes 475 17% White 90% Year Structure Built Black/ African American 1% Pre-1970 561 20% American Indian and Alaska Native 1% 1970-1989 769 27% Asian 1% 1990 or later 1,513 53% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0% Housing Tenure and Vacancy Some Other Race <1% Owner-occupied 1,546 57% Two or More Races 6% Renter-occupied 1,159 43% Hispanic or Latino 9% Vacant 95 3% Limited or No English Spoken 6% Talent is in Jackson County in southwestern Vulnerable Age Groups Less than 15 Years 1,227 20°i° Oregon. The City has grown since its 65 Years and Over 1,098 18% incorporation in 1910 (population 250) and Disability Status has an area today of 1.3 square miles. It is Total Population 1,143 18% located in the south-central region of the Children 20 0county, located about 25 miles northwest of Seniors 639 10%'1 the California border and about 5 miles southeast of the City of Medford. The City and Households by Income Category most of Jackson County are within the Rogue Less than $15,000 567 21% and Umpqua watersheds. $15,000-$29,999 604 22% $30,000-$44,999 470 17% Talent experiences a relatively mild climate $45,000-$59,999 360 13% with four distinct seasons that comes from its $60,000-$74,999 194 7% position on the west coast of North America $75,000-$99,999 205 8% and within the mountains of the region. The $100,000-$199,999 273 10% city is just off of Interstate 5 at the southern $200,000 or more 32 1% end of the Rogue Valley at approximately Median Household Income (2015) $36,528 1,635 feet above sea level. As a result of its Poverty Rates location Talent has a climate somewhat Total Population 1,283 21% intermediate to central California and Children 425 31% northern Oregon. Talent averages only 18 Seniors 103 9% Housing Cost Burden inches of rain per year due to being inland Owners with Mortgage 53% from the coast and in the rain shadow of the Renters 47% nearby mountains. While the surrounding Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American mountains receive plentiful snow, Talent itself Community Survey; Portland State University, sees around 6 inches annually. Population Research Center. Note: * = Population forecast within UGB The City of Talent includes a diversity of land uses but is zoned primarily residential. For more information see Volume I, 2. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page TA-13 Community Assets This section outlines the resources, facilities and infrastructure that, if damaged, could significantly impact the public safety, economic conditions and environmental integrity of Talent. Critical Facilities Facilities that are critical to government response and recovery activities (i.e. life, safety, property and environmental protection). These facilities include: 911 Centers, Emergency Operations Centers, Police and Fire Stations, Public Works facilities, sewer and water facilities, hospitals, bridges, roads, shelters and more. Facilities that, if damaged, could cause serious secondary impacts may also be considered "critical." A hazardous material facility is one example of this type of critical facility. Fire Stations: • Fire District #5 (Outside City) Law Enforcement: • Talent Police Department City Buildings: • Community Center • City Hall • Public Works (Water delivery center) • Talent Town Hall Essential Facilities Facilities that are essential to the continued delivery of key government services and/or that may significantly impact the public's ability to recover from the emergency. These facilities may include: City buildings such as the Public Services Building, the City Hall and other public facilities such as schools. Hospitals/Immediate Medical Care Facilities: • Asante Physician Partners Public Schools: • Talent Elementary • Talent Middle Potential Shelter Sites: • All Talent Schools • Town Hall • Brammo Page TA-14 December 2017 Talent Addendum Infrastructure: Infrastructure that provides services for the City includes: Transportation Networks: • Highway 99 • Interstate 5 • Talent Avenue • Main Street Special Service Districts: • Southern Oregon Education Service District • Talent Irrigation District • Fire District #5 • Phoenix/ Talent School District • Medford Water Commission • Ashland Water Private Utilities: • Pacific Power • Avista • Charter/Dish/Direct TV • Rogue Valley Sewer (stormwater) • Recology Ashland • Century Link Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page TA-15 Hazard Characteristics Drought The steering committee determined that the City's probability for drought is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to drought is moderate (which is the same as the County's rating). Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of drought hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event. Due to the climate of Jackson County, past and present weather conditions have shown an increasing potential for drought. The City receives its main water supply from Big Butte Springs through the Medford Water Commission, supplemented by the Rogue River in the summer months. The City operates two water treatment plants and has a water distribution system that reaches approximately 1,400 households and 100 businesses.3 For more information on the future of Talent's water supply visit their website. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Earthquake (Cascadia) The steering committee determined that the City's probability for a Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) earthquake is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to a CSZ earthquake is high (which is the same as the County's rating). Volume 1, Section 3 describes the characteristics of earthquake hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event. Generally, an event that affects the County is likely to affect Talent as well. The causes and characteristics of an earthquake event are appropriately described within Volume 1, Section 3, as well as the location and extent of potential hazards. Previous occurrences are well documented within Volume I, Section 3 and the community impacts described by the County would generally be the same for Talent as well. The local faults, the county's proximity to the Cascadia Subduction Zone, potential slope instability and the prevalence of certain soils subject to liquefaction and amplification combine to give the County a high-risk profile. Due to the expected pattern of damage resulting from a CSZ event, the Oregon Resilience Plan divides the State into four distinct zones and places Jackson County predominately within the "Valley Zone" (Valley Zone, from the summit of the Coast Range to the summit of the Cascades). Within the Southwest Oregon region, damage and shaking is expected to be strong and widespread - an event will be disruptive to daily life and commerce and the main priority is expected to be restoring services to business and residents.a Figure TA-2 displays relative shaking hazards from a 3 City of Talent Comprehensive Plan (2016) a Ibid. Page TA-16 December 2017 Talent Addendum Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake event. As shown in the figure below, the majority of the City is expected to experience very strong shaking in a CSZ event. Figure TA-2 Cascadia Subduction Zone tare. C-Uv Sh- Q . `me C-d-& EwU-ke Expwa d Snaking ! '..N a+M i O V~y St-V ❑ swrq ® LQht 0 ,a. .,i :w Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (DOGAMI) As noted in the community profile, approximately 47% of residential buildings were built prior to 1990, which increases the City's vulnerability to the earthquake hazard. Information on specific public buildings' (schools and public safety) estimated seismic resistance, determined by DOGAMI in 2007, is shown in Table TA-6; each "X" represents one building within that ranking category. Of the facilities evaluated by DOGAMI using their Rapid Visual Survey (RVS), none have a very high (100% chance) collapse potential, however, three (3) have a high (greater than 10% chance) collapse potential. In addition to building damages, utility (electric power, water, wastewater, natural gas) and transportation systems (bridges, pipelines) are also likely to experience significant damage. Utility systems will be significantly damaged, including damaged buildings and damage to utility infrastructure, including water treatment plants and equipment at high voltage substations (especially 230 kV or higher which are more vulnerable than lower voltage substations). Buried pipe systems will suffer extensive damage with approximately one break per mile in soft soil areas. There would be a much lower rate of pipe breaks in other areas. Restoration of utility services will require substantial mutual aid from utilities outside of the affected area. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page TA-17 Table TA-6 Rapid Visual Survey Scores Level of Collapse Potential Low I< 1%) Moderate High Very High Facility Site ID* >S% >10% 100% Schools Talent Elementary School (Phoenix-Talent SD 4) Jack_sch47 X,X,X X,X X (307 W Wagner St) Talent Middle School (Phoenix-Talent SD 4) Jack_sch01 X X,X 102 Christian Ave Public Safety Talent Police Department Jack_po105 X (604 Talent Ave) Jackson County Fire District #5 (Not in City) Jack fir15 X 716 S Pacific Hwy) Source: DOGAMI 2007 Open File Report 0-07-02 Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment Using Rapid Visual Assessment. "*"-Site ID is referenced on the RVS Jackson County Map Earthquake (Crustal) The steering committee determined that the City's probability for a crustal earthquake is low (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to crustal earthquake is moderate (which is the same as the County's rating). Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of earthquake hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event. Generally, an event that affects the County is likely to affect Talent as well. The causes and characteristics of an earthquake event are appropriately described within Volume I, Section 3, as well as the location and extent of potential hazards. Previous occurrences are well-documented within Volume I, Section 3 and the community impacts described by the County would generally be the same for Talent as well. Earthquake-induced damages are difficult to predict and depend on the size, type and location of the earthquake, as well as site-specific building and soil characteristics. Presently, it is not possible to accurately forecast the location or size of earthquakes, but it is possible to predict the behavior of soil at any particular site. In many major earthquakes, damages have primarily been caused by the behavior of the soil. Figure TA-3 displays relative liquefaction hazards, the majority of the City is within an area of moderate soft soils (liquefaction hazard; orange areas). Page TA-18 December 2017 Talent Addendum Figure TA-3 Active Faults and Soft Soils ~z E Layara Currentty Shown -0 Earthquake Hazard `~S m ail Active Faults Ra e. Earthquake Epicenter (1971-2008) e \ © 5 - 7 Magnitude 0 3-5 raleut 't`~\\ M, O 2.7 o 1.2 • 0-1 HWh R Moderate tDw C. ^Ntrt r'IUd Il, L Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (DOGAMI) Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Emerging Infectious Disease The steering committee determined that the City's probability for emerging infectious disease is moderate (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability is high (which is the same as the County's rating). Emerging infectious diseases are those that have recently appeared in a population or those whose incidence or geographic range is rapidly increasing or threatens to increase. Emerging infections may be caused by biological pathogens (e.g., virus, parasite, fungus or bacterium) and may be: previously unknown or undetected biological pathogens, biological pathogens that have spread to new geographic areas or populations, previously known biological pathogens whose role in specific diseases was previously undetected and biological pathogens whose incidence of disease was previously declining but whose incidence of disease has reappeared (re-emerging infectious disease).5 5 Baylor College of Medicine, Emerging Infectious Disease, U RL: htti)s://www bcm edu/departments/molecular-virology-and-microbiology/emerging-infections-and- biodefense/emerging-infectious-diseases, accessed September 17, 2017. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page TA-19 Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of emerging infectious disease, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. Generally, an event that affects the County is likely to affect the City as well. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Flood The steering committee determined that the City's probability for flood is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to flood is moderate (which is higher than the County's rating). Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of flood hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event. Portions of Talent have areas of flood plains (special flood hazard areas, SFHA). These include areas along the Bear Creek and Wagner Creek (Figure TA-3). The worst flooding occurred along Bear Creek in 1928 and along Wagner Creek in 1964. Furthermore, other portions of Talent, outside of the mapped floodplains, are also subject to flooding from local storm water drainage. Note: Rogue Valley Sewer Services provides sewer and stormwater services to the City and provides information on low-impact development. The City is at risk from two types of flooding: riverine and urban. Riverine flooding occurs when streams overflow their banks and inundate low-lying areas. This is a natural process that adds sediment and nutrients to fertile floodplain areas. It usually results from prolonged periods of precipitation over a wide geographic area. Most areas are generally flooded by low velocity sheets of water. Urban flooding occurs as land is converted to impervious surfaces and hydrologic systems are changed. Precipitation is collected and transmitted to streams at a much faster rate, causing floodwaters that rise rapidly and peak with violent force. During urban flooding, storm drains can back up and cause localized flooding of streets and basements. These flooding events and subsequent damages are commonly caused by the behavior of Bear Creek and Wagner Creek and their tributaries. In 1997, flooding threatened mobile home parks adjacent to Bear Creek but did not cause much damage (the same area flooded in 1964 with more extensive damage). Page TA-20 December 2017 Talent Addendum Figure TA-4 Special Flood Hazard Area x taYr. Currently shot' -0 Mood Haurd ti . i Type and Source of Flood Data {r e+s 11-11t R J L; ERecbve FEMA 100 Yr Flood Preliminary FEMA 100 Yr Flood State Digitized Flood Data Q3 FEMA Food Data - ~y irlrnl v 5t' ~ ti~ c sy } ,wrNy - vt, _ i6 q rr,/ °°w r' ! ti C Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (DOGAMI) Floods can have a devastating impact on almost every aspect of the community, including private property damage, public infrastructure damage and economic loss from business interruption. It is important for the City to be aware of flooding impacts and assess its level of risk. The economic losses due to business closures often total more than the initial property losses that result from flood events. Business owners and their employees are significantly impacted by flood events. Direct damages from flooding are the most common impacts, but indirect damages, such as diminished clientele, can be just as debilitating to a business. The FEMA Flood Insurance Study (May 3, 2011) has a brief history of flooding in Jackson County and Talent (see Volume I, Section 3 for more information). No critical or essential facilities are located within the floodplain, with the exception of the water treatment plants. The fire station, an assisted care facility and the public works waste water pumping station are within the dam hazard impact area.6 Highway 99 and Interstate 5 are major transportation routes in the Rogue Valley. If major flooding affected all of the bridges in Talent, traffic flow in an out of the City would be significantly affected, but would not cut all off all avenues (Talent Avenue bridge). The amount of property in the flood plain is not a large area but damage could be significant as it would affect residential, commercial and public property. Floodwaters can affect building 6 City of Talent Comprehensive Plan (2016) Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page TA-21 foundations, seep into basements or cause damage to the interior, exterior and contents of buildings, dependent upon the velocity and depth of the water and by the presence of floating debris. The City sewer system can overflow during flood events and cause further property damage. For mitigation planning purposes, it is important to recognize that flood risk for a community is not limited only to areas of mapped floodplains. Other portions of Talent outside of the mapped floodplains may also be at relatively high risk from over bank flooding from streams too small to be mapped by FEMA or from local storm water drainage. In addition, the City is at risk to flooding from dam inundation of Hosler Dam and Emigrant La ke. The City has an adopted Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan (Resolution #99-524-R) that "directs the City to manage land use decision making, storm sewers, open space and other City services in ways that minimize the risk of future flood events."' The City has a Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance and the Talent Zoning Code establishes, among other standards, a 35- foot setback from the 100-year floodplain, a 50-foot setback from inventoried riparian areas and wetlands and prohibits the siting of critical facilities within the flood hazard areas.8 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) FEMA updated the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) in 2011 (effective May 3, 2011; revised January 19, 2018). The table below shows that as of June 2016, Talent has 96 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policies in force. Of those, nine (9) are for properties that were constructed before the initial FIRM. The last Community Assistance Visit (CAV) for Talent was on September 28, 2011. Talent's Class Rating within the Community Rating System (CRS) is an 8. The table shows that the majority of flood insurance policies are for residential structures, primarily single-family homes. There has been a total of one (1) paid claim for $14,525. The City complies with the NFIP through enforcement of their flood damage prevention ordinance and their floodplain management program. The Community Repetitive Loss record for Talent identifies zero (0) Repetitive Loss Properties9 and zero (0) Severe Repetitive Loss Properties10. For details on the repetitive loss properties see Volume I, Section 3. 7 Ibid. 8Ibid. 9 A Repetitive Loss (RL) property is any insurable building for which two or more claims of more than $1,000 were paid by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) within any rolling ten-year period, since 1978. A RL property may or may not be currently insured by the NFIP. 10 A Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) property is a single family property (consisting of 1 to 4 residences) that is covered under flood insurance by the NFIP and has incurred flood-related damage for which 4 or more separate claims payments have been paid under flood insurance coverage, with the amount of each claim payment exceeding $5,000 and with cumulative amount of such claims payments exceeding $20,000; or for which at least 2 separate claims payments have been made with the cumulative amount of such claims exceeding the reported value of the property. Page TA-22 December 2017 Talent Addendum Table TA-7 Flood Insurance Detail Polides by Building Type Effective Initial Total Pre-FIRM Single 2to4 Other Non- Minus Rated Jurisdiction FIRM and HIS FIRM Date Policies Policies Family Family Residential Residential A Zone J6 1` .4 - Its 1 la en_ 5,~3 2C11 2 i 0 °u 3 C Severe Last Substantial Repetitive Repetitive Community Insurance Total Pre FIRM Damage Loss Loss CRS Class Assistance Jurisdiction in Force Paid Claims Claims Paid Claims Total Paid Amount Structures Properties Ratin Visit Jackson County $ 442,723,400 197 132 10 $ 2,337,660 8 0 - - Talent $ 23,325,900 1 1 0 $ 14,525 0 0 8 2015 Source: Information compiled by Department of Land Conservation and Development, July 2016. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Landslide The steering committee determined that the City's probability for landslide is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to landslide is moderate (which is higher than the County's rating). Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of landslide hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. The potential for landslide in Talent is low with the higher landslide risk in the south and southwest and small areas immediately adjacent to stream channels. Future growth in Talent may expose development to higher landslide risk in the steeper sloped areas. Landslide susceptibility exposure for Talent is shown in Figure TA-5. Most of Talent demonstrates a low susceptibility to landslide exposure, with corridors of moderate susceptibility concentrated around the hills south of the City. Approximately 4% of Talent has high and approximately 21% moderate, landslide susceptibility exposure." Note that even if a jurisdiction has a high percentage of area in a high or very high landslide exposure susceptibility zone, this does not mean there is a high risk, because risk is the intersection of hazard and assets. 11 DOGAMI Open-File Report, 0-16-02, Landslide Susceptibility Overview Map of Oregon (2016) Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page TA-23 Figure TA-5 Landslide Susceptibility Exposure + i La„«, currently Shown -0 Landslide Hazard \;-I. Landsl4e Susceptib~hry i•i , s- ❑ Low - Landslidinq Unlikely - ❑ Moderate - Landsildinq Possible High • UMfkdY'g Likely ~ ® Very High . Existing Landslide Ialeni - y, maiY c r•~)P •yy4 : 4-4- r i 4N Source: Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer (DOGAMI) Potential landslide-related impacts are adequately described within Volume I, Section 3 and include infrastructural damages, economic impacts (due to isolation and/or arterial road closures), property damages and obstruction to evacuation routes. Rain-induced landslides and debris flows can potentially occur during any winter in Jackson County and thoroughfares beyond City limits are susceptible to obstruction as well. Landslide do not occur often in Talent, however, the most common type of landslide in Jackson County are slides caused by erosion. Slides move in contact with the underlying surface, are generally slow moving and can be deep. Rainfall-initiated landslides tend to be smaller; while earthquake induced landslides may be quite large. All soil types can be affected by natural landslide triggering conditions. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Page TA-24 December 2017 Talent Addendum Severe Weather Severe weather in can account for a variety of intense and potentially damaging weather events. These events include windstorms and winter storms. The following section describes the unique probability and vulnerability of each identified weather hazard. Other more abrupt or irregular events such as hail are also described in this section. Windstorm The steering committee determined that the City's probability for windstorm is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to windstorm is moderate (which is the same as the County's rating). Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of windstorm hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. Because windstorms typically occur during winter months, they are sometimes accompanied by ice, freezing rain, flooding and very rarely, snow. Other severe weather events that may accompany windstorms, including thunderstorms, hail, lightning strikes and tornadoes are generally negligible for Talent. Volume I, Section 3 describes the impacts caused by windstorms, including power outages, downed trees, heavy precipitation, building damages and storm-related debris. Additionally, transportation and economic disruptions result as well. Damage from high winds generally has resulted in downed utility lines and trees. Electrical power can be out anywhere from a few hours to several days. Outdoor signs have also suffered damage. If the high winds are accompanied by rain (which they often are), blowing leaves and debris clog drainage-ways, which in turn causes localized urban flooding. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Winter Storm (Snow/Ice) The steering committee determined that the City's probability for winter storm is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to winter storm is moderate (which is the same as the County's rating). Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of winter storm hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. Severe winter storms can consist of rain, freezing rain, ice, snow, cold temperatures and wind. They originate from troughs of low pressure offshore that ride along the jet stream during fall, winter and early spring months. Severe winter storms affecting the City typically originate in the Gulf of Alaska or in the central Pacific Ocean. These storms are most common from Novemberthrough March. Major winter storms can and have occurred in the Talent area and while they typically do not cause significant damage, they are frequent and have the potential to impact economic activity. Road and rail closures due to winter weather are an uncommon occurrence, but can interrupt commuter and commercial traffic. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard.. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page TA-25 Volcano The steering committee determined that the City's probability for a volcanic event is low (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to a volcanic event is low (which is the same as the County's rating). Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of volcanic hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. Generally, an event that affects the County is likely to affect Talent as well. Talent is very unlikely to experience anything more than volcanic ash during a volcanic event. Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Wildfire The steering committee determined that the City's probability for wildfire is high (which is the same as the County's rating) and that their vulnerability to wildfire is low (which is lower than the County's rating). Volume I, Section 3 describes the characteristics of wildfire hazards, history, as well as the location, extent and probability of a potential event within the region. The location and extent of a wildfire vary depending on fuel, topography and weather conditions. Weather and urbanization conditions are primarily at cause for the hazard level. Wildfires in Talent are somewhat rare. The potential community impacts and vulnerabilities described in Volume I, Section 3 are generally accurate for the City as well. The Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Protection Plan (RVIFP, updated 2017), assesses wildfire risk, maps wildland urban interface areas and includes actions to mitigate wildfire risk. The City is included in the RVIFP and will update the City's wildfire risk assessment if the fire plan presents better data during future updates (an action item is included within Volume I, Section 4 to participate in updates to the integrated fire plan and to continue to maintain and update their RVIFP). Talent is within an area of low wildfire prone urban landscape. The City hereby incorporates the RVIFP into this addendum by reference to provide greater detail to sensitivity and exposure to the wildfire hazard. Property can be damaged or destroyed with one fire as structures, vegetation and other flammables easily merge to become unpredictable and hard to manage. Other factors that affect ability to effectively respond to a wildfire include access to the location and to water, response time from the fire station, availability of personnel and equipment and weather (e.g., heat, low humidity, high winds and drought). Please review Volume 1, Section 3 for additional information on this hazard. Summary Figure TA-6 presents a summary of the hazard analysis for Talent and compares the results to the assessment completed by Jackson County. The hazards for the City are the Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake, emerging infectious disease and winter storm. Page TA-26 December 2017 Talent Addendum I Figure TA-6 Overall Hazard Analysis Comparison - Talent/Jackson County 240 T 222 222 211 211 185 180 180 170 161 160 1(0 160 158 163 144 125 120 98 98 64 64 Earthquake Emerging Winter Storm Wildfire Flood Windstorm Drought Landslide Earthquake Volcano (Cascadia) Infectious (crustal) Disease ■Talent MCounty Source: City of Talent NHMP Steering Committee and Jackson County NHMP Steering Committee, 2017. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page TA-27 This page intentionally left blank. Page TA-28 December 2017 Talent Addendum Volume III: City Addenda This page intentionally left blank. Appendix A: Glossary and Acronyms Glossary 100-year flood means a flooding condition which has a one percent chance of occurring each year. The 100-year flood level is used as the base planning level for floodplain management in the National Flood Insurance Program. https://www.fema.gov/flood-zones Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) is the area where the seafloor plate (the Juan de Fuca and Gorda) is sliding down and below the North American plate. https://Pnsn.org/outreach/earthquakesources/csz Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) In 2003, Congress passed the federal Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA), which encourages local communities to collaborate with federal land managers to develop comprehensive fuels reduction strategies. This is accomplished through the creation of a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). https://www.fs.fed.us/projects/hfi/field-guide/web/pagel5.php Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K) amended the Stafford Act, including: establishing a national program for pre-disaster mitigation; streamlining the administration of disaster relief; changing FEMA's post-disaster programs for individuals and families, including creating the Individuals and Households Program; establishing minimum standards for public and private structures; requiring local and state natural hazards mitigation plans that meet a FEMA standard (Section 322); revising - in part - FEMA funding for the repair, restoration and replacement of damaged facilities (Section 406); revising FEMA's participation in the costs of WUI fire suppression through an expanded and renamed Fire Management Assistance Grant Program (Section 420); removing the requirement for post- disaster IHMT or HMST meetings and reports; and other amendments. https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/4596 Disaster Resistant Community is a concept whereby individuals, businesses, private nonprofit organizations and government work in partnership by preparing in advance and taking actions to reduce the impact of natural hazards that will likely occur. https://www.fema.gov/news-release/1999/11/22/project-impact-building-disaster- resistant-community El Nino-Southern Oscillation is a cycle in the Pacific Basin involving water and air temperatures that has a profound effect on weather patterns around the world, events typically last 6-18 months. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/what-el- ni%C3%B1o%E2%80%93southern-oscillation-enso-nutshell Firewise is a program developed by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) featuring templates to help communities reduce risk and protect property form the dangers of wildland fires, an interactive resource-rich website and training programs throughout the nation. http://www.firewise.org Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page A-1 Floodplain is a land area adjacent to a river, stream, lake, estuary or other water body that is subject to flooding. These areas, if left undisturbed, act to store excess flood water. https://www.fema.gov/flood-zones Floodplain Administrator/Manager is the person designated by the governing body in a flood-prone community who is responsible for making floodplain determinations for construction sites, issuing building permits for floodplain construction, ensuring compliance and other floodplain management activities. https://www.fema.gov/floodplain-managers Floodway is the channel of a river and the portion of the floodplain that carries most of the flood flow. Floodways are usually the area where water velocities and forces are the greatest and most destructive. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) definition of floodway is the channel of a river or other watercourse and adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot. NFIP regulations, adopted in local ordinances, require that floodway be kept open so that flood flows are not obstructed or diverted onto other properties. https://www.fema.gov/flood-zones Goal 7 of the statewide land use planning program calls for local comprehensive plans to include inventories, policies and implementing measures to guide development in hazard areas thereby reducing losses from flooding, landslides, earthquakes, tsunamis, coastal erosion and wildfires. http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/goals/goal7.pdf Hazard is any situation that has the potential of causing damage to people, property or the environment. Hazard mitigation is any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property from hazards. (44 CFR 201.2) https://www.fema.gov/hazard- mitigation-planning Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is the program authorized under Section 404 of the Stafford Act and implemented at 44 CFR Part 206, Subpart N, which authorizes funding for certain mitigation measures identified through the evaluation of natural hazards conducted under Section 322 of the Stafford Act (44 CFR 201.2). https://www.fema.gov/hazard- mitigation-grant-program Hazus-MH (HAZards United States Multi-Hazard) is a standardized loss estimation methodology that is also a FEMA software program using mathematical formulas and Geographical Information Systems (GIS) data about building stock, local geology, etc. and the location and size of potential hazards (earthquakes, floods and hurricanes) to estimate physical, economic and social impacts of disaster. https://www.fema.gov/hazus Landslide is any detached mass of soil, rock or debris that moves down a slope or a stream channel. http://www.oregongeology.org/sub/Landslide/Landslidehome.htm LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) is an optical remote sensing technology that can measure the distance to and other properties of a target, by illuminating the target with light, often using pulses from a laser. http://www.oregongeology.org/lidar/` Major disaster is any natural catastrophe including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind-driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, Page A-2 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP I snowstorm or drought, or, regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion in any part of the United States, which in the determination of the President causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance to supplement the efforts and available resources of states, local governments and disaster relief organizations in alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused thereby (44 CFR 206.2). https://www.fema.gov/disasters National Fire Plan is a federal program that helps manage the impact of wildfires on communities, it has five main components: (1) firefighting, (2) rehabilitation and restoration, (3) hazardous fuel reduction, (4) community assistance and (5) accountability. https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=480165 National Flood Insurance Program is the program run by the federal government to improve floodplain management, to reduce flood-related disaster costs and to provide low cost flood insurance for residents of flood-prone communities. https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan is a plan resulting from a risk assessment of the nature and extent of vulnerability to the effects of natural hazards present in a geographic area and actions needed to minimize future vulnerability to those hazards, especially a plan developed and adopted which meets the requirements of 44 CFR Part 201.4/5/6. https://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-planning Public Assistance is the part of the disaster assistance program in which the federal government supplements the efforts and available resources of state and local governments to restore certain public facilities or services. Public Assistance includes emergency assistance, debris removal, community disaster loans and the permanent repair, restoration or replacement of public and designated private nonprofit facilities damaged or destroyed by a major disaster and is further described under Section 406 of the Stafford Act. https://www.fema.gov/public-assistance-local-state-tribal-and-non-profit Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Protection Plan is the CWPP for Jackson and Josephine counties. https://Oacksoncountyor.org/emergency/County-Plans/Fire-Plan Senate Bill 360 in 1997 established the policy and framework for meeting the fire protection needs of the wildland-urban interface. The Bill is also known as the Oregon Forestland- Urban Interface Fire Protection Act and enlists the aid of property owners to better protect their homes and firefighters during encroaching wildfires. http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/Fire/Pages/Urbanlnterface.aspx Special Flood Hazard Area is the land area covered by the floodwaters of the base flood and is where the NFIP's floodplain management regulations must be enforced; also the area where the mandatory purchase of flood insurance applies. https://www.fema.gov/flood- zones Stafford Act is the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (PL 100- 707, which amended PL 91-606 and PL 93-288; then was further amended by PL 106-390, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000; and PL 109-295, the Post-Katrina Emergency Reform Act). https://www.fema.gov/robert-t-stafford-disaster-relief-and-emergency-assistance-act- public-law-93-288-amended Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page A-3 i State Hazard Mitigation Officer is the official representative of state government who is the primary point of contact with FEMA, other federal agencies and local governments in mitigation planning and implementation of mitigation programs and activities required under the Stafford Act. In Oregon, this person is on the staff of Oregon Emergency Management. https://www.fema.gov/state-hazard-mitigation-officers State Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team is a team of state agency officials who, in 1997, Governor Kitzhaber directed Oregon Emergency Management to make a permanent body and establish regular meeting dates in order to understand losses arising from natural hazards and coordinate recommended strategies to mitigate loss of life, property and natural resources. http://www.oregon.gov/oem/Councils-and- Committees/Pages/IHMT.aspx Subduction zone is the area between two converging plates, one of which is sliding down and below the other, http://www.oregongeology.org/sub/publications/ims/ims- 028/unit20.htm Subduction zone earthquake is an earthquake along the subduction zone. In Oregon, this refers to the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ), which lies off shore of the Oregon, California and Washington Coasts. http://www.oregongeology.org/sub/publications/ims/ims- 028/unit20.htm Vulnerability is the susceptibility of life, property or the environment to damage if a hazard manifests to potential. Wildfire hazard zone (OAR Chapter 629, Division 44) is the portion of a local government jurisdiction that has been determined to be at risk of a catastrophic wildfire. https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/displayChapterRules.action?selectedChapter=82 Wildland-urban interface (WUI) is an area where structures are adjacent to or are intermingled with natural vegetation fuels which is prone to the occurrence of wildland fires. http://www.wildlandfirersg.org/About/Wildland-Urban-Interface MP Page A-4 December 2017 Jackson County MNH Acronyms ASFPM -Association of State Floodplain Managers BLM - Bureau of Land Management CSZ - Cascadia Subduction Zone CWPP - Community Wildfire Protection Plan DEQ- Department of Environmental Quality DLCD - Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development DOGAMI - Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency FMA - Flood Mitigation Assistance HMA - Hazard Mitigation Assistance HMGP - Hazard Mitigation Grant Program NFPA - National Fire Protection Association OEM- Oregon Office of Emergency Management OPRD - Oregon Parks and Recreation Department OWRD - Oregon Water Resourced Department PDM - Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program RVCOG - Rogue Valley Council of Governments RVIFP - Rogue Valley Integrated Community Wildfire Protection Plan SFHA -Special Flood Hazard Area SRGP - Seismic Rehabilitation Grant Program USFS - United States Forest Service Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page A-5 I This page intentionally left blank. Page A-6 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP APPENDIX B: PLANNING AND PUBLIC PROCESS NHMP Update Changes This memo describes the changes made to the 2012 Jackson County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (MNHMP) during the 2017 NHMP update process. Project Background Jackson County and the cities of Ashland, (Town of) Butte Falls, Eagle Point, Jacksonville, Phoenix, Rogue River, Shady Cove and Talent partnered with the Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience (OPDR) to update the multi-jurisdictional 2012 Jackson County NHMP. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires communities to update their mitigation plans every five years to remain eligible for Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program funding, Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program funding, and Hazard Grant Mitigation Program (HMGP) funding. A Federal Emergency Management Pre-Disaster Mitigation grant funded the CSC work with non-federal match provided by Jackson County. OPDR and the committees made several changes to the previous NHMP to consolidate. The cities of, (Town of) Butte Falls, Jacksonville, Phoenix, and Talent were added to the MNHMP with this update. Major changes are documented and summarized in this memo. 2017 NHMP Update Changes The sections below only discuss major changes made to the NHMPs during the 2017 NHMP update process. Major changes include the replacement or deletion of large portions of text, changes to the NHMP's organization, new mitigation action items, and the addition of city addenda to the NHMP. If a section is not addressed in this memo, then it can be assumed that no significant changes occurred. The NHMP's format and organization have been altered to fit within OPDR's NHMP templates. Table B-1 below lists the 2012 Jackson County NHMP section names and the corresponding 2017 section names, as updated (major Volumes are highlighted). This memo will use the 2017 NHMP update section names to reference any changes, additions, or deletions within the NHMP. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page B-1 Table B-1 Changes to NHMP Organization 0 Acknowledgements Acknowledgements Table of Contents Table of Contents Approval Letters and Resolutions Approval Letters and Resolutions FEMA Review Tool FEMA Review Tool Volume I: Basic Plan Volume I: Basic Plan Plan Summary Plan Summary of the NHMP Section 1: Introduction Chapter 1: Introduction (Appendix C, see below) Chapter 2: Community Profile Section 2: Risk Assessment Chapter 3: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Section 3 Mitigation Strategy Chapter 4: Mitigation Strategy Section 4: Plan Implementation and Chapter 5: Plan Implementation and Maintenance Maintenance Ashland Ashland - Butte Falls Eagle Point Eagle Point - Jacksonville - Phoenix Rogue River Rogue River Shady Cove Shady Cove Talent k "37"1 U5, T, Appendix A: Glossary and Acronyms Appendix A: Action Items Chapter 4: Mitigation Strategy Appendix B: Planning and Public Process Appendix B: Planning and Public Process Appendix C: Profile Chapter 2: Community Profile Appendix C: Hazard Analysis Appendix D: Economic Analysis Appendix D: Economic Analysis Appendix E: Grant Programs Appendix E: Grant Programs - Appendix F: Community Survey Appendix G: Ashland LID - Appendix H: Risk Report - Appendix I: Areas of Mitigation Interest As the table indicates the structure of the NHMP has changed significantly including the addition of several additional addenda. Content and changes are described below. Front Pages 1. The NHMP's cover has been updated. 2. Acknowledgements have been updated to include the 2017 project partners and planning participants. Page B-2 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP 3. The FEMA approval letter, review tool, and county and city resolutions of adoption are included. Volume I: Basic Plan Volume I provides the overall NHMP framework for the 2017 Multi-jurisdictional NHMP update. Volume I includes the following sections: Plan Summary The 2017 NHMP includes an updated NHMP summary that provides information about the purpose of Natural Hazard Mitigation planning and describes how the NHMP will be implemented. Section I: Introduction Section 1 introduces the concept of Natural Hazard Mitigation planning and answers the question, "Why develop a mitigation plan?" Additionally, Section 1 summarizes the 2017 NHMP update process, and provides an overview of how the NHMP is organized. Major changes to Section 1 include the following: • Most of Section 1 includes new information that replaces out of date text found in the 2012 NHMP. The new text describes the federal requirements that the NHMP addresses and gives examples of the policy framework for natural hazards planning in Oregon. • Section 1 of the 2017 update, outlines the entire layout of the NHMP update, which has been altered as described above. Section 2: Community Profile The community profile has been updated to conform to the OPDR template and consolidates information for Jackson County and cities. Section 3: Risk Assessment This section consists of three phases: hazard identification, vulnerability assessment, and risk analysis. Hazard identification involves the identification of hazard geographic extent, its intensity, and probability of occurrence. The second phase, attempts to predict how different types of property and population groups will be affected by the hazard. The third phase involves estimating the damage, injuries, and costs likely to be incurred in a geographic area over a period of time. Changes include: • The hazard information of the previous NHMP have been integrated into this section, Volume I, Section 2 and Volume III. • Hazard identification, characteristics, history, probability, vulnerability, and hazard specific mitigation activities were updated. Outdated and extraneous information was removed and links to technical reports were added as a replacement. With this update the Oregon NHMP is cited heavily as a reference to the more technical hazard material. • The recently completed a multi-hazard risk assessment (Risk Report, DOGAMI) for the Upper Rogue Watershed of Jackson County including unincorporated communities, Butte Falls, Eagle Point and Shady Cove is incorporated into this section and within applicable city addenda. I Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page B-3 • Links to specific hazard studies and data are embedded directly into the NHMP where relevant and available. • NFIP information was updated. • The hazard vulnerability analysis has been updated for the county and cities (city information is included with more detail within Volume III). Section 4: Mitigation Strate~y This section provides the basis and justification for the mission, goals, and mitigation actions identified in the NHMP. Major changes to Section 4 include the following: • The mission and goals were reviewed in relation to the State NHMP. The County and cities agreed to retain the existing mission and goals with no changes. • Action items were reviewed, revised and prioritized (indicated in bold text). Major changes are indicated below: o MH #1: ongoing action, revised and combined into 2017 action MH #1 and prioritized. o MH #2: ongoing action, revised and combined into 2017 action MH #1 and prioritized. o MH #3: ongoing action, revised and combined into 2017 action MH #2 and prioritized. o MH #4: ongoing action, revised and combined into 2017 action MH #1 and prioritized. o MH #5: this action was deleted. Technical coordination is achieved through State partners including DOGAMI, OEM, DLCD and OSU. o MH #6: this action is considered complete. Disaster registry is established through RVCOG. o MH #7: this action is deleted. This activity occurs as part of the implementation and Maintenance section of the NHMP. o MH #8: this action is complete. The State Building Codes Division operates this program which is administered locally. o MH #9: ongoing action, revised and combined into 2017 action MH #3 o MH #10: this action was deleted. o MH #11: this action was deleted. o MH #12: ongoing action, revised into 2017 action MH #4 o MH #13: this action was deleted. o MH #14: this action was deleted. o MH #15: this action was deleted. State agencies (e.g., DOGAMI) provide assistance with HAZUS. The county does not have resources for this activity. o DR #1: ongoing action, revised and combined into 2017 action DR #1 o DR #2: ongoing action, revised and combined into 2017 action DR #1 o EQ #1: ongoing action, revised and combined into 2017 action MH #1 and prioritized. o EQ #2: ongoing action, revised and combined into 2017 action MH #1 and prioritized. o EQ #3: this action is complete and is part of the National Dam Inventory. o EQ #4: complete, the DOGAMI and USGS have data that has been incorporated into this NHMP. o EQ #5: this action was deleted. Page B-4 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP o FL #1: this action was deleted. o FL #2: this action is complete and is part of the National Dam Inventory. o FL #3: ongoing action, revised into 2017 action FL #1 o FL #4: ongoing action, revised into 2017 action FL #2. New maps are in process for the Upper Rogue Watershed, Neil Creek has been updated, maps were modernized in 2011. o FL #5: ongoing action, revised into 2017 action FL #3. o FL #6: ongoing action, revised into 2017 action FL #4. o FL #7: ongoing action, revised into 2017 action FL #5. Jackson County is currently CRS 7. o FL #8: ongoing action, revised into 2017 action FL #6. o LS #1: ongoing action, revised into 2017 action LS #1. DOGAMI released landslide susceptibility maps in 2016 as incorporated in this NHMP. o LS #2: ongoing action, revised and combined into 2017 action MH #1 and prioritized. o LS #3: complete. The county has a steep slope and landslide section within their general development regulations (section 9.3). o SW #1: this activity was deemed unnecessary and deleted. o SW #2: ongoing action, revised and combined into 2017 action MH #1 and prioritized. o VE #1: ongoing action, revised and combined into 2017 action MH #1 and prioritized. o VE #2: this action is complete. Maps have been created by the USGS. o VE #3: this action is complete. Ongoing activities occur as part of normal county business. o WF #1: ongoing action, revised into 2017 action WF #1 and prioritized. Jackson County maintains a combined CWPP with neighboring Josephine County as described in Volume I, Section 3. Section 5: Plan Implementation and Maintenance Jackson County Emergency Management will continue to convene and coordinate the county steering committee (documentation for the city committees is contained within the city addenda in Volume III). Volume II: Appendices Below is a summary of the appendices included in the 2017 NHMP: Appendix A: Glossary and Acronyms This appendix was added with this version of the NHMP and includes common words and their acronyms found throughout the NHMP. Appendix B: Planning and Public Process This planning and public process appendix reflects changes made to the Jackson County MNHMP and documents the 2017 planning and public process. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page B-5 I Appendix C: Hazard Analysis Appendix C is Jackson County's hazard analysis and is the foundation upon which the County's EOP and departmental implementing procedures are developed. This hazard analysis was updated by members of the NHMP. The updates reflect changes to hazard conditions in Jackson County and serves as the basis for the hazard risk analysis throughout this version of the NHMP. Appendix D: Economic Analysis of Natural Hazard Mitigation Projects Updates are provided for the economic analysis of natural hazard mitigation projects. Appendix E: Grant Programs and Resources Some of the previously provided resources were deemed unnecessary since this material is covered within the Oregon NHMP and appropriate resources are provided within Volume I, Section 3 and Volume III). Updates were made to the remaining grant programs and resources. Appendix F: Community Survey This survey was conducted with the 2017 update of the NHMP and was utilized to inform the development of mitigation strategies and identification of community vulnerabilities. It is provided herein as documentation and to serve as a resource for future planning efforts. Appendix G• Cif of Ashland Hazard Mitigation Green Infrastructure, and Low Impact Development This appendix is new and includes the results of the pilot project to incorporate green infrastructure (GI) and low impact development (LID) best management practices (BMPs) into NHMP Action Items. Appendix H• Upper Rogue Watershed Multi-Hazard Risk Report This appendix is new and it describes the methods and results of natural hazard risk assessments performed by the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) for the community of the Upper Rogue Watershed. Appendix I: Areas of Mitigation Interest: Upper Rogue This appendix is new and describes the results of a natural hazard technical assistance project provided by STARR to the communities of Shady Cove and Eagle Point. Volume III: City Addenda The cities of Ashland, (Town of) Butte Falls, Eagle Point, Jacksonville, Phoenix, Rogue River, Shady Cove and Talent opted to participate and include addenda in the Jackson NHMP. Ashland, Eagle Point, Rogue River and Shady Cove previously had addenda to the Jackson County MNHP. Where appropriate, information has been consolidated and a reference is provided within the addenda to the appropriate NHMP section. New data and hazard information was included for the participating cities and actions were reviewed, revised and prioritized as described in the addenda. Other changes to the addenda are documented in this appendix and Volume III. Page B-6 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Ashland • Action items were reviewed, revised and prioritized (indicated in bold text). Major changes are indicated below: o MH #1: ongoing action, revised and combined into 2017 action MH #1. Prep- CERTA training/Kits available at AIR (Ashland is Ready). o MH #2: this action was deleted. This is controlled by the State BCD and administered locally. o MH #3: ongoing action, revised and combined into 2017 action MH #1. Training offered three times per year. Student enrollment for equipment classes and trainings. o MH #4: this action is complete, funded and operational. o MH #5: this action was deleted. This activity occurs through other retained actions. o MH #6: this action is complete, funded and operational. At least one exercise occurs annually including EOC activation. o MH #7: this action was deleted. o MH #8: ongoing action, renumbered as 2017 action MH #2. Fire department has stocked food and water for two weeks, currently working on gathering additional supplies and provision. o MH #9: this action is considered complete. This activity occurs regularly with updates of the City's comprehensive plan, development ordinance and wildfire hazard zone. o MH #10: ongoing action, renumbered as 2017 action MH #3 o EQ #1: this action is retained as 2017 action EQ #1 and prioritized. There have been funding challenges. o EQ #2: action is retained, renumbered as 2017 action EQ #3. o EQ #3: this action is ongoing and considered part of 2017 action EQ #2. o EQ#4: this action is ongoing, renumbered as 2017 action EQ#2 and prioritized. Seismic retrofits have been made to a number of public and private buildings. o EQ #5: action is retained, renumbered as 2017 action EQ #4. o FL #1: this action is considered complete and ongoing. Emergency preparedness education occurs through AIR (Ashland is Ready). o LS #1: this action is revised, retained as 2017 action LS #1 and prioritized. o SW #1: this action is complete and ongoing. Warming shelters provided by NPOs most of the week. If not, the City can open an emergency shelter if temperatures are lower than 20F. o WF #1: ongoing action, renumbered as 2017 action WF #2 and prioritized. Over 75% complete. o WF #2: ongoing action, renumbered as 2017 action WF #3. Nearing 25 certified communities, several in progress. New Actions (2017): o FL #1: this action is new. o FL #2: this action is new. o WF #1: this action is new and is a priority for the City. o WF #4: this action is new. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page B-7 Butte Falls This city addendum is new with this version of the NHMP. Eagle Point • Action items were reviewed, revised and prioritized (indicated in bold text). Major changes are indicated below: o MH #1: ongoing action. o MH #2: ongoing action. Action is revised. Updates to some ordinances have occurred. o DR #1: this action is retained as 2017 action DR #1 and prioritized. o EQ#1: this action is retained. o EQ#2: this action is ongoing. o EQ #3: this action is ongoing. Coordination occurs between multiple departments. o EQ #4: this action is ongoing. o FL #1: this action is ongoing. Renumbered as 2017 action FL #5. Floodplain management and regulatory oversight occurs by the planning and building department. o FL #2: this action is ongoing and is combined into 2017 action MH #1. o FL #3: this action is retained. Renumbered as 2017 action FL #6. The City does not currently participate in the CRS. City coordinates with floodplain managers group and is considering participation. o FL #4: this action is retained and revised as 2017 action FL #1 and prioritized. Floodplain management and regulatory oversight occurs by the planning and building department. Various open space preserves and a golf course are used for this purpose. o FL #5: this action is retained and revised as 2017 action FL #2 and prioritized. o FL #6: this action is ongoing and revised into 2017 action FL #7. This action developed out of the Ashland GI/LID project (Volume II, Appendix G). o SW #1: this action is retained and revised as 2017 action MH #4. Required by development code. o SW #2: this action is retained, revised and renumbered as 2017 action SW #1. o SW #3: this action is ongoing and is combined into 2017 action MH #1. o WF #1: this action is ongoing and is combined into 2017 action MH #1. o WF #2: this action is retained and renumbered as 2017 action WF #1. This City is included in the RVIFP. o WF #3: this action is retained and renumbered as 2017 action WF #2. New Actions (2017): o MH #3: this action is new. o FL #3: this action is new and is a priority for the City. o FL #4: this action is new and is a priority for the City. o FL #8: this action is new and is a priority for the City. This action developed out of the AoMI project (Volume 11, Appendix 1). o FL #9: this action is new and is a priority for the City. This action developed out of the AoMI project (Volume II, Appendix 1). Page B-8 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP lacksonville This city addendum is new with this version of the NHMP. Phoenix This city addendum is new with this version of the NHMP. Rogue River • Action items were reviewed, revised and prioritized (indicated in bold text). Major changes are indicated below: o MH #1: ongoing action. This action is renumbered as 2017 action MH #3. The city maintains a monthly newsletter and has educational information available. o MH #2: this action is ongoing. The City integrates the NHMP into city ordinances and regulatory documents when possible. o EQ#1: this action is ongoing. This action is revised and is considered a priority by the City. o EQ #2: this action is retained. The City provides information on earthquake insurance. o EQ #3: this action is ongoing. The City utilizes earthquake hazard information provided by DOGAMI and USGS. o FL #1: this action is deleted. Activities from this action are ongoing and considered part of 2017 action MH #3. o FL#2: this action is ongoing. The City currently participates in the NFIP. This is a priority action for the City. o FL #3: this action is ongoing. The City currently has a CRS rating of 8. o FL #4: this action is ongoing. The City utilizes open space, wetland and park land when available for flood storage. o FL #5: this action is ongoing and revised into 2017 action FL #7. This action developed out of the Ashland GI/LID project (Volume II, Appendix G). o FL #6: this action is ongoing. The City continues to protect city infrastructure from flood. o WF #1: this action is ongoing. This action is revised and renumbered as 2017 action WF #2. o WF #2: this action is retained, renumbered and prioritized as 2017 action WF #1. This City is included in the RVIFP. o WF #3: this action is ongoing. New Actions (2017): o MH #1: this action is new and is a priority for the City. o MH #2: this action is new and is a priority for the City. o DR #1: this action is new and is a priority for the City. o FL #1: this action is new and is a priority for the City. o FL #7: this action is new. o FL #8: this action is new. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page B-9 Shady Cove • Action items were reviewed, revised and prioritized (indicated in bold text). Major changes are indicated below: o FL #1: this action is ongoing. This action is revised and renumbered as 2017 action FL #2. The City regularly conducts public outreach related to the flood hazard. o FL #2: this action is ongoing. This action is revised and renumbered as 2017 action FL #3. o FL #3: this action is ongoing. This action is revised and renumbered as 2017 action FL #4. o FL #4: this action is ongoing. This action is renumbered and prioritized as 2017 action FL #1. The City currently participates in the NFIP. o SW #1: this action is ongoing and is considered a component of 2017 action SW #1. o SW #2: this action is ongoing. This action is renumbered and prioritized as 2017 action SW #1. Some critical facilities have backup power. o SW #3: this action is ongoing. The City regularly educates residents about severe weather issues. o WF #1: this action is ongoing. The City works with the fire district to promote wildfire awareness and mitigation. This action is prioritized. o WF #2: this action is ongoing and renumbered as 2017 action WF #3. o WF #3: this action is ongoing and renumbered as 2017 action WF #4. New Actions (2017): o MH #1: this action is new. o MH #2: this action is new. o EQ #1: this action is new. o FL #5: this action is new and developed out of the FEMA Risk MAP Resilience Workshop and Risk Report (Volume 11, Appendix H). o FL #6: this action is new and developed out of the AoMI project (Volume 11, Appendix 1). o WF #2: this action is new and is a priority for the City. o WF #5: this action is new and developed out of the AoM1 project (Volume 11, Appendix 1). Talent This city addendum is new with this version of the NHMP. Page B-10 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP 2017 NHMP PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS 2017 NHMP Update Jackson County is dedicated to directly involving the public in the review and update of the natural hazard mitigation plan. Although members of the steering committee represent the public to some extent, the residents of Jackson County, Ashland, Butte Falls, Eagle Point, Jacksonville, Phoenix, Rogue River, Shady Cove and Talent were also given the opportunity to provide feedback about the NHMP. The NHMP will undergo review by the County NHMP steering committee on a semiannual basis and by the City steering committees on an annual basis. Jackson County made the NHMP available via their website throughout the update process and the updated NHMP was made available for public review and comment through the FEMA review period. The participating cities were included within the press release that was provided (see following page). Public Involvement Summary An open house was held with the City of Medford on January 12, 2017. During this open house, the Jackson County NHMP team collaborated with the Medford NHMP team to provide information, and receive public feedback and comments, regarding natural hazard mitigation. A survey was provided to the public during the early stages of the update cycle (Volume II, Appendix F). Information from this survey was used by the steering committee to help inform their risk assessment and mitigation strategies. During the public review period (see next page) there were xx comments received regarding the Jackson County MNHMP update. Members of the steering committee provided edits and updates to the NHMP prior to the public review period as reflected in the final document. Work Session: Jackson County Board of Commissioners - January 2, 2018 On January 2, 2018 Jackson County staff briefed the Jackson County Board of Commissioners on the updates to the Multi-Jurisdictional Jackson County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page B-11 Press Release To be provided with final draft Page B-12 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Jackson County Board of Commissioners: Work Session Board of Commissioners Rick Eycr (541) ;74.6118 Bob Stromer K (5'1)774-6705 Colleen RobaU (541) 774-0117 JACKSON COUNTY F& a.~ (-',41) 774-6705 0 1' p 10 South Oakdale, Room 214 l• Medford Oregon 97501 %Nvwjacksoncouray.org BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Fork Session Agenda January 2, 2018 9:00 a.m. Jackson Room I. Rogue Valley Community Television Annual Report Brandon Givens, Manager/Instructor SOLI i Digital Nledia Center 2. Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan - Sara Rubrecht. Jackson County Emergency Manager 3. Discussion of Marijuana Advisory Committee i 4. Discussion of Unite States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service Request for Comment - Colleen Roberts. Commissioner 5. Executive Session ORS 192.660(2)(a) and (b), Employment of Employee ORS 192.660(2)(d)- Labor Negotiations-Press Exclude ORS 192.660(4) ORS 192.660(2)(e). Real Property ORS 192.660(2)(f). Information or Records Exempt from Public Disclosure ORS 192.66((2)(h). Litigation l(a pls•sical accommodation is needed to participate in a Counn, meeting, please contact the Human Resources Office at 541--'4-6036 or M'TUD 711 or 800-735-2900. Notification ofat least 48 hours prior to the meeting, pre(erabh in writing, will assist Count sta((in providing reasonable accommodation. i.eoc soc nya.:_~ /6rWS~2018 BoC Wak SnsbnMp•nGa~201A_oi oz ax_won s..,a•eou Agenda for January 2. 2018 Page 1 of i Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page B-13 Jackson County Steering Committee Steering committee members possessed familiarity with the Jackson County community and how it's affected by natural hazard events. The steering committee guided the update process through several steps including goal confirmation and prioritization, action item review and development and information sharing to update the NHMP and to make the NHMP as comprehensive as possible. The steering committee met formally on the following dates: Meeting #0: Open House, January 12, 2017 During this open house the Jackson County NHMP team collaborated with the Medford NHMP team to provide information, and receive public feedback and comments, regarding natural hazard mitigation. Meeting # 1: Kickoff, January 13, 2017 During this meeting, the steering committee reviewed the previous NHMP, and were provided updates on hazard mitigation planning, the NHMP update process, and project timeline. They also provided updates on the history of hazard events in the county and cities, reviewed and revised the NHMP's mission and goals, discussed progress made toward the previous NHMP's action items. Meeting #2: Risk Assessment, Implementation and Maintenance, February 28, 2017 During this meeting, the steering committee reviewed the existing risk assessment including community vulnerabilities and hazard information. Information attained during this meeting was used to inform the update of the hazard analysis. The previous NHMP's implementation and maintenance program was reviewed and any changes that were necessary were made as indicated in this appendix and Volume I, Section 5. Meeting #3: Mitigation Strategy. April 20, 2017 During this meeting, the steering committee reviewed changes they made to their action items and made any modifications and also prioritized the actions. City Addenda Meetings: April 19, 20, 21 and May 9 The participating cities held at least one formal steering committee meeting with the County Emergency Manager and CSC staff in attendance. During these meetings, the steering committee provided comments on draft updates, revised and prioritized their actions, and reviewed the plan implementation and maintenance schedule. Meeting #4: Risk MAP Resilience Workshop, May 10, 2017 Members of the County and City steering committees participated in the Upper Rogue Resilience Workshop and discussed resources to support community identified mitigation actions, implementation opportunities, and methods to strengthen networks and partnerships. In addition to the meetings listed above, there were numerous informal meetings and email exchanges between steering committee members, OPDR, and other state agencies. Page B-14 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP The following pages includes copies of meeting agendas and sign-in sheets. Imo- O UNIVERSITY OF JACKSON ar.(i rlr rt OREGON COUNTY Agenda Meeting: Jackson County NHMP Update: Kick-off Meeting Date: January 13, 2017 Time: 10:00 AM - Noon Location: Jackson County Sheriffs Office - 5179 Crater Lake Hwy, Central Point Sheriff's Office Training Room 1. Introduction and Background 10 minutes a. Project Context b. Committee Introductions II. Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning 30 minutes a. Brief Emergency Management Overview b. Brief Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (NHMP) Overview c. Special District Addenda d. Project Timeline III. Community Profile Update 15 minutes a. Community Profile information for update b. Identify critical facilities IV. Hazard History 15 minutes a. Discussion of identified hazard events b. Other hazard events to be added? V. State and County Goals 15 minutes a. Overview of County's alignment with State goals b. Identification of gaps in identified goals VI. Mitigation Actions Review 45 minutes a. Discuss status of mitigation action items b. Discuss items added/removed/amended since last update VII. Public Outreach Strategy 5 minutes a. Discuss outreach strategy for 2017 update process Vlll. Wrap Up and Next Steps 5 minutes a. Next Steps b. Future Meetings OREGON PARTNERSHIP FOR DISASTER RESILIENCE I COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER 1209 University of Oregon I Eugene, Oregon 97403 1 T: 541.346.3889 1 F: 541.346.2040 http://csc.uoregon.edu/opdr Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page B-15 a z c 0 u c 0 Y sue, s5A~ I, )I VA JAAE 0 1 J E C) u ulluasa.i aN Il8-3 awe( LIOZ 'Cl enuuf-3Jo)IoIN :l# up3W :olepdn dWHN (lunoD uosN:)ef I l7N.lI11S121 ul-u !S upaayv m a v 0 Meeting Sign-in DISASTLR ° RFSI LI I:NCL Jackson County NHMP Update: Meeting #1: Kickoff - January 13, 2017 z Name Email Representing C~c~ u ~~e ~brec:s~ • Svnc~u , ~ ~L~Ov'1 0 3 (Q✓ - r u ve -49,d r r I NJ J ic Ix ~ ~~Qiir'P~n. JCC-b~f' (Y~L(,'rt~-L',JCk'~15p/4iJul1~.`r,bC?' CIKh'ilt;-0~iStYilz o~n~ e @ shy caq e _ Vn-e.Jt I I N V Cl) (D _ O,q 0 3 Meeting Sian-In ' '1\10.:IIt'llll: o "DISASTER RESI LI LNCI.. Jackson County NHMP Update: Meeting tel: Kickoff- January 12, 2017 Name Email Representing c c~~,. Sv ~r C' ~,S>L~~ w._)rl/~'~..i o ~6~@ ~-OcSC _ G{~7c.~K~.✓~ ~Ocr 64 6 C'-. .f /~il►rw~r c~ 3 ~J Piv //I. z-~ T1~ 1' 1/^) 0 N V \A ~C l PAC. f~ PrL ( ~ ~n a c Cl ja CGv4 Ur 71 ~N~b~Si I~•1b ~4 Vot (L~ C)Ancl - ~rO'tPM6; Z r P 0 n 0 C 7 r-r `G z v ° Meeting Sign-in r) DISASTER ° RE:SI LI ENCE Jackson County NHMP Update: Meeting, #l: Kickoff - January 12, 2017 rr z Name Email Representing v I 1 4F 0 ~i,@C- ~D l~,~cSC G{~76~,~e.✓~ {J,~OcI 64 6 3 ' of r/lf~w~r LEI/ ~ C t c CPc✓ 1, tAn-U tit C C~ UCL ( CG UCrrl Ur'u BSI I'i ~~JV(Ot "(Zr C~,nstino. KrJ~I~~.>pacl(nWrP Ji* ti CDA6,1I j Irv J, Co AtJ cor✓t AZ.~F cit~o< x.~ v W t.D UNweesrrv OF JACKSON COUNTY "+nsrr"4 Q OREGON Prrgnn Agenda Meeting: Jackson County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: Risk Assessment, Action Updates & Plan Implementation and Maintenance Date: February 28, 2017 Time: 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM Location: Jackson County Sheriff's Office - 5179 Crater Lake Hwy, Central Point 1. Welcome and Meeting Goals 5 minutes a. Project Updates II. Risk Assessment Review 45 minutes a. Review Jackson County Risk Assessment b. Discuss any changes III. Action Item Update and Review 45 minutes a. Review Meeting 1 identified actions and develop additional actions b. Review changes to existing items c. Prioritize actions IV. Plan Implementation and Maintenance 20 minutes a. Recommended updates b. Discuss committee membership c. Discuss meeting schedule V. Wrap Up and Next Steps 5 minutes a. Next Steps b. City Meetings OREGON PARTNERSHIP FOR DISASTER RESILIENCE I COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER 1209 University of Oregon I Eugene, Oregon 97403 1 T: 541.346.3889 1 F: 541.346.2040 http://csc.uoregon.edu/opdr Page B-20 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP n 0 0 0 I Meeting Sion-In _ DISASTE=R RESI LI ENCE Jackson County NHMP Update: Meeting #2: February 28'", 2017 z = Name Email Representing (Z-\j CeTL- ~un~FC~ )Ikn xLC ^,CVcc~. ccC 3 cr r1i V ~DI V) s~ '~~Acr Gn+do.~- rc~ , ~ zSo ~A*t S OK• K,,vA 9~~b J.~k~o~ Co. G1S W N F-' N Meeting Sign-In DISASTER REST TER Jackson County NHMP Update: Meeting #2: February 28'h 2017 Naame Email Re resenting A,-V C7"~rCtSGLv7G .O( 1 /SQJ;VI ~Fivi~~~ iC~~,, ~tc~rrSLQ, C~cs. /cam//co.Lf N , Cj< rc9ued~Spo,niA IRO~u~~. W0.S ° ° S s t-ea.vt S N n C~1,ra1,~~~t, 0 N f~I E Y (~rCJ~~'. ~ (~•r j ~ iniJ~ QvS~ ~(r^~t Br ~ 1 ~OGI'f1l • a~ ~ 1 l,l~•f r n~ n J 0 rr~1~~ e ` SkAp~~ad~~c .hd~ey e~1ku\~n~ c~ectan ,~v C~1 c~ v ~ e~ ~ ~1'1r~re9~es~c~,~yoFi-o~i✓r3ridCr.~~ ~uyJ~ ~~zr O UNIVERSCI'Y OF OREGON Agenda Meeting: Jackson County NHMP Update: Mitigation Strategies Date: April 20, 2017 Time: 3:00 - 4:30 PM Location: Sheriff's Office, 5179 Crater Lake Highway, Central Point, OR 1. Jurisdiction Specific Mitigation Strategy a. Review Process and County Strategy b. Develop New Actions c. Prioritize Actions H. Next Steps a. Resilience Meeting: May 10 b. Public Survey c. Prepare final draft of the NHMP for County and City Review d. Provide the OMD-Office of Emergency Management a Review Opportunity e. Submit updated plan to FEMA for review OREGON PARTNERSHIP FOR DISASTER RESILIENCE I COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER 1209 University of Oregon I Eugene, Oregon 97403 1 T: 541.346.3889 1 F: 541.346.2040 h"p://Csc.uoregon.edu/opdr Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page B-23 d W a revwasun roa Meeting .SiQR-IR DISASTER RESILIENCE - Jackson County NHMP Update: Meeting #3: Mitigation Strategies Anril 20,2017 oc.uoucunannmrna Name Email Representing Dry Cue<.KLa,..dall osa-4 LauJ.Iro~ l.eeagriCJK l lek~ovicJ<e royuedkg al. Royt.~~( 4- /~-aw~ Y,k /4i+✓y. !✓•!/GJrw/•°// ,~c/$o Sa /dfr~•b-lOrN~/^//w/ f7iAi/e! Q iY~6lelp `,4C~SCM COUYY~/. O~ 1~ e~~~...~- XNrcL9 ~J U 1 hV C=T m~~e~f-s -f/wd fai.~ /Yf ~ WO caw eveeiG. Com e M'S zo. s,J s-9Jatra /Ctvrti ~rr/1 /(~.riw. ~a wi! d~ eeae P//. e1T 5 14w+w O ea. ~„l/! z~u-ra ~-JhcKsovca,~rFy.o+~ J.G. O<a.ai~..~✓~- 0 3 n o c 3 Z 2 ` V rt O UNIVEKSI'I'Y OF RL SILII \'t L) OREGON Agenda Meeting: Jackson County NHMP Update: Ashland Addenda Date: April 19, 2017 Time: 3:00 - 4:30 PM Location: Ashland Fire Station 2, 70 Cedar Street, Ashland, OR 1. Welcome and Introductions a. Overview of NHMP process II. Hazard Identification a. Review County Hazard Identification b. Complete Jurisdiction Specific Hazard Inventories III. Review Existing Vulnerability Information a. Review County Identified Vulnerabilities b. identify Jurisdiction Specific Assets and Vulnerabilities IV. Jurisdiction Specific Risk Assessment a. Review/ Revise City Specific Hazard Vulnerability Assessment (HVA) V. Jurisdiction Specific Mitigation Strategy a. Review Process and County Strategy b. Develop Jurisdiction Specific Actions c. Prioritize Actions VI. Overview of Implementation and Maintenance VII. Next Steps a. Resilience Meeting: May 10 b. Public Survey c. Prepare final draft of the NHMP for County and City Review d. Provide the OMD-Office of Emergency Management a Review Opportunity e. Submit updated plan to FEMA for review OREGON PARTNERSHIP FOR DISASTER RESILIENCE I COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER 1209 University of Oregon I Eugene, Oregon 97403 1 T: 541.346.3889 1 F: 541.346.2040 http://csc.uoregon.edu/opdr Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page B-25 d w tbRIFS ,.,in.ro . Meeting Sign-In ASTER SILIENCE Jackson County NHMP Update: City Meeting: Ashland April 19.2017 oucon.,oumrn. Name Email Representing .r:s Morr ism a L aJ. or. mS j - YI.c 4)W5 Sql rad ,Croz~L CTV-. SeU., L114, 0 a ~?jll~ N/lo/NwR- Commvu,TY ~ll./>loln4vr)GSl~lancQ•o,e.vs AyklduD- -Develop Oatlld S1 41-ld s/>e~1~vd~as~vlawJ.~r. /rs ~s/l«~l e4sc 0 M:JJc~~hael k~a~nrd o4DEZ ' Lie J G~_ p JaoW~.. 1C.~cp, s~a3e.or,wa Rel~.~++.~oQ~.i alb,.. 3 lAij , r.+~ ~I~NI VON1W7✓~RJ~I.,01 r!~ I~,O/L . VJ /l l'.yl &KLI .Vi$lf, v UNIVERSITY OF 0 OREGON t Agenda Meeting: Jackson County NHMP Update: Butte Falls Addenda Date: April 21, 2017 Time: 9:00 -10:30 AM Location: City Hall, 431 Broad Street, Butte Falls, OR 1. Welcome and Introductions a. Overview of NHMP process II. Hazard Identification a. Review County Hazard Identification b. Complete Jurisdiction Specific Hazard Inventories Ill. Review Existing Vulnerability Information a. Review County Identified Vulnerabilities b. identify Jurisdiction Specific Assets and Vulnerabilities IV. Jurisdiction Specific Risk Assessment a. Review/ Revise City Specific Hazard Vulnerability Assessment (HVA) V. Jurisdiction Specific Mitigation Strategy a. Review Process and County Strategy b. Develop Jurisdiction Specific Actions c. Prioritize Actions VI. Overview of Implementation and Maintenance VII. Next Steps a. Resilience Meeting: May 10 b. Public Survey c. Prepare final draft of the NHMP for County and City Review d. Provide the OMD-Office of Emergency Management a Review Opportunity e. Submit updated plan to FEMA for review OREGON PARTNERSHIP FOR DISASTER RESILIENCE I COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER 1209 University of Oregon I Eugene, Oregon 97403 1 T: 541.346.3889 1 F: 541.346.2040 http://csc.uoregon.edu/opdr Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page B-27 a Z a 0 CY\ o Y i ~aly7 j2 "^~01~ ti, v7 /7wg ai➢ r+~+vwavt~ )o£69-Ob8 -1h5 .11 ~ r,row~o~ ~Ja~Q .farn0 zoo, -BBL • IfiN N w~'~!bw~juot{rolI'CD A--,L v Z/, s9B - I h5 0 1a 14 nIOl! Ilewjjegwa80jJ!II'Nd Ir 1 -f z~'~4, 11,5 l ,}0401 -+.o~• CSW ®a~ohb ae~.~I a~v.ac~S kul'~~~ • ;',110C'l h81~ °118 Ih1c mluasai all puma ameN YOJO/11J1 uOp/lOn JO LloZ lZ lu V slled aung : ullaaW l5 :alepdfl dWHN JUunoD uosKoef ` 3JN3171S3T1 2I31StlS1O UI-U 1 Ill wumnmurJ N m v m m a UNIVERSITY OF Q OREGON Agenda Meeting: Jackson County NHMP Update: Eagle Point Addenda Date: April 20, 2017 Time: 10:00 -11:30 AM Location: City Hall, 17 Buchanan Avenue South, Eagle Point, OR 1. Welcome and Introductions a. Overview of NHMP process II. Hazard Identification a. Review County Hazard Identification b. Complete Jurisdiction Specific Hazard Inventories III. Review Existing Vulnerability Information a. Review County Identified Vulnerabilities b. identify Jurisdiction Specific Assets and Vulnerabilities IV. Jurisdiction Specific Risk Assessment a. Review/ Revise City Specific Hazard Vulnerability Assessment (HVA) V. Jurisdiction Specific Mitigation Strategy a. Review Process and County Strategy b. Develop Jurisdiction Specific Actions c. Prioritize Actions VI. Overview of Implementation and Maintenance VII. Next Steps a. Resilience Meeting: May 10 b. Public Survey c. Prepare final draft of the NHMP for County and City Review d. Provide the OMD-Office of Emergency Management a Review Opportunity e. Submit updated plan to FEMA for review OREGON PARTNERSHIP FOR DISASTER RESILIENCE I COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER 1209 University of Oregon I Eugene, Oregon 97403 1 T: 541.346.3889 1 F: 541.346.2040 http://csc.uoregon.edu/opdr Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page B-29 J1 z C J O V G O N Y U N n ~ o v E v u ~"i°d !~/a 6~o•f.~/a~l:~dal,~io~+~o~f Nan vpvasa~ ag ~~em~ amaH LIOZ OZ [u y )uio M31 a aleS uijaayi a,ePdn dINIHM f4uno uoo sXe t uI-u cg upaaw m v m m a i~ 0 UNIVERSITY OF OREGON Agenda Meeting: Jackson County NHMP Update: Jacksonville Addendum Date: May 9, 2017 Time: 2:00 - 3:30 PM Location: Old City Hall, Jacksonville, OR 1. Welcome and Introductions a. Overview of NHMP process 11. Hazard Identification a. Review County Hazard Identification b. Complete Jurisdiction Specific Hazard Inventories Ill. Review Existing Vulnerability Information a. Review County Identified Vulnerabilities b. identify Jurisdiction Specific Assets and Vulnerabilities IV. Jurisdiction Specific Risk Assessment a. Review/ Revise City Specific Hazard Vulnerability Assessment (HVA) V. Jurisdiction Specific Mitigation Strategy a. Review Process and County Strategy b. Develop Jurisdiction Specific Actions c. Prioritize Actions VI. Overview of Implementation and Maintenance VII. Next Steps a. Resilience Meeting: May 10 b. Public Survey c. Prepare final draft of the NHMP for County and City Review d. Provide the OMD-Office of Emergency Management a Review Opportunity e. Submit updated plan to FEMA for review OREGON PARTNERSHIP FOR DISASTER RESILIENCE I COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER 1209 University of Oregon I Eugene, Oregon 97403 1 T: 541.346.3889 1 F: 541.346.2040 http://csc.uoregon.edu/opdr Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page B-31 0 N O S D1 w f ~ S C O ti U Cz C v ? V J ~ S S v z 0 U c 0 v u + \ L.I. Page B-32 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP UNIVERSITY OF O OREGON -,r Agenda Meeting: Jackson County NHMP Update: Phoenix Addenda Date: April 19, 2017 Time: 1:00 - 2:30 PM Location: Phoenix Public Works, 1000 S B Street, Phoenix, OR 1. Welcome and Introductions a. Overview of NHMP process II. Hazard Identification a. Review County Hazard Identification b. Complete Jurisdiction Specific Hazard Inventories 111. Review Existing Vulnerability Information a. Review County Identified Vulnerabilities b. identify Jurisdiction Specific Assets and Vulnerabilities IV. Jurisdiction Specific Risk Assessment a. Review/ Revise City Specific Hazard Vulnerability Assessment (HVA) V. Jurisdiction Specific Mitigation Strategy a. Review Process and County Strategy b. Develop Jurisdiction Specific Actions c. Prioritize Actions VI. Overview of Implementation and Maintenance VII. Next Steps a. Resilience Meeting: May 10 b. Public Survey c. Prepare final draft of the NHMP for County and City Review d. Provide the OMD-Office of Emergency Management a Review Opportunity e. Submit updated plan to FEMA for review OREGON PARTNERSHIP FOR DISASTER RESILIENCE I COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER 1209 University of Oregon I Eugene, Oregon 97403 1 T: 541.346.3889 1 F: 541.346.2040 h"p://csc.uoregon.edu/opdr Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page B-33 ,v Meeting Sign-In DISASTER RESILIENCE Jackson County NHMP Update: City Meeting: Phoenix April 19, 2017 •t 1 I1G1 ,,,.1 II.k - 11111. Name Email / Representing /«L~C L'11Rh.rlac~GtT~tC'. ~•v~:aCDr[8•••. av/ n G (m I v Gf O~ G~ PP N ~AJt. ~~NNLiI~ ~Qv¢. 1~2w1~P(C',~ou.`^~x~5`*~1 'I'v (moo Ph o A l N ~EK ~jowK~ d6owkev~Px~~. oaf Pffe~aix PD J•lNZ PaA~~XO/%an9ov 0 Z) n 0 c 0 rt Z 2 UNIVERSITY OF O OREGON Agenda Meeting: Jackson County NHMP Update: Rogue River Addenda Date: April 20, 2017 Time: 1:00 - 2:30 PM Location: City Hall, 133 Broadway Street, Rogue River, OR 1. Welcome and Introductions a. Overview of NHMP process II. Hazard Identification a. Review County Hazard Identification b. Complete Jurisdiction Specific Hazard Inventories Ill. Review Existing Vulnerability Information a. Review County Identified Vulnerabilities b. identify Jurisdiction Specific Assets and Vulnerabilities IV. Jurisdiction Specific Risk Assessment a. Review/ Revise City Specific Hazard Vulnerability Assessment (HVA) V. Jurisdiction Specific Mitigation Strategy a. Review Process and County Strategy b. Develop Jurisdiction Specific Actions c. Prioritize Actions VI. Overview of Implementation and Maintenance VII. Next Steps a. Resilience Meeting: May 10 b. Public Survey c. Prepare final draft of the NHMP for County and City Review d. Provide the OMD-Office of Emergency Management a Review Opportunity e. Submit updated plan to FEMA for review OREGON PARTNERSHIP FOR DISASTER RESIEIENCE I COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER 1209 University of Oregon I Eugene, Oregon 97403 1 T: 541.346.3889 1 F: 541.346.2040 h"p://csc.uoregon.edu/opdr Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page B-35 a z T Y S_ Y + U (O 'Z12 ~a 1-`~,.J C~.Io•a~n,a~n6oa ~o ~-+t.~ cal Co7cnllo~w Zl~ -go h1I- 20 "rffs`rovrnl, v U Q wog p~} nn~~an~~,,~ ~~~~►c'~ u s2~^'~~ u~~uasaa ag Hutua amen roUJP,i1J I"A~VgYUiI hJ LIOZ OZ I!I V ian!lj an od : u!jaaW 3!~ :aIepdfl db riN AjunoD uosxouf ~ 3 I IS3 d 2I3.LS`dSlO ~ ~YIII JIIIfJ 1>1 a paw m v a i UNIVERSII'Y OF O OREGON R„tr: Agenda Meeting: Jackson County NHMP Update: Shady Cove Addenda Date: April 21, 2017 Time: 1:00 - 2:30 PM Location: City Hall, 22451 Hwy 62, Shady Cove, OR 1. Welcome and Introductions a. Overview of NHMP process II. Hazard Identification a. Review County Hazard Identification b. Complete Jurisdiction Specific Hazard Inventories Ill. Review Existing Vulnerability Information a. Review County Identified Vulnerabilities b. identify Jurisdiction Specific Assets and Vulnerabilities IV. Jurisdiction Specific Risk Assessment a. Review/ Revise City Specific Hazard Vulnerability Assessment (HVA) V. Jurisdiction Specific Mitigation Strategy a. Review Process and County Strategy b. Develop Jurisdiction Specific Actions c. Prioritize Actions VI. Overview of Implementation and Maintenance VII. Next Steps a. Resilience Meeting: May 10 b. Public Survey c. Prepare final draft of the NHMP for County and City Review d. Provide the OMD-Office of Emergency Management a Review Opportunity e. Submit updated plan to FEMA for review I OREGON PARTNERSHIP FOR DISASTER RESILIENCE I COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER 1209 University of Oregon I Eugene, Oregon 97403 1 T: 541.346.3889 1 F: 541.346.2040 http://csc.uoregon.edu/opdr Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page B-37 ,v W rARTN[Rflllr (OR Meeting Sign-In 00 DISASTER RESILIENCE Jackson County NHMP Update: City Meeting: Shady Cove April 21, 2017 cx mmi,oN. u.o.urnk Name Email Representing tau-~.a'~~x ~dea~@ Q,uub~.~Qr~a+l. ei~, o~ Co~e- 9419 ~ EAwiNCMjplyt<aL G ~r~i~. Pam S(YlAv CO or (D ~g SU 1-~ - S S~1Rd~ C'ou.e~ s~iA-O~y ~'ot / COW- ° s 3 N Qb'ro~ ru.v~ C►`ya.oMa^.~S o ~tAVe.K4e t N V C~~r~,S edwc~1S OR~?~1Mar 1. ~ n 0 n 0 z I i UNIVERSITY OF RI. c11.1I \'ff( O OREGON AsrrR Agenda Meeting: Jackson County NHMP Update: Talent Addenda Date: April 19, 2017 Time: 10:00 -11:30 AM Location: Talent Police Department, 604 Talent Ave, Talent, OR 1. Welcome and Introductions a. Overview of NHMP process 11. Hazard Identification a. Review County Hazard Identification b. Complete Jurisdiction Specific Hazard Inventories III. Review Existing Vulnerability Information a. Review County Identified Vulnerabilities b. identify Jurisdiction Specific Assets and Vulnerabilities IV. Jurisdiction Specific Risk Assessment a. Review/ Revise City Specific Hazard Vulnerability Assessment (HVA) V. Jurisdiction Specific Mitigation Strategy a. Review Process and County Strategy b. Develop Jurisdiction Specific Actions c. Prioritize Actions VI. Overview of Implementation and Maintenance VII. Next Steps a. Resilience Meeting: May 10 b. Public Survey c. Prepare final draft of the NHMP for County and City Review d. Provide the OMD-Office of Emergency Management a Review Opportunity e. Submit updated plan to FEMA for review OREGON PARTNERSHIP FOR DISASTER RESILIENCE I COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER 1209 University of Oregon I Eugene, Oregon 97403 1 T: 541.3463889 1 F: 541.346.2040 http://csc.uoregon.edu/opdr Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page B-39 Z 0 C O Y V N 1 L ( o v e a 14 i o ~~J~ oIUaI '3° 1'J b 71eoU(3 US rd~~ U opaasa~ ag 11emg ameN muumms............o LIOZ 61 I!l y lualuy : u!j55W !5:alupdfl dWHNf4unoo uosKouf 13DN311IS3b pow Id31SVS1❑ ul-u Is Bu O V m N m m d This page intentionally left blank. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page B-41 APPENDIX C HAZARD ANALYSIS Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page B-1 This page intentionally left blank. Page B-2 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Jackson County Hazard Analysi's April, Jackson Coun Hazard Analysis - Aril, 2017 Pa e I of I I I Hazard Analysis In the Hazard Analysis, each of the hazards and threats described below is scored using a formula that incorporates four independently weighted rating criteria (history, vulnerability, maximum threat, probability) and three levels of severity (low, moderate, and high). For each hazard, the score for a given rating criterion is determined by multiplying the criterion's severity rating by its weight factor. The four rating criteria scores for the hazard are then summed to provide a total risk score for that hazard. Note that while many hazards may occur together or as a consequence of others (e.g., dam failures cause flooding, and earthquakes may cause landslides), this analysis considers each discrete hazard as a singular event. Hazard Definitions All areas of the county may be subject to the effects of natural and human caused disasters including, but not limited to: 1. Natural Disasters a. Weather emergencies may include floods, windstorms, droughts, snow or ice or tornadoes. b. Geologic emergencies may include earthquakes, landslides, volcanic hazards or subsidence. c. Epidemiological emergencies may include the infection of humans, animals or agricultural products. 2. Human-Caused Disaster a. Fire and explosion emergencies may include industrial, structural, forest and range or transportation related incidents. b. Transportation emergencies may include incidents involving aircraft, rail systems, watercraft, motor vehicles or pipelines. c. Hazardous materials emergencies may include gases, explosives, corrosives, flammable liquids and solids, oxidizers poisons or radioactive materials involved in incidents at fixed sites or during transportation. d. Civil disturbance emergencies may include unlawful demonstrations, riots and acts of terrorism or sabotage. e. Utility emergencies may include failure or disruption of electrical, telephone, water, gas, fuel oil, sewer or sanitations systems. f. Nuclear emergencies may include the accidental or deliberate detonation of nuclear weapons or an incident involving the use or transportation of nuclear materials. Jackson Com Hazard Analysis Aril 2017 Page 2 of I I Hazard Analysis Criteria In analyzing the risk posed by specific hazards, rating criteria and weighting factor have been used. This formula is based on point value in which: High = 8 - 10 points Moderate = 4 - 7 points Low = 1 - 3 points History is based on the number of incidents equivalent to a Level 2 emergency. Weighting factor is 2. High = 4 or more events in the past 100 years Moderate = 2 - 3 events in the past 100 years Low = 0 - 1 events in the past 100 years Vulnerability is based on the percentage of population and property likely to be affected under an "average" occurrence of the hazard. Weighting factor is 5. High = More than 10% affected Moderate = 1 - 10 % affected Low = Less than 1 % affected Maximum Threat is based on the highest percentage of population and major infrastructure or property impacted under in a worst-case incident. Weighting factor is 10. High = More than 25% could be affected Moderate = 5 - 25% could be affected Low = Less than 5% could be affected Probability is based on the likelihood of a future occurrence within a specified period of time. Weighting factor is 7. High = One incident within a 10 to 35 year period Moderate = One incident within a 35 to 75 year period Low = One incident within a 75 to 100 year period Jackson County I [azard Analysis - Aril, 2017 Page 3 of 11 Jackson County Hazard Analysis Matrix (4/20/17) Probability Rating Criteria with Weight Factors History Vulnerability 2 Max Threat 3 Score for each rating criteria - 0 Rating Factor (High = 10 points; Moderate = 5 points; Low -I point) X Weight Factor (WF) Earthquake (Cascadia) 1 x 2 = 2 10 x 5 = 50 10 x 10 = 100 10 x 7 = 70 222 Emerging Infectious 6 x 2 = 12 10 x 5 = 50 10 x 10 = 100 7 x 7 = 49 211 Disease Wildfire 10x2=20 7x5=35 6x10=60 10x7=70 185 Winter Storm 10x2=20 6x5=30 6x10=60 10x7=70 180 Flood 10x2=20 4x5=20 6x10=60 10x7=70 170 Hazardous 10x2=20 4x5=20 5x10=50 10x7=70 160 Materials/Transportation Drought 10x2=20 6x5=30 5x10=50 9x7=63 163 Windstorm 10x2-20 4x5=20 5x10=50 10x7=70 160 Terrorism 7x2=14 3x5=15 7x10=70 7x7=49 148 Landslide 5 x 2 = 10 3 x 5 = 15 3 x 10 = 30 10 x 7 = 70 125 Earthquake (Crustal) 1 x 2= 2 5 x 5= 25 5 x 10 = 50 3 x 7= 21 98 Volcano 1x2=2 1x5=5 5x10=50 1x7=7 64 Jackson Countv Hazard Analysis - Aril, 2017 Pace 4 of I I Community Profile of Jackson County Jackson County is located in southwestern Oregon. It is bordered on the north by Douglas County, the south by the state of California, the east by Klamath County and the west by Josephine County. The total area of Jackson County is 2802 square miles. In 2016, the total population was 213,765. At that time, about 68% of Jackson County residents lived within incorporated cities, the other (32%) lived in unincorporated and rural areas. There are eleven cities in Jackson County. Medford is the largest, with a population of 78,500 in 2016. Medford is also the county seat. Ashland is the second largest, with a population of 20,620 in 2016. This value includes the student population of Southern Oregon University, located in Ashland. Major waterways in Jackson County include the Rogue River, Bear Creek and the Applegate River. The Rogue River originates in the mountains near Crater Lake. It runs southwest through the cities of Shady Cove and Gold Hill to the central portion of the county and then west through the City of Rogue River, located on the west central county border. Bear Creek originates in the Siskiyou Mountains in the southeastern portion of Jackson County. It runs west through several cities, including Ashland and Medford, to the City of Gold Hill where it meets the Rogue River. The Applegate River enters Jackson County from California and runs north and westward through the communities of Applegate and Ruch to Grants Pass in Josephine County. Mountainous areas within Jackson County are part of the Cascade Range on the east and the Siskiyou Mountains to the south and west. Mt. McLoughlin, altitude 9,499 feet, is a member of the Cascade Range, and Mt. Ashland, altitude 7,530 feet, is a member of the Siskiyou Range. Both of these peaks are dormant volcanoes. Interstate 5 and the Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad enter Jackson County southeast of Ashland, and extend northwest to the west central county border near the City of Rogue River. Most county residents live along this corridor, with Medford being the largest center of commercial activity. Hazards and Threats Jackson County and the cities and communities within its boundaries may experience major emergencies that endanger life and property. The County faces a variety of possible disasters. The OEM Statewide Hazardous Analysis methodology has been applied to the variety of disasters facing the County. #1 Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake and #11 Crustal Earthquake Jackson County is vulnerable to earthquakes originating from the Cascadia Subduction Zone off of the Oregon coast and locally originating crustal earthquakes. Although no property damage or injury to persons due to earthquakes have been reported in Jackson County in the past 100 years, low-magnitude earthquakes (less than M3) occur in southern Oregon with alarming regularity. Shady Cove experienced an M3.1 in March of 2013. The neighboring area of Klamath Falls has experienced three earthquakes since 1993 with magnitudes ranging from 3.4 to 6.0. 5 of 11 Jackson County Hazard Analysis Aril 2017 Page Special Paper 29 by the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI), entitled "Earthquake Damage in Oregon: Preliminary Estimates of Future Earthquake Losses" (1999), indicates that a severe earthquake, an M8.5 Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake, is likely to occur off the Oregon Coast sometime in the next 100 years. The study's Executive Summary states that aspects of the computer model resulted in an underestimation of projected economic losses. Nonetheless, the estimates are useful for general planning purposes. The study predicts that economic losses in Jackson County related to damage to buildings, highways, airports, and communications systems could run as high as $552 million. Few of the historic non-reinforced masonry buildings in the region's downtown centers would be left standing. The study predicts slight to complete damage to 22% of Jackson County's homes, 32% of its educational buildings, 42% of government buildings, 39% of commercial structures and 42% of industrial buildings. The day after such a quake, it is predicted that 25% of fire stations would be non- operational, as would be 38% of police stations, 30% of schools and 16% of bridges. #2 Emerging Infectious Disease The following information is from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). A pandemic occurs when a novel strain of influenza virus emerges that has the ability to infect and be passed efficiently between humans. Because humans have little immunity to the new virus, a worldwide epidemic, or pandemic, can ensue. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and CDC closely monitor highly-pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) A (1-151\12), (1-151\11), and (H5N1) viruses. There are concerns of the potential for human infection with HPAI, which would increase the risk of a pandemic occurring. Between December 15, 2014, and May 29, 2015, the USDA confirmed more than 200 findings of birds infected with highly-pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) A (1-151\12), (H5N8), and (1-151\11) viruses. The majority of these infections have occurred in poultry, including backyard and commercial flocks. USDA surveillance indicates that more than 40 million birds have been affected (either infected or exposed) in 20 states. These are the first reported infections with these viruses in US wild or domestic birds. While these recently-identified HPAI H5 viruses are not known to have caused disease in humans, their appearance in North American birds may increase the likelihood of human infection in the United States. Human infection with other avian influenza viruses, including a different HPAI (1-151\11) virus found in Asia, Africa, and other parts of the world; HPAI (H5N6) virus; and (H7N9) virus, has been associated with severe, sometimes fatal, disease. Previous human infections with other avian viruses have most often occurred after unprotected direct physical contact with infected birds or surfaces contaminated by avian influenza viruses, being in close proximity to infected birds, or visiting a live poultry market. Human infection with avian influenza viruses has not occurred from eating properly cooked poultry or poultry products. Jackson County Hazard Analysis Aril, 2017 Page 6 of 11 Based on current models of disease transmission, a new pandemic could affect 30% of the U.S. population and result in the deaths of 200,000 to two million U. S. residents. A pandemic's impact will extend far beyond human health. It will undermine many of the day-to-day functions within our society and thus could significantly weaken our economy and national security. Worker absentee rates (due to illness, care giving, exposure avoidance, etc.) are projected to reach 40% at the height of a pandemic. Epidemics are outbreaks of disease that spread rapidly through a community. The last 30 years history of epidemics in the county is informative. There were outbreaks of hepatitis in the 1970s related to sewage disposal and faulty septic systems in the county's clay soils. There were outbreaks of bacterial infection in the 1980s related to food preparation in restaurants, and illnesses associated with ecoli. In 1992, between 3,000 and 4,000 people became ill with cryptosporidiosis, a waterborne parasite similar to giardia. Intensive research resulted in the local water source being identified. Over the last 10 years, there have been periodic outbreaks of illnesses, such as the Noro-virus family and salmonella in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. In 2003, there was an outbreak of pertussis, otherwise known as "whooping cough", among children. One concern is the imminent arrival of West Nile Virus (WNV) in our region. WNV is a mosquito-borne virus that produces mild symptoms in most infected persons. In a very small number of cases, however, encephalitis (inflammation of the brain) may occur. #3 Wildfire Each year, about 350 wildfires are sparked in Jackson and Josephine Counties, and at least once every 10 years several extraordinarily large wildfires (10,000 acres and greater) damage or destroy timber resources, threaten populated areas and blanket the region in dense smoke. Fire suppression, past forest management, land use decisions and other stressors have generated dense overcrowded forest stands prone to declining tree vigor, and placing the oldest and most structurally valuable trees at risk of high-intensity wildfire. Concurrent with declining forest health are other natural resource concerns such as altered water quality and quantity, poor air quality, degraded fish and wildlife habitat, and reduced biodiversity and ecosystem resilience. Much of the southwest Oregon landscape is now prone to crown fires during hot, dry summers (such as the summer of 2015) and climate change elevates the urgency to promote more fire-resilient forests. The costs of managing large wildfires in southwest Oregon are climbing dramatically, and true costs extend far beyond what it takes to extinguish flames. • The 1987 Silver Complex in 1987 burned 99,310 acres and cost $19 million to suppress; • The 2002 Biscuit Fire burned 499,945 acres at a cost of $150 million; • The 27,111 acre Timbered Rock Fire, also in 2002, burned on BLM and private forestlands and cost $14 million dollars of Oregon Forest Land Protection Funds to suppress; and 7 of 11 Jackson Com Hazard Analysis Aril 2017 Page • In 2013, four fires sparked by a dry lightning storm burned 47,000 acres in Josephine County. The suppression cost for the three fires on state protected lands was over $50 million. In addition, there was one firefighter fatality; widespread economic loss for local businesses relying on income from summer tourism, loss of timber resources for private timber owners; and a significant health risk posed to citizens of both Josephine and Jackson Counties due to smoke from the fires. All of these fires were lightning-caused and started on federal lands. Overgrown forest fuels, limited access, and low priority ranking for limited suppression forces were all factors in the fires becoming large. These large wildfires threaten more than 27,000 homes in wildland-urban interface areas, watersheds, airsheds, timber and recreational resources on public and private forestlands, tourism, and habitat important for the recovery of several threatened and endangered species. #4 Winter Storm and #8 Windstorm (Severe Weather) Occurring most commonly from October through April, winter storms (snow/ice) and windstorms can disrupt the region's utilities, telecommunications and roadway systems. Damage from windstorms is typically related to the toppling of trees and limbs and consequent downing of utility infrastructure. Significant storms are defined as those that have sustained winds of 40 mph with gusts of 55 mph for more than two hours. Particularly threatening are wintertime winds from the Cascades that funnel through the Rogue Valley at 50 mph. The region's outstanding historic windstorm, the 1962 "Columbus Day" storm, had winds gusting to 104 miles per hour and was described by meteorologists as a cyclone. Each year, snowfalls of 6 to 12 inches, falling in a 24-hour period, cause closures of Interstate 5 at the Siskiyou Summit disrupting the flow of interstate freight and traffic. The American Red Cross opens shelters for stranded travelers several times a year. Hailstorms may also cause property damage in Jackson County. Hail stones larger than 1/4" have been recorded. Public utilities in the county are supplied through privately owned, publicly regulated companies. Power is provided through a network of above and below ground pipelines and electrical lines. Power outages can result in the loss of light, heat and, in some cases, well water. PacifiCorp is the primary electrical distribution company in the region. Avista supplies natural gas. Qwest serves the telecommunications needs of much of the region. Rogue Valley Sewer Service (RVS) manages sewage. Power failures are most often caused by severe weather that downs trees or their limbs onto power lines and poles. Traffic accidents involving utility poles are another common cause. Wildland fires can also threaten transmission lines. #5 Floods/Dam Failure Jackson County has a history of flash flooding along several drainages. The county experiences the most severe flooding conditions when the effects of snowmelt and direct, heavy rainfall combine during the winter and early spring months. Jackson Com Hazard Analysis Aril 2017 Page 8 of 11 There are two prime examples of such conditions leading to landmark floods. The first is the flood of 1964, characterized as a "100 year" flood. This flood was so devastating that it led to the construction of both Applegate Dam and Lost Creek Dam by the Army Corps of Engineers. The second is the flood known as the New Year's Day flood, which occurred in late December 1996 and early January 1997. The initial damage assessment report indicated that the flood had caused $16 million in damages to housing; $12 million in damages to businesses; $9 million in damages to agriculture; and $13 million in damages to local government in costs and losses. Most of the housing damage occurred along Bear Creek. Nearly all the business damage occurred along Ashland Creek, a tributary of Bear Creek. Agricultural damage was predominantly experienced in the Little Butte Creek and Applegate River watersheds. Infrastructure damage was sustained throughout the county. Jackson County has over 80 permitted dams and approximately 600 non-permitted holding ponds used for irrigation, livestock watering and firefighting purposes. There are eight Bureau of Reclamation dams, built during the 1930s, and two Army Corps of Engineers dams. In all, there are 15 dams in Jackson County whose failure or disoperation would create high levels of hazard to the nearest downstream communities, such as Ashland, Applegate, Shady Cove, Pinehurst, White City, Brownsboro, Gold Hill and Lake Creek. Total and cataclysmic dam failure is rare. However, during an earthquake, the movement of waters over the top of a dam can create enough stress to cause dam failure. The failure of any one of the larger dams in the county could result in significant loss of life, damage to property and interruption of transportation systems. #6 Hazardous Materials/Transportation Accidents Hazardous materials are stored in industrial and manufacturing facilities throughout the county. There are about 50 manufacturing facilities that store or use reportable quantities of hazardous materials. Hazardous materials are transported through the county in freight trucks using Interstate 5, state highways and county roadways. The highest potential for hazardous materials accidents in the county is on county roads and state highways. In addition to vehicular transportation, Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad (COPR) lines are host to hazardous materials being transported through downtown centers. With a full complement of railroads, highways, and airport facilities, Jackson County's risks include a variety of transportation accidents. The County is served by Interstate 5 along with other state highways and county roads, the Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad (COPR), and the Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport. Risks include airline crashes, train derailments, freight truck and vehicular accidents. In addition to road closure related transportation disruptions, risks include hazardous materials spills, fires, explosions and mass casualties. The most frequent transportation accidents involve motor vehicle accidents. Highway 62 is dotted with some of the most frequent accident locations, including the highway intersections with Vilas Rd., Delta Waters Rd. and Highway 140. Jackson COnnty hazard Anah sis - Aril. 2017 Pane 9 of 1 I #7 Drought Jackson County has extended hot and dry weather conditions during the summer and early fall months. Sequential years of below normal rainfall result in drought conditions. In 1939, 1977, 1992 - 1994, and 2001 Oregon suffered extreme drought conditions that adversely affected the availability of well water to homes. More recently, ground water supplies throughout Jackson County were depleted after five consecutive years of drought, from 2010 through 2015 (with emergency declarations in 2014/2015), ranging in severity from moderate to extreme. It will take several "normal" rain years to recover. Population growth and related drilling of residential wells have increased the demand on the ground water supply. This growth exacerbates the impact of drought years as more wells have lower yields or go dry. Currently, professionals speak of a 5- to 7-year drought cycle in our region; it was previously considered a 10-year cycle. Drought also severely impacts the availability of water to agricultural irrigators, adversely effecting both environment and economy. Local tourist attractions like rafting guides are impacted by low waters in the rivers also creating a negative economic impact. Following the principle of "first in time, first in use", the Water master cuts back users with junior water rights when the stream system cannot satisfy all users. At times, this has resulted in no users with rights dating after 1906 receiving their appropriation. The migration of fish is also a significant issue in times of drought. Arguably the most significant drought impact is the increased wildland fires, threatening the safety of the residents in wildland-urban interface areas and rural communities. #9 Terrorism As a result of national and international terrorism incidents, local governments must assess a broad range of vulnerabilities and prepare for new types of hazards, including chemical, biological, nuclear/radiological weapons and explosives. #10 Landslides Most landslides in Jackson County have occurred during flood events. They have been comprised of debris flows along stream channels or slides along hillsides whose soils have become saturated during heavy rains. The impacts of landslides has increased as population growth in the county has encouraged development of residential areas and access roads on previously uninhabited hillsides. Logging roads are also implicated in landslide problems. During the 1997 "New Year's Day" flood, more than 70 landslides occurred in the county. The majority (70%) of the slope failures that occurred in the county were adjacent to road cuts on steep slopes. Of these, 77% were on south-facing slopes where vegetation has a more difficult time of re-establishing itself. Jackson Com H=d Analysis Aril 2017 Page 10 of 11 #12 Volcano Volcanoes erupt in different ways, pose multiple types of hazards and the initiation and duration of eruptions is relatively uncertain. Therefore, authorities and populations at risk must be knowledgeable about regional volcano hazards so that they can be both prepared and flexible in their response. In the Pacific Northwest, the movement of tectonic plates against each other along the Cascadia Subduction Zone generates volcanic activity. Although volcanoes in the northern reaches of the Cascade Mountain Range have been active more recently than those in southern Oregon, historically active shield and composite volcanoes are present in close proximity to Jackson County. Oregon's beloved Crater Lake, to our immediate east, was formed by the spectacularly catastrophic eruption and subsequent collapse of Mount Mazama. Mount Shasta and Medicine Lake, both in neighboring Siskiyou County, are considered a high threat potential by the USGS. And Jackson County's own Mount McLoughlin, while considered dormant, is a lava cone formed on top of a composite volcano. Although volcanic eruptions in southern Oregon are exceptionally rare, the impact of an eruption on local communities is potentially devastating. Jackson County Hazard Analysis Aril, 2017 Page 11 of 11 Appendix D: Economic Analysis of Natural Hazard Mitigation Projects This appendix was developed by the Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience at the University of Oregon's Community Service Center. It has been reviewed and accepted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as a means of documenting how the prioritization of actions shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs. The appendix outlines three approaches for conducting economic analyses of natural hazard mitigation projects. It describes the importance of implementing mitigation activities, different approaches to economic analysis of mitigation strategies, and methods to calculate costs and benefits associated with mitigation strategies. Information in this section is derived in part from: The Interagency Hazards Mitigation Team, State Hazard Mitigation Plan, (Oregon Military Department - Office of Emergency Management, 2000), and Federal Emergency Management Agency Publication 331, Report on Costs and Benefits of Natural Hazard Mitigation. This section is not intended to provide a comprehensive description of benefit/cost analysis, nor is it intended to evaluate local projects. It is intended to (1) raise benefit/cost analysis as an important issue, and (2) provide some background on how an economic analysis can be used to evaluate mitigation projects. Why Evaluate Mitigation Strategies? Mitigation activities reduce the cost of disasters by minimizing property damage, injuries, and the potential for loss of life, and by reducing emergency response costs, which would otherwise be incurred. Evaluating possible natural hazard mitigation activities provides decision-makers with an understanding of the potential benefits and costs of an activity, as well as a basis upon which to compare alternative projects. Evaluating mitigation projects is a complex and difficult undertaking, which is influenced by many variables. First, natural disasters affect all segments of the communities they strike, including individuals, businesses, and public services such as fire, law enforcement, utilities, and schools. Second, while some of the direct and indirect costs of disaster damages are measurable, some of the costs are non-financial and difficult to quantify in dollars. Third, many of the impacts of such events produce "ripple-effects" throughout the community, greatly increasing the disaster's social and economic consequences. While not easily accomplished, there is value from a public policy perspective, in assessing the positive and negative impacts from mitigation activities, and obtaining an instructive benefit/cost comparison. Otherwise, the decision to pursue or not pursue various mitigation options would not be based on an objective understanding of the net benefit or loss associated with these actions. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page D-1 Mitigation Strategy Economic Analyses Approaches The approaches used to identify the costs and benefits associated with natural hazard mitigation strategies, measures, or projects fall into three general categories: benefit/cost analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis and the STAPLE/E approach. The distinction between the three methods is outlined below: Benefit/Cost Analysis Benefit/cost analysis is a key mechanism used by the state Oregon Military Department- Office of Emergency Management (OEM), the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and other state and federal agencies in evaluating hazard mitigation projects, and is required by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93-288, as amended. Benefit/cost analysis is used in natural hazards mitigation to show if the benefits to life and property protected through mitigation efforts exceed the cost of the mitigation activity. Conducting benefit/cost analysis for a mitigation activity can assist communities in determining whether a project is worth undertaking now, in order to avoid disaster-related damages later. Benefit/cost analysis is based on calculating the frequency and severity of a hazard, avoiding future damages, and risk. In benefit/cost analysis, all costs and benefits are evaluated in terms of dollars, and a net benefit/cost ratio is computed to determine whether a project should be implemented. A project must have a benefit/cost ratio greater than 1 (i.e., the net benefits will exceed the net costs) to be eligible for FEMA funding. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Cost-effectiveness analysis evaluates how best to spend a given amount of money to achieve a specific goal. This type of analysis, however, does not necessarily measure costs and benefits in terms of dollars. Determining the economic feasibility of mitigating natural hazards can also be organized according to the perspective of those with an economic interest in the outcome. Hence, economic analysis approaches are covered for both public and private sectors as follows. Investing in Public Sector Mitigation Activities Evaluating mitigation strategies in the public sector is complicated because it involves estimating all of the economic benefits and costs regardless of who realizes them, and potentially to a large number of people and economic entities. Some benefits cannot be evaluated monetarily, but still affect the public in profound ways. Economists have developed methods to evaluate the economic feasibility of public decisions which involve a diverse set of beneficiaries and non-market benefits. Investing in Private Sector Mitigation Activities Private sector mitigation projects may occur on the basis of one or two approaches: it may be mandated by a regulation or standard, or it may be economically justified on its own merits. A building or landowner, whether a private entity or a public agency, required to conform to a mandated standard may consider the following options: Page D-2 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP 1. Request cost sharing from public agencies; 2. Dispose of the building or land either by sale or demolition; 3. Change the designated use of the building or land and change the hazard mitigation compliance requirement; or 4. Evaluate the most feasible alternatives and initiate the most cost effective hazard mitigation alternative. The sale of a building or land triggers anotherset of concerns. For example, real estate disclosure laws can be developed which require sellers of real property to disclose known defects and deficiencies in the property, including earthquake weaknesses and hazards to prospective purchases. Correcting deficiencies can be expensive and time consuming, but their existence can prevent the sale of the building. Conditions of a sale regarding the deficiencies and the price of the building can be negotiated between a buyer and seller. STAPLE/E Approach Considering detailed benefit/cost or cost-effectiveness analysis for every possible mitigation activity could be very time consuming and may not be practical. There are some alternate approaches for conducting a quick evaluation of the proposed mitigation activities which could be used to identify those mitigation activities that merit more detailed assessment. One of those methods is the STAPLE/E approach. Using STAPLE/E criteria, mitigation activities can be evaluated quickly by steering committees in a synthetic fashion. This set of criteria requires the committee to assess the mitigation activities based on the Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic and Environmental (STAPLE/E) constraints and opportunities of implementing the particular mitigation item in your community. The second chapter in FEMA's How-To Guide "Developing the Mitigation Plan -Identifying Mitigation Actions and Implementation Strategies" as well as the "State of Oregon's Local Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan: An Evaluation Process" outline some specific considerations in analyzing each aspect. The following are suggestions for how to examine each aspect of the STAPLE/E approach from the "State of Oregon's Local Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan: An Evaluation Process." Social: Community development staff, local non-profit organizations, or a local planning board can help answer these questions. • Is the proposed action socially acceptable to the community? • Are there equity issues involved that would mean that one segment of the community is treated unfairly? • Will the action cause social disruption? Technical: The city or county public works staff, and building department staff can help answer these questions. • Will the proposed action work? • Will it create more problems than it solves? Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page D-3 • Does it solve a problem or only a symptom? • Is it the most useful action in light of other community goals? Administrative: Elected officials or the city or county administrator, can help answer these questions. • Can the community implement the action? • Is there someone to coordinate and lead the effort? • Is there sufficient funding, staff, and technical support available? • Are there ongoing administrative requirements that need to be met? Political: Consult the mayor, city council or city board of commissioners, city or county administrator, and local planning commissions to help answer these questions. • Is the action politically acceptable? • Is there public support both to implement and to maintain the project? Legal: Include legal counsel, land use planners, risk managers, and city council or county planning commission members, among others, in this discussion. • Is the community authorized to implement the proposed action? Is there a clear legal basis or precedent for this activity? • Are there legal side effects? Could the activity be construed as a taking? • Is the proposed action allowed by the comprehensive plan, or must the comprehensive plan be amended to allow the proposed action? • Will the community be liable for action or lack of action? • Will the activity be challenged? I Economic: Community economic development staff, civil engineers, building department staff, and the assessor's office can help answer these questions. • What are the costs and benefits of this action? • Do the benefits exceed the costs? • Are initial, maintenance, and administrative costs taken into account? • Has funding been secured for the proposed action? If not, what are the potential funding sources (public, non-profit, and private?) • How will this action affect the fiscal capability of the community? • What burden will this action place on the tax base or local economy? • What are the budget and revenue effects of this activity? Page D-4 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP • Does the action contribute to other community goals, such as capital improvements or economic development? • What benefits will the action provide? (This can include dollar amount of damages prevented, number of homes protected, credit under the CRS, potential for funding under the HMGP or the FMA program, etc.) Environmental: Watershed councils, environmental groups, land use planners and natural resource managers can help answer these questions. • How will the action impact the environment? • Will the action need environmental regulatory approvals? • Will it meet local and state regulatory requirements? • Are endangered or threatened species likely to be affected? The STAPLE/E approach is helpful for doing a quick analysis of mitigation projects. Most projects that seek federal funding and others often require more detailed benefit/cost analyses. When to use the Various Approaches It is important to realize that various funding sources require different types of economic analyses. The following figure is to serve as a guideline for when to use the various approaches. Figure D-1 Economic Analysis Flowchart Mitigation Plan Action Items Activity: Structural or Non-Structural Structural Non-Structural B/C Analysis STAPLE/E or Cost-Effectiveness Source: Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience. 2005. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page D-5 I Implementing the Approaches Benefit/cost analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, and the STAPLE/E are important tools in evaluating whether or not to implement a mitigation activity. A frameworkfor evaluating mitigation activities is outlined below. This framework should be used in further analyzing the feasibility of prioritized mitigation activities. I . Identify the Activities Activities for reducing risk from natural hazards can include structural projects to enhance disaster resistance, education and outreach, and acquisition or demolition of exposed properties, among others. Different mitigation projects can assist in minimizing risk to natural hazards, but do so at varying economic costs. 2. Calculate the Costs and Benefits Choosing economic criteria is essential to systematically calculating costs and benefits of mitigation projects and selecting the most appropriate activities. Potential economic criteria to evaluate alternatives include: • Determine the project cost. This may include initial project development costs, and repair and operating costs of maintaining projects over time. • Estimate the benefits. Projecting the benefits, or cash flow resulting from a project can be difficult. Expected future returns from the mitigation effort depend on the correct specification of the risk and the effectiveness of the project, which may not be well known. Expected future costs depend on the physical durability and potential economic obsolescence of the investment. This is difficult to project. These considerations will also provide guidance in selecting an appropriate salvage value. Future tax structures and rates must be projected. Financing alternatives must be researched, and they may include retained earnings, bond and stock issues, and commercial loans. • Consider costs and benefits to society and the environment. These are not easily measured, but can be assessed through a variety of economic tools including existence value or contingent value theories. These theories provide quantitative data on the value people attribute to physical or social environments. Even without hard data, however, impacts of structural projects to the physical environment or to society should be considered when implementing mitigation projects. • Determine the correct discount rate. Determination of the discount rate can just be the risk-free cost of capital, but it may include the decision maker's time preference and also a risk premium. Including inflation should also be considered. 3. Analyze and Rank the Activities Once costs and benefits have been quantified, economic analysis tools can rankthe possible mitigation activities. Two methods for determining the best activities given varying costs and benefits include net present value and internal rate of return. Page D-6 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP • Net present value. Net present value is the value of the expected future returns of an investment minus the value of the expected future cost expressed in today's dollars. If the net present value is greater than the projected costs, the project may be determined feasible for implementation. Selecting the discount rate, and identifying the present and future costs and benefits of the project calculates the net present value of projects. • Internal rate of return. Using the internal rate of return method to evaluate mitigation projects provides the interest rate equivalent to the dollar returns expected from the project. Once the rate has been calculated, it can be compared to rates earned by investing in alternative projects. Projects may be feasible to implement when the internal rate of return is greater than the total costs of the project. Once the mitigation projects are ranked on the basis of economic criteria, decision-makers can consider other factors, such as risk, project effectiveness, and economic, environmental, and social returns in choosing the appropriate project for implementation. Economic Returns of Natural Hazard Mitigation The estimation of economic returns, which accrue to building or land owners as a result of natural hazard mitigation, is difficult. Owners evaluating the economic feasibility of mitigation should consider reductions in physical damages and financial losses. A partial list follows: • Building damages avoided • Content damages avoided • Inventory damages avoided • Rental income losses avoided • Relocation and disruption expenses avoided • Proprietor's income losses avoided These parameters can be estimated using observed prices, costs, and engineering data. The difficult part is to correctly determine the effectiveness of the hazard mitigation project and the resulting reduction in damages and losses. Equally as difficult is assessing the probability that an event will occur. The damages and losses should only include those that will be borne by the owner. The salvage value of the investment can be important in determining economic feasibility. Salvage value becomes more important as the time horizon of the owner declines. This is important because most businesses depreciate assets over a period of time. Additional Costs from Natural Hazards Property owners should also assess changes in a broader set of factors that can change as a result of a large natural disaster. These are usually termed "indirect" effects, but they can have a very direct effect on the economic value of the owner's building or land. They can be positive or negative, and include changes in the following: • Commodity and resource prices • Availability of resource supplies • Commodity and resource demand changes Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page D-7 • Building and land values • Capital availability and interest rates • Availability of labor • Economic structure • Infrastructure • Regional exports and imports • Local, state, and national regulations and policies • Insurance availability and rates Changes in the resources and industries listed above are more difficult to estimate and require models that are structured to estimate total economic impacts. Total economic impacts are the sum of direct and indirect economic impacts. Total economic impact models are usually not combined with economic feasibility models. Many models exist to estimate total economic impacts of changes in an economy. Decision makers should understand the total economic impacts of natural disasters in order to calculate the benefits of a mitigation activity. This suggests that understanding the local economy is an important first step in being able to understand the potential impacts of a disaster, and the benefits of mitigation activities. Additional Considerations Conducting an economic analysis for potential mitigation activities can assist decision- makers in choosing the most appropriate strategy for their community to reduce risk and prevent loss from natural hazards. Economic analysis can also save time and resources from being spent on inappropriate or unfeasible projects. Several resources and models are listed on the following page that can assist in conducting an economic analysis for natural hazard mitigation activities. Benefit/cost analysis is complicated, and the numbers may divert attention from other important issues. It is important to consider the qualitative factors of a project associated with mitigation that cannot be evaluated economically. There are alternative approaches to implementing mitigation projects. With this in mind, opportunity rises to develop strategies that integrate natural hazard mitigation with projects related to watersheds, environmental planning, community economic development, and small business development, among others. Incorporating natural hazard mitigation with other community projects can increase the viability of project implementation. Resources CUREe Kajima Project, Methodologies for Evaluating the Socio-Economic Consequences of Large Earthquakes, Task 7.2 Economic Impact Analysis, Prepared by University of California, Berkeley Team, Robert A. Olson, VSP Associates, Team Leader; John M. Eidinger, G&E Engineering Systems; Kenneth A. Goettel, Goettel and Associates, Inc.; and Gerald L. Horner, Hazard Mitigation Economics Inc., 1997 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Benefit/Cost Analysis of Hazard Mitigation Projects, Riverine Flood, Version 1.05, Hazard Mitigation Economics, Inc., 1996 Page D-8 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Federal Emergency Management Agency, Report on the Costs and Benefits of Natural Hazard Mitigation. Publication 331, 1996. Goettel & Horner Inc., Earthquake Risk Analysis Volume Ill: The Economic Feasibility of Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings in the City of Portland, Submitted to the Bureau of Buildings, City of Portland, August 30, 1995. Goettel & Horner Inc., Benefit/Cost Analysis of Hazard Mitigation Projects Volume V, Earthquakes, Prepared for FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Branch, Ocbober 25, 1995. Horner, Gerald, Benefit/Cost Methodologies for Use in Evaluating the Cost Effectiveness of Proposed Hazard Mitigation Measures, Robert Olsen Associates, Prepared for Oregon Military Department - Office of Emergency Management, July 1999. Interagency Hazards Mitigation Team, State Hazard Mitigation Plan, (Oregon State Police- Office of Emergency Management, 2000.) Risk Management Solutions, Inc., Development of a Standardized Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology, National Institute of Building Sciences, Volume I and II, 1994. VSP Associates, Inc., A Benefit/Cost Model for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Volumes 1 & 2, Federal Emergency management Agency, FEMA Publication Numbers 227 and 228, 1991. VSP Associates, Inc., Benefit/Cost Analysis of Hazard Mitigation Projects: Section 404 Hazard Mitigation Program and Section 406 Public Assistance Program, Volume 3: Seismic Hazard Mitigation Projects, 1993. VSP Associates, Inc., Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings: A Benefit/Cost Model, Volume 1, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA Publication Number 255, 1994. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page D-9 This page intentionally left blank. Page D-10 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP APPENDIX E: GRANT PROGRAMSAND RESOURCES Introduction There are numerous local, state and federal funding sources available to support natural hazard mitigation projects and planning. The Oregon Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan includes a comprehensive list of funding sources (refer to Oregon NHMP Chapter 2 Section F(1)). The following section includes an abbreviated list of the most common funding sources utilized by local jurisdictions in Oregon. Because grant programs often change, it is important to periodically review available funding sources for current guidelines and program descriptions. Post-Disaster Federal Programs Hazard Mitigation Grant Program The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) provides grants to states and local governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration. The purpose of the HMGP is to reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters and to enable mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a disaster. The HMGP is authorized under Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. http://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-grant-program Physical Disaster Loan Program When physical disaster loans are made to homeowners and businesses following disaster declarations by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), up to 20% of the loan amount can go towards specific measures taken to protect against recurring damage in similar future disasters. http://www.sba.gov/category/navigation-structure/loans-grants/small- business-loans/disaster-loans Pre-Disaster Federal Programs Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program provides funds to states, territories, Indian tribal governments, communities, and universities for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation projects prior to a disaster event. Funding these plans and projects reduces overall risks to the population and structures, while also reducing reliance on funding from actual disaster declarations. PDM grants are to be awarded on a competitive basis and without reference to state allocations, quotas, or other formula-based allocation of funds. http://www.fema.gov/pre-disaster-mitigation-grant-program Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page E-1 Flood Mitigation Assistance Program The overall goal of the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program is to fund cost-effective measures that reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to buildings, manufactured homes, and other National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) insurable structures. This specifically includes: • Reducing the number of repetitively or substantially damaged structures and the associated flood insurance claims; • Encouraging long-term, comprehensive hazard mitigation planning; • Responding to the needs of communities participating in the NFIP to expand their mitigation activities beyond floodplain development activities; and • Complementing other federal and state mitigation programs with similar, long-term mitigation goals. http://www.fema.gov/flood-mitigation-assistance-program Detailed program and application information for federal post-disaster and pre-disaster programs can be found in the FY13 Hazard Mitigation Assistance Unified Guidance, available at: https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/33634. Note that guidance regularly changes. Verify that you have the most recent edition. For Oregon Military Department, Office of Emergency Management (OEM) grant guidance on Federal Hazard Mitigation Assistance, visit: http://www.oregon.gov/OMD/OEM/pages/all_grants.aspx - Hazard_Mitigation_Grants Contact: Angie Lane, angie.lane@mil.state.or.us State Programs Seismic Rehabilitation Grant Program The Seismic Rehabilitation Grant Program (SRGP) provides state funds to strengthen public schools and emergency services buildings so they will be less damaged during an earthquake. Reducing property damage, injuries, and casualties caused by earthquakes is the goal of the SRGP. http://www.orinfrastructure.org/Infrastructure-Programs/Seismic- Rehab Community Development Block Grant Program The Community Development Block Grant Program promotes viable communities by providing: 1) decent housing; 2) quality living environments; and 3) economic opportunities, especially for low and moderate income persons. Eligible activities most relevant to natural hazards mitigation include: acquisition of property for public purposes; construction/reconstruction of public infrastructure; community planning activities. Under special circumstances, CDBG funds also can be used to meet urgent community development needs arising in the last 18 months which pose immediate threats to health and welfare. Page E-2 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP http://porta1.hud.gov/hudportaI/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_pIanning/communityde velopment/programs Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board While OWEB's primary responsibilities are implementing projects addressing coastal salmon restoration and improving water quality statewide, these projects can sometimes also benefit efforts to reduce flood and landslide hazards. In addition, OWEB conducts watershed workshops for landowners, watershed councils, educators, and others, and conducts a biennial conference highlighting watershed efforts statewide. Funding for OWEB programs comes from the general fund, state lottery, timber tax revenues, license plate revenues, angling license fees, and other sources. OWEB awards approximately $20 million in funding annually. More information at: http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/Pages/index.aspx Federal Mitigation Programs, Activities & Initiatives Basic & Applied Research/Development National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP), National Science Foundation. Through broad based participation, the NEHRP attempts to mitigate the effects of earthquakes. Member agencies in NEHRP are the US Geological Survey (USGS), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). The agencies focus on research and development in areas such as the science of earthquakes, earthquake performance of buildings and other structures, societal impacts, and emergency response and recovery. http://www.nehrp.gov/ Decision, Risk, and Management Science Program, National Science Foundation. Supports scientific research directed at increasing the understanding and effectiveness of decision making by individuals, groups, organizations, and society. Disciplinary and interdisciplinary research, doctoral dissertation research, and workshops are funded in the areas of judgment and decision making; decision analysis and decision aids; risk analysis, perception, and communication; societal and public policy decision making; management science and organizational design. The program also supports small grants for exploratory research of a time-critical or high-risk, potentially transformative nature. http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5423 Hazard ID and Mapping National Flood Insurance Program: Flood Mapping; FEMA Flood insurance rate maps and flood plain management maps for all NFIP communities. http://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program-flood-hazard-mapping Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page E-3 it National Digital Orthophoto Program, DOI - USGS Develops topographic quadrangles for use in mapping of flood and other hazards. http://www.ndop.gov/ Mapping Standards Support, DOI-USGS Expertise in mapping and digital data standards to support the National Flood Insurance Program. http://ncgmp.usgs.gov/standards.html Soil Survey, USDA-NRCS Maintains soil surveys of counties or other areas to assist with farming, conservation, mitigation or related purposes. http://soils.usda.gov/survey/printed_surveys/ Project Support Coastal Zone Management Program, NOAA. Provides grants for planning and implementation of non-structural coastal flood and hurricane hazard mitigation projects and coastal wetlands restoration. http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/ Community Development Block Grant Entitlement Communities Program, US Department of Housing and Urban Development Provides grants to entitled cities and urban counties to develop viable communities (e.g., decent housing, a suitable living environment, expanded economic opportunities), principally for low- and moderate- income persons. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/communityde velopment/programs/entitlement National Fire Plan (DOI - USDA) The NFP provides technical, financial, and resource guidance and support for wildland fire management across the United States. This plan addresses five key points: firefighting, rehabilitation, hazardous fuels reduction, community assistance, and accountability. http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/ Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, FEMA FEMA AFGM grants are awarded to fire departments to enhance their ability to protect the public and fire service personnel from fire and related hazards. Three types of grants are available: Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG), Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S), and Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER). http://www.fema.gov/welcome-assistance-firefighters-grant-progra m Emergency Watershed Protection Program, USDA-NRCS Provides technical and financial assistance for relief from imminent hazards in small watersheds, and to reduce vulnerability of life and property in small watershed areas Page E-4 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP damaged by severe natural hazard events. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/main/national/programs/landscape/ewpp Rural Development Assistance - Utilities, USDA Direct and guaranteed rural economic loans and business enterprise grants to address utility issues and development needs. http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/Utilities_Programs_Grants.html Rural Development Assistance - Housing, USDA. The RDA program provides grants, loans, and technical assistance in addressing rehabilitation, health and safety needs in primarily low-income rural areas. Declaration of major disaster necessary. http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/HAD-HCFPGrants.html Public Assistance Grant Program, FEMA. The objective of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Public Assistance (PA) Grant Program is to provide assistance to State, Tribal and local governments, and certain types of Private Nonprofit organizations so that communities can quickly respond to and recover from major disasters or emergencies declared by the President. http://www.fema.gov/public-assistance-local-state-tribal-and-non-profit National Flood Insurance Program, FEMA The NFIP makes available flood insurance to residents of communities that adopt and enforce minimum floodplain management requirements. http://www.fema.gov/national- flood-insurance-program HOME Investments Partnerships Program, HUD The HOME IPP provides grants to states, local government and consortia for permanent and transitional housing (including support for property acquisition and rehabilitation) for low- income persons. http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/programs/home/ Disaster Recovery Initiative, HUD The DRI provides grants to fund gaps in available recovery assistance after disasters (including mitigation). http:Hportal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/commu nityde velopment/programs/dri Emergency Management Performance Grants, FEMA EMPG grants help state and local governments to sustain and enhance their all-hazards emergency management programs. http://www.fema.gov/fy-2012-emergency- management-performance-grants-program Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page E-5 Partners for Fish and Wildlife, DOI - FWS The PFW program provides financial and technical assistance to private landowners interested in pursuing restoration projects affecting wetlands and riparian habitats. http://www.fws.gov/partners/ North American Wetland Conservation Fund, DOI-FWS NAWC fund provides cost-share grants to stimulate public/private partnerships for the protection, restoration, and management of wetland habitats. http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/Grants/index.shtm Federal Land Transfer / Federal Land to Parks Program, DOI-NPS Identifies, assesses, and transfers available federal real property for acquisition for State and local parks and recreation, such as open space. http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/flp/--index.htm Wetlands Reserve program, USDA-NCRS The WR program provides financial and technical assistance to protect and restore wetlands through easements and restoration agreements. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/main/national/programs/easements/wetlands Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, US Forest Service. Reauthorized for FY2012, it was originally enacted in 2000 to provide five years of transitional assistance to rural counties affected by the decline in revenue from timber harvests on federal lands. Funds have been used for improvements to public schools, roads, and stewardship projects. Money is also available for maintaining infrastructure, improving the health of watersheds and ecosystems, protecting communities, and strengthening local economies. http://www.fs.usda.gov/pts/ Page E-6 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP i APPENDIX F: COMMUNITY SURVEY Survey Purpose and Use The purpose of this survey was to gauge the overall perception of natural disasters, determine a baseline level of loss reduction activity for residents in the community and assess citizen's support for different types of individual and community risk reduction activities. Data from this survey directly informs the natural hazards mitigation planning process. Jackson County can use this survey data to enhance action item rationale and ideas for implementation. Other community organizations can also use survey results to inform their own outreach efforts. Data from the survey provides the County with a better understanding of desired outreach strategies (sources and formats) and a baseline understanding of community perceptions of natural hazards and resilience. Background Citizen involvement is a key component in the NHMP planning process. Citizens should have the opportunity to voice their ideas, interests and concerns about the impact of natural disasters on their communities. According to Bierlel, the benefits of citizen involvement include the following: (1) educate and inform public; (2) incorporate public values into decision making; (3) substantially improve the quality of decisions; (4) increase trust in institutions; (5) reduce conflict; and (6) ensure cost effectiveness. The NHMP planning process provided opportunities for the public to engage through an on- line survey disseminated by Jackson County. Methodology In the spring of 2017, the Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience (OPDR) administered the survey via the on-line tool (Qualtrics). The survey was distributed via social media and the County's website. Survey respondents were received from a total of 35 respondents (25 responses were complete and 10 responses were incomplete). Of the complete responses, 21(84%) lived in Jackson County, four (4) lived in an unspecified other location (two respondents indicated that they lived in Josephine County). The survey consisted of seven questions. Jackson County designed the survey to determine public perceptions and opinions regarding natural hazards and mitigation priorities. I Bierle, T. 1999. Using social goals to evaluate public participation in environmental decisions. Policy Studies Review. 16(314), 75-103. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page F-1 The intent of this survey was not to be statistically valid but instead to gain the perspective and opinions of residents regarding natural hazards in the region. Our assessment is that the results reflect a range attitudes and opinions of residents throughout the county. Survey Results This section presents the compiled data and analysis for the 2017 Jackson County NHMP Community Survey. We provide a copy of the survey instrument as Attachment A. Respondent Characteristics Most respondents (84%) indicated that they live in Jackson County. Ten respondents (40%) lived in Medford, four lived in an "other" location (including at least two that lived in neighboring Josephine County) and three (3) live in an unincorporated part of the county. The cities of (Town of) Butte Falls, Gold Hill and Phoenix did not have a respondent to the survey. Table F- I Respondent Place of Residence (97 respondents) In3hel:ountylunincorporated[tity,F?I 3 12% e.g.,[&Vhite[:ity,[Prospect,ltc.) Ashland 1 4% ButteTalls 0 0% CentralToint 1 4% Eagle[Point 2 8% GoldMill 0 0% Jacksonville 1 4% Medford 10 40% Phoenix 0 0% Roguel iver 1 4% Shady[Eove 1 4% Talent 1 4% Other location 4 16% TotaI[Responses 25 100% Source: 2017 NHMP Community Survey, analysis by CPDR Natural Hazard Information This section reports the experiences of survey respondents involving natural hazards and their exposure to preparedness information. The survey asked respondents to indicate which natural hazards they, or a member of their household, has experienced in the past ten (10) years. Figure F-1 shows that 81% of respondents have experienced a winter storm (snow/ice) event in the previous 10 years, while substantial percentages of respondents have experienced windstorms (54%), droughts Page F-2 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP (54%) and wildfires (46%). Fewer respondents have experienced floods (27%), landslides (12%) or volcanic events (4%). No respondents experienced an earthquake event. Figure F-1 Household Natural Hazard Experience previous 10 Years (26 respondents) Winter[Stormgsnow/ice) 81% Windstorm 54% Drought 54% Wildfire 46% Flood _ 27% Landslide ■ 12% VolcanicMvent 14% I Earthquake 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: 2017 NHMP Community Survey, analysis by OPDR The survey asked respondents to indicate their level of concern about natural hazards that impact Jackson County. Table F-2 shows that the hazards of highest concern for respondents include wildfire (93% Very Concerned and Somewhat Concerned), winter storms (snow/ ice, 86% Very Concerned or Somewhat Concerned) and earthquake (81% Very Concerned and Somewhat Concerned). Approximately three-quarters of all respondents were also Very Concerned or Somewhat Concerned about the windstorm (79%) and drought (68%) hazards. i Respondents were least concerned about the volcanic event, landslide and flood hazards. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page F-3 Table F-2 Hazards that Concern Respondent the Most Hazard VeryG SomewhatG Not[Veryli~ Notts Total[N Concerned Concerned Concerned Concerned Responses Drought 32% 36% 29% 4% 28 Earthquake 56% 26% 19% 0% 27 Flood 15% 26% 52% 7% 27 Landslide 11% 19% 48% 22% 27 VOlcanic[Event 4% 15% 41% 41% 27 Wildfire 46% 46% 4% 4% 28 Windstorm 39% 39% 11% 11% 28 Winter[Stormisnow/ice) 46% 39% 11% 4% 28 Source: 2017 NHMP Community Survey, analysis by OPDR Mitigation Efforts The survey asked respondents to indicate what types of facilities are most important to them. Police stations (93% Extremely Important and Very Important), Hospitals (90% Extremely Important and Very Important), fire stations (90% Extremely Important and Very Important). More than 75% of the respondents also rated major bridges (80%), schools (83%) and housing (78%) as Extremely Important or Very Important. Table F-3 Facilities Ranked by Level of Importance to Respondent FacilityCEategory Extremely[- VeryC ModeratelyP SlightlyD9 NotItNU TotaU important important important important important Responses Elder-careifacilities 25% 36% 25% 14% 0% 28 SchoolsIK-12) 41% 41% 10% 0% 7% 29 Hospitals 73% 17% 10% 0% 0% 30 Major1ridges 60% 20% 13% 3% 3% 30 Fire[Stations 67% 23% 7% 3% 0% 30 POlice[Stations 67% 27% 7% 0% 0% 30 HistoricMuildings 10% 31% 24% 17% 17% 29 Large[t~mployers 10% 45% 24% 14% 7% 29 Small[businesses 45% 24% 21% 3% 7% 29 Housing 59% 19% 15% 7% 0% 27 Other 55% 18% 0% 27% 0% 11 Source: 2017 NHMP Community Survey, analysis by OPDR A total of 13 Other responses were provided by respondents. Below is a list of the facility categories that were list as Other: • Airports • Coordinated response • coffee houses • Cultural Significant Sites • Communication Services • flags • Communications • Interstate Highway System • Community Center • Library Page F-4 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP • Pets/livestock • teepees • Public preparedness Table F-4 shows respondent level of agreement to a variety of regulatory and non- regulatory mitigation activities/approaches. In general, respondents strongly agreed and agreed with the majority of listed mitigation activities/approaches. Slightly more than half (56% strongly agree or agree) of the respondents support regulatory approaches to reducing risk, while 80% (strongly agree or agree) support non-regulatory approaches to reducing risk. Slightly more respondents (84% strongly agree or agree) support a mix of regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to reduce risk. More than half (60%) of respondents strongly agree or agree with policies to prohibit development in areas subject to natural hazards, however, only 16% strongly agree or agree with the use of tax dollars to compensate land owners for not developing in areas subject to natural hazards. Conversely, just under three- quarters (72%) of respondents strongly agree or agree with the use of tax dollars to reduce risks and losses from natural disasters. One-half (50% strongly agree or agree) of respondents support protecting historical and cultural resources. Over 90% of respondents (92% strongly agree or agree) would be willing to make their home more disaster resilient. The vast majority of respondents support safeguarding the local economy following a disaster event (92% strongly agree or agree). Respondents also support safeguarding local schools (92% strongly agree or agree) and maintaining a local inventory of at-risk buildings and infrastructure (92% strongly agree or agree). Table F-4-Level-of Support for Regulatory and Non-Regulatory Mitigation Activities Neither Miti ation[ActivityJA Strongly Somewhat. Note TotaICJ g pproach agree Agree agree5hor[] disagree Disagree sure Responses disagree 13upport'_~[1'eguIatoryapproach-IoLieducing1~isk 4% 52% 28% 12% 4% 0% 25 1[supportllbon-reguIatoryfbp pro achQo[~educingRisk 32% 48% 12% 8% 0% 0% 25 1 S up p o rtWn ixW%ot hl#egu I ato rylb ndlon-reguIatorym 44% 40% 8% 4% 4% 0% 25 a pproachesloleed ucing1isk I@upportJ)oIicies[koC)rohibit[MevelopmenOnCbreas[9ubject0 20% 40% 28% 8% 0% 4% 25 tolhaturalMazards ISup port[t heClLsel bf1axAoI ]ars1fed eraI[b nd/or[Moca1)3o0 compensate[tand[owners[iorrhotCfieveIopingmnChreasM 0% 16% 24% 24% 28% 8% 25 s u bj e ct[3 o f at u ra I1 a z a rd s I@upportAheflseVllocalQaxlfloIlarsllol~educell#isks[bndO 28% 44% 20% 4% 4% 0% 25 1osses1fromr1haturaIldisasters Ilupport3) rote cting[historicallbnd[tuIturalf3tructures 8% 42% 29% 17% 4% 0% 24 1FVvouIcl%e[willing3o[#nake1?nyrIh omerfnoreCdisaster-resistant 58% 33% 8% 0% 0% 0% 24 I3 upportSteps1lo3afeguard[1he4oca11conomyAoIlowing[IE 46% 46% 4% 4% 0% 0% 24 disasterlvent IC3upport[Emprovingf1heldisaste4repared nesslbf3ocal0 63% 29% 8% 0% 0% 0% 24 schools I3 upportlb[Mocal[EnventoryCibflbt-risk1uiIdings1in& 42% 50% 4% 0% 4% 0% 24 infrastructure Source: 2017 NHMP Community Survey, analysis by OPDR Communication The survey asked respondents to indicate which form of communication is most effective for them to receive information about reducing the impacts of natural disasters. Respondents Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page F-5 could choose as many options as applied. As shown in Figure F-5, the majority of respondents (72%) indicated that websites were their preferred method of communication, followed by social media (Twitter/Facebook, 60%). Next, respondents preferred public workshops/meetings (56%), municipal/County government (52%), fact sheets/brochures (48%), mail (48%), public health departments (44%) and newspapers (40%). There were two respondents who listed "other" as their preferred communication method and indicated email and the Red Cross. Table F-5 Respondent Preferred Communication Method Websites 72% Twitter/Facebook 60% Public[Workshops/Meetings 56% Municipal/County[Eovernment 52% Fact@heet/Brochure 48% Mail 48% PublicUHealthMepartment 44% I Newspapers 40% i Firemepartment/LawOEnforcement 32% Television 32% i Schools 28% I Radio 28% Extension[5ervice 24% OthergPleaselindicate) - 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Source: 2017 NHMP Community Survey, analysis by OPDR The survey next asked the respondents to indicate how well the County is doing to educate people of the natural hazards they may face. Figure F-6 shows that about two-thirds of survey respondents believe their community is doing an excellent (4%), good (17%), or fair (46%) job educating the public about natural hazards. Another one-third of respondents indicated that they feel that the County is doing a poor job at educating people about the natural hazards that they may face. Page F-6 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Figure F-2 Respondent Perception of Community Natural Hazard Education Performance (24 respondents) 4% 46% ■ Excellent ■ Good ® Fair ■ Poor Source: 2017 NHMP Community Survey, analysis by CPDR Respondents to this question were asked to explain their response as shown below: • While there are news stories about an impending earthquake, very little is being done from municipal agencies to plan for mitigation before or after an event like a Cascadia Subduction. • We are facing the Cascadia Subduction event at some point and I feel the message has not be spread effective by local government or nonprofits. Due to the location of Jackson County, we will be fully cut off from supply lines and knowing that it is imperative that our local community is prepared to respond to the vast local needs we will have after the event. Seismic retrofitting is not an advertised service of local contractors, until very recently there has been little to no conversation about preparedness and there are only loose associations coming together to actually address community preparedness. • Other natural hazards such as drought and wildfire are threats we face nearly every year yet there are few PSAs or major encouragement for planting drought tolerant plants, encouraging fire protection of rural property beyond that which is required Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page F-7 bylaw, or teaching people how to help put out fires that start along the road or in fields. • 1 feel there is vast room for improvement. • Earthquake preparedness is lacking • We have many outreach efforts but they only connect with a small minority of the community - I would guess less than 5%. For example, I have heard emergency managers proudly announce that they held an education seminar with 25 citizens. In a County of more than a quarter of a million people it will take a lot of years to reach everyone at that rate! In support of these managers, however, they certainly are working hard at outreach. • We need reality based education. • I haven't heard anything about what natural disasters that could occur in my area and what to do in such an event • Folks know what to do it is just a matter of doing it never hear anything • I think people are complacent. People have to take a serious active role in self preparedness and stop thinking that the government needs to take care of them. People don't know haw to survive any kind of disaster because they expect the government to take care of them. • It's a work in progress and it's hard to get the public interested. • Many sources, including fire depts., LE, Public Health offices and County emergency preparedness depts. are reaching out to citizens. • Preparedness fairs and info booths at local events are sharing info. that can make survival of a major disaster more likely. • Local Red Cross and CERT groups, as well as other citizen groups are not only reaching out to alert people to the dangers we may face but are providing practical steps we can take to increase our safety. • 1 don't hear, read, or see enough about the importance of planning, or reference to resources that can easily be accessed to help people plan -for businesses or households. • The lack of staffing at both city hall and fire department make it nearly impossible to devote time and resources to educate people about how and what they can do to prepare THEMSELVES for natural hazard events (prevention work). Conclusion In general, the survey responses reinforced information collected by the plan update team (Steering Committee and consultant). As indicated in the surveythere are a significant percentage of respondents who feel that the County could do more to outreach to the community about natural hazards. The steering committee reviewed the survey results and incorporated the findings into discussions about the mitigation plan update. Specifically, the survey helped to inform the priority actions and contributed to the overall assessment of risk in Jackson County. Page F-8 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP ATTACHMENT A: SURVEY Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey! The Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience at the University of Oregon is working with community leaders in Jackson County and the cities of Ashland, Butte Falls, Eagle Point, Phoenix, Rogue River, Shady Cove and Talent to update their Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (NHMP). Mitigation plans outline community risk to natural hazards and outline potential actions the County can take to reduce risks to people, property and the local economy BEFORE the next hazard event (e.g., wildfire, winter storm, flood, earthquake, etc.) strikes. Developing hazard mitigation plans enables state, tribal and local governments to: Increase education and awareness around threats, hazards and vulnerabilities; Build partnerships for risk reduction involving government, organizations, businesses and the public; Identify long- term, broadly-supported strategies for risk reduction; Align risk reduction with other state, tribal, or community objectives; Identify implementation approaches that focus resources on the greatest risks and vulnerabilities; and Communicate priorities to potential sources of funding. To review the current Jackson County NHMP, please visit: https://wacksoncountvor.org/emergency/-County-Plans/`--NHMP We estimate that this survey should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. If you have questions regarding this survey, please contact Michael Howard, Assistant Program Director with the University of Oregon's Community Service Center (mrhoward@uoregon.edu). Q1. In the past 10 years, have you or someone in your household experienced any of the following natural hazards in this community? (Please check all that apply.) ❑ Drought ❑ Earthquake ❑ Flood ❑ Landslide ❑ Volcanic Event ❑ Wildfire ❑ Windstorm ❑ Winter Storm (snow/ice) Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page F-9 Q2. Please indicate your level of concern about the following natural hazards. Somewhat Very Not Very Not Concerned Concerned Con Concerned Drought O O O p p Earthquake O O O O p Flood O O O O O Landslide O O p p p Volcanic Event O O O O O Wildfire O p O O O Windstorm O O O O O Winter Storm (snow/ice) O O O O O I Page F-10 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Q3. Next, we would like to know what specific types of community assets are most important to you. (make one selection for each asset) Moderately Very 7Elder-care O O O O O O O O O O Hospitals O O O O O Major bridges O O O O O Fire Stations O O O O O Police Stations O O O O O Historic Buildings O O O O O Large employers O O O O O Small businesses O O O O O Housing O O O O O Other O O O O O Other O O O O O Other O O O O O Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page F-11 Q4. A number of activities can reduce your community's risk from natural hazards. These activities can be both regulatory and non-regulatory. Please check the box that best represents your opinion of the following strategies to reduce the risk and loss associated with natural disasters. -[Strongly Y • nor disagree agree -Mi , - I , - - I support a regulatory O O O O O O approach to reducing risk I support a non-regulatory O O O O O O approach to reducing risk I support a mix of both ' regulatory and non- regulatory approaches to O O O O O O reducing risk I support policies to prohibit development in O O O O O O areas subject to natural hazards j I support the use of tax dollars (federal and/or local) to compensate land O O O O O O owners for not developing in areas subject to natural hazards I support the use of local tax dollars to reduce risks O O O O O O and losses from natural disasters I support protecting j historical and cultural O O O O j O O structures I would be willing to make my home more disaster- O 0 O O O O resistant I support steps to safeguard the local O ! O O O O O economy following a disaster event I I support improving the disaster preparedness of O 0 O O O O local schools j I support a local inventory of at-risk buildings and O O O O O O infrastructure -L_ Page F-12 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP Q5. What are the most effective ways for you to receive information on how to protect your household and property from damage due to natural hazards? (Please Check all that apply). ❑ Newspapers ❑ Television ❑ Radio ❑ Websites ❑ Twitter/Facebook ❑ Schools ❑ Mail ❑ Fact sheet/Brochure ❑ Extension Service ❑ Public Workshops/Meetings ❑ Fire Department/Law Enforcement ❑ Public Health Department ❑ Municipal/County Government ❑ Other (Please indicate) Q6. How do you feel your community is doing to educate people of the natural hazards that they may face? O Excellent O Good O Fair O Poor O None Please explain your response to the question above: Q7. Where do you live in Jackson County? O In the County (unincorporated city, e.g., White City, Prospect, etc.) O Ashland O Butte Falls O Central Point O Eagle Point O Gold Hill O Jacksonville O Medford O Phoenix O Rogue River O Shady Cove O Talent O Other location Thank you for completing this survey! You will now be directed back to the Rogue Valley Emergency Management website with a link to the County's NHMP. We encourage you to review and comment on the plan. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page F-13 r Page F-14 December 2017 Jackson County MNHMP I This page intentionally left blank. Jackson County MNHMP December 2017 Page F-15 Appendix G: City of Ashland Hazard Mitigation, Green Infrastructure, and Low Impact Development it This report is expected to be complete by December 2017. Once it is complete it will be included as an appendix to the NHMP. This page left intentionally blank. Appendix H: Upper Rogue Watershed Multi-Hazard Risk Report This report is expected to be complete by December 2017. Once it is completed it will be included as an appendix to the NHMP. This page left intentionally blank. Appendix I: Areas of Mitigation Interest Upper Rogue The following report was completed by STARR under contract by FEMA in 2016. This page left intentionally blank. I Identification of Areas of Mitigation Interest (AoMI) and Development of Mitigation Strategies for Shady Cove and Eagle Point, OR Prepared by Stacy F. Wright, AICP, CFM September 27, 2016 E1 ART, yf G oF k STARR FEMA qND 5~ Table of Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 City of Shady Cove 2 2.1 Community Profile 2 2.2 Planning Mechanisms 4 2.3 Flood Risk Information 5 2.3.1 Flood Sources 5 2.3.2 Flood History 6 2.4 Areas of Mitigation Interest 6 2.5 Status of Current Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) Actions 8 2.6 Recommendations for Mitigation Strategies 8 3 City of Eagle Point 10 3.1 Community Profile 10 3.2 Planning Mechanisms 12 3.3 Flood Risk Information 13 3.3.1 Flood Sources 13 3.3.2 Flood History 13 3.4 Areas of Mitigation Interest 14 3.5 Status of Current Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) Actions 17 3.6 Recommendations for Mitigation Strategies 17 Appendix A. STARR Interview and Field Visit Notes Appendix B. Data Used In Analysis Page 1 1 i 1 Introduction In 2012, FEMA tasked STARR to provide planning technical assistance to the communities of Shady Cove and Eagle Point located in Jackson County, Oregon within the Upper Rogue Watershed through the identification of Areas of Mitigation Interest (AoMI) and development of Mitigation Strategies. A project kickoff call was held in 2012, but the decision was made to delay this analysis until new preliminary FIRM data was available for the Upper Rogue watershed. This data became available in May 2016. Data collection included compiling Risk MAP data, local plans and ordinances, and field visits and interviews with community officials which took place in July 2016 (notes provided in Appendix A). Analysis was then conducted using Risk MAP preliminary FIRM data along with data from the 2012 FEMA Discovery process in this watershed. A list of all data used in this analysis is listed in Appendix B. For each community, this document describes the following: • Community Profile: Describes general information such as population and development trends. • Planning Mechanisms: Describes local plans and ordinances that inform land use decisions. • Flood Risk Information: Describes flood sources and history of flood events. • Areas of Mitigation Interest: Describes specific areas of flood risk based on recent Risk MAP preliminary FIRM data. • Status of Current Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) Actions: Describes the status of current Hazard Mitigation Plan actions and specific areas where mitigation efforts should be considered and target areas where potential damage, economic loss, and casualties could occur from a hazard event; FEMA has provided strategies for mitigation in these specific areas. • Mitigation Strategy Recommendations: Describes recommendations for actions that may reduce potential damage, economic loss, and casualties from a flood hazard event. 2 City of Shady Cove 2.1 Community Profile Shady Cove, located near the center of Jackson County, is situated approximately 20 miles north of the City of Medford and is bisected by the Rogue River (Figure 1). Page 12 Figure 1. Shady Cove Map i , T M` 1 ~c Hall•Av ota0, y i T ne•Topdr-. L~ - - i ~ ~ _ ~ Tram•hn, - y 4-hudspiieth.L / ~ j u Z l IM91ory{n. i r r 4 4 If i ~ ; _ aOt.Y~e,,,c1~ a,wh s F~\s ~ i i u I. ,..1 ro o 0 d{ar Ln r °~r J i Indian . d(n ~ I { aare~ i 1 kt ~ a t `i 1 i f I Z _ I 1 ? BrophyWY tE-..I ' I s s I I~ Q Tax lots in SAIA Local Roads Flood Zone Tax lots State Highways = SFiIA Shady Cove 0 0.25 0.5 Miles - Tax Lots in the SFHA Community Bourdary Page 3 I it Shady Cove was incorporated in 1972, and has a population of 3,022 according to 2015 US Census estimates. Table 1 shows that the population has increased slowly and steadily since 2000. Table 1. Population Estimates 2000 2010 2015 % Change 2000-2015 2,307 2,904 3,022 +30.99% Source: US Census Bureau Shady Cove's main transportation corridor, Crater Lake Highway (State Highway 62), runs through the City and provides the main means of access. It is primarily a local supply center with several stores, restaurants, service stations, and a school. Most of the potentially developable floodplain areas in Shady Cove have already been developed. Potential Areas for Future Development Within this section, areas throughout the community that have the potential for development are identified and described. Currently, the City of Shady Cove has been developed to almost maximum potential allowing very little available land in the floodplain to accommodate larger or more significant development. However, growth continues in the City in the non-floodplain area as improvements are approved for construction each year in scattered locations. Any new construction located in the SFHA is required by the local Floodplain Ordinance to have one foot of freeboard and be constructed with flood-resistant materials. The local Floodplain Ordinance also specifies that the "Construction of new critical facilities shall be, to the extent possible, located outside the limits of the area of special flood hazard. Construction of new critical facilities shall be permissible within the area of special flood hazard if no feasible alternative site is available. Floodproofing and sealing measures must be taken to ensure that toxic substances or priority organic pollutants as defined by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality will not be displaced by or released into floodwaters. Access routes elevated to or above the level of the base flood elevation shall be provided to all critical facilities to the maximum extent possible." 2.2 Planning Mechanisms The City of Shady Cove has several existing plans and policies that influence local land use and development decisions, including: • Comprehensive Plan: In 2015, Section D (Natural Resources, Natural Disasters, and Hazards Element) was updated to add a discussion about natural disasters and adopting a goal to "Protect life and property from stream flooding." This update also notes that there is a lack of infrastructure to support emergency shelters or evacuation points for the community, and resilience of local businesses in the event of a hazard occurrence may be a concern. Page 14 i • Floodplain Management Ordinance: Shady Cove has participated in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) since 1980. In 2008, the City of Shady Cove adopted resolution 08-17 affirming its intention to fully comply with NFIP requirements and has made a concerted effort in recent years to improve compliance and address non- compliant structures. Shady Cove's current Floodplain Management Ordinance requires one foot of freeboard. City staff noted that it is difficult to see many floodplain properties from the street and development must be inspected by floating down the river to see the riverfront areas of these properties to check for compliance. • Emergency Operations Plan: The City has been working recently to strengthen its understanding of emergency operation needs and identify ways to strengthen their response capabilities. • Riparian Ordinance: In June 2016, after many months of debate and reluctance by local residents and officials, the City adopted a Riparian Ordinance to ensure that activities along the river do not inappropriately reduce the amount of riparian areas along the Rogue River. • Building Code Enforcement: Jackson County handles building inspections for Shady Cove, enforcing to the most current 2014 Oregon State Code which is based on the 2009 International Residential Code (IRC) and 2012 International Building Code (IBC). • Hazard Mitigation Plan: Shady Cove participates in the Jackson County Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) that was approved by FEMA in 2012. 2.3 Flood Risk Information 2.3.1 Flood Sources The Rogue River flows through the City from north to south and is the major source of flooding in the City. Indian Creek flows into the Rogue River within the corporate limits, but flood damage from this creek occurs only in times of exceptionally high water along Rogue River. Another concern in Shady Cove is the William L. Jess Dam, (also known as the Lost Creek Dam) situated upstream. The dam, in operation since 1977, is owned and operated by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and is classified as a high hazard potential dam meaning that structural failure or mis-operation would probably cause loss of human life. USACE has informed the City that the risk of William L. Jess Dam failure is 1 in 10,000 (0.0001%) in any one year. USACE has indicated that a worst-case scenario failure at the dam would cause flows nearly 100 feet above normal river level in the City of Shady Cove with less than an hour's notice. Shady Cove does not currently have an evacuation plan or alert system to employ in the event of a dam failure and it is expected that many lives could be lost in the event of such an occurrence. Page 1 5 2.3.2 Flood History The Rogue River has flooded several times since the area was first settled. In 1861, there was major flooding in the county along the Rogue River. The most dramatic flood in Shady Cove's recent past ..z i occurred along Rogue River in December 1964. The State Highway 62 Bridge, a vital transportation link between the national forests to the north and east and the wood processing mills in the Medford area to the south, was lost during the flood and caused a substantial hardship for the local lumber industry. Source: Jackson County 2.4 Areas of Mitigation Interest December 1964 flooding in Shady Cove Preliminary FIRM data for this watershed identifies destroyed the Highway 62 bridge, which areas that experienced changes since the last FIRMS was rebuilt following the flood. were created. These areas were identified through the Risk MAP process using hydrologic and hydraulic analyses, community supplied data from mitigation 4" - plans, floodplain management plans, and local surveys; and the search of federal government databases (e.g., flood claims, disaster grants, and data from other agencies). The preliminary FIRMS used improved topography and produced more credible modeling due -J to better data. This resulted in changes to the floodplain that adjusted the number of at-risk tax lots in the community. In Shady Cove, preliminary FIRM data suggests that there are portions of 273 tax lots located in the preliminary Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). The preliminary data shows a decrease in the SFHA so that fewer parcels are fully located in SFHA areas, though small portions of some parcels were affected by an increase in preliminary SFHA area. Figure 2 shows the location of tax lots removed from the SFHA on the preliminary FIRMs. It should be noted that these numbers do not denote structures located in the floodplain, as structure data was not available at the time of this analysis. Page 16 Figure 2. Tax Lots Affected By SFHA Decrease (Preliminary FIRM) Hall-Av ~atB_Or ntTO r ~ ~i- ' S iiTa Trairrtm~ I ~ I I ~so,r<u o ~ ! ea x a rands - o ~i r J . `a - =T-I-;~ Srhoolh!Use Fn-- LL YMalloryix~N: I Williamsln 'k Chappar_a~lI~p~----_ ~ YF O I r 3 T" - ti -►~asur,;Gi_, _ .Qua/I - II. o„ 17 a a rF J v FlrefirW 4 eg~ Orro-. y Q_* fndfarof~ e r- -Mad e• ~ 10 L VA 1 Sieelh ad vi t I J - Ibrophy i1 1 1 Tarb's ~ ~ Iaol 0.oadx F:'wd Zone Shady Cove From SFr-. I~ .,.b Sr.n~yn.an - SAeA Tax Lots in 0 0.25 0.5 Miles -i Area: moped j -oCe"""°ryA°°d'Y ~fiomFaA SFHA Decrease Page 7 Recent Risk MAP modeling and engineering analysis included an examination of "pinch points" that may cause backwater and hinder flood conveyance. No pinch points were found in Shady Cove during this analysis. 2.5 Status of Current Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) Actions Shady Cove is part of the Jackson County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) that was approved by FEMA in 2012. The 2012 HMP included several flood-related actions for Shady Cove. Table 2 below lists these actions and provides the status of each action as of July 2016. Table 2. Status of 2012 HMP Actions - Shady Cove 2012 HMP Action (Flood) Status as of July 2016 NFIP and HMA workshops Staff have participated in training provided by the State. Would be interested in attending more training but would require scholarships to fund needed travel. Encourage property owners to restore natural systems After much discussion, the City adopted a riparian ordinance in June 2016 to and manage riparian areas meet State requirements. (Riparian Ordinance) Some progress has been made through recent local efforts to comply with the Clean Water Act through Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) standards. Stormwater BMPs for water However, major changes in how stormwater is handled are not expected in quality the foreseeable future. The open ditch systems currently in place naturally treat water and are the best system for the City at this time (as certified by the City's Engineer). The City has worked hard over the last several years to resolve historical compliance issues. The challenge to maintaining compliance is that NFIP compliance properties along the river cannot easily be seen from the road and the river must be floated regularly to identify non-compliance or other issues. Due to lack of staff, the City relies on citizens to report issues. 2.6 Recommendations for Mitigation Strategies This report acknowledges that mitigation strategy options and capabilities can be affected by limited resources such as those in Shady Cove. Based on research and discussions with local officials during this analysis, the mitigation strategies identified for Shady Cove are prioritized by feasibility and offer opportunities for the community to enhance hazard mitigation actions to reduce potential risks. 1. Continue to prioritize NFIP compliance and take advantage of training opportunities offered by the State and FEMA. Consider attending courses at the Emergency Management Institute (EMI). o Stay in communication with the State Office of Emergency Management for potential funding opportunities for localized trainings. Page 18 o Sign up for Emergency Management Institute (EMI) e-mail lists to keep informed of current and upcoming EMI courses and if scholarship opportunities are available. 2. Increase communication and coordination with the local Fire District to better prepare for hazard events. Consider establishing regular meetings or coordination intervals and share concerns and experiences in order to provide better response to local needs. 3. Add dam failure risk as an identified hazard to the HMP in the next update cycle and include mitigation actions to address the risk identified. o Include dam risk in the community surveys required during the HMP process to emphasize public awareness of this risk. o Create a map that identifies at-risk areas to be included within the HMP. 4. Create a dam failure evacuation plan for the City. Coordinate with Jackson County Emergency Management and the US Army Corps of Engineers to ensure that current inundation data is used during risk analysis and encourage collaboration and information sharing. o Coordinate with the HMP planning committee for inclusion of the evacuation plan (or plan elements) within the updated HMP. 5. Add warning sirens in the community to assist with evacuations in the event of dam failure upstream. Contact the State Office of Emergency Management and follow-up on recent conversations (July 2016 conversation with Chris Shirley at the Risk MAP public meeting) about funding options potentially available for the installation of warning sirens. o In coordination with the State Office of Emergency Management, identify potential federal grant opportunities to fund the dam evacuation plan and warning siren installation. FEMA funding sources include: • Non-disaster Grants- Emphasis is Preparedness and Mitigation. Grants are available annually. • Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM) • Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) • Disaster Grants- Emphasis is Recovery and Mitigation. Grants are available only after a Presidentially-declared disaster. • Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) • Public Assistance (PA) 6. Since wildfire can exacerbate runoff during heavy rains and cause flooding issues, investigate potential funding sources for adding hydrants for firefighting. Contact the State Office of Emergency Management and follow-up on recent conversations (July 2016 conversation with Christine Shirley at the Risk MAP public meeting) about funding options potentially available for the installation of fire hydrants for firefighting. Investigate the use of federal grants for this installation project. (See bullet 5 for additional information regarding applicable federal grants.) Page 9 a 3 City of Eagle Point 3.1 Community Profile Known as the "Gateway to the Lakes", the City of Eagle Point is located in central Jackson County nearly 11 miles northeast of Medford on the route to Crater Lake and 10 miles south of Shady Cove (Figure 3). Little Butte Creek bisects the City. Eagle Point was incorporated in 1911, and has a population of 8,902 according to 2015 US Census estimates. Table 3 shows that the population has increased by over 85% since 2000, though growth has slowed since 2010. Table 3. Population Estimates 2000 2010 2015 % Change 2000-2015 4,797 8,469 8,902 +85.57% Source: US Census Bureau Potential Areas for Future Development Within this section, areas throughout the community that have the potential for development are identified and described. The areas within the City of Eagle Point that are experiencing growth are occurring in the northwestern area within close proximity to Highway 62, connecting the City to various adjacent communities. Eagle Point supplies many of the needs of the3 community and surrounding area, including education facilities, grocery stores, general stores y , such as Walmart, restaurants, and a rescue and ambulance service. The construction of the .f- nationally ranked Eagle Point Golf Club public golf ' Y course located within the city limits has encouraged development in the area since its construction began ~ ~ - Highway 62 serves as a major in 1995. There are also proposed plans to construct transportation corridor connecting the additional golf course lodging facilities at the golf City to various adjacent communities. course in the future. Growth continues in the City, as new subdivisions are approved for construction each year. Most growth is occurring in the northwestern side of the City near Highway 62. Older development is located in the south/southwestern part of Eagle Point which is closer to the river and has historically experienced more flood damage than other areas in the City. Any new construction located in the SFHA is required by the local Floodplain Ordinance to have two feet of freeboard and be constructed with flood-resistant materials. The local Floodplain Ordinance also specifies that the "construction of new critical facilities in Eagle Point shall be, to the extent possible, located outside the limits of any AE zone. Construction of new critical facilities shall be permissible within the AE zone if no feasible alternative site is available. Critical facilities constructed within AE shall have the lowest floor elevated three feet above BFE or to the height of the 500 year flood, whichever is higher." Page 1 10 Figure 3. Eagle Point Map I -W Rolling.Hills Or Rolling-Hills Or~ [ et 4 -N°ttingham-Tr-.. -Sheftield-Dr- f N,. ~ w nWy ~~eanon t+a~~ f ~O~PoI°~P HrBhl~n~.-.; •i` ta'~e°0,.. k.+r°°a '~1.~_~~~` ~ .rle4Cm i 'te eatherwyGyst 1 D S~ { n? a YY P v I r- - t] Br-di W°v tr sOr`''-.. 8rownshoro--Ea6 _ r I EPrt1'+`H?~o;c r Minerva e-7. A -Y - I Sh~ermarrWy Elm t BaT, Napa,st Adel/S Q.°ia --W-bnn,Rd a- _ti ~aQSrP;~.`~, ~MdM~ s - p I evens-Rd s _ Nu° 1--OSpreWDr i 2r ,'t 'ta,,~.~ K, AlleyB--------j Arrowhead Trl < • to t `5 '~"'~Pu Mchael-Ln KkV°un Rr ~ ci- ~J Y a- ~~~~y~,n ti s~C<,8¢Ilerrvte Dr~zk°,Ry { ~ ~ ~ s SaintAndrews.VYV }~T € ~ E 1 l ` MAY ng:QO Avill¢ r Nf 3 dn~os q6obestr¢nt lo~k a`p~PPPY~tl D....~: ` • l I h ¢ v .g - CedaoWood TmaCt 1 IOakWoo , 4+igk'~ Opr p 4aiKDr ism~• r Aha~sta•Rd ~ Y a 7 ; w m i Tax lots in SFHA Local Roads Flood Zone Eagle Point xx~ Tax lots State Ifighways - SFHA 0 o.2s 0.5 Miles Tax Lots in the SFHA Community Boundary Page 11 3.2 Planning Mechanisms The City of Eagle Point has several existing plans and policies that influence local land use decisions: • Comprehensive Plan: A Comprehensive Plan is in place but is old. Local officials indicated that without substantial technical assistance or funding for contractor assistance, city staff do not currently have the time to update this document. • Riparian Ordinance: This city has a basic ordinance describing requirements in riparian areas, in accordance with state regulations. • Parks Master Plan: This plan outlines existing and future planned improvements for park facilities including several located along Little Butte Creek. • Floodplain Management Ordinance: Eagle Point has participated in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) since 1980. Eagle Point's current Floodplain Management Ordinance requires two feet of freeboard. Though the City does not currently participate in the Community Rating System, it has shown some interest in joining the program at some point in the future as noted in the Hazard Mitigation Plan. Local officials indicated that they feel that they enforce this ordinance well but more outreach is needed to inform property owners about requirements and best practices. • Building Code Enforcement: Eagle Point is responsible for building inspections within the City, enforcing to the 2014 Oregon State Code which is based on the 2009 International Residential Code (IRC) and 2012 International Building Code (IBC). • Hazard Mitigation Plan: Eagle Point participates in the Jackson County Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) that was approved by FEMA in 2012. • Flood Mitigation Action Plan: Following the 1997 floods, the City received technical assistance to prepare this plan, which included several recommendations. Many of the recommendations have led to improvement over the last 15 years, but the lack of staff resources and grant funding continue to limit the ability of the City to pursue CRS participation or update local planning mechanisms. Page 1 12 i 3.3 Flood Risk Information 3.3.1 Flood Sources The chief sources of flood problems within the City of Eagle Point are Little Butte Creek and Buchanan Ditch. Little Butte Creek has its origin in the Rogue River National Forest, which lies to the north 'T"', and east of the City. Little Butte Creek flows through the center of the City of Eagle Point from the northeast to the southwest, eventually emptying into the Rogue River. In the vicinity the City of Eagle Point, this I creek has a drainage area of approximately 280 square miles. Buchanan Ditch overflows occasionally. The City has removed vegetation from the ditch in order to allow Little Butte Creek flows through the better flow and believes that this and other ongoing center of the City of Eagle Point from the drainage improvement work is reducing flood impacts northeast to the southwest, eventually within the City. emptying into the Rogue River. 3.3.2 Flood History According to the Jackson County Hazard Mitigation Plan, flooding in 1962 and 1964 occurred along Little Butte Creek and in the western portion of Eagle Point due to inadequate drainage facilities and overflows from an irrigation canal. Since that time, much improvement has been made to area structures and communication with the local irrigation district has also improved. The major access roads in the area are Crater Lake Road (State Highway 62) and Royal Avenue (Brownsboro Road) to State Highway 140. Both of these roads were under water during the flood of 1962, isolating Eagle Point. The largest flood on record in the Eagle Point area occurred in December 1962; the next largest was in December 1964. Most of the damage from these floods occurred along Little Butte Creek, although there was also substantial flooding in west Eagle Point in 1962 as a result of inadequate drainage facilities and overflows from the irrigation canal. Page 1 13 More recent flooding occurred in Jackson County during the January 1997 event when heavy rains created - fi stormwater that drained from the hills to the west of town, causing flooding along Little Butte Creek and local irrigation ditches, resulting in damage. Based on stream'. a gage records, the 1997 event ranged from a 5-year to 30- year event throughout the region. Following the flooding fi in January 1997, the City of Eagle Point received federal funding for the acquisition of three homes and elevation of five homes, totaling $233,167. A community garden ` ~r was placed on one of the acquired lots and is well cared for by the community to this day. 3.4 Areas of Mitigation Interest ,4- Preliminary FIRM data for this watershed identifies areas that experienced changes since the last FIRMS were created. These areas were identified through the Risk_ MAP process using hydrologic and hydraulic analyses, community supplied data from mitigation plans, floodplain ' '7 management plans, and local surveys; and the search of one of the properties on Royal Avenue federal government databases (e.g., flood claims, disaster was acquired after the 1997 flooding now serves as a community garden for grants, and data from other agencies). The preliminary the neighborhood. FIRMS used improved topography and produced more credible modeling due to better data. This resulted in changes to the floodplain that adjusted the number of at-risk tax lots in the community. In Eagle Point, preliminary FIRM data suggests that there are portions of 74 tax lots located in the preliminary Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). The preliminary data shows a decrease in the SFHA so that fewer parcels are fully located in SFHA areas. Figure 4 shows the location of tax lots removed from the SFHA on the preliminary FIRMs. It should be noted that these numbers do not denote structures located in the floodplain, as structure data was not available at the time of this analysis. Page 1 14 Figure 4. Tax Lots Affected By SFHA Decrease (Preliminary FIRM) 1 Barton•Rd 7.1r -B~Rd % I J 47. ip _ Ridgevtew.Or \ ` \ far r--s' --°C 1 a,OeMlO9"a~~ ` Htghl~' sen"d Dr Rartc Wy----Z-.' F• Andrea W - C7 tta4Dr Y HeatherWy a v, y r . Ct - V L. -::N HeiB~\y y"-_ i i l - - `t.' .po\~c0.d view, I- V/ -`---I ) MinegJaa,Pd~ j ~-LA-l St _ '...:Sherman Wy: 3'C a N Q'F tle Elm-..... y'J'tJnn'Aa,(~1 11111I1I1I v ~T Maio - < ~ y%`ygi~f~ Pcist c R -v Hamme In ; j Stev s-Rd P ey y,t J' M std/Y.. ` t \ i I t 7 ~n-~_ I Ueik ,~J/ a -rx _y, / t - . 4 rowheadSrl _ T ~L~ a f -aw pumpk i av tOt~ i_/ IL C}-...•,-Bell¢rrv¢Dr.:--?~e~} 5 mrpO_ r~ , uera /F ASP,~~l T K ~~°-whea~ttl l ! ~ ~ Samt Andrews-W ~ 'I ~ r ' 1 F ~ P}tr►2kc0~- (.'j~l bbe Trent-1.On r F?\ Oak.WO`dd- A °-E WY 5 !Lti °o - Cherry -W 3 9' 32 ai lots R--d L°ol R..d% FIn°d Zone Eagle Point Fl- SF H0. earl°n ss a Tax Lots in 0 0.25 0.5 Miles Nee d SFHA Decrease Page 1 15 During the Risk MAP study of the Upper Rogue watershed, one pinch point was identified within Eagle Point city limits: the Main Street Pedestrian Bridge, which is also known as the historic Antelope Creek Bridge. Recent Risk MAP modeling indicates that there is an approximate 2 foot drop in water r~ surface elevation across the bridge, causing backwater in y, the channel. ' The Antelope Creek Bridge, built in 1922, originally. spanned Antelope Creek about 8 miles southeast of Eagle _ Point. In August 1987, the wooden structure was dismantled, moved and rebuilt at its current location on Antelope Creek Bridge is listed in the Little Butte Creek at the intersection of Main Street and National Register of Historic Places. Royal Avenue (Figure 5). The bridge sits on large concrete Photo by Bill Cockrell http://www.covered- piers near the edge of the streambed on both sides, which bridges.org/bridges/ontelopecreek.htm could potentially trap debris during flood events and cause water to channel unnaturally and back up upstream. Figure 5. Pinch Point Location Map 7JJi ~ Y;° _v.s ale _7 - y - air Street ?ed etlestrian Bridge y.-- ~ ry . ~4 Jli~ J c s 73 ~ F Eagle Point 0 w 50 F.,' Pinch Point Page 16 3.5 Status of Current Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) Actions Eagle Point is part of the Jackson County Multi-Jurisdictional HMP that was approved by FEMA in 2012. The 2012 HMP included several flood-related actions for Eagle Point. Table 4 below lists these actions and provides the status of each action as of July 2016. Table 4. Status of 2012 HMP Actions - Eagle Point 2012 HMP Action (Flood) Status as of July 2016 No updates have been made to any local planning mechanisms due to limited staff and resources, and the need has not yet arisen to drive Integrate HMP into other this update forward. Without a consultant and grant funding, the mechanisms comprehensive plan will not be updated and the HMP cannot be incorporated. NFIP compliance - outreach The City acknowledges that they are good at enforcing NFIP and enforce requirements but still need to do more/better outreach. The City continues to be interested in the CRS program but does not Encourage participation in CRS currently have the staff or resources to undertake the application process and enforce higher standards as required by the program. Promote use of flood prone There are areas in the north segment of the City, where floodways are wide, that would be good for this; however, development is not areas for open space or wetlands for flood storage expected in these areas so the City does not feel the need to specifically designate them for open space. Since the Public Works Department has been making stormwater Protect City facilities in management improvements over the last decade, there has been flood prone areas improvement in this area. Streets and parks are less prone to flooding than a decade ago because of the stormwater projects. Over the last decade, the City has improved planning and Stormwater management implementation of various stormwater management efforts and continues to implement projects outlined in the local Stormwater Management plan. 3.6 Recommendations for Mitigation Strategies This report acknowledges that mitigation strategy options and capabilities can be affected by limited resources such as those in Eagle Point. Based on research and discussions with local officials during this analysis, the mitigation strategies identified for Eagle Point are prioritized by feasibility and offer opportunities for the community to enhance hazard mitigation actions to reduce potential risks. 1. Incorporate flood risk and hazard mitigation concepts into the local Comprehensive Plan when updated in the future. o When a comprehensive plan is being developed, encourage an emergency management staff member to participate in the development process. 2. Add the irrigation ditch drainage and local drainage into west Eagle Point (as discussed in Section 3.3.2 of this document) as a potential flood source to be evaluated in Page 1 17 applicable planning mechanisms (e.g., Comprehensive Plan, Floodplain Management Ordinance). o Distribute documentation and data to planning department for incorporation into the appropriate planning mechanisms. 3. Identify action items to improve NAP outreach throughout the City such as inclusion into town based meeting agendas, e-mail list serves, addition of NFIP focused webpage on City's main homepage, or distribution of information at neighborhood based meetings (homeowner's associations), etc. Resources may include: o https://www.floodsmart.gov/floodsmart/ o https://www.ready.gov o https://www.fema.gov/information-property-owners o http://www.fema.gov/homeowners-frequently-asked-questions o https://www.oregon.gov/LCD/HAZ/pages/propowndev.aspx o https://www.ready.gov/kids 4. If the City participated in the CRS program, property owners could benefit from discounts on flood insurance. It is likely that the programs already in place in the City would qualify for CRS class 9 status without adding additional burden on local staff. o Consider discussing options and details regarding the CRS application process with Christine Shirley (OR State Floodplain Manager) and compare the costs of going through the application process versus the savings in insurance premiums. There may also be local organizations or volunteers willing to help the City complete the application process. o More information can be acquired online; including a brochure, fact sheets, and additional resources to be distributed to staff and additional agencies: https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insu rance-program-community-rating- system 5. Add potential open space preservation areas within the north segment of the City where floodways are identified as wide and potential contributors to flooding and flood effects. o Consider using zoning overlays or conservation easements to protect the floodway. Designating formal areas of open space in the floodplain will ensure that future development in the floodplain does not take place. o Consider identifying and including potential incentives with planning mechanisms to encourage open space preservation and decreased development in flood prone areas. o Oregon Parks and Recreation Department has a Local Government Grant Program that could be an additional funding source. More information can be accessed at: https://www.oregon.gov/oprd/G RANTS/pages/local.aspx#Local_Government_Gr ant-Program Page 1 18 6. Determine if the pinch point at the Antelope Creek Bridge is enough of a concern to warrant the investigation of potential solutions to relieve the pinch point. o Could the foundation walls for the bridge be removed or changed to better allow flow of the creek during high water events? o Could regular maintenance be done to remove debris in/near the river so it does not collect at the foundation of the bridge during a flood event? Page 1 19 I Appendix A. STARR Interview and Field Visit Notes Eagle Point Conducted a phone interview on July 19, 2016 with Mike Upston, City Planning Director (he was unavailable to meet in person when field visit was conducted). Notes from discussion: • The 2012 Jackson County hazard mitigation plan mentioned few concerns expressed by Eagle Point, are these concerns still applicable? o Integrate HMP into other mechanisms: This hasn't been done yet. Don't currently have resources to make updates but when we are eventually able to update the comprehensive plan we plan to integrate the HMP. Our comprehensive plan is old but we would need a consultant or a grant to help us undertake that update process. o NFIP compliance - outreach and enforce: we are good at enforcing but we could stand to improve more on the outreach side. We have 2 feet of freeboard in our ordinance. o Encourage participation in CRS: Realistically we don't have the staff to work towards achieving CRS or maintain our status if we got that far. I do recall a floodplain management group was created to talk through flood issues and they created a sub-group to focus on CRS but haven't heard anything come out of that lately. o Promote use of flood prone areas for open space or wetlands for flood storage: There are areas in the north segment of the City where the floodway is wide and would be good for this, but we don't expect development in these areas so it's not been worth the trouble of a formal designation. Our growth is focused outside of the floodplain. o Protect city facilities in flood prone areas: This is mostly streets and parks. The southwestern segment of Little Butte Creek is the most floodprone, has a wide floodplain. Public Works projects have mitigated the stormwater system, helping with this. o Stormwater management: Rob Miller is our Public Works Director and he oversees the Stormwater Management plan and program. A lot of improvements have been made since he took that position, most of the problems that caused previous flood issues have been resolved by the work Rob has overseen. • I found that the City of Eagle Point received federal funding after the 1997 flood for the acquisition of 3 homes and elevation of 5 homes, totaling $233,167. Was that project a success? Have you considered any other grants? There were projects after the 1997 flood, was before my time. We looked into acquiring some property along the creek but the owner isn't interested. • What areas cause the most concern regarding flooding? Little Butte Creek and Buchanan Ditch. There are irrigation ditches that may be prone to flooding. Buchanan ditch overflows occasionally, so Public Works has been cutting vegetation in the ditch to allow flow and also installed some structures to help with flooding so these issues have been minimized. We'd like to increase public access and parks along the creek. Hamesh Wayside Park in the southwestern part of town floods every year and was designed and built with this in mind so no issues. On the western side of Hwy 62 there are wetlands near Walmart, probably because of Buchanan Ditch. In 2004, Shasta Avenue flooded but recent stormwater improvements fixed that issue so it shouldn't happen again. • Do you feel that citizens understand the City's flood risk? Yes. Many along the river ask questions and do well with NFIP compliance. • Does the City have funding that could be put toward mitigation efforts? How does the City typically fund flood reduction projects? Not really, we would need grants. Photos taken by Stacy Wright during field visit: » N . r ' ~ ~ k 1 • 'tom - R ~ .-1 \t~Y ~ ~ ~!r. n1 Fe. as t ~h ~.7v+ti~ " t' 6 Y 7 . 3 r ski, .149 E I J y 5 a'" ro- Jill jT ~ ~ ' 1 t Lk t t t r'Ca ~sr`. 1)J~ti F y py F j I Ji w ~ 1. 1• w YYYry"1 ~ ~ ~3~, .w,±n 4 r . . ♦ ~ ~ ~ y . 117, lo~. a *1 f psi ~ ~ -'~i ~ ~x` F^ ~ r f. ,4 y- e e p ~V .64. .M r it R ar' .4 j kv, I i I i i A fem.. tl +F N ~ . t > s- r ?4y a ~ r OAS j1,'. ,,ter _ ; •3F~ p.~ 4 ,Y% „ .~e~-- a ~ ~ - _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,j~F z 1w a b ~ q s. A yy ~ ~ E ~ { i ' ~ _ Q ~4 ~ Y ~11t { # y 9 L ~ s _ d a ~ ~.rr13 4 y ` y ice, 'Y..~~_~z' s . ~ w. ~ ~ ~I s r~ 1 f t _ ~n~" `+~sa L y F~ dr' ll' ~ t 4 'fit ! ~ 7+1d `~r. ~ ~ ~ ~ • ; :fit: ~ f. ' ' i a MEN sy, Y t d. ~ Y dkY 1 i ~'.i r: - Shady Cove Meeting at Shady Cove City Hall on July 13, 2016. In attendance: Aaron Prunty, City Administrator; Debby Jermain, City Planning Technician; Stacy Wright, STARR II; and Steve Lucker, Floodplain/Natural Hazards Mapping Specialist/OR Risk MAP Coordinator, Oregon Dept. of Land Conservation and Development Notes from discussion: • The 2012 Jackson County hazard mitigation plan mentioned few concerns expressed by Shady Cove, are these concerns still applicable? o NFIP and HMA workshops needed: Debby has been attending recent trainings offered by Christine Shirley from the State. Training has been helpful, eager to get more training. Funding is an issue, would need scholarships to attend trainings out of town, City does not have funding to send people. o Encourage property owners to restore natural systems and manage riparian areas (riparian ordinance): Riparian ordinance passed in June 2016, so now meeting the requirement but it was not something we wanted to do or would have done had it not been required. We adjusted the template to create something we could live with. o Stormwater BMPs for water quality: Some has been done through local TMDL efforts but no ongoing efforts currently. Local engineer determined that the open ditch systems we currently have work well because they naturally treat water. The Stormwater plan developed in the 199os still works for us. o NFIP compliance: We continue to work on this, and we've come a long way in the last few years. Dick Converse has done a good job as our Floodplain Administrator. Our biggest issue is that its hard to see violations, you pretty much need to float down the river and see the properties from the river to identify issues. There are a few locals who float it occasionally and report anything they see to us. • What do you feel is the biggest flood-related issue facing the City? Dam Break. If the Lost Creek Dam fails, the Corps showed us maps that indicated the whole City would be under loo feet of water in an hour. We asked for that data but have not been able to get it. If the dam were to break, the current procedure would be that the Corps would call the County Sherriff and it would take some time for them to get here and start getting people to move. Not a very good scenario. • Do you feel that citizens understand the City's flood risk? Core people (especially people along the river) know the risk but outside of that group they probably don't know that much. • Does the City have any hazard mitigation projects that are either in progress or are planned for the future? Our focus has really been compliance with the NFIP in recent years. • Does the City have funding that could put toward mitigation efforts? Not really, not sure how we would do that. • Is there any sort of technical assistance or training that you would be interested in getting from FEMA in the future? Scholarships to attend more training • Options for communicating an evacuation order-Siren? Reverse 911? Reverse 911 is not popular in this area, you have to opt in and a lot of residents don't like this option. The City does own its own radio station. EAS system was recently upgraded to the latest technology. There is a lack of coordination with the local Fire District, they could potentially broadcast an announcement blast during evacuation. Also need 2-way communication at City Hall, which serves as EOC. • Another concern is wildfire. The City does not have a municipal water system so we would need hydrants to fight wildfire. • Steve indicated that HMGP funds are currently available and wondered if those could potentially be used to fund an evacuation siren system and/or hydrants for fire fighting. (Note: Steve spoke with Christine Shirley at the CCO public meeting later this evening about this possibility and she seem open to the idea.) Photos taken by Stacy Wright during field visit: ROGUE RIVER JACKSON COUNTY II % .l 20 ,x r ~C ' yam. ~ d y ,y y~ r''`~f .zwu: ifs . i ~ _ a!... iMw ° " .~.niataiC:. ~ i ~ 'T 1.: ~y 4- ~ z ~ ~ <,~"''fir`. d.~ ~sy a3!l81aD8d , 3smaa woae aNiawnr ao ~xiAia y . - ras.~"~ ~ ~ f y ~ ~ - - - -t~ ' `r ~ - ,Y n ` g . . } _ _ t, S. J! m ~ . eq Y f ~a . ~ -~Y ~ ~t' } ~ s~ f ~r , - - ~ ~ - n ~ ~ ~ t \ ~ 4 ' ; ~ > r - , a Y._. ~ -~;;t a - - - - ~ _ w ~ ~ f. y. - Y~e ~ ~E~~~..i:-a ~ t, ~ u X- ~ I ,yr:• i s, .i. ,may ~a .ti i'si3~YEL.'' r, r , - Twr- M i ai.. - r-. x,:. a r' ~~i Jackson County Meeting at Phil's Frosty in Shady Cove on July 13, 2o16. In attendance: Mike Mattson, Jackson County Development STARR II; and Steve Lucker FloodPlain/Natural Hazards Services; Stacy Wright, Mapping Specialist/OR Risk MAP Coordinator, Oregon Dept. of Land Conservation and Development Discussed the scope of this project, as well as the items specifically mentioned in the Shady Cove interview which had just taken place. Mike indicated that he had also tried to obtain the Corps of Engineers inundation data for potential dam failure but so far has been unsuccessful. He indicated that Shady Cove had indeed made improvements regarding NFIP compliance and said the hiring of Dick Converse with the City had improved the situation. Mike provided historical Shady Cove flooding photos for use in the body of this document and offered historical information for the area. Appendix B. Data Used In Analysis The following pages detail the GIs data used for this analysis. This data is provided electronically to accompany this document. i` Page 1 of I Layers Sources Documentation for D: \GIS\UpperRogue\Mxd \ShadyCove_taxiots_SFHA.mxd Date: Monday, August 29, 2016 Time: 10:51:57 PM Data Layers Frame Name Description Spatial GCS_NAD_1983-NSRS2007 Reference 1. Data Source: D:\GIS\UpperRogue\Data Ferrin\Preliminary Mailing Disc\DFIRM_DB Source Layers MaxScale MinScale Label DefinitionExpr Name S-Pol-Ar 1. S_Pol_Ar 0 0 false "POL-NAME1" _ 'City of 2. S-Pol-Ar 0 0 false Shady Cove' "POL-NAME1" _ 'City of Shady Cove' S-Trnsport_Ln I1. 0 0 true S_Trnsport _Ln 2. Data Source: D:\GIS\UpperRogue\Data_]acksonCounty\2015_04_30\Taxlots Source Layers MaxScale MinScale Label DefinitionExpr Name Taxlots 1. Taxlots 0 0 false in SFHA 0 0 false 2. Taxlots 3. Data Source: O:\EM\Hazard_Mitigation \RiskMAP\2012 Region X Upper Rogue AOMI\Data from Ferrin Affleck\UpperRogueDB Source Layers MaxScale MinScale Label DefinitionExpr Name ZONE" S Fld Haz Ar 1. SFHA 0 0 false "FLD EZONE" _ AOR "FLD - ,A, file:///D:/GIS/UpperRogue/N4xd/XRay/ShadyCove_taxiots_SFHA XRayLayerSources.htm 8/29/2016 Page 1 of 2 Layers Sources Documentation for D:\GIS\UpperRogue\Mxd\ShadyCove_taxlots_CSLF_decrease.mxd Date: Monday, August 29, 2016 Time: 10:49:59 PM Data Frame Layers Name Description Spatial GCS_NAD_1983_NSRS2007 Reference 1. Data Source: D:\GIS\UpperRogue\Data Ferrin\Preliminary Mailing Disc\DFIRM_DB Source Layers MaxScale MinScale Label DefinitionExpr Name S_Pol_Ar 1. S_Pol_Ar 0 0 false "POL_NAME1" = 'City of Shady 2. S_Pol_Ar 0 0 false Cove' "POL_NAME1" = 'City of Shady Cove' S Trnsport_Ln 1. 0 0 true S_Trnsport_Ln 2. Data Source: D:\GIS\UpperRogue\Data Ferrin\Preliminary Mailing Disc\DRAFT Floodrisk_Database\DRAFT_UpperRogue_FRD.gdb\FRD_Spatial_Layers Source Layers MaxScale MinScale Label DefinitionExpr Name S_CSLF_Ar 1. 0 0 false SFHACHG = 'D' S_CSLF_Ar D 3. Data Source: D:\GIS\UpperRogue\Data_JacksonCounty\2015_04_30\Taxlots Source Layers MaxScale MinScale Label DefinitionExpr Name Taxlots 1. Taxlots 0 0 false in SFHA 0 0 false Decrease 2. Taxlots 4. Data Source: 0:\EM\Hazard_Mitigation\RiskMAP\2012 Region X Upper Rogue AOMI\Data from Ferrin Affleck\UpperRogueDB Source Layers MaxScale MinScale Label DefinitionExpr Name file:///D:/GIS/UpperRogue/Mxd/XRay/ShadyCove_taxlots_CSLF_decrease_XRayLayerS... 8/29/2016 Page 2 of 2 S_Fid_Haz_Ar I. SFHA IO IO Ifalse I FLD_ZONE" _ 'A' OR "FLD_ZONE" _ lAEl file:///D:/GIS/UpperRogue/Mxd/XRay/ShadyCove_taxlots_CSLF_decrease_XRayLayerS... 8/29/2016 Page I of 1 Layers Sources Documentation for D:\GIS\UpperRogue\Mxd\EaglePoint taxlots_SFHA.mxd Date: Monday, August 29, 2016 Time: 10:27:43 PM Data Layers Frame Name Description Spatial GCS-NAD_1983_NSRS2007 Reference 1. Data Source: D:\GIS\UpperRogue\Data Ferrin\Preliminary Mailing Disc\DFIRM_DB Source Layers MaxScale MinScale Label DefinitionExpr Name S_Pol_Ar 1. S-Pol-Ar 0 0 false "POL-NAME1" = 'City of Eagle Point' S_Trnsport_Ln 1. 0 0 true S_Trnsport_Ln 2. Data Source: D:\GIS\UpperRogue\Data_Atkins\New File Geodatabase.gdb Source Name Layers MaxScale MinScale Label DefinitionExpr Taxlots_EaglePoint 1. 0 0 false Taxlots 0 0 false in SFHA 2. Taxlots 3. Data Source: O:\EM\Hazard_Mitigation \RiskMAP\2012 Region X Upper Rogue AOMI\Data from Ferrin Affleck\UpperRogueDB Source Layers MaxScale MinScale Label DefinitionExpr Name S Fld Haz Ar 1. SFHA 0 0 false "FLD ZONE" = 'A' OR "FLD ZONE" - - AE, - file:///D:/GIS/UpperRogue/Mxd/XRay/EaglePoint-taxlots-SFHA_XRayLayerSources.htm 8/29/2016 Page I of I Layers Sources Documentation for D:\GIS\UpperRogue\Mxd\EaglePoint_taxlots_CSLF_decrease.mxd Date: Monday, August 29, 2016 Time: 10:26:11 PM Data Frame Layers Name Description Spatial GCS_NAD_1983_NSRS2007 Reference 1. Data Source: D:\GIS\UpperRogue\Data Ferrin\Preliminary Mailing Disc\DFIRM_DB Source Name Layers MaxScale MinScale Label DefinitionExpr S_Pol_Ar 1. S_Pol_Ar 0 0 false "POL_NAMEl" = 'City of Eagle Point' S_Trnsport_Ln 1. 0 0 true S Trnsport _Ln 2. Data Source: D:\GIS\UpperRogue\Data Ferrin\Preliminary Mailing Disc\DRAFT_Floodrisk_Database\DRAFT_UpperRogue_FRD.gdb\FRD_Spatial_Layers Source Name Layers MaxScale MinScale Label DefinitionExpr S CSLF Ar 1. S CSLF Ar 0 0 false SFHACHG = 'D' D 3. Data Source: D:\GIS\UpperRogue\Data Ferrin\UpperRogue_AOMI_UTM 30_utm.gdb\UpperRogue_FRD_UTM10_utm.gdb\FRD_Spatial_Layers Source Name Layers MaxScale MinScale Label DefinitionExpr 5 AOMI Pt 1. S AOMI Pt 0 0 false 4. Data Source: D:\GIS\UpperRogue\Data_Atkins\New File Geodatabase.gdb Source Name Layers MaxScale MinScale Label DefinitionExpr Taxlots_EaglePoint 1. Taxlots In 0 0 false SFHA 0 0 false Decrease 2. Taxlots 5. Data Source: O:\EM\Hazard_Mitigation \RiskMAP\2012 Region X Upper Rogue AOMI\Data from Ferrin Affleck\pinch points shapefile Source Name Layers MaxScale Min Scale Label DefinitionExpr Upper Rogue 1. Upper Rogue lo 0 true Pinch Points Pinch Points 6. Data Source: O:\EM\Hazard_Mitigation \RiskMAP\2012 Region X Upper Rogue AOMI\Data from Ferrin Affleck\UpperRogueDB Source Name Layers MaxScale MinScale Label DefinitionExpr S_Fld_Haz_Ar 1. SFHA 0 0 false "FLD_ZONE" = 'A' OR "FLD_ZONE" = 'AE' file:///D:/GIS/1JpperRogue/Mxd/XRay/EaglePoint taxlots_CSLF_decrease_XRayLayerSo... 8/29/2016 Page I of 2 Layers Sources Documentation for D: \GIS\UpperRogue\Mxd \EaglePoint_pinchpoints.mxd Date: Monday, August 29, 2016 Time: 10:28:49 PM Data Layers FI rame Name Description Spatial GCS_NAD_1983_NSRS2007 Reference 1. Data Source: Basemap Source Name Layers ~IMaxScale MinScale Label DefinitionExpr BingMapsHybrid 1. 0 0 false 1 IBingMapsHybrid 2. Data Source: D:\GIS\UpperRogue\Data Ferrin\Preliminary Mailing Disc\DFIRM_DB Source Layers MaxScale MinScale Label DefinitionExpr Name j S_Pol_Ar ,1. S_Pol_Ar 0 0 false "POL_NAME1" _ 'City of Eagle I- Point' ~S_T~ rnsport-Ln 1. 0 0 false S_Trnsport_Ln 3. Data Source: 0:\EM\Hazard_Mitigation\RiskMAP\2012 Region X Upper Rogue AOMI\Data from Ferrin Affleck\UpperRogueDB Source Layers MaxScale MinScale Label DefinitionExpr Name IS Fld Haz Ar 1. SFHA 0 0 false "FLD_ZONE" _ 'A' OR "FLD_ZONE" _ 'AE' Data New Data Frame ;Frame (Name (Description Spatial GCS_NAD_1983_NSRS2007 Reference file:///D:/GIS/UpperRogue/Mxd/XRay/EaglePoint_pinchpoints-XRayLayerSources.htm 8/29/2016 Page 2 of 2 1. Data Source: Basemap Source Name Layers MaxScale MinScale Label DefinitionExpr BingMapsHybrid 11. 0 0 false BingMapsHybrid 2. Data Source: D:\GIS\UpperRogue\Data Ferrin\Preliminary Mailing Disc\DFIRM_DB Source Layers MaxScale MinScale Label DefinitionExpr Name S_Pol_Ar 1. S_Pol_Ar 0 0 false "POL_NAME1" = 'City of Eagle Point' S Trnsport_Ln 1. 0 0 false S_Trnsport_Ln 3. Data Source: O:\EM\Hazard_Mitigation \RiskMAP\2012 Region X Upper Rogue AOMI\Data from Ferrin Affleck\UpperRogueDB Source Layers MaxScale MinScale Label DefinitionExpr Name S_Fld_Haz_Ar 1. SFHA 0 0 false "FLD_ZONE" _ 'A' OR "FLD_ZONE" _ 'AE' file:///D:/GIS/UpperRogue/Mxd/XRay/EaglePoint_pinchpoints_XRayLayerSources.htm 8/29/2016 RESOLUTION NO. 2018- 16 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S REPRESENTATION IN THE UPDATES TO THE JACKSON COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL NATURAL HAZARDS MITIGATION PLAN RECITALS: A. The City of Ashland recognizes the threat that natural hazards pose to people, property and infrastructure within our community; and B. Undertaking hazard mitigation actions will reduce the potential for harm to people, property and infrastructure from future hazard occurrences; and C. An adopted Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan is required as a condition of future funding for mitigation projects under multiple FEMA pre- and post-disaster mitigation grant programs; and D. The City of Ashland has fully participated in the FEMA prescribed mitigation planning process to prepare the Jackson County, Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, which has established a comprehensive, coordinated planning process to eliminate or minimize these vulnerabilities; and E. The City of Ashland has identified natural hazard risks and prioritized a number of proposed actions and programs needed to mitigate the vulnerabilities of the City of Ashland to the impacts of future disasters within the Jackson County, Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan; and F. These proposed projects and programs have been incorporated into the Jackson County, Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan that has been prepared and promulgated for consideration and implementation by the cities of Jackson County; and G. The Oregon Office of Emergency Management and Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region X officials have reviewed the Jackson County, Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan and pre-approved it as of, March 30, 2018 contingent upon the official adoption of all participating governments and entities; and H. The Jackson County, Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan is comprised of three volumes: Volume I -Basic Plan, Volume II - Appendices, and Volume III - City Addenda, collectively referred to herein as the "NHMP"; and 1. The NHMP is in an on-going cycle of development and revision to improve its effectiveness; and J. The City of Ashland adopts the NHMP and directs the Mayor to develop, approve, and implement the mitigation strategies and any administrative changes to the NHMP. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the City of Ashland adopts the Jackson County Multi- Jurisdictional Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan as an official plan. A copy of the plan is attached Resolution No. 2018- Page I of 2 hereto as Exhibit A; and SECTION 2. Be it further resolved, that the City of Ashland will submit this Resolution adopting the Jackson County Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan to the Oregon Office of Emergency Management and Federal-Emergency Management Agency, Region X officials to enable final approval of the Jackson County. Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazards Mifi ag tion Plan. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2018, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Melissa Huhtala, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 2018. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David H. Lohman, City Attorney 2- Resolution No. 2018- Page 2 of 2 Council Business Meeting May 15, 0: Title: Intergovernmental Agreement with Jackson County to Chip Seal East Main Street and Scenic Drive. From: Avram Biondo Street Supervisor avram.biondo(a~ashland.or.us Paula C. Brown, PE Public Works Director Pau Ia. brown (a-)-ash land. or. us Summary: Before the Council is an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Jackson County to perform grinding, inlay paving, and chip sealing on portions of East Main Street and Scenic Drive. The City of Ashland Street Division does not have the equipment and resources required to perform this work as part of the City's pavement management program. Council previously signed an IGA with Southern Oregon Cooperative (SOC) on January 16. 2018. Due to the scope and the cost of this project, a separate SOC IGA with Jackson County was created specifically for this work (attachment 1) at a cost of $103,576. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: • Move to approve the IGA with the Jackson County Roads Department for grinding, inlay paving and chip seal work. • Direct staff to design and bid this project competitively. • Direct staff to further evaluate the level of treatment required on these streets. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Council approve entering into the IGA to provide these needed pavement maintenance projects. Jackson County's costs are significantly less than expected costs if staff were to bid this project as Jackson County is including the City's work during their mobilization for similar work in the area. Resource Requirements: The cost of this IGA is estimated to be $103,576. The funding is planned and available from the Street Division's infrastructure budget for street repairs and sealing projects. Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: City Council: 1. Leverage our regional and state relationships to increase effectiveness in relevant policy arenas 1.2.a. Develop plan for coordination with Jackson County on county road improvements within City limits. 4. Evaluate real property and facility assets to strategically support city mission and goals. 21. Be proactive in using best practices in infrastructure management and modernization Page 1 of 2 CITY OF -ASHLAND Department Goals: • Maintain existing infrastructure to meet regulatory requirements and minimize life-cycle costs • Maintain and improve infrastructure that enhances the economic vitality of the community • Evaluate all city infrastructure regarding planning management and financial resources Background and Additional Information: Paving maintenance along the East Main corridor from Lithia Way to Walker Ave was previously completed in 1991, 2002, 2004 and 2005. Since then only minimal preventative maintenance and localized repairs have been done throughout the corridor. The Street Division estimates the pavement condition index (PCI) for this corridor at 46 (upper end of "poor"). Scenic Drive has not seen any significant preventative maintenance since sections were overlaid in 1992 and 1998. The Street Division estimates the PCI for this corridor at 54 (lower end of "fair"). Chip sealing is a cost effective, skid resistant, protective wearing layer on top of asphalt. It is accomplished by the application of a thin layer of liquid asphalt covered with 3/8" rock chips. An additional layer of liquid asphalt (fog seal) is then sprayed on top of the chips to help lock them in place and provide an even black color across the roadway. Prior to the chip sealing, failed sections of asphalt will be removed and replaced to prevent further roadway deterioration. The chip seal for these street sections are expected to provide 5-10 years of wearing life before additional maintenance activities will be required. The average life of an asphalt roadway surface is 15-20 years before requiring resurfacing through overlays and complete rehabilitation. Adequate funding is not currently available to provide a complete asphalt overlay of these sections of East Main and Scenic Drive, which would also require Americans with Disability (ADA) improvements to all of the curb ramps. Funds have been budgeted to provide a chip seal that will provide an acceptable wearing surface, improve the PCI index by 15-20%, and maintain the roadway until such time in the future when a full overlay and ADA improvements can be made. The chip seal treatment will bring East Main, classified as an "avenue" to "fair' condition (OCI of -55) which is marginally within the recommended street condition rating. Scenic is classified as a neighborhood collector and the chip seal treatment will bring the street condition to the upper "fair" rating (OCI of -64), well within the desired classifications. Timing: The County will work with City street crews to complete the grinding and inlay sections in Jun 2018 and plan to complete the chip seal in mid-July. The County will start with E. Main Street and plans to also do the County's jurisdictional section to the south of Walker Street first, then continue with Scenic. Attachments: Intergovernmental Agreement with Jackson County Map of East Main Street Work Area Map of Scenic Drive Work Area Page 2 of 2 C I T Y O F ASHLAND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT Between Jackson County and City of Ashland For Chip Sealing, Asphalt Grinding, and Inlay Services within the CITY OF ASHLAND PARTIES This agreement is made and entered into by and between JACKSON COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon (herein referred to as "COUNTY") and the CITY OF ASHLAND, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon (herein referred to as "CITY") and sets forth the terms under which COUNTY will perform chip sealing and fog sealing (herein referred to as chip sealing), asphalt grinding (herein referred to as grinding), and inlay patching of ground areas (herein referred to as inlay) at certain paved areas of E Main ST and Scenic ST. County and City are herein individually referred to as the "Party" and collectively referred to as the "Parties." STATUTORY AUTHORITY 1. In accordance with and pursuant to the provisions of ORS Chapter 190, entitled INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION, the COUNTY is authorized to jointly provide for the performance of a function or activity in cooperation with a unit of local government that includes a city or other governmental authority in Oregon. By acceptance of this Agreement, CITY certifies that it meets the above criteria for eligibility for such cooperation with COUNTY. 2. As a result of this Agreement and pursuant to ORS 190.030, any unit of local government consolidated department, intergovernmental entity or administrative officers designated herein to perform specified functions or activities is vested with all powers, rights, and duties relating to those functions and activities that are vested by law in each separate party to the Agreement, its officers and agencies. RECITALS 1. WHEREAS, the CITY desires to contract with the COUNTY for the provision of chip sealing, grinding, and inlay services at certain paved surfaces within the CITY; and 2. WHEREAS, the COUNTY has the resources to provide chip sealing, grinding, and inlay services to the CITY; and. 3. WHEREAS, the parties are authorized to enter into such agreements pursuant to chapter 190 of the Oregon Revised Statues. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions contained herein, it is mutually agreed by and between the COUNTY and the CITY as follows: 1 1. Chip sealing Grinding and Inlay Services. The COUNTY shall provide to the CITY chip sealing, grinding, and inlay services. Services consist of the provision of all required equipment, operators, laborers, materials, and other resources to provide these services. Services shall be provided within city limits of the CITY on E Main ST and Scenic DR. The COUNTY and the CITY agree this work will be billed as Time and Materials. See APPENDIX A. 1.1. Scope of Services. The COUNTY agrees to grind and inlay approx. 1,210 linear feet of asphalt on E Main ST between Lithia WY and Walker AVE. The COUNTY agrees to grind approx. 310' full lane width on E Main ST. The COUNTY agrees to Chip Seal approx. 9,900 FT of roadway on E Main ST between Lithia WY and Walker AVE and on Scenic ST between Nutley ST and Wimer ST. 1.2. Schedule of Services. The COUNTY agrees to provide services to the CITY as necessary to complete the work by June 30th 2019. 1.3. Notification. The COUNTY shall provide at least 7 days' notice to the CITY before starting work and receive verbal or written approval from the CITY prior to starting. 1.4. Payment. In consideration of the services to be provided by the COUNTY to the CITY, the CITY agrees to make payment to the COUNTY within 30 days of receipt of an invoice. 2. Compensation 2.1. The COUNTY shall submit billings to the CITY for actual costs of materials, equipment and labor incurred for work performed under this Agreement. Upon completion of project, billings shall be submitted within thirty (30) working days. Billings shall be in a form acceptable to the CITY and documented in such a manner as to be easily verified. The CITY shall reimburse the COUNTY within 30 days of receipt of invoice. 2.2. Billing. The CITY shall be billed within 30 days of completion of services. Payments shall be due within 30 days after invoicing by the COUNTY. Billings shall be submitted to: City of Ashland 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 3. General Provisions 3.1. The COUNTY shall be responsible exclusively with respect to its employees for providing for employment-related benefits and deductions that are required by law, including, but not limited to, federal and state income tax deductions, workers compensation coverage, and PERS contributions. Nothing in this Agreement is intended or shall be construed to create the relationship of employer and employee as between the COUNTY and the CITY. 3.2. The Parties hereto agree that if any term or provision of this Agreement is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, unenforceable, illegal, or in conflict with any law, the validity of the remaining terms and provisions shall not be affected, and the 2 rights and obligations of the Parties shall be construed and enforced as if the Agreement did not contain the particular term or provision held to be invalid. 4. Termination 4.1. Without Cause. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual consent of the parties or by either party upon thirty (30) days written notice and delivered by certified mail or in person. 4.2. For Cause. The COUNTY or the CITY may terminate or modify this Agreement, in whole or in part, effective upon delivery of written notice to the other party or at such later date as may be established by Parties under any of the following conditions: i. If the COUNTY or the CITY funding from federal, state, local or other sources is not obtained and continued at levels sufficient to allow for the performance of the Agreement; ii. If federal or state regulations or guidelines are modified, changed, or interpreted in such a way that the performance is no longer allowable or appropriate or are no longer eligible for the funding proposed for activities authorized by this Agreement. 4.3. For Default or Breach. i. Either the COUNTY or the CITY may terminate this Agreement in the event of a breach of the Agreement by the other part. Prior to such termination, the party seeking termination shall give to the other party written notice of the breach and intent to terminate. If the party committing the breach has not entirely cured the breach within fifteen (15) days of the date of the notice or within such other period as the party giving the notice may authorize or require, then the Agreement may be terminated at any time thereafter by a written notice of termination by the party giving notice. ii. The rights and remedies of the COUNTY provided in this subsection are not exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement. 4.4. Obligation /Liability of Parties: L Termination or modification of this Agreement pursuant to subsections 4.1, 4.2, or 4.3 above shall be without prejudice to any obligations or liabilities of either party already accrued prior to such termination or modification. 5. Modification No Assignment Construction Effective Date 5.1. This Agreement may be amended, by written amendment and included as part of the Agreement when properly signed by the parties. 3 5.2. The COUNTY shall not assign or otherwise transfer its interest in this Agreement. 5.3. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon. 5.4. This Agreement shall not become effective until both parties hereto have executed this Agreement. 6. Insurance 6.1. The COUNTY, its subcontractors, if any, and all employers working under this Agreement are subject employers under the Oregon Workers' Compensation Law and shall comply with ORS 656.017, which requires them to provide workers' compensation coverage for all their subject workers. 6.2. Each party's insurance shall provide primary coverage responsibility for its own employees and agents when in the course of performing work under this Agreement for which a claim arises. 7. Limitations of Liability. The parties agree that each party shall not be subject to claim, action or liability arising in any manner whatsoever out of any act or omission, interruption or cessation of services by the other party under this Agreement. Each party shall not be liable or responsible for-any direct, indirect, special or consequential damages sustained by the other party to this Agreement, including, but not limited to, delay or interruption of business activities that may result in any manner whatsoever from any act or omission, interruption or cessation of services. 8. Indemnification. Subject to the limitations and conditions of the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 et seq., and Article XI, Section 10 of the Oregon Constitution, each party to this Agreement shall be solely responsible for its own actions and/or failure to act and shall indemnify and hold the other party harmless from any claims, litigation, and/or liability arising from a party's acts or omissions under this agreement and including any and all claims arising from the level of service afforded under the Maintenance Plan pursuant to the Agreement. The provisions of this paragraph shall survive the expiration or sooner termination of this Agreement. 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereby enter into this Agreement. Each party, by signature below of its authorized representative, hereby acknowledges that it has read this Agreement, understands it, and agrees to be bound by its terms and conditions. Each person signing this Agreement represents and warrants to have authority to execute this Agreement. JACKSON COUNTY OREGON CITY OF ASHLAND OREGON Printed Name Date City Council Date Title APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Printed Name Date Printed Name Date Title Title 5 IGA APPENDIX A Estimate By JACKSON COUNTY OREGON ROADS DATE: 03/20/2018 Estimate For: City of Ashland This is an Estimate -Actual Cost Will Be Billed i Description of Services: Chip and fog seal E. Main and Scenic, Grind and Inlay on E. Main and Grind an area for the city Quantity Description Cost 25,233 sq yrds Chip seal E. Main fog line to fog line and Scenic @ $2.95 sq yrds 74,437.00 32,255 sq yrds Fog seal E. Main and Scenic @ $0.30 sq yrds 9,676.00 Grind and inlay on E. Main 4" deep at $175 a ton 17,813.00 308'xl3'x3.5" 4 hours with grinder, the dump trucks and operators 1,650.00 NOTE: This estimate is NOT an order for work to be done. To schedule this job please contact your estimator. ESTIMATE TOTAL: $103,576.00 Questions regarding this estimate should be directed to: JACKSON COUNTY ROADS 200 Antelope Road White City OR 97503 (541)774-8184 ~G ti Estimated By: Jeff Pruitt Jackson County Chip Seal East Main Street; Lithia Way to Walker Ave ~j , 1 ri IT g" -L ILI ccr- MIZJ 1,71 (`~Y J,tl~r_'~ IVY' ~(f````' i~1%~~ / =+rrr 1 £~tI , `?7r' m -1 F err ~r 1~`~` Q~v Aida 'I~ Mss ! f a JIL rdr - S1 7 o m ' ao ~ D l t/( C r y V•ialkcr - I iS~ a Jackson County Chip Seal Scenic Drive; Wimer Street to Strawberry Lane k F I_:•~In tllll nll.. I 1 I ~1 r y-J 47 01 EE'MB i•-.. f r ~ L Y •..ti it t 1 / ~~r L~1J = -S ~ 1~r ` ~kf r°:`.- I% ir''+J +~s$M1._,~... e _ r 1+r ! r - 1 ~ _ 'S~ i'ns' r )r?=.~{{ y ~~f/ ~J~~rly~ J ~ S) I ' f ~~'~f' t F 2--'' r rr /`rte ~ZZ//--,/,~;'!_1 irl r ! 'tr' ~t \ti .M1?." . i>~,~y- L, r r' +r 7 ! J 1 ;~i ! r % ry.\ , ' ly ~ ~ .k't1 I r}`• ~ ~ ~ err f 1 /T\ . N ntos:n if I~ t ~I~~r-• n n/ 1\ f~\f~.~` ~,y~.(~ ~,.~%~r•~•1 ~~~>ti ~L~ -•j t,, J[i?f `•~f rti~~~.~.~, ' X rr IrF. f1"lti 4' /S 1 <ti V%. 5 J\n. Syr t F-hld ~,Lfl„'Lxfr`r ~j r✓ ~ 1~~~~l~xt , ,1`~'~ s~'r` ~j~ ~ r~ f F'ar4; tit, i~ ~ ` ~ 4/:/. _ '--~1 _ J `J~J/},{Jy~~J `f 114 ` _ r CA 1 2 ' Theatre ICI X- J! r - } ~ r 'tee, 41 ~ _ f ..~-4~"'-x f ~ l J1 ~ \i r~ ~ Y~ ~ ~l~ ~ rf f 1rf ~ j J `yy ~F-r e 1 Council Business Meeting May 15, 0: Title: 475 E. Nevada St. Rezoning From: Bill Molnar Director of Community Development bill. molnar(d)-ashland.or.us Derek Severson Senior Planner derek.severson(a)-ashland.or.us Summary: At the March 20, 2017 business meeting the Council continued a land use public hearing and first reading of an ordinance for a proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change for the properties located at 475 East Nevada Street. The continuation was to allow time for the applicants and staff to meet and discuss issues raised by Council during the hearing. The issues raised were largely focused on affordability requirements. Staff and the applicants have met to discuss the issues raised, and the applicants have made some modifications to their previous proposal. In its present form, the application requests only two exceptions: 1) To the requirement that the affordable units be comprised of a comparable mix of unit types to the market rate units (18.5.8.050.G.3.b); and 2) To the requirement that the affordable units not be distributed throughout the project (as required in 18.5.8.050.G.5). With regard to 41, relative to the mix of unit types, the applicants argue that attached units are more affordable to construct and have lower energy and maintenance costs over the long-term for residents. In staff s assessment, the "unit type" requirement is not based on attached versus detached units but number of bedrooms, and as long as the number of two- and three-bedroom units is consistent with the overall proportion within the subdivision, no exception is necessary. With regard to 42, relative to clustering, clustering of the four affordable units was supported by the Planning Commission based on an affordable housing provider gaining efficiencies by clustering the affordable units together. In staff's view, given the number of units and size of the proposed subdivision, and the mix of unit types within the immediately surrounding North Mountain neighborhood staff does not believe that clustering poses a concerns. Staff is supportive of this exception. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: The Council can choose to approve the request as recommended by the Planning Commission or with additional conditions and move the ordinance to second reading; refer the action back to the Planning Commission for modifications; or choose not to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map designation and Zoning of the property. The Council will also need to adopt written findings for their decision, and should incorporate the Planning Commission's decision into those findings for concurrent adoption. Staff recommends the following motions: Page 1 of 5 CITY OF ASHLAND o "I move approval of first reading of the ordinance and scheduling of second reading of the ordinance for June 5, 2018"; and o "I move to direct staff to prepare written findings for approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change, and to incorporate the findings for the Planning Commission's decision, for Council adoption on June 5, 2018." Staff Recommendation: Staff concurs with the Planning Commission, and recommends that the request be approved with conditions. As previously noted, at the Planning Commission hearing staff raised two issues that we believe merit Council consideration. As proposed, the project includes a mixture of attached townhomes, single family residences attached at the garages, and detached residences totaling 20 units. Above the garages of the detached residences, three small residential units are proposed as "optional." These could be installed at the individual property owners' discretion, but would not be required. In considering the need for low- and moderately-priced rental and ownership housing in the community, staff believes the Council should consider: 1) Requiring the applicants to construct the three small residential units over the garages currently described as "optional" in the application; and 2) Directing the applicants to look at providing more moderately priced housing by adding some smaller units. This would be permissible under the proposed zoning. In considering the staff recommendations, the Planning Commission found that requiring the applicant to provide additional residential units or smaller units as a condition of approval would fall under the legislative authority of the City Council. The requested zone change results in density increase from 1.2 dwelling units/acre to 12 dwelling units/acre. Staff believes that requiring the three smaller units over the garages proposed as optional would be a valid and timely exercise of the Council's discretion. Resource Requirements: If approved, the project would require staff time to review subsequent applications for Final Plan and Site Design Review and associated engineering drawings and building permits similar to other development applications for vacant properties in the City, as well as inspections by Public Works, Engineering, Planning and Building staff as the project builds out. Staff does not believe that approval would result in workload issues or adversely affect project prioritization. If the adjacent City-owned parcel (Map 04AD Tax Lot #100) is included in the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change as proposed, and development of that property is ultimately pursued, an appraisal would need to be obtained, and there would be expenditures to fully evaluate the site's trees and possible wetland. Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: Council Goals Page 2 of 5 CITY OF ASHLAND 5.2.a Pitt-site affordable housing opportunities, especially workforce housing. Identify specific incentives for developers to build more affordable housing. Comprehensive Plan Elements: Element VI - Housing 6.10 Ensure a variety of dwelling types and provide housing opportunities for the total cross-section ofAshland's population, consistent with preserving the character and appearance of the city. 6J1.1.b Allow a wide variation in site-built housing types through the use of the City's Performance Standards Ordinance. The use of attached housing, small lots and common open spaces shall be used where possible to develop more moderate cost housing and still retain the quality of life consistent with Ashland's character. North Mountain Neighborhood Plan Purpose 18.3.5.010.A This district is designed to provide an environment suitable for traditional neighborhood living, working, and recreation. The NM district and Neighborhood Plan is a blueprint for promoting a variety of housing types, mixed-use developments, neighborhood oriented businesses, and community services in a manner which enhances property values and preserves open spaces and significant natural features. The purpose of the Neighborhood Plan is to provide a comprehensive set of design standards, policies, and regulations to guide future development within the identified area. Through the use of the standards a greater sense of neighborhood can be accomplished, as well as accommodating all forms of transportation, including walking, bicycling, and transit. Backlzround and Additional Information: During the original March 20`x' hearing, the applicants had requested exceptions to a number of the City's affordability requirements, including the clustering of affordable units, timing of affordable unit completion, comparable construction and amenities for affordable units, term of affordability and maximum purchase price. A number of these exceptions were not part of the proposal when it was considered by the Planning Commission. In response to the exceptions requested, Councilors raised a number of issues they indicated needed to be better addressed. The hearing was continued with the understanding that staff and the applicants would meet and attempt to better address these issues prior to continuation of the hearing. Issues Previously Raised & Applicant's Responses 1) Council had questioned whether it would be appropriate to require additional affordable units to offset the request by the applicants to reduce the period of affordability. Page 3 of 5 CITY OF -ASHLAND I I i The applicants are no longer proposing to partner with Rogue Valley Habitat for Humanity and instead propose to construct the affordable units themselves. They will comply with the 60-year term of affordability and provide four units that would be deed restricted to sell or rent to those at or below 60 percent of the area median income (AMI) in keeping with the annexation affordability requirements. 2) Council had questioned whether a 30-year term of affordability instead of 60 years might encourage more affordable housing proposals, and whether the affordable housing numbers relied upon were Ashland-specific or reflective of wages averaged across Jackson County. The applicants have modified their request and are no longer requesting to reduce the required term of affordability or to remove the limits on the resale price of the affordable units. A four-person household earning at the top of the 60 percent AMI level could earn up to $32,340 and would be able to afford an $809 monthly housing cost. A unit targeted to this household could sell for no more than $119,000 to allow the household to qualify for a conventional loan, with principal, interest, taxes and insurance included and five percent down. This number would need to be reduced if there were Home Owners' Association (HOA) dues. In staffs experience, it can be difficult to find purchasers at this income level who qualify for loans - even at 80 percent AMI - if there is not a not- for-profit provider bringing some level of subsidy to the table. As such, the applicants are leaving the option open that these units could be offered for rent or for sale. 3) Council had inquired into the logistics of the proposal in the event that the applicants ultimately had to build the housing themselves, rather than relying on a non-profit partner. As currently proposed, the applicants would construct the units which would be deed restricted to sell or rent to those at or below 60 percent AMI. The City of Ashland's Housing Program would handle the income qualification process for potential renters or buyers. 4) Councilor had questioned whether the applicants would be willing to incorporate "universal design" or "life-long housing" certification for at least some of the proposed units. The Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG) has a local "Lifelong Housing Certification" program which addresses universal design where the physical layout and features of the home are accessible and support aging in place as residents may experience disabling conditions which impact their daily lives. The program involves building units based on a checklist of qualifying design elements for accessibility, and includes required and optional measures for three levels of certification. The inspections necessary to certify units cost roughly $150, with an additional $35 charged for formal certification. Certification can be noted as an amenity in the local Multiple Listing Page 4 of 5 CITY OF ASHLAND Service (MLS) listing when the property is advertised for sale. The applicants have indicated they are aware of this program; program information from RVCOG is attached for Council information. Some units in Twin Creeks, a transit oriented development in Central Point, are being built under this program, and it is staff's understanding that at least one Ashland building contractor is a "Certified Aging in Place Specialist. " While it is not a requirement for annexations in the land use ordinance, staff believes that the Council has sufficient discretion for annexation requests to require certification of some or all of the proposed units should it choose to do so. Attachments: 1. Ordinance 2. Ordinance Exhibit A Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 3. Ordinance Exhibit B Zone Change 4. Council minutes for the March 20th hearing (Council packet materials for the March 20th hearing are available on-line at: https://www.ashland.or.us/SIB/files/032018 475 Nevada Rezone(1 ).pdf. The video of the hearing is on-line at : http://vp.teivue.com/player?chapter=134653&id=TO1550) 5. Applicants Revised Findings submitted April 19, 2018 6. Lifelong Housing Certification program information Page 5 of 5 CITY OF ASHLAND ORDINANCE NO. 3152 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION AND ZONING FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 475 EAST NEVADA STREET WHEREAS, Article 2. Section I of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS, Tax lots #1100, 1200 and 1300 of Map 39 I E 04A and Tax Lot #100 of Map 39 I E 04AD are located at 475 East Nevada Street, and the portions of those properties presently within the city limits have a Comprehensive Plan Map designation of "Single Family Reserve" and a Zoning Map designation of "Rural Residential (RR-.5-P)." WHEREAS, the owners of the properties have requested a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment from "Single Family Reserve" to "North Mountain Neighborhood Plan" and Zone Change from "Rural Residential (RR-.5-P)" to "North Mountain Multi-Family(NM-MF)" for those portions of their properties at 475 East Nevada Street located within the city limits, as illustrated in the attached Exhibit A and Exhibit B. WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above referenced Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change at a duly advertised public hearing on January 9, 2018, and following deliberations recommended approval of the request by a vote of 7- 0; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above referenced Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change at a duly advertised public hearing on March 20, 2018; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to Page l of 2 amend the Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map in the manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The officially adopted City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map, referenced in Ashland Comprehensive Plan Chapter 11 [PLAN MAP 2.03.04] is hereby amended to change the Plan Designation of the subject properties at 475 East Nevada Street from "Single Family Reserve" to "North Mountain Neighborhood Plan" as illustrated in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. SECTION 3. The officially adopted City of Ashland Zoning Map, referenced in the Ashland Municipal Code Section 18.1.2.070, is hereby amended to change the Plan Designation of the subject properties at 475 East Nevada Street from "Rural Residential (RR-.5-P)" to "North Mountain Multi-Family(NM-MF)"as illustrated in Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. SECTION 4. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of , 2018 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2018 Melissa Huhtala, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of , 2018. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David H. Lohman, City Attorney Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A - 47 E NEVADA ST COMPREH SIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT AREA IN RE PROPOSED TO CHANGE Existing Comp Plan- Single Family Residential Reserve IOV Proposed Comp P an: North Mountain Multi-Family PA #2017-02129 475 E. NEVADA ST SUBJECT PROPERTIES PA #2017-02129 .9~ 475 E NEVADA ST F SUBJECT PROPERTY; O 4A a T.L. 04A 1200 T.L. 04A 1300 City Limits Line / 475 E NEVADA ST RE-ZONE L/ Comp Plan COMPPLAN Commercial \ Downtown Employment Industrial Health Care Low Density Residential Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Gip j High Density Residential Suburban Residential \ \ Single Family Residential Reserve North Mountain Plan Airport Aos Sotuhern Oregon University 1:1,200 Mapping is schematic only and bears no warranty of accuracy. C I T Y OF All features, structures, facilities, easement or roadway locations ASHLAND 1 inch = 100 feet should be independently field verified for existence and/or location w s EXHIBIT B - 47 E NEVADA ST ZONING M AMENDMENT AREA IN RE PROPOSED TO CHANGE Existing Zoning: RR-.5-P (Rural Residential) O/- Proposed Zoning: N -MF (North Mountain Multi-Family) V~ PA #2017-02129 '475 E. NEVADA ST SUBJECT PROPERTIES PA #2017-02129 .9/ 475 E NEVADA ST SUBJECT PROPERTY CD / T.L. 04A 1200 T.L. 04A 1300 City Limits dine ~ i 375 1 T. . 04A D 10 475 E NEVADA ST RE-ZONE City Zones ZONING C-1 HC ii; i:{ iiii:~ii}iiC i:•X:'..:.\~\N NM R-1-10 R R-1-5 :;:;::;:;:9$Q:•:....... R 2 RR-.5 RR-1 }:i So ':>::>:?:•i?::???:iC'....'WR W -20 1:1,200 Mapping is schematic only and bears no warranty of accuracy CITY O F All features, structures, facilities, easement or roadway locations A H LAN D 1 inch = 100 feet should be independently field verified for existence and/or location. W E s 5/8/2018 Council Business Meeting - City Council - City of Ashland, Oregon Agendas and Minutes City of Ashland City Council (View All) Council Business Meeting Minutes View Agenda Tuesday, March 20, 2018 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL March 20, 2018 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street Note: Items on the Agenda not considered due to time constraints are automatically continued to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting [AMC 2.04.030.E.] 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL Councilor Morris Councilor Slattery, Councilor Seffinger and Councilor Rosenthal were present. IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Stromberg announced the Commission vacancies. https://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?AMID=6920&Display=Minutes 1/11 5/8/2018 Council Business Meeting - City Council - City of Ashland, Oregon Councilor Slattery moved to move Unfinished Business and New and Miscellaneous Business before Public Hearing. Councilor Rosenthal seconded. Discussion: None. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Study Session of March 5, 2018 2. Business Meeting of March 6, 2018 Councilor Rosenthal moved to approve the minutes. Councilor Seffinger seconded. Discussion: None. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS 1. Annual Presentation by the Tree Commission Nathan Emerson Staff Liaison and Chair Mike Oxendine presented Council with an update on the Tree Commission. Mr. Oxendine spoke that the City of Ashland has been a member of Tree City USA for 33 years. He spoke that Ashland Parks and SOU will be hosting the Arbor Week celebration. He spoke that there will be a tree tour on April 20th and on April 21 st they will join the Earth Day Celebration and have an information booth. He spoke that there are currently Commission vacancies as well as a Council Liaison vacancy. 2. Mayor's proclamation of April 2-8, 2018 as Arbor Week in Ashland Councilor Slattery read the proclamation (see attached). VII. MINUTES OF BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES Airport Conservation Forest Lands Historic Housing and Human Srvs. Parks & Recreation Planning Public Arts Transportation Tree Wildfire Mitigation VIII. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. The Mayor will set time limits to enable all people wishing to speak to complete their testimony.) [15 minutes maximum] Dennis Miller- Ashland- Spoke regarding the homeless. He spoke that Ashland Community Resource Center is doing a great job. He spoke regarding Pacific Retirement Services. https://www.ash1and.or.us/Agendas.asp?AMID=6920&Display=Minutes 2111 5/8/2018 Council Business Meeting - City Council - City of Ashland, Oregon Huelz Gutcheon- Ashland - Spoke regarding energy measuring and modeling. He explained that measuring is what you can do for and on existing infrastructures; modeling is a program of guessing carbons in, the future. He spoke to the important of raising awareness. He suggested for I the City to make a guess of how many carbons would be used for various projects. , I I IX CONSENTAGENDA 1. Appointment of Princess Erica Franks to the Housing and Human Services Commission Councilor Slattery pulled this item. He introduced Princess Erica and her husband. Council thanked them for volunteering. 2. Approval for Ashland Fire & Rescue to apply for FEMA Assistance to Firefighters and Fire Prevention and Safety grants Councilor Morris pulled this item. He questioned Chief D'Orazi if a ladder truck requires a difference in staffing. Chief D'Orazi answered no. He explained there would be additional training. Mayor Stromberg asked for Chief D'Orazi to explain the importance of having this equipment. Chief D'Orazi explained that there are multiple story buildings all over the City and explained that the equipment is needed to reach buildings over 3 stories. He also explained that this equipment would be useful for roof operations. 3. Award of construction contract for the construction of the Park Estates and Terrace Street pump station improvements i 4. Award of professional services contracts for construction support services for the Park Estates I and Terrace Street pump station improvements I I Councilor Morris pulled this item. Public Works Director, Paula Brown gave a brief Staff report. She , explained the work that the professional services would provide. I 5. Approval of a resolution titled, "A'resolution modifying solid waste franchise rates and fees" l ~ Councilor Rosenthal moved to'approve the Consent Agenda. Councilor Slattery seconded. I Discussion: None. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. I I X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Appointment of Council seat #3 I j https:/Aw .ashland.ocus/Agendas.asp?AMID=6920&Display=Minutes 3/11 51812018 Council Business Meeting - City Council - City of Ashland, Oregon Councilor Slattery spoke regarding the process. He explained what the Council looks for when I making an appointment. Councilor Rosenthal spoke that he doesn't enjoy having to self-select. He spoke that it is not about how a person stands on an issue but how they work in the Council I dynamic. Council appointed Jackie Bachman to Council Position #3. The Council selected Ms. Bachman by ballot and the vote was unanimous. i j XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Discussion of City Councilor appointment process for Councilor Position #6 , City Recorder, Melissa Huhtala went over the proposed dates for the appointment process. i - I Council decided to pick the finalists at the April 17th Business Meeting and make the appointment f at the May 1st Business Meeting. i Council decided to allow the applicants that applied for Position #3 to be able to re-submit their I applications if they choose to do so. I 2. Potential approval of the purchase of Briscoe School property. Interim City Administrator, Adam Hanks gave a Staff report. i Administrative Services Director, Mark Welch and Public Works Director, Paula Brown went over a PowerPoint presentation (see attached). I Items discussed in the PowerPoint were: • Ashland School District Desires • City of Ashland Potential Interests ~ I • Appraisal • Proposed Funding Objectives i I Mr. Welch went over the funding of the purchase spreadsheet (see attached). He explained that the I City will pay $110,000/year for 14 years. Ms. Brown explained that this building is old and they have discussed maintenance issues. She explained it is an ideal site not necessarily an ideal building. I I - Parks Director, Michael Black explained that they have a letter of intent to give to City Council to purchase the Parks portion of this property. He spoke that there will also be an Intergovernmental I https:flw .ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?AMID=6920&Display--Minutes 4/11 5/8/2018 Council Business Meeting - City Council - City of Ashland, Oregon Agreement for the use of North Mountain Park. He explained that funds for purchase of the park will be from Food and Beverage Tax. City Attorney, Dave Lohman spoke that there are handouts for the audience which includes the Purchase Agreement, the Financial Plan and Briscoe Purchase Considerations (see nttpchea). Mr. Lohman went over the reasons to acquire Briscoe and the risks to acquire Briscoe. Public Input- Karen Logan- Ashland-Spoke regarding Briscoe being a unique and valuable property. She spoke that the Briscoe property would be good to develop low income housing. She spoke to reasons why private non-profit housing development can be better than public housing. She spoke to find what best use for the Briscoe property is. Mr. Lohman spoke that the School Board met this evening and approved the agreement. He explained that if the agreement is not approved by April 3rd the contract will lapse. Councilor Slattery moved to authorize and direct the City Administrator to sign the Purchase Agreement for acquisition of the Briscoe School Property and continue to work with both the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission and the Ashland School District to address the contingencies in the Agreement. Councilor Rosenthal seconded. Discussion: Councilor Slattery complimented Staff for their work on this item. He spoke that this is a great opportunity to have this piece of property. He explained that we need to own it before we know what to do with it. He spoke that this will allow the City to achieve something for the Community that is important and necessary. Councilor Rosenthal thanked the School District, the School Board and Staff. He spoke that this a great opportunity and explained that not many communities can say that they have an opportunity to control a destiny of an entire block of the downtown core. He explained that the building is not what is as important as the property. Councilor Seffinger agreed with Councilor Rosenthal. She spoke to the importance of the park to keep the youth active. Councilor Morris spoke that he is only in it for the Park. Roll call vote: Councilor Slattery, Councilor Morris, Councilor Seffinger and Councilor Rosenthal: YES. Motion passed unanimously. XII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Persons wishing to speak are to submit a "speaker request form" prior to the commencement of the public hearing. Public hearings shall conclude at 9:00 p.m. and be continued to a future date to be set by the Council, unless the Council, by a two-thirds vote of those present, extends the hearing(s) until up to 10:30 p.m. at which time the Council shall https://www.ashland.or. us/Agendas.asp?AMID=6920&Display=Minutes 5/11 5/8/2018 Council Business Meeting - City Council - City of Ashland, Oregon set a date for continuance and shall proceed with the balance of the agenda.) 1. Public hearing and first reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan Map designation and zoning for the properties located at 475 East Nevada Street" Mayor Stromberg opened the Public Hearing at 8:08 PM. Mayor Stromberg and Ms. Huhtala read the Public Hearing script into the record (see attached. Councilor Rosenthal and Councilor Slattery read a newspaper article regarding Nevada Street. Each read into the record °I have not prejudged this application and l am not prejudiced or biased by my prior contacts or involvement or by any personal considerations; I will make this decision based solely on the public interest and the application of the relevant criteria and standards to the facts and evidence In the record of this proceeding. Community Development Director, Bill Molnar gave a brief Staff report. Senior Planner, Derek Severson went over a PowerPoint presentation (see attached). The items discussed in the PowerPoint included: • Legislative items • Land Use items • 475 Vicinity Map • Site photos • Nevada enhanced crosswalks • Lower property • Site Plan & Planting Plan • Plan amendments and zone changes • History of standard affordable housing • 60-year term verses 30-year term of affordability Councilor Seffinger suggested to include a stipulation that there is a universal design in the affordable housing so appropriate for seniors. Councilor Morris moved to extend the Public Hearing to 10 PM. Councilor Slattery seconded. Discussion: None. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Molnar explained opportunities for market rate rental housing. He spoke that the final mix of housing would be 4 affordable units, 16 market rate for purchase town homes and single family homes and 6 moderately sized rental units. https://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?AMID=6920&Display=Minutes 6/11 5/8/2018 Council Business Meeting -City Council -City of Ashland, Oregon Mayor Stromberg questioned if B&B in this zoning. Mr. Molnar answered no. I , Mr. Severson spoke that Staff recommends to approve request made by the Planning Commission. , Applicant- Amy Gunter- Medford -Rogue Planning and Development Services, LLC Ms. Gunter spoke in agreement with Planning Commission. She went over the issues addressed by Staff. Ms. Gunter spoke that accessory units should be considered optional and explained it is more difficult to get lending to build a two-unit home. She discussed the area of the property and that due to a slope some portions of the property are undevelopable. Ms. Gunter spoke in regards to Habitat for Humanity. She explained that they are not in compliance with all of the Ashland affordable housing program requirements but the applicant supports Habitat for Humanity. Ms. Gunter spoke in support of the Comprehensive Plan Modification and Zone Change. Public Input- Tom Marr-Ashland- Spoke that his home is one on North Mountain and the construction that has gone on is not a friendly or healthy environment. He suggested Council consider this in the planning process. He spoke in regards to 475 East Nevada and would like to see as much public open space as possible. Stanley Mazor-Ashland-Spoke regarding his property and gave Council a handout (see attacheco. He spoke in support of the development. I Karen Logan Ashland-Spoke that the number of affordable housing units has been discounted. She expressed that the presentation on affordable housing was not clear. She expressed that non- profits should be funding housing. i Rebuttal- Ms. Gunter explained why the City property is included in the development. Ms. Gunter went over the number of units suggested for the property. I j End of Rebuttal-No additional written information was submitted to Council. https://w .ashiand.or.us/Agendas.asp?AMID=6920&Display=Minutes 7111 l 5/8/2018 Council Business Meeting - City Council - City of Ashland, Oregon Mayor Stromberg closed the Public Hearing at 9:55 PM Councilor Slattery asked for clarification on what was being asked of Council. Mayor Stromberg explained that Council is being asked to make the recommendation for a requirement of 3 small units that have been designed to be built. And to lower the affordability units from the 60-year plan to a 30-year plan. Councilor Morris moved to extend the Council Meeting until 10:15 PM. Councilor Seffinger seconded. Discussion: None. All Ayes. Motion passed unanimously. Council decided to have the applicant discuss with Staff whether they can make any changes and bring back to Council. Councilor Morris moved to continue this agenda item to the April 17th Business Meeting. Councilor Rosenthal seconded. Discussion: Council discussed the need for more time to make sure they have all the information. Councilor Seffinger requested for Staff to look into universal housing. Councilor Seffinger moved to extend the meeting to 10:18 PM. Councilor Slattery seconded. Discussion: None. All Ayes. Roll call vote on the main motion: Councilor Slattery, Councilor Morris, Councilor Seffinger and Councilor Rosenthal: YES. Motion passed unanimously. XIII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS None. XIV. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS XV. ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING The Council Business Meeting was adjourned at 10:17 PM Respectfully submitted by: https://www.ashIand.or.us/Agendas.asp?AMID=6920&DispIay=Minutes 8/11 5/8/2018 Council Business Meeting - City Council - City of Ashland, Oregon City Recorder, Melissa Huhtala Attest: Mayor Stromberg In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). I' Ashland 24/7 Pay Your Request Conservation Utility Bill Evaluation Connect Proposals, Bids to AFN & Notifications Request Building Apply for Other Inspection Permits & Licenses A 0 Iffi+ https://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?AMID=6920&Display=Minutes 9/11 5/8/2018 Council Business Meeting - City Council - City of Ashland, Oregon Apply for Register for Building Permits Recreation Programs Find It Fast Home Facebook Mayor/Council Water Advisory Departments Taxes Commissions Codes Parks/Rec Archived City Records Pay Bills Doing Business Agendas Web Links Services Flood Info Employment Contact Email Updates Sign up to receive local important News & Events. Email Address Subscribe Unsubscribe Emergency Contact Info Police & Fire, Water, Electric, Red Cross, Jackson County Health, Recology Ashland Sanitary... Popular Pages Videos - Town Halls, City Meetings, Study Sessions and more https://www.ashland.or. us/Agendas. asp?AMID=6920&Display=Minutes 10/11 5/8/2018 Council Business Meeting - City Council - City of Ashland, Oregon W Map Center - See various maps of the City of Ashland t, Citizen Programs - Get involved or volunteer in local community projects Let Us Know Name Phone or Email Question or Comment I'm not a robot reCAPTCHA Privacy -Terms Submit Fire Danger is Low Learn More 0 ©2018 City of Ashland, OR I Site by Project A https://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?AMID=6920&Display=Minutes 11 /11 4ft 1%V ROGUE PLANNING 8 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LIE April 20, 2018 Ashland City Council 20 E Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Mayor and Council, These amended findings are intended to address the affordable housing, and other concerns / issues raised at the March 20th, City Council hearing. The Katherine Mae Subdivision proposal is for a relatively small subdivision that provides for an additional 20 dwelling units to be added to the City of Ashland housing inventory at a time when there are documented historically low numbers of available housing. The property has adequate area, separations, and layout that provides a mixture of housing types including attached, duplex type, and detached residential. According to numerous sources, Ashland has a severe lack of housing of all types. With a less than one percent vacancy rate, there is not just a need for "affordable housing", defined as housing costs that are 30 percent or less than the household income, but a need for deed restricted, low income housing. Low income housing is defined as housing which is targeted to households making below a certain income level, between 80 percent and 30 percent of the area median income (AM[). The proposal, as a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change requires the dedication of 25 percent of the base density as affordable housing units. With the base density of 24 units, 25 percent requires six (6) units at 100 percent AMI. The previous request, which this document amends, sought to transfer the sufficient area of land to develop the affordable housing units by a not for profit affordable housing developer such as Jackson County Housing Authority, Habitat for Humanity, and NeighborWorks Umpqua. Initial discussions with a non-profit affordable housing developer that restricts incomes to the 60 percent Area Median Incomes (AMI) were held and the memorandum of understanding was provided by the applicant, included with the original submittal materials. Following the Planning Commission Public Hearing, adoption of the Findings of Fact and Orders recommending approval, and the March City Council meeting, it was determined that transfer of title to land is only sufficient when the land area is enough to develop the required number of Ift ROGUE PLANNING 9 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC affordable units based on the base density for purchasers that make 100 AMI. (AMC 18.5.8.050.G.a) Due to this change in circumstances, dedication of land to an affordable housing provider is no longer the applicant's proposal. The applicant's revised proposal is that the developer will develop four units of dedicated affordable housing that is deed for 60-years, and for individuals and / or families that earn not more than 60 percent of the Area Median Income. Buyers / renters would be qualified by the City of Ashland through the Affordable Housing Program. % As evidenced in the initial proposal, there are ample common areas and open spaces with the necessary amenities proposed. The detailed, 'water-conserving` landscaped areas can be redesigned to increase lawn area, natural or,synthetic to provide for.a'dd\tional outdoor spaces that allow for recreating. This will be done to address the treatment of the open space treatment concern raised by the Planning Commission. The amended open space and.lendscape plans will be submitted with the Final Plan documents. There is ample parking proposed, and the site has been preliminary engineered to provide adequate public infrastructure including public street improvements, essential city services, p6blicly,accessible bpen space area to service the development. These proposed improvements, demonstrate compliance with the standards for Performance Standards Subdivision Development.. The layout can be found to be similar to the existing development within Meadowbrook Park II, to the south and within the~North Mountain Plan Overlay area. The property is within 1,000 feet of a large,,pub icl open space found of the base ofthe•hill at the intersection of East Nevada and Kestrel' Parkway. The--site has ample.internal sidewalk~systems to encourage pedestrian use, and the North,, Mountain 'Neighborhoo'd are connected through the public rights-of-way. Commercially' zoned propeiti s;,early in their development stages, are found within 1,000 feet to the south. `ti 1 4 I The applicants believe the proposal is consistent with the purpose of the North Mountain Plan Overlay which promotes.a`variety of housing types and preserves the significant natural features and provides ample open'spaces. The proposal complies with the criteria for annexation as it applies to re-zoning of property, provides affordable housing as required by code, and as proposed by the applicant, the proposal is in substantial conformance with the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, and the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies of the City of Ashland. The two requested exceptions are the minimum necessary to allow for the development of low income housing that serves a substantial population of Ashland that is not presently represented in the North Mountain Neighborhood. 4ft 11W 1, ROGUE PLANNING 6 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLD Amended findings addressing the Criteria for Annexation found in AMC 18.5.8.050.G supporting the requested amendment to the current application (PA2017-02129) are provided herein. AMC 18.5.8.050.G - Annexation G. Except as provided in 18.5.8.050.6.7, below, annexations with a density or potential density of four residential units or greater and involving residential zoned lands, or commercial, employment or industrial lands with a Residential Overlay (R-Overlay) shall meet the following requirements. Applicant's Finding: The request is for a Zone Change and Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, with a base density of more than four residential units. Per the criteria for a Zone Change the criteria for Annexation from AMC 18.5.8.050.G is required to be addressed per 18.5.9.020.4. 1. The total number of affordable units provided to qualifying buyers, or to qualifying renters, shall be equal to or exceed 25 percent of the base density as calculated using the unit equivalency values set forth herein. a. Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 120 percent the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 0.75 unit. b. Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 100 percent the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.0 unit. c. Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 80 percent the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.25 unit. d. Ownership or rental units restricted to households earning at or below 60 percent the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.5 unit. Applicant's Findin : Four (4) units restricted to households that earn 60 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI) is proposed. According to ALUO 18.5.8.050.G.1.d, above, ownership or rental units restricted to households earning at or below 60 percent of the AMI, each unit has the equivalency value of 1.5 per unit, therefore, four (4) units is the maximum required number of affordable housing units. (4 x 1.5 = 6) This proposal complies with AMC 18.5.8.050.G.1.d above. 2. As alternative to providing affordable units per section 18.5.8.050.G.1, above, the applicant may provide title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development complying with subsection 18.5.8.050.G.1.b, above, through transfer to a non-profit (IRC I Jft 'IRV ROGUE PLANNING 8 GEVELGPMENT SERVICES, LLC 50](3)(c) affordable housing developer or public corporation created under ORS 456.055 to 456.235. a. The land to be transferred shall be located within the project meeting the standards set forth in 18.5.8.050.G, subsections 4 - 6. b. All needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for transfer. c. Prior to commencement of the project, title to the land shall be transferred to the City, an affordable housing developer which must either be a unit of government, a non-profit 501(C)(3) organization, or public corporation created under ORS 456.055 to 456.235. d. The land to be transferred shall be deed restricted to comply with Ashland's affordable housing program requirements. Applicant's Finding: Transfer of land is no longer proposed with this amended application. 3. The affordable units shall be comparable in bedroom mix and housing type with the market rate units in the development. a. The number of bedrooms per dwelling unit in the affordable units within the residential development shall be in equal proportion to the number of bedrooms per dwelling unit in the market-rate units within the residential development. This provision is not intended to require the same floor area in affordable units as compared to market-rate units. The minimum square footage of each affordable unit shall comply with the minimum required floor based as set forth in Table 18.5.8.050.G.3. Unit Type Minimum Required Unit Floor Area (Square Feet) According to the Table AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3. 2 Bedroom: 800 SF and 3 Bedroom: 1,000 SF Applicant's Finding: There are 20 to 23 units proposed (three as optional second units above the garages of the detached residences). Development of 20 units exceeds the required minimum density in the North Mountain Multi-Family Zone and is within the maximum allowed density (with various density bonuses applied). 4ft W ROGUE PLANNING 8 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Of the 20-units, three (3) are proposed as detached single-family type of construction, four (3) are proposed as duplex type construction and thirteen (13) are proposed as attached, townhouse type of construction. There are 17, attached type of units proposed. This is 85 percent of the development housing type. Of the 17-attached type of units, 13 units are townhouse type of construction. Four of the 13 units are proposed as deed restricted affordable. This is 30.7 percent of the townhouse type of units. All units in the development (excepting small, optional units) are proposed to be two and three-bedroom units. The floor area of each unit has the potential to be approximately 800 square feet of area on the ground floor and 800 square feet of second story floor area. All units, excepting the optional, 500 square foot, second units above garages, have adequate area for two or three bedrooms. The sizes of the dedicated affordable units exceed the minimum unit size based on the AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3. b. The required on-site affordable units shall be comprised of the different unit types in the same proportion as the market dwelling units within the development. Applicant's Finding: An exception to this standard is requested. 4. A development schedule shall be provided that demonstrates that that the affordable housing units per subsection 18.5.8.050.G shall be developed, and made available for occupancy. Applicant's Finding: The subdivision is proposed as a phased development. The first phase is the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone change to facilitate the Outline Plan approval of the Performance Standards Subdivision. Phase Two is Final Plan approval. Phase Three would be for the attached unit Site Reviews. Phases Two and Three may be completed concurrently. 1qROGUE PLANNING S DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, ILE a. That 50 percent of the affordable units shall have been issued building permits prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the last of the first 50 percent of the market rate units. Applicant's Finding: The deeded affordable units will have building permits applied for and obtained prior to the Certificate of Occupancy for the last 50 percent of the market rate units. b. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the final ten percent of the market rate units, the final 50 percent of the affordable units shall have been issued certificates of occupancy. Applicant's Finding: The deeded affordable units will have final building permit inspections and Certificate of Occupancy prior to the final ten percent of market rate units. 5. That affordable housing units shall be distributed throughout the project Applicant's Finding: An exception to this standard is requested. 6. That affordable housing units shall be constructed using comparable building materials and include equivalent amenities as the market rate units. Applicant's Finding: The property is proposed to be within the North Mountain Neighborhood Overlay which has specific design standards. Site Design Review is required for attached wall construction of two or more units. With the Site Design Review, compliance with the Conceptual Elevations submitted with this application and compliance with the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards will be required to be reviewed and approved by the City of Ashland. All units will be constructed of comparable building materials as the market rate units. a. The exterior appearance of the affordable units in any residential development shall be visually compatible with the market-rate units in the development. External building materials and finishes shall be substantially the same in type and quality for affordable units as for market-rate units Applicant's Finding: ROGUE PLANNING 6 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, ILE The property is proposed to be within the North Mountain Neighborhood Overlay which has specific design standards. Site Design Review is required for attached wall construction of two or more units. With the Site Design Review, compliance with the Conceptual Elevations submitted with this application and compliance with the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards will be required to be reviewed and approved by the City of Ashland. All units will have an exterior appearance that is visually compatible with the market rate units. The external building materials and finishes for the deeded affordable units will be substantially the same in type and quality as the market-rate units. b. Affordable units may differ from market-rate units with regard to interior finishes and materials provided that the affordable housing units are provided with comparable features to the market rate units, and shall have generally comparable improvements related to energy efficiency, including plumbing, insulation, windows, appliances, and heating and cooling systems. Applicant's Finding: The property is proposed to be within the North Mountain Neighborhood Overlay which has specific design standards. Site Design Review is required for attached wall construction of two or more units. With the Site Design Review, compliance with the Conceptual Elevations submitted with this application and compliance with the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards will be required to be reviewed and approved by the City of Ashland. All units will have an exterior appearance that is visually compatible with the market rate units. Any external building materials and finishes for the deeded affordable units that are different in type and quality as the market-rate units will be to achieve better energy efficiency or greener technologies, including plumbing, insulation, windows, appliances, and heating and cooling systems. 7. Exceptions to the requirements of 18.5.8.050, subsections G.2 - G.5, above, may be approved by the City Council upon consideration of one or more of the following. Applicant's Finding: Two exceptions to the requirements of 18.5.8.050.G.2 - G.5 are sought. Specifically, exception to AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3.b and 18.5.8.050.G.5 are sought. The applicant's believe the City Council can make the finding that the Katherine Mae Subdivision as proposed has exceptional merits and complies with the City of Ashland standards, for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, a Zone Change request, a Performance ROGUE PLANNING G DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Standards Subdivision that substantially complies with the North Mountain Neighborhood and provides deeded affordable housing units at a time that the City of Ashland has called a housing crisis. The request for approval and the request for exceptions is supported by the Housing Needs Analysis which found a decline in the number of attached units. The Housing Needs Model indicates the City of Ashland needs to add 2,657 new units to accommodate the increase in population over the next 30-years. (City of Ashland. (2012). Housing Needs Analysis; City of Ashland Community Development Department, pg., 45). Though 20 units of which four are deeded affordable only accomplishes a smdll percentage of the needed housing, it is better than the alternative density that the property is currently zoned for, which is two, detached, single family residential dwelling units. a. That an alternative land dedication as proposed would accomplish additional benefits for the City, consistent with the purposes of this chapter', than would development meeting the on-site dedication requirement of subsection 18.5.8:050.G.2. Applicant's Finding: N/A b. That an alternative mik of housing types"not meeting the requirements of subsection 18.5.8.050.G.3.b would accomplish additional benefits to the City consistent with this chapter; than would the•development providing a proportional mix of unit types. Applicant's Findin~i.. An exception to the.alternative mix of housing types described in AMC 18.5.8.050.G.3.b. is sought,with this aMendment. This request is supported by the Land Use Classifications of the Comprehensive Plan)in the discussion of townhouse residential zoning which has a similar base zone as the North Mountain Neighborhood Overlay. According to Chapter 2.04 Land Use Classifications, of the Comprehensive Plan, Townhouse Residential (2.04.04) 'This designation allows multiple family residential uses at a density of up to 12 units per acre. This designation would encourage innovative residential housing to provide low-cost, owner-occupied housing in addition to lower density rental units." For the sake of energy efficiency while addressing the practicalities of construction and development of attached wall units, the proposal for the higher density units to be location of the deeded affordable allows a smaller, therefore lower-cost housing unit. A& ROGUE PLANNING R DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC According to the Home Builders Association, the construction cost are lower because walls, and exterior finishes (siding, stucco, brick, work, roofing materials, etc.) are shared, savings that are passed along to the renter/buyer. Heating and cooling costs can be less expensive for condo and townhome buyers/renters because of shared walls. Attached housing is less expensive than detached housing to maintain over the life of a structure, allowing those with lower incomes more expendable income. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Policies for Population and Growth, Ashland should strive to maintain diversity of population groups, by providing housing opportunities for the total cross section of Ashland's population while preserving the character and appearance of the neighborhood, townhouse residential is a preferable housing type for deeded affordable housing units versus larger, detached, single family residential units. Allowing the townhouse type of unit as the deeded affordable units provide for lower initial construction costs which in turn allows for the lower income levels of the future tenant of the units, broadening the cross section of the community that is able to afford housing in the North Mountain Neighborhood Overlay. (City of Ashland. (2005). Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Classifications, Population Projections and Growth; and Housing Element). c. That the alternative phasing proposal not meeting subsection 18.5.8.050.6.4 provided by the applicant provides adequate assurance that the affordable housing units will be provided in a timely fashion. Applicant's Finding: Alternative phasing is not proposed. d. That the distribution of affordable units within the development not meeting subsection 18.5.8.050.G.5 is necessary for development of an affordable housing project that provides onsite staff with supportive services. Applicant's Finding: An exception to AMC 18.5.8.050.G.5 is not because of on-site staff with supportive staff, but to accomplish additional benefits for the city, consistent with the purpose of this chapter. 4ft ROGUE PLANNING B DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC e. That the distribution of affordable units within the development as proposed would accomplish additional benefits for the city, consistent with the purposes of this chapter, than would development meeting the distribution requirement of subsection 18.5.8.050.6.5. Applicant's Finding: An exception to AMC 18.5.8.050.G.5 is necessary to allow for the developer to provided deed restricted affordable housing that is substantially below market rate housing. In order to accomplish this goal of the developer and of the City of Ashland to provide a housing unit that is needed by a cross-section of Ashland community but is not served much beyond the Jackson County Housing Authority property on Clay Street that has a many years long waitlist, the units need to be attached in order to lower the construction and future maintenance costs. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Housing Goals (Goal 6.10) of providing housing opportunities for the total cross section of Ashland's population while preserving the character and appearance of the neighborhood, townhouse residential is a preferable housing type for deeded affordable housing units versus larger, detached, single family residential units. (City of Ashland. (2005). Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Policies and Their Implementation (pg. 24)). The Housing Needs Analysis found that Ashland has a small inventory of land zoned for multi family housing. The Housing Needs Analysis also suggests that more affordable single-family housing types are needed. Additionally, the Housing Needs Analysis states that housing that is targeted between 80 percent and 30 percent AMI is considered Low Income Housing. The proposed development is designated to have affordable units that provide for low-income housing, providing a housing opportunity for more of a cross section of Ashland's population. (City of Ashland. (2012). Housing Needs Analysis. Retrieved from http://www.ashiand.or.us/SIB/files/Adopted_2012-2040_HNA.pdf) The applicant's proposal is consistent with the purpose of this chapter which is to allow for the orderly expansion of the City through the provision of public facilities and services. The provision for four, deed restricted affordable housing units that are attached appears to substantially comply with the purpose of the chapter while also complying with identified goals of the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan, allowing for the exception to the standard for the distribution of the affordable units throughout the development. I ~I I I ROGUE PLANNING 9 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC f. That the materials and amenities applied to the affordable units within the development, that are not equivalent to the market rate units per subsection 18.5.8.050.G.6, are necessary due to local, State, or Federal Affordable Housing standards or financing limitations. Applicant's Finding: N/A 8. The total number of affordable units described in this section-18.5.8.050.G shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction or similar legal instrument shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. Properties providing affordable units as part,of the-annexation process shall qualify for a maximum density bonus of 25 percent. Applicant's Finding: The area for the total number of affordable unks,os described in ALU0:,18.5.8.050.G., will be guaranteed through a deed restriction that the aff ordoble units must be• compliant with the affordable criteria for a period of not7ess than 60 years. No density bonus is proposed, and the application is not for an annexation. \ Nearly 90% of Older Americans ERE want to stay in their homes as long as possible. AccordingtoAARPstudies. wnj Q7 r a J - CL ~1 (rj many of the homes we live in t Yet odaY are i - - long wt not designed to accommodate this desire. (Housing Perhaps it's challenging to enter a home with a baby stroller, move large furniture, or get around a home safely as residents age or have disabilities. The Lifelong Housing Certification was developed to help us think differently Where Design about home design. The certification criteria For more information, including a copy of include simple and cost-effective the Lifelong Housing Certification Standards Meets. modifications that homeowners and builders Checklist and a list of certified inspectors, can do to make a home comfortable, safe contact RVCOG at: and livable. A home can be built or updated to support your needs and lifestyle at any 541-664-6674 _ lie age by using simple Universal Design www.LifelongHousing.org principles. From visiting toddlers or grandfathers to Community Partners fall prevention and security, a home certified `M for lifelong living is comfortable and Rogue Valley Council of Governments convenient for everyone. 115 N First Street/P.O. Box 3275 Simple Solutions for Comfortable, The Lifelong Housing Certificate can provide Central Point, OR 97502 you reassurance that your home is free Safe and Convenient Living. of common barriers to mobility found in AARP Oregon most homes today- and often at little or no additional cost. Why not make a home more Age Friendly Innovators functional and safe? Rogue Valley Association of REALTORS g ' Endorsed by the: (Housing Home Builders Assoc. of Jackson County Inc. 1 1 Real Possibilities Developed in Partnership with AARP Oregon 77 What Is the Lifelong Housing Certfication ` `'r- Currently, very few homes in our community i. have all or most of the main features of Universal Design: no-step entry; single-floor living; extra-wide doorways and halls; and v-. accessible electrical controls, switches, and lever-style door and faucet handles. Who Can Benefit? The Lifelong Housing certification provides Levels of Certification you a set of standards you can trust that The Certification can benefit just about ensures your home is a safer and more Level 1: The home includes basic everyone. accessible home for you and your visitors. accessibility of architectural features on the ground floor and is "visitable" for all guests. • Homeowners: Chances are your present Lifelong Housing certification is the voluntary It has a no-step entry and entertainment home won't accommodate your needs process of evaluating a home against a area, wider hallways and accessible forever. Perhaps its the stairs or the checklist of Universal Design standards. bathroom. It has levered door handles and bathtub or maybe the lighting. The Once the home has been determined to faucets. Lifelong Housing certification can help meet one of the three levels, a certificate is adapt your home to meet your needs as issued to the home-owner and, if the home well as those who visit you. is for sale, the certification is recorded Level 2: The ground floor of the home • Rental Owners: By achieving the LLH on the Southern Oregon Multiple Listing is fully accessible including all Level 1 certification your rental homes will not Service (SOMLS). An important aspect of features plus an accessible bedroom and only be safer for those living in them but the program is education about the value kitchen, parking area and entrance. It also more marketable to potential renters. of Lifelong Housing to homeowners and has additional features such as a raised • Home Builder/Contractor Industry: professionals in the field of housing. toilet and appliances and grab bars in the Offering LLH certified homes in your bathroom. portfolio can offer an edge over your How Does it Work? competition. Nearly 10,000 people Level 3: The home includes Levels 1 and 2 are turning 6' 5 every day and housing 1. Obtain the Lifelong Housing checklist and has been customized for specific needs currently does not meet their lifestyle from RVCOG. demands. Given that there is typpically 2. Review it with your contractor or builder and (such as a ceiling track). Specific features very little additional cost to i Hplement incorporate the desired features from the will be noted on the certificate. these design elements, the LL design phase into your newly-constructed or certification just makes good business remodeled home. sense. 3. Contact the LLH Inspector • Realtors: Learning to recognize the 4. Receive Lifelong Housing certificate rotential benefits of LLH certified homes • . - - - or your clients will ensure that you're 5. If the home is for sale, the LLH Program contacts SOMLS . acting in their best interest. There is now a new category on the Southern Oregon The fees for this process are minimal: approximately $150 for the Start today and make your home fit your Multiple Listing Service to alert potential inspection and $35 for issuing the certificate. current and future needs and lifestyle, buyers of LLH certified homes. You'll be glad you did. OREGON I:g Lifelong LIFELONG HOUSING CERTIFICATION Housing CHECKLIST O Each certification Level has categories that relate to various areas or features in the home. Within each section there are items that are REQUIRED and most sections have a list of OPTIONAL items from which you must chose a required MINIMUM number of items. The number of Required and Optional items is noted at the top of each section. Level certification will be granted if all required items and the minimum number of optional items in each section of that Level are present in the home. Items REQUIRED for certification are indicated by 0 OPTIONAL items are indicated by ❑ To have your home certified, contact Rogue Valley Council of Governments Lifelong Housing Certification program at 541-664-6674, www.lifelonghousing.org or e-mail lifelonghousing@rvcog.org Level 1 Visitor Accessible The home is "visitable" for all guests: a person in a wheel chair can easily access the main entertainment area, a half- bathroom at minimum, and the hall leading to and from that bathroom. (All required) A minimum of one entrance to the structure with clear access from parking area or street, no steps or obstructions; ramped, if required (slope 12:1); level landing; 32 inch clear width opening doors; and, adequate lighting. Entry has a maximum 1/2 inch threshold, but when over 1/4-inch, is beveled on both sides. The entry door has lever handle for egress. Q Entertainment area is level, with 36 inch passage through and around the space Q Hallway to bathroom is minimum 36 inches wide Q Guest Bathroom door has minimum 32 inch clear width opening with lever handles. Q Guest Bathroom bathroom toilet has grab bar. ❑ Guest Bathroom has minimum 60 inch turnaround or other approved turnaround configuration (30" x 48" clear space if door opens out.). Level 2 Enhanced Accessible The central living area is accessible for lifelong living. A person in a wheel chair can perform all personal and housekeeping functions in this area. Environmental controls (3 required; minimum 1 optional) Q Thermostats and security system controls located on floor with central living area. Q Control devices for light switches and thermostats at 42-48 inches height off floor and side- to-side. ❑ Electrical plugs 18" or above. ❑ Rocker-style light switches ❑ Lighted switches ❑ Automatic/remote control Basic Gripping/Operational Features (1 required) Q All doors, faucets and other mechanisms throughout central living area are lever, hands-free or other style that can be controlled with a closed, clenched fist or weak hands. ❑ Wire pull (D-ring) handles or equivalent or easy touch latches on cabinets and drawers Central Living area (3 required; minimum 1 optional) Q Hard surface flooring or low-pile carpet, securely attached along edges Q Entrances to all rooms on all floors provide 36 inch access Q Adaptable lighting for general purpose and tasks. ❑ Hallways 42 inches (or adequate alternative based on individual configuration) ❑ Minimum one light fixture in every hallway ❑ Closet doors are 32" clearance throughout the central living area. ❑ Stacked closets in a multi-story house for possible future conversion to an elevator Kitchen Features (4 required; minimum 1 optional) Q Adequate (40 inch clear) space in kitchen unimpeded by fixtures. See Footnote #1 Q Roll-under/adaptable sink with padded trap or side-access to sink. Q Roll-out shelves in at least 50% of lower cabinets Q Stove controls in front or side, at counter top height. ❑ Roll-under work area ❑ Oven with side-access door at counter level. ❑ Space for side-by-side refrigerator (minimum 36 inches) ❑ Well-lighted kitchen with adaptable control (Task lighting directed to a specific surface or area that provides illumination for specific tasks) ❑ Contrasting color counter edge for visually impaired ❑ Lower kitchen cabinets are designed for removable doors and cabinet bases ❑ Accessible features for upper kitchen cabinets. ❑ Raised dishwasher and clothes washer and/or dryer, if installed Master Bathroom Features (5 required; minimum 1 optional) Q Bathroom has adequate turnaround: 60 inches or other approved turnaround configuration Q Accessible bathing area. Roll-in shower or space for chair or transfer bench in bathtub or shower Q Slip-resistant surface on bathroom floor and bathtub/shower Q Roll-under sink with padded trap or side-access to sink. Q Reinforced main bathroom walls, including bath or shower, to permit installation of grab bars and fixtures ❑ Grab bars installed with appropriate backing ❑ Backing (blocking) for future installation of grab bars ❑ Bathroom cabinets are adaptable for roll-under use ❑ Hand held and/or height-adjustable shower head ❑ Automatic water temperature controlled (anti-scald) tub/shower ❑ Offset tub/shower controls toward front edge of tub/shower for easy access ❑ Raised toilet (17-19 inch minimum) ❑ Lighting directly over shower/bathing areas (in addition to general bathroom lighting) Master Bedroom Features (2 required; minimum 1 optional) Q Bedroom has adequate turnaround: 60 inches or other approved turnaround configuration Q Closet doors have 32 inch clearance ❑ Some lower height storage in closet ❑ Adequate lighting Exterior/Entranceway (1 required; minimum 1 optional) Q Auto parking area is accessible to the house ❑ Entryway is covered ❑ Walkway evenly paved and meets slope standards. See Footnote #2 ❑ Bench near outside entry door ❑ Motion-detection outside lights ❑ Accessible peephole or other method for inside viewing of anyone outside the entry door Stairways (If applicable) (3 required; minimum 1 optional) See Footnote #3 Q Handrails on both sides of stairs (extended when possible) with shear force of 250 pounds Q Interior and exterior stairs well-lighted Q Non-slip stair treads. If stairs are carpeted, it is non-moveable, low-pile carpet ❑ Stair treads are in high contrast colors for increased visibility Safety Features (2 required; minimum 1 optional) See Footnot #4 Q Minimum two, no-step, accessible egresses from central living area Q House number easily visible from street ❑ Emergency egress windows in sleeping areas require minimal effort to open and close with closed fist ❑ Window locks are between 19 and 54 inches from the floor Level 3 Custom Accessible (Minimum = 1) The home has been customized for personalized accessiblity. Specific features will be listed on the certificate. Level 3 homes must pass Level 1 and 2 certification, plus have at least one custom feature. The feature may consist of, but is not limited to: ❑ Chair lift on stairway or elevator ❑ Wired for hearing impaired: flashing lights and or vibrating smoke alarm, door bell, other alerting feature. ❑ Reinforced floors for bariatric needs, power wheelchair ❑ Customized accessibility for specific size or style of wheelchair ❑ Tracks in ceiling for lift chair (Hover lift) ❑ Accessible therapeutic whirlpool ❑ Backup generator for refrigerated medications, respirator, oxygen concentrator, air conditioning or heating ❑ Electronic controls lights, doors ❑ Smart home (computer-controlled) and/or smart products-voice activated, voice reminder [Technology will change overtime.] ❑ Other customized accessibility feature. Please describe: Footnotes: 1 See Fair Housing Act Design Book illustrations (Chapter 7) 2 Path of travel does not include a running slope in excess of 1:12 (8.33%); a cross slope exceeding 1:50 (2%); nor level changes of more than 1/2". 3 "If applicable" means stairs are necessary to meet the needs of the resident. 4 See home safety information for persons with disabilities: http://www.cpsc.gov/PageF!Ies/122038/701.pdf Resources & References 6~/' International Building Code (apartments) and International Residential Code (Single family or duplex) Housing and Urban Development (HUD) document, "Residential Remodeling and Universal Design", available at: www.huduser.org/publications/destech/resid.html. 6! The "Fair Housing Act Design Manual," prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, is available at: http://www.huduser.org/publications/destech/fairhousing.html 66 Concrete Change is an organization that focuses on visitability: http://www.concretechange.org/ North Carolina State University College of Design Center for Universal Design provides resources at s,- http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/ including the Next Generation Universal Design Home: http://www. des ign. ncsu. edu/cud/projserv_ps/projects/ps n extgen. htm The Universal Design Living Laboratory, a national demonstration home featuring universal design and green building practices, includes many universal design and green building resources: http://www.udll.com/ Emergency preparedness guidelines for people with disabilities (attach heavy furniture to wall, etc.) http://www.ready.gov/seniors; http://www.cert- 6e^ la.com/education/EmergencyPreparednessForPeopleWithDisabilities.pdf http://www. rea dy.gov/sites/defa u It/files/documents/files/oldera m erica ns_q ua dfold. pdf http://www.scec.org/education/public/espfocus/Feb_06.pdf (1-15-16 ver.) Council Business Meeting May 15, 0: Title: Potential Property Purchase 1291 Oak Street From: Paula C. Brown, PE Public Works Director paula.brown(c)_ashland. or.us Summary: With prior direction from Council, Staff entered into exploratory negotiations with realtors for the Hardesty Trust regarding purchasing the property at 1291 Oak Street. Staff has negotiated a purchase price of $1,200,000 and escrow has been opened. The property is adjacent to the wastewater treatment plant and is on two separate tax lots totaling 20.98 acres. The two lots were originally listed at $1,500,000. The property is zoned exclusive farm use (EFU). Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: 1. Move approval to authorize the purchase of 1291 Oak Street, and direct the Interim City Administrator to sign final closing documents at a purchase price of $1,200,000. 2. Move to deny the purchase and withdraw from further negotiations. 3. Move to direct staff to continue negotiations with revised direction from council. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval to purchase the Hardesty property at 1291 Oak Street for the following potential uses as shown on the attached concept map: • Constructed wetlands for wastewater cooling: 8 acres. • B-Street Yard type activities; 6 acres. • Fire Department training site on I acre. • Riparian improvements 2 acres. • Home site and garage, 1.5 acres. • Potential public parking and internal access, 1.5 acres. Resource Requirements: Staff from finance and public works have met to discuss an overall cost neutral strategy. Once public works vacates the B Street Yard. that asset will be brought to Council for approval to declare it surplus and sell the property. The as-is market appraisal completed in January 2018, indicates the value of the B Street property to be $1.8M to $1.92M, well in excess of the purchase price of the Hardesty property. The B Street Yard property is owned by the City and the majority of the funds will return to the General Fund with one third helping to off-set the Hardesty purchase refunding the departments that are intended to participate. In the interim, the purchase of the Oak Street property will be split based on intended site use. The largest portion will be funded from the wastewater fund (60%); smaller portions from streets (20%), water (15%) and fire (5%; general fund) proportionate to the immediate use. Should Parks be interested in the use of the site, staff will negotiate an appropriate proportional funding opt-in charge. Page] of 3 CITY OF -ASHLAND Wastewater Fund 60% $720,000 Street Fund 20% $240,000 Water Fund 15% $180,000 General Fund 5% $ 60,000 Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: Council Goals: 4. Evaluate real property and facility assets to strategically support city mission and goals. 22. Prepare for the impact of climate change on the community. Department Goals: • Maintain and improve infrastructure that enhances the economic vitality of the community • Evaluate all city infrastructure regarding planning management and financial resources Background and additional information as requested by Council: • Level of clean-up (f any) required: The property owner is required to remove all personal property including all staged vehicles and trash. A Level 1 environmental evaluation was completed by the prior owners. Staff review indicates no significant concerns (the heating oil tank was remediated with a no-further-action letter provided). Per purchase contract, no formal testing (test pits) was completed. • Flood plain considerations: The property is in the 100-year flood zone. The home was built after the 1997 flood and after revised Federal Insurance Rate Maps were instituted. The home should have received a 100-year flood zone certificate. There will be containment requirements for the temporary storage of B Street Yard materials. Wetlands are an approved use in the flood way. • This property is outside City limits and outside UGB. Initial conversations with Jackson County indicate that although the land use will be complicated, it should not require a zone change. Staff will continue to work with Jackson County Planning • EFU allowed uses: The property is zoned EFU/RT (Rural Tract). The County rules for EFU are 42 pages long, but staffs initial review indicates Type 1 or Type 2 review requirements for activities currently proposed by the City. Wetlands are out-right permitted use (but still requires a type 1 action). The other uses will require a full application and Type 2 reviews. Jackson County Planning staff have been very supportive and receptive to the City's ideas. • Water rights: There are two water rights associated with the property dating 1880 and 1881 totaling 0.34 cfs (220,000 gallons per day). In addition there is a well on site which tested at 26 gallons per minute and should remain functional for irrigation use. • Vehicular access challenges: The City owns the shared road access to the property and wastewater treatment plant. There are current challenges with vehicular and bike/pedestrian conflicts at the bridge across Ashland Creek into the wastewater treatment plant. The size of the property allows for adequate internal access and there is potential to widen the road section along other City owned property to gain adequate sight distances and avoid conflicts at the driveway access to the property. • Options for the existing residence: The home is beautiful and in fairly good condition as reported in the home inspection. It is however, situated in an awkward location for use as a residence. Staff will evaluate options for use or disposition. Page 2 of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND Attachments: • Site plan and conceptual use plan • Seller's final counter offer (#3) dated 4/3/2018 • Seller's counter offer 41 and residential sales agreement (1/8/2018) Page 3 of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND 1291 Oak Street, Ashland 381E33 402 and 400 (boundary lines not exact) - R .F a . r t . y {yr5 y s . is ¢ I 3 `V'> •.fi s ~W r 9 ~ u2 $ i ~ r f a~ ~ ~f to Ark~.f7~'`!'r~, LT N P M 14 Jp~ S e a• 1291 Oak Street, Ashland 381E33 402 and 400 Pire App Map City . Ashland T e TID-.canal on this yam, - ~1 prjoperty has been piped - +I R9 - - V Z' - - - + TiC^ I-, • / l ~ ~ : / ~ t ~ phi 1700 z nT.. sib AWC~ELtEAV F,ELDSart! \ i • bOr,.S?RK searazRK f _ - - 6t ~j composition by Lea Richards Flap, 12 91 Oak Street, Ashland 381E33 402 and 400 (boundary lines not exact) w i' Yb L f'~~ f~ -mot ~ .~.~•A n f - U - • y i _7 z .x• aY '~e- w~... ,p~~.: .-~a ,~r & I is {1 p.. "r ^~~""K~"4w.~8m-~14 r~, bR'i..l V O•Y a y r i~w'~5:. A -A i ~ ` 1 C ~ tF} ~ ~fi i t Y i 21, 4 : y { :.',i , V': ;7 +r~4. ' ~ Sir ~q I u 'iM" J~•''~4 r ' S SR n Y% A yy ut . y ! ;a ~ i ,r _,i,~ ~ y { _ a ~~...tdi~.~~~ • r, fit,`; ~F J ~ ~ ten` ~ ~ I ~f } arm. J ~ - J I i DocuSign Envelope ID: 1005BA19-AC3E-4AAD-8ABA-F2E9BEBAAE97 O R E F Sale Agreement # gg1302018 ~vum.wr , 5 ft..,I £-.!n,Forma. LLC SELLER'S COUNTER OFFER No. 3 1 This is a counter offer to 0 Sale Agreement or ❑ Buyer's Counter Offer 2 Seller: Steven Hardesty SoleTrustee of the Harold C Hardesty Trust dtd March 14, 2008, as amended. 3 Buyer: City of Ashland 4 The real property described as: 1291 Oak St. Ashland OR 5 AGREEMENT TO SELL: Seller agrees to sell the real and personal property upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Sale Agreement and 6 subsequent counter offers where applicable, except as modified as follows: 1. Sales price to be $1,200,000.00. 7 2. Close of escrow to be June 30. 2018 or sooner. 8 3 All buyer and seller signature response timelines extended to March 23, 2018 na 5:00pm. 9 4. All other items to remain the same. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 For additional provisions, see Addendum 19 All remaining terms and conditions of the Sale Agreement (and other counter offer(s), where applicable), not otherwise modified, are 20 approved and accepted by Seller. Time is of the essence. This Seller's Counter Offer shall automatically expire on March 26, 2018 at 21 5 F] a.m. ❑X p.m. ("the Counter Offer Deadline"), if not accepted within that time This Seller's Counter Offer may be accepted by Buyer only in 22 writing. However, Seller may withdraw this counter offer any time prior to Buyer's written acceptance. 23 Seller acknowledges receipt of a completely filled in copy of Buyer's Offer and Seller's Counter Offer, and all subsequent counter offers 24 where applicable, which Seller has fully read and understands. Seller acknowledges that Seller has not relied on any oral or written 25 statements of any Buyer or of any Agent(s) that are not expressly contained in the Sale Agreement as amended. Seller instructs that all 26 earnest money distributable to Seller pursuant to the Sale Agreement shall be disbursed as follows after deduction of any title insurance 27 and Escrow cancellation charges: (check one) ❑ First to Seller's Agent's Firm, to the extent of the agreed commission just as if the 28 transaction had been consummated, with residue to Seller: or ❑X per listing agreement 29 C 30 Seller Signature ) Date 3/20/2018 11:25 AM PDTa.m. _ p.m. < d'8f"dKTIlardesty SoleTrustee of the 31 Seller Signature Date 3/20/2018 1:44 PM PDT a.m. _ p.m. 3Hrde831lardesty Trust dtd March 14, 2008, as amended. 32 BUYER'S RESPONSE (select only one): 33 Buyer accepts Seller's Counter Offer. 34 ❑ Buyer does not accept Seller's Counter Offer AND submits the attached Buyer's Counter Offer. 35 ❑ Buyer rejects Seller's Counter Offer. 36 Buyer acknowledges receipt of signed copies of the Sale Agreement and all subsequent counter offers including this Seller's Counter 37 Offer, where applic wb4l~~ltlier has fully read and understands. 38 Buyer Signature c) 6r 9SU-IaA - Q A&S Date 4/3/2018 15:56 PDT - a.m. _ p.m. - Ci}}yL3 A7'IAWM96_. 39 Buyer Signature Date _ a.m. _ p.m. < 40 Note: If delivery/transmission occurs after the Counter Offer Deadline identified above, it will not become binding upon Seller and 41 Buyer unless the parties agree to extend said Deadline by an Addendum, Counteroffer, or other writing, jointly signed by the 42 parties. The parties' failure to do so shall be treated as a rejection under Buyers Response, above, and this transaction shall be 43 automatically terminated. 44 Seller's Agent Lisa Coleman Buyer's Agent Danna Gibson This form has been licensed for use solely by Lisa Coleman pursuant to a Forms License Agreement with Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC. LINES WITH THIS < SYMBOL REQUIRE A SIGNATURE AND DATE Copyright Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC 2018 www.orefonline.com OREF 003 No portion may be reproduced without express permission of Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC Page 1 of 1 John L Scott Medford, 871 Medford Center Medford, OR 97504 Phone. (541) 821-6814 Fax: (541) 772-2010 1291 Oak St Lisa Coleman Produced with zipFcrm® by zipLogix 18070 Fifteen Mile Road, Fraser, Michigan 48026 www.zipLoaix.com DocuSign Envelope ID: 0292A027-28A3-4F77-B155-BE5CFDA7A930 Q OR E F Sale Agreement # gg122117 1°OF1iMr t „Rm11-,1.:Fi.m..- SELLER'S COUNTEROFFER No. 1 1 This is a counter offer to ❑X Sale Agreement or ❑ Buyer's Counter Offer 2 Seller: Steven Hardesty Trustee 3 Buyer: City of Ashland 4 The real property described as: 1291 Oak St Ashland OR 5 AGREEMENT TO SELL: Seller agrees to sell the real and personal property upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Sale Agreement and 6 subsequent counter offers where applicable, except as modified as follows: 1.Sales Price to be $1,300,000. 7 2 Seller have already had a Phase one environmental assessment done and will provide buyers with an emailed copy. 8 3. Seller will not have another Phase one environment assessment done. 9 4 Buyers may choose to have a phase two environmental assessment done at their expense sellers will not pay for a phase two 10 enviromental assessment. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 For additional provisions, see Addendum 19 All remaining terms and conditions of the Sale Agreement (and other counter offer(s), where applicable), not otherwise modified, are 20 approved and accepted by Seller. Time is of the essence. This Seller's Counter Offer shall automatically expire on January 12, 2018 at 21 5 ❑ a.m. ❑ p.m. ("the Counter Offer Deadline"), if not accepted within that time This Seller's Counter Offer may be accepted by Buyer only in 22 writing. However, Seller may withdraw this counter offer any time prior to Buyer's written acceptance. 23 Seller acknowledges receipt of a completely filled in copy of Buyer's Offer and Seller's Counter Offer, and all subsequent counter offers 24 where applicable, which Seller has fully read and understands. Seller acknowledges that Seller has not relied on any oral or written 25 statements of any Buyer or of any Agent(s) that are not expressly contained in the Sale Agreement as amended. Seller instructs that all 26 earnest money distributable to Seller pursuant to the Sale Agreement shall be disbursed as follows after deduction of any title insurance 27 and Escrow cancellation charges: (check one) ❑ First to Seller's Agent's Firm, to the extent of the agreed commission just as if the 28 transaction had been consummated, with residue to Seller; or ❑X Per Listing Agreement 29 30 Seller Signature Date 1/8/2018 2:57 PM PST a.m.-p.m. F 'Si~tf€ffi'~Fardesty Trustee 31 Seller Signature Date _ a.m. _ p.m. 32 BUYER'S RESPONSE (select only one): 33 ❑ Buyer accepts Seller's Counter Offer. 34 ❑ Buyer does not accept Seller's Counter Offer AND submits the attached Buyer's Counter Offer. 35 ❑ Buyer rejects Seller's Counter Offer. 36 Buyer acknowledges receipt of signed copies of the Sale Agreement and all subsequent counter offers including this Seller's Counter 37 Offer, where applicable, which Buyer has fully read and understands. 38 Buyer Signature Date - a.m. p.m.. City of Ashland 39 Buyer Signature Date _ a.m. _ p.m. 40 Note: If delivery/transmission occurs after the Counter Offer Deadline identified above, it will not become binding upon Seller and 41 Buyer unless the parties agree to extend said Deadline by an Addendum, Counteroffer, or other writing, jointly signed by the 42 parties. The parties' failure to do so shall be treated as a rejection under Buyers Response, above, and this transaction shall be 43 automatically terminated. 44 Seller's Agent Lisa Coleman Buyer's Agent Danna Gibson This form has been licensed for use solely by Lisa Coleman pursuant to a Forms License Agreement with Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC. LINES WITH THIS - SYMBOL REQUIRE A SIGNATURE AND DATE Copyright Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC 2018 www.orefonline.com OREF 003 No portion may be reproduced without express permission of Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC Page 1 of 1 John L Scott Medford, 871 Medford Center Medford, OR 97504 Phone: (541) 821-6814 Fax: (541) 772-2010 1291 Oak St Lisa Coleman Produced with zipForm® by zipLogix 18070 Fifteen Mile Road, Fraser. Michigan 48026 www zioLogix.com DocuSign Envelope ID: 0292A027-28A3-4F77-B155-BE5CFDA7A930 u O R E F Sale Agreement # gg122117 FINAL AGENCY ACKNOWLEDGMENT 1 Both Buyer and Seller acknowledge having received the Oregon Real Estate Agency Disclosure Pamphlet, and hereby acknowledge and consent 2 to the following agency relationships in this transaction: 3 Danna Gibson (Name of Buyer's Agent(s)*), Oregon Lic. # 890500217 4 of John L Scott Ashland (Name of Real Estate Firm(s)*) 5 Buyer's Agent's Office Address 320 E Main St, Ashland, OR 97520 Company Lic. # 201207473 6 Phone (541)708-5775 Fax (541)488-1511 E-mail agg(a_johnlscott.com 7 is/are the agent of (check one): ❑X Buyer exclusively ("Buyer Agency"). ❑ Both Buyer and Seller ("Disclosed Limited Agency"). 8 Lisa Coleman (Name of Seller's Agent(s)*), Oregon Lic. # 960500119 9 of John L Scott (Name of Real Estate Firm(s)*) 10 Seller's Agent's Office Address 871 Medford Center, Medford, Or 97504 Company Lic. # 201207473 11 Phone (541)779-3611 Fax E-mail lisacoCa-_)johnlscott.com 12 is/are the agent of (check one): ❑X Seller exclusively ("Seller Agency"). ❑ Both Buyer and Seller ("Disclosed Limited Agency"). 13 *If Buyer's and/or Seller's Agents and/or Firms are co-selling or co-listing in this transaction, all Agents and Firm names should be 14 disclosed above. For directions on how to look up license numbers: httt)s://orea.elicense.irondata.com/Looku13/LicenseLookuD.as13x 15 If both parties are each represented by one or more Agents in the same Real Estate Firm, and Agents are supervised by the same principal broker in 16 that Real Estate Firm, Buyer and Seller acknowledge that said principal broker shall become the disclosed limited agent for both Buyer and Seller as 17 more fully explained in the Disclosed Limited Agency Agreements that have been reviewed and signed by Buyer, Seller and Agent(s). 18 Buyer shall sign this acknowledgment at the time of signing this Agreement before submission to Seller. Seller shall sign this acknowledgment at the 19 time this Agreement is first submitted to Seller, even if this Agreement will be rejected or a counter offer will be made. Seller's signature to this Final 20 Agency Acknowledgment shall not constitute acceptance of this Agreement or any terms therein. ❑ Sign by 21 Buyer S Print City of Ashland Date 1/4/2018 14:20--PST CE❑osB 'Signed by: uyer Print Date 22 Buyer"- 23 Seller Print Harold C Hardesty Trust Date 1/8/2018 2 : 57+-PM PST 24 Seller 3F181`858cne1465. Print Date _ RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE SALE AGREEMENT 25 THIS AGREEMENT IS INTENDED TO BE A LEGAL AND BINDING CONTRACT. IF IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD, SEEK COMPETENT LEGAL 26 ADVICE BEFORE SIGNING. FOR AN EXPLANATION OF THE PRINTED TERMS AND PROVISIONS IN THIS FORM REGARDING TIMING, 27 NOTICE, BINDING EFFECT, ETC., SELLER AND BUYER ARE ENCOURAGED TO CLOSELY REVIEW SECTION 31 (DEFINITIONS AND 28 INSTRUCTIONS SECTION). 29 1. PRICE/PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Buyer City of Ashland 30 31 offers to purchase from Seller Harold C Hardesty Trust 32 33 the following described real property (hereinafter "the Property") situated in the State of Oregon, County of Jackson 34 and commonly known or identified as (insert street address, city, zip code, tax identification number, lot/block description, etc.) 35 1291 Oak St Ashland, OR 97520-1058 36 38 1 E 33 Lots 402 & 400 37 (Buyer and Seller agree that if it is not provided herein, a complete legal description as provided by the title insurance company in accordance with 38 Section 9, shall, where necessary, be used for purposes of legal identification and conveyance of title.) 39 for the Purchase Price (in U.S. currency) of A $ 1,000,000.00 40 on the following terms: Earnest money herein receipted for B $ 10,000.00 41 on , as additional earnest money, the sum of C $ 42 at or before Closing, the balance of down payment D $ 990,000.00 43 at Closing and upon delivery of ❑ DEED ❑ CONTRACT the balance of the Purchase Price E $ 44 shall be paid as agreed in Financing Section of the Agreement. (Lines B, C, D and E should equal Line A) DS Buyer Initial / Date 1/4/2018 1 1 :20 PST Seller Initials f Date 1/8/2018 2 57 PM This form has been licensed for use solely by Danna Gibson pursuant to a Forms License Agreement with Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC. LINES WITH THIS SYMBOL REQUIRE A SIGNATURE OF BUYER AND/OR SELLER AND DATE Copyright Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC 2017 www.orefonline.com No portion may be reproduced without express permission of Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC OREF 001 RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE SALE AGREEMENT - Page 1 of 11 John L Scott Ashland, 320 E Main St. Ashland OR 97520 Phone: (541)708-5775 Fax: 5414881511 Harold Hardesty Hanna Gibson Produced with zipForm(@ by zipLogix 18070 Fifteen Mile Road, Fraser, Michigan 48026 www.zii)Loaix.com DocuSign Envelope ID: 0292A027-28A3-4F77-B155-BE5CFDA7A930 Q Sale Agreement # gg122117 45 2. FIXTURES: All fixtures (including remote controls and essential related equipment) are to be left upon the Property. Fixtures shall include but 46 not be limited to: built-in appliances; attached floor coverings; drapery rods and curtain rods, window and door screens; storm doors and windows; 47 system fixtures (irrigation, plumbing, ventilating, cooling and heating); water heaters, attached electric light and bathroom fixtures; light bulbs, 48 fluorescent lamps; window blinds; awnings; fences; all planted shrubs, plants and trees; EXCEPT: Sellers personal property 49 50 3. PERSONAL PROPERTY: Only the following personal property, in "AS-IS" condition and at no stated value is included: 51 built ins 52 53 54 FINANCING 55 4. BALANCE OF PURCHASE PRICE. (Select A or B) 56 A. OThis is an all cash transaction. Buyer to provide verification ("Verification") of readily available funds as follows (select only one): 57 ❑ Buyer has attached a copy of the Verification with the submission of this Agreement to Seller or Seller's Agent. ❑X Buyer will provide Seller or 58 Seller's Agent with the Verification within 10 business days (five [5] if not filled in) after this Agreement has been signed and accepted; or ❑ 59 Other (Describe): 60 Seller may notify Buyer or Buyer's Agent, in writing, of Seller's unconditional disapproval of the Verification within business days (two [2] if not 61 filled in) ("Disapproval Period") following its receipt by Seller or Seller's Agent. Provided, however, such disapproval must be objectively reasonable. 62 Upon such disapproval, all earnest money deposits shall be promptly refunded to Buyer and this transaction shall be terminated. If Seller fails to 63 provide Buyer or Buyer's Agent with written unconditional disapproval of the Verification by 5:00 p.m. of the last day of the Disapproval 64 Period, Seller shall be deemed to have approved the Verification. If Buyer fails to submit a Verification within a time frame selected 65 above, unless the parties agree otherwise in writing, all earnest money deposits shall be promptly refunded and this transaction shall be 66 terminated. 67 B. F] Balance of Purchase Price to be financed through one of the following Loan Programs (Select only one): 68 ❑ Conventional; ❑ FHA; ❑ Federal VA; 69 ❑ Other (Describe): Buyer agrees to 70 seek financing through a lending institution or mortgage broker (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Lender") participating in the Loan 71 Program selected above. 72 C. Pre-Approval Letter. ❑ Buyer has attached a copy of a Pre-Approval Letter from Buyer's Lender; ❑ Buyer does no have a Pre-Approval Letter 73 at the time of making this offer; ❑ Buyer agrees to secure a Pre-Approval Letter and provide a copy to Seller as follows: 74 75 5.1 FINANCING CONTINGENCIES. If Buyer is financing any portion of the Purchase Price, this transaction is subject to the following financing 76 contingencies: (1) Buyer and the Property to qualify for the loan from Lender; (2) Lender's appraisal shall not be less than the Purchase Price; and, 77 (3) Other (Describe): 78 79 All Financing Contingencies are solely for Buyer's benefit and may be waived by Buyer in writing at any time. 80 5.2 FAILURE OF FINANCING CONTINGENCIES. If Buyer receives actual notification from Lender that any Financing Contingencies identified 81 above have failed or otherwise cannot occur, Buyer shall promptly notify Seller, and the parties shall have business days (two [2] if not filled 82 in) following the date of Buyer's notification to Seller to either (a) Terminate this transaction by signing a Termination Agreement (OREF 057) 83 and/or such other similar form as may be provided by Escrow; or (b) Reach a written mutual agreement upon such price and terms that will permit 84 this transaction to continue. Neither Seller nor Buyer is required under the preceding provision (b) to reach such agreement. If (a) or (b) fail to 85 occur within the time period identified in this Section 5.2, this transaction shall be automatically terminated and all earnest money shall be promptly 86 refunded to Buyer. Buyer understands that upon termination of this transaction, Seller shall have the right to immediately place the Property back 87 on the market for sale upon any price and terms as Seller determines, in Seller's sole discretion. 88 5.3 BUYER REPRESENTATION REGARDING FINANCING: Buyer makes the following representations to Seller: (1) Buyer's completed loan 89 application, as hereinafter defined, shall be submitted to the Lender that provided the Pre-Approval Letter, a copy of which has been delivered to 90 Seller, or will be, pursuant to Section 4C, above. 91 (2) Buyer shall submit to Buyer's Lender a completed loan application for purchase of the Property not later than business days (three [3] if not 92 filled in) following the date Buyer and Seller have signed and accepted this Agreement. A "completed loan application" shall include the following E os Buyer Initial Datel/4/2018 14 20 PST Seller Initial / Date 1/8/2018 I 2 W PM This form has been licensed for use solely by Danna Gibson pursuant to a Forms License Agreement with Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC. LINES WITH THIS SYMBOL - REQUIRE A SIGNATURE OF BUYER AND/OR SELLER AND DATE Copyright Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC 2017 www.orefonline.com No portion may be reproduced without express permission of Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC OREF 001 RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE SALE AGREEMENT - Page 2 of 11 Produced with zipForm® by zipLogix 18070 Fifteen Mile Road, Fraser, Michigan 48026 www.zloLoaix.com Harold Hardesty DocuSign Envelope ID: 0292A027-28A3-4F77-B155-BE5CFDA7A930 Sale Agreement # ggl22117 93 information: (i) Buyer's name(s); (ii) Buyer's income(s); (iii) Buyer's social security number(s); (iv) the Property address; (v) an estimate of the 94 value of the Property; and (vi) the loan amount sought. 95 (3) Buyer agrees that if Buyer intends to proceed with the loan transaction, Buyer will so notify Lender within _ business days (three [3] if not filled in - 96 but not to exceed ten [10]) in such form as required by said Lender, following Buyer's receipt of Lender's Loan Estimate. Upon request, Buyer shall 97 promptly notify Seller of the date of Buyer's signed notice of intent to proceed with the loan. 98 (4) Buyer will thereafter complete all paperwork requested by the Lender in a timely manner, and exercise best efforts (including payment of all 99 application, appraisal and processing fees, where applicable) to obtain the loan. 100 (5) Buyer understands and agrees that Buyer may not replace the Lender or Loan Program already selected, without Seller's written consent, which 101 may be withheld in Seller's sole discretion. 102 (6) Following submission of the loan application, Buyer agrees to keep Seller promptly informed of all material non-confidential developments 103 regarding Buyer's financing and the time of Closing 104 (7) Buyer shall make a good faith effort to secure the ordering of the Lender's appraisal no later than expiration of the Inspection Period at Section 105 10 of this Agreement, (or Section 1 of the Professional Inspection Addendum (OREF 058) if used). 106 (8) Buyer currently has liquid and available funds for the earnest money deposit and down payment sufficient to Close the transaction described 107 herein and is not relying upon any contingent source of funds (e.g., from loans, gifts, sale or closing of other property, 401 K disbursements, etc.), 108 except as follows (describe): None 109 110 111 (9) Buyer authorizes Buyer's Lender to provide non-confidential information to Buyer's and Seller's Agents regarding Buyer's loan application 112 status. 113 6.1 INSURANCE: Buyer is encouraged to promptly verify the availability and cost of property/casualty/fire insurance that will be secured for the 114 Property. Additionally, lenders may require proof of property/casualty/fire insurance as a condition of the loan. 115 6.2 FLOOD INSURANCE; ELEVATION CERTIFICATE: If the Property is located in a designated flood zone, flood insurance may be required as a 116 condition of a new loan. Buyer is encouraged to promptly verify the need, availability, and cost of flood insurance, if applicable. An Elevation 117 Certificate ("EC") is the document used by the federal National Flood Insurance Program ("NFIP") to determine the difference in elevation between 118 a home or building, and the base flood elevation ("BFE"), which is a computed elevation to which floodwater is anticipated to rise during certain 119 floods. The amount of the flood insurance premium for a particular property is based upon the EC. Not all properties in flood zones require an EC, 120 depending upon when they were constructed. ECs must be prepared and certified by a land surveyor, engineer, or architect who is authorized by 121 the local jurisdiction to certify elevation information. The costs and fees for an EC may range from a few hundred dollars to over a thousand. If the 122 Property requires an EC, it will need to be obtained prior to receiving a flood insurance quote. Additionally, lenders may require an EC as 123 a condition of loan approval. For more information, go to the following link: hftp://www.fema.gov/base-flood-elevation 124 7. SELLER-CARRIED FINANCING (E.G., LAND SALE CONTRACT/TRUST DEED/MORTGAGE/OPTION AGREEMENTS, RENT-TO-OWN, 125 ETC.): Notice to Buyer and Seller: If this transaction involves a land sale contract, trust deed, mortgage, option, or lease-to-own agreement 126 (hereinafter a "Seller Carried Transaction"), Oregon law requires that, unless exempted, individuals offering or negotiating the terms must hold a 127 mortgage loan originator ("MLO") license. Your real estate agent is not qualified to provide these services or to advise you in this regard. Legal 128 advice is strongly recommended. Oregon law exempts the following individuals from the MLO licensing law: (a) Those who offer or negotiate terms 129 of a residential mortgage loan with or on behalf of their spouse, child, sibling, parent, grandparent, grandchild or a relative in a similar relationship 130 created by law, marriage or adoption; (b) Those who sell their primary residence they currently or previously lived in; and (c) Individuals who sell up 131 to three (3) non-primary residences during any 12-month period. (Note: One may not hold more than eight residential mortgage loans at one time.) If 132 this is a Seller-Carried Transaction, and one or more of the preceding exemptions apply, Buyer and Seller agree as follows (select only one): 133 ❑ (a) Secure separate legal counsel to negotiate and draft the necessary documents, or 134 ❑ (b) Employ an MILO; or 135 ❑ (c) Use the Seller-Carried Addendum (OREF 033) and related forms. 136 Seller and Buyer agree that regardless of whether (a), (b), or (c) is selected, they will reach a signed written agreement upon the terms and 137 conditions of such financing (e.g. down payment, interest rate, amortization, term, payment dates, late fees, balloon dates, etc.) within business 138 days (ten [10] if not filled in) commencing on the next business day following the date they have signed and accepted this Sale Agreement 139 ("Negotiation of Terms Period"). Upon failure of Buyer and Seller to reach agreement by 5:00 p.m. on the last day of the Negotiation of Terms 140 Period, or such other times as may be agreed upon in writing, all earnest money deposits shall be refunded to Buyer and this transaction shall be DS Buyer Initial CF / Date 1/4/2018 1 1 :20 PST Seller Initial ';Date 1/8/2018 :57 PI This form has been licensed for use solely by Danna Gibson pursuant to a Forms License Agreement with Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC. LINES WITH THIS SYMBOL - REQUIRE A SIGNATURE OF BUYER AND/OR SELLER AND DATE Copyright Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC 2017 www.arefonfine.com No portion may be reproduced without express permission of Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC OREF 001 RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE SALE AGREEMENT - Page 3 of 11 Produced with zipForm(@ by zipLogix 18070 Fifteen Mile Road, Fraser, Michigan 48026 www.zir)Lociix.com Harold Hardesty DocuSign Envelope ID: 0292A027-28A3-4F77-8155-BE5CFDA7A930 Q Sale Agreement # gg122117 141 automatically terminated. Caveat: Buyer's and Seller's Agents are not authorized to render advice on these matters. Buyer and Seller are advised to 142 secure competent legal advice while engaged in a Seller-Carried Transaction. 143 8. ADDITIONAL FINANCING PROVISIONS: 144 145 CONTINGENCIES 146 147 9. TITLE INSURANCE: When this Agreement is signed and accepted by Buyer and Seller, Seller will, at Seller's sole expense, promptly order from 148 the title insurance company selected at Section 22 below, a preliminary title report and copies of all documents of record ("the Report and 149 Documents of Record") for the Property, and furnish them to Buyer at Buyer's contact location as defined at Section 31(3) below. Unless otherwise 150 provided herein, this transaction is subject to Buyer's review and approval of the Report and Documents of Record (If, upon receipt, the Report and 151 Documents of Record are not fully understood, Buyer should immediately contact the title insurance company for further information or seek 152 competent legal advice). The Buyer's and Seller's Agents are not qualified to advise on specific legal or title issues.) Upon receipt of the Report 153 and Documents of Record Buyer shall have 7 business days (five [5] if not filled in) within which to notify Seller, in writing, of any matters 154 disclosed in the Report and Documents of Record which is/are unacceptable ("the Objections"). Buyer's failure to timely object in writing, shall 155 constitute acceptance of the Report and/or Documents of Record. However, Buyer's failure to timely object shall not relieve Seller of the duty to 156 convey marketable title to the Property pursuant to Section 28, below. If, within 7 business days (five [5] if not filled in) following Seller's 157 receipt of the Objections, Seller fails to remove or correct the matters identified therein, or fails to give written assurances reasonably satisfactory to 158 Buyer, that they will be removed or corrected prior to Closing, all earnest money shall be promptly refunded to Buyer, and this transaction shall be 159 terminated. This contingency is solely for Buyer's benefit and may be waived by Buyer in writing. Within thirty (30) days after Closing, the title 160 insurance company shall furnish to Buyer, an owner's standard form policy of title insurance insuring marketable title in the Property to Buyer in the 161 amount of the Purchase Price, free and clear of the Objections, if any, and all other title exceptions agreed to be removed as part of this transaction. 162 (Note: This Section 9 provides that Seller will pay for Buyer's standard owner's policy of title insurance. In some areas of the country, 163 such a payment might be regarded as a "seller concession." Under the TILA/RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rules ["the Rules'], there are 164 limitations, regulations and disclosure requirements on "seller concessions", unless the product or service paid for by the Seller was one 165 customarily paid by sellers in residential sales transactions. In Oregon, sellers customarily and routinely pay for their buyer's standard 166 owner's policy of title insurance. Accordingly, unless the terms of this Section 9 are modified in writing by Buyer and Seller, the parties 167 acknowledge, agree and so instruct Escrow, that in this transaction, Seller's payment of Buyer's standard owner's policy of title insurance 168 is not a "seller concession" under the Rules or any other federal law.) 169 10. INSPECTIONS/ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CONDITIONS: The following list identifies some, but not all, environmental conditions that may be 170 found in and around all real property that may affect health: Asbestos, carbon monoxide, electric and magnetic fields, formaldehyde, lead and other 171 contaminants in drinking water and well water, lead based paint, mold and mildew, radon, and leaking underground storage tanks. If Buyer has any 172 concerns about these conditions or others, Buyer is encouraged to secure the services of a licensed professional inspector, consultant, or health 173 expert, for information and guidance. Neither the Buyer's nor Seller's Agents are experts in environmental health hazards or conditions. Buyer 174 understands that it is advisable to have a complete inspection of the Property by qualified licensed professional(s) relating to such matters as 175 structural condition, soil condition/compaction/stability, environmental issues, survey, zoning, operating systems, and suitability for Buyer's intended 176 purpose. Neither Buyer's nor Seller's Agent are qualified to conduct such inspections and shall not be responsible to do so. For further details, 177 Buyer is encouraged to review the Buyer Advisory at http:/Mmw oregonrealtors org/resources/membership-resources/buyer-seller-advisories 178 and the Oregon Public Health Division at http://public health.oregon.gov/Pages/Home.asox. 179 Check only one box below: 180 ❑ LICENSED PROFESSIONAL INSPECTIONS: At Buyer's expense, Buyer may have the Property and all elements and systems thereof 181 inspected by one or more licensed professionals of Buyer's choice. Provided, however, Buyer must specifically identify in this Agreement any 182 desired invasive inspections that may include testing or removal of any portion of the Property including radon and mold. Buyer understands that 183 Buyer is responsible for the restoration of the Property following any inspection(s)/test(s) performed by Buyer or on Buyer's behalf. Buyer shall 184 have business days (ten [10] if not filled in), after the date Buyer and Seller have signed and accepted this Agreement (hereinafter "the 185 Inspection Period"), in which to complete all inspections and negotiations with Seller regarding any matters disclosed in any inspection report. 186 Buyer shall not provide all or any portion of the inspection reports to Seller unless requested by Seller or Seller's Agent. However, at any time 187 during this transaction, or promptly following termination, upon request by Seller or Seller's Agent, Buyer shall promptly provide a copy of such 188 reports or portions of reports, as requested. During the Inspection Period, Seller shall not be required to modify any terms of this Agreement 189 already reached with Buyer. Unless a written agreement has already been reached with Seller regarding Buyer's requested repairs, at any time 190 during the Inspection Period, Buyer may notify Seller or Seller's Agent, in writing, of Buyer's unconditional disapproval of the Property based on any 191 inspection report(s), in which case, all earnest money deposits shall be promptly refunded, and this transaction shall be terminated. If Buyer fails 192 to provide Seller or Seller's Agent with written unconditional disapproval of any inspection report(s) by 5:00 P.M. of the final day of the 193 Inspection Period, Buyer shall be deemed to have accepted the condition of the Property. Note that if, prior to expiration of the Inspection DS Buyer Initial 11 / Datel 4 2018 I 1 :20 PST Seller Initia s / -Date 1/8/2018 1 257 PM This form has been licensed for use solely by Danna Gibson pursuant to a Forms License Agreement with Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC. LINES WITH THIS SYMBOL ~ REQUIRE A SIGNATURE OF BUYER AND/OR SELLER AND DATE Copyright Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC 2017 www.orefonline.com No portion may be reproduced without express permission of Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC OREF 001 RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE SALE AGREEMENT - Page 4 of 11 Produced with zipForm® by zipLogix 18070 Fifteen Mile Road, Fraser, Michigan 48026 www.zioLocix.com Harold Hardesty DocuSign Envelope ID: 0292A027-28A3-4F77-B155-BE5CFDA7A930 Q Sale Agreement # ggl22117 194 Period, written agreement is reached with Seller regarding Buyer's requested repairs, the Inspection Period shall automatically terminate, 195 unless the parties agree otherwise in writing. 196 Identify Invasive Inspections: 197 ❑X ALTERNATIVE INSPECTION PROCEDURES: OREF 058 PROFESSIONAL INSPECTION ADDENDUM OR OTHER INSPECTION 198 ADDENDUM is attached to this Agreement. 199 ❑ BUYER'S WAIVER OF INSPECTION CONTINGENCY: Buyer represents to Seller and all Agents and Firms that Buyer is fully satisfied with the 200 condition of the Property and all elements and systems thereof and knowingly and voluntarily elects to waive the right to have any inspections 201 performed as a contingency to the Closing of the transaction. Buyer's election to waive the right of inspection is solely Buyer's decision and at 202 Buyer's own risk. 203 11. LEAD-BASED PAINT CONTINGENCY PERIOD: If the Property was constructed before 1978, a Lead-Based Paint Disclosure 204 Addendum (hereinafter "the Disclosure Addendum") shall be promptly signed by Seller, Buyer, and their respective agents, and become 205 a part of this Agreement. Buyer shall also be provided with a pamphlet entitled "Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home." Buyer 206 shall have calendar days (ten [10] unless a greater number is filled in) within which to conduct a lead-based paint assessment or 207 inspection (hereinafter referred to as "the Lead-Based Paint Contingency Period"), which shall commence immediately when Buyer and 208 Seller sign the Disclosure Addendum. Unless the opportunity to conduct a risk assessment or inspection is expressly waived in the 209 Disclosure Addendum, Buyer may, in writing, unconditionally cancel this transaction during the Lead-Based Paint Contingency Period 210 and receive a prompt refund of all earnest money deposits. Buyer understands that the failure to give timely written notice of 211 cancellation prior to Midnight on the last day of the Lead-Based Paint Contingency Period shall constitute acceptance of the condition of 212 the Property as it relates to the presence of lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards. 213 ❑ OREF 021 Lead-Based Paint Disclosure Addendum is attached to this Agreement. 214 12.1 PRIVATE WELL: Does the Property include a well that supplies or is intended to supply domestic water for household use? ❑X Yes ❑ No 215 If the property contains a private well, the OREF 82 Private Well Addendum will be attached to this Sale Agreement. 216 12.2 ONSITE SEWAGE SYSTEM: Does the Property include an onsite sewage system? ❑X Yes ❑ No If the Property contains an onsite 217 sewage system, the OREF 081 Onsite Sewage System Addendum will be attached to this Sale Agreement. 218 13. PROPERTY DISCLOSURE LAW: Buyer and Seller acknowledge that unless this transaction is otherwise exempted, Oregon law provides that 219 Buyer has a right to revoke Buyer's offer by giving Seller written notice thereof (a) within five (5) business days after Seller's delivery of Seller's 220 Property Disclosure Statement ("the Statement"), or (b) at any time before Closing (as defined in the Oregon Administrative Rules) if Buyer does 221 not receive the Statement from Seller before Closing. Buyer may waive the right of revocation only in writing. Seller authorizes Seller's Agent's Firm 222 to receive Buyer's notice of revocation.. if any, on Seller's behalf. SELLER REPRESENTATIONS 223 224 14. SELLER REPRESENTATIONS: Subject to other written disclosures made by Seller as a part of this transaction, Seller makes the 225 following representations to Buyer: 226 (1) The primary dwelling is connected to (check all that apply): X a public sewer system; ❑X an on-site sewage system; ❑ a public 227 water system; ❑ a private well; ❑ other (e.g., surface springs, cistern, etc.). 228 (2) At the earlier of possession or Closing Date, the dwelling will have one or more operating smoke alarms, smoke detectors and carbon 229 monoxide detectors as required by law (See http://www.oreaon.ciov/OSP/SFM/). 230 (3) Seller has no knowledge of any hazardous substances in or about the Property other than substances (if any) contained in appliances 231 and equipment. Buyer acknowledges that asbestos commonly exists in insulation, ceilings, floor coverings and other areas in 232 residential housing and may exist in the Property. 233 (4) Seller knows of no material defects in or about the Property. 234 (5) All electrical wiring, heating, cooling, plumbing and irrigation equipment and systems and the balance of the Property, including the 235 yard, will be in substantially their present condition at the time Buyer is entitled to possession. 236 (6) Seller has no notice of any liens or assessments to be levied against the Property. 237 (7) Seller has no notice from any governmental agency of any violation of law relating to the Property. 238 (8) Seller is not a "foreign person" under the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act ("FIRPTA") as defined in this Agreement. 239 (9) Seller knows of no material discrepancies between visible lines of possession and use (such as existing fences, hedges, landscaping, 240 structures, driveways, and other such improvements) currently existing on the Property and the legal description of the Property. 241 (10) Seller will keep the Property fully insured through Closing. 242 (11) Seller agrees to promptly notify Buyer if, prior to Closing, Seller receives actual notice of any event or condition that could result in 243 making any previously disclosed material information relating to the Property substantially misleading or incorrect. 244 These representations are made to the best of Seller's knowledge. Seller may have made no investigations. Exceptions to items (1) 245 through (11) are: None (For more excepptions see Addendum IDS r- Buyer Initial i / Date 1/4/2018 1 1 :20 PST Seller Initia s , f" Date] 1912019 ~ 2 : 57 PM This form has been licensed for use solely by Danna Gibson pursuant to a Forms License Agreement with Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC. LINES WITH THIS SYMBOL - REQUIRE A SIGNATURE OF BUYER AND/OR SELLER AND DATE Copyright Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC 2017 www.orefonline.com No portion may be reproduced without express permission of Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC OREF 001 RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE SALE AGREEMENT - Page 5 of 11 Produced with zipForm® by zipLogix 18070 Fifteen Mile Road, Fraser, Michigan 48026 www.zir)Loaix.com Harold Hardesty DocuSign Envelope ID: 0292A027-28A3-4F77-B155-BE5CFDA7A930 • Q Sale Agreement# gg122117 246 Buyer acknowledges that the above representations are not warranties regarding the condition of the Property and are not a substitute 247 for. nor in lieu of Buyers own responsibility to conduct a thorough and complete independent investigation including the use of 248 professionals, where appropriate regarding all material matters bearing on the condition of the Pronertv its value and its suitability for 249 Buyers intended use Neither Buyer's nor Selices Agents shall be responsible for conducting any inspection or investigation of any 250 aspects of the Property. 251 15.1 SELLER ADVISORY: OREGON STATE TAX WITHHOLDING OBLIGATIONS: Subject to certain exceptions, Escrow is required to withhold a 252 portion of Seller's proceeds if Seller is a non-resident individual or corporation as defined under Oregon law. Buyer and Seller agree to cooperate 253 with Escrow by executing and delivering any instrument, affidavit or statement as requested, and to perform any acts reasonable or necessary to 254 carry out the provisions of Oregon law. 255 15.2 SELLER/BUYER ADVISORY: FIRPTA TAX WITHHOLDING REQUIREMENT. Sellerand Buyer are advised thatupon Closing, a Federal law, known 256 as the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act ("FIRPTA'), requires buyers to withhold a portion of a seller's proceeds if the real property is located within 257 the United States and the seller is a "foreign person" who does not qualify for an exemption ("Withholding Requirement"). A'Yoreign person" includes a non- 258 resident alien individual, foreign corporation, foreign partnership, foreign trust or a foreign estate. Generally, the following rules apply under FIRPTA: (a) There 259 is no Withholding Requirement, even if the seller is a'Yoreign person", if. (7 The purchase price of the property is not more than $300,000; and (fl) The properly 260 wit be occupied as a residence by a buyer who is an individual (or a member of his/her family) (i) for at least 50% of the number of days (excluding days the 261 property is vacant) R is used by such person during each of the first two 12-month periods following the date of closing; (b) The Withholding Requirement will 262 be ten percent (10%) of the purchase price when the seller is a"foreign person" and the purchase price is over $300,000, but less than $1,000,000, and (a)(ii) 263 and (ii) above apply; and (c) The Wthholding Requirement will be a fifteen percent (15%) of the purchase price when the seller is a'foreign person" and the 264 purchase price is over $1,000,000, regardless of use of the property. If FIRPTA applies, even if there is an exemption, Seller and Buyer should complete 265 and sign the FIRPTA Addendum, OREF 093. Seller's and Buyer's Agents are not experts in FIRPTA and will not act as a transferor or transferee 266 agent for purposes of the Withholding Requirement. If FIRPTA may apply in this transaction, Seller and Buyer should promptly consult their own 267 experts familiar with the law and regulations. For further information, Seller and Buyer should go to: htfpYAS ..re itororg/articlesTirpta- 268 withholding-rate-increasing4o-15. 269 16. "AS-IS": Except for Sellers express written agreements and written representations contained herein, and Sellers Property 270 Disclosure, if any, Buyer is purchasing the Property "AS-IS," in its present condition and with all defects apparent or not apparent. This 271 provision shall not be construed to limit Buyers right to implied new home warranties, if any, that may otherwise exist under Oregon 272 law. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 273 274 17. TOWNHOMEIPLANNED COMMUNITY: Is the property a lownhome grin a planned community? ❑Yes N No ❑ Unknown 275 If yes, Seller to provide Buyer with OREF 024 TownhomelPlanned Community Addendum. 276 18. ALARM SYSTEM: ❑X NONE N OWNED ❑ LEASED. If leased, Buyer ❑will ❑ will not assume the lease at Closing. 277 19. WOODSTOVEIWOOD BURNING FIREPLACE INSERT: Does the Property contain a woodstove or wood burning fireplace insert? 278 ❑Yes ❑ No 279 If yes, is the woodslove/wood burning fireplace insert certified? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown. If "No" or "Unknown," Seller to provide Buyer with 280 OREF 046 Woodstove/Wood Burning Fireplace Insert Addendum. 281 20. HOME WARRANTIES: Home warranty plans may be available to help cover homeowner costs to repair/replace certain home systems and 282 appliances. (See specific plan for details.) Will a plan be purchased for Buyer as a part of this transaction? ❑Yes ❑X No 283 If yes, identify plan and cost: $ To be paid at Closing by: ❑ Buyer ❑ Seller 284 21. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS: 285 286 287 For additional provisions, see Addendum CLOSING/ESCROW 288 289 22. ESCROW: This transaction shall be Closed at First American Title ("Escrow), a neutral escrow 290 company licensed and located in the State of Oregon. Costs of Escrow shall be shared equally between Buyer and Seller, unless otherwise specifically 291 prohibited by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (Federal VA). Unless otherwise provided herein, the parties agree as follows: Seller authorizes Buyer Initial ;T-1 Date1/4/2018 1 :20 PST Seller Initial DS c f/rDatel/8/2018 1 2:57 PM This form has been licensed for use solely by Danna Gibson pursuant to a Farms License Agreement with Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC. LINES WITH THIS SYMBOL ~ REQUIRE A SIGNATURE OF BUYER AND/OR SELLER AND DATE Copyright Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC 2017 www.orefonline.com No portion may be reproduced without express permission of Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC OREF 001 RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE SALE AGREEMENT - Page 6 of 11 Produced with zipFOm* by zipLogix 18070 Fifteen Mile Road, Fraser, Michigan 48826 w 2 oLOOix mm 11 arold nardrsry DocuSign Envelope ID: 0292A027-28A3-4F77-B155-BE5CFDA7A930 Q Sale Agreement # gg122117 292 Seller's Agent's Firm to order a preliminary title report and owner's title policy at Seller's expense and further authorizes Escrow to pay out of the 293 cash proceeds of sale the expense of furnishing such policy, Seller's recording fees, Seller's Closing costs and any liens and encumbrances on the 294 Property payable by Seller on or before Closing. Buyer shall deposit with Escrow sufficient funds necessary to pay Buyer's recording fees, Buyer's 295 Closing costs, and lender's fees, if any. Real estate fees, commissions or other compensation for professional real estate services provided by 296 Buyer's or Seller's Agent's Firms shall be paid at Closing in accordance with the listing agreement, buyer service agreement or other written 297 agreement for compensation. 298 23. PRORATIONS: Prorates for rents, current year's taxes, interest on assumed obligations, and other prepaid expenses attributable to the 299 Property shall be as of: (check one) E] the Closing Date; ❑X date Buyer is entitled to possession. 300 24. RECEIPT FOR EARNEST MONEY: Buyer's Agent's Firm acknowledges receipt of earnest money from Buyer in the sum of $ 10,000.00 301 evidenced by (check all that apply): 302 24.1 ❑ CASH Deposit in Buyer's Agent's Firm's client trust account, and ❑ Remain there until disbursement. Or ❑ thereafter be promptly deposited with 303 Escrow. 304 24.2F] CHECK Hold any earnest money that is in the form of a check undeposited until this Agreement is signed and accepted by Buyer and Seller, after 305 which time it is to be deposited within three (3) banking days of receipt as follows: ❑ In Buyer's Agent's Firm's client trust account and remain there until 306 disbursement. ❑ In Buyer's Agent's Firm's client trust account and thereafter deposit with Escrow. ❑X Deposit with Escrow. 307 24.3 X❑ PROMISSORY NOTE (See attached OREF 060 Promissory Note). 308 24.4F] Other form of earnest money deposit: 309 24.5 BUYER'S AGENT AND BUYER'S AGENT'S FIRM SHALL HAVE NO FURTHER LIABILITY TO BUYER OR SELLER REGARDING ANY 310 EARNEST MONEY THAT IS TRANSFERRED PURSUANT TO THE ABOVE j,uCTIONS. 311 John L Scott Ashland 2y no C~Luw 1/4/2018 14:47 F 312 Buyer's Agent's Firm -7-2-72130 Buyer's Agent's Signature 313 25. EARNEST MONEY DEPOSIT INSTRUCTIONS TO ESCROW: Escrow is hereby instructed by Buyer and Seller as follows: (1) Upon your receipt of a 314 copy of this Agreement marked "rejected" by Seller or upon Listing Firm's written advice that the offer is "rejected" by Seller, you are to refund all earnest 315 money to Buyer; (2) Upon your receipt of a copy of this Agreement signed by Buyer and Seller set up an escrow account and proceed with Closing in 316 accordance with the terms of this Agreement. If you determine that the transaction cannot be Closed for any reason (whether or not there is then a dispute 317 between Buyer and Seller), subject only to Section 40 below, you are to hold all earnest money deposits until you receive written instructions from Buyer and 318 Seller, or a final ruling from a court or arbitrator, as to disposition of such deposits. 319 26. EARNEST MONEY PAYMENT/REFUND: If (1) Seller does not approve this Agreement, or (2) Seller signs and accepts this Agreement but 320 fails to furnish marketable title; or (3) Seller fails to complete this transaction in accordance with this Agreement, or perform any other act as herein 321 provided; or (4) any condition which Buyer has made an express contingency in this Agreement (and has not been otherwise waived) fails through 322 no fault of Buyer, then all earnest money shall be promptly refunded to Buyer. However, acceptance by Buyer of the refund shall not constitute a 323 waiver of other legal remedies available to Buyer. If Seller signs and accepts this Agreement and title is marketable; and (1) Buyer has 324 misrepresented Buyer's financial status; or (2) Buyer's bank does not pay, when presented, any check given as earnest money; or (3) Buyer fails to 325 redeem, when due, any note given as earnest money; or (4) Buyer fails to complete this transaction in accordance with this Agreement, or perform 326 any other act as herein provided, then all earnest money paid or agreed to be paid shall be paid to Seller either as liquidated damages or as 327 otherwise allowed under Oregon law, and this transaction shall be terminated. It is the intention of the parties that Seller's sole remedy against 328 Buyer for Buyer's failure to Close this transaction shall be limited to the amount of earnest money paid or agreed to be paid herein. 329 27.1 CLOSING: Closing shall occur on a date mutually agreed upon between Buyer and Seller, but in no event later than 03/1612018 ("the Closing 330 Deadline"). The terms "Closed", "Closing" or "Closing Date" shall mean when the deed or contract is recorded and funds are available to Seller. Buyer and 331 Seller acknowledge that for Closing to occur by the Closing Deadline, it may be necessary to execute documents and deposit funds in Escrow prior to that 332 date. Caveat Section 7 requires three (3) days prior to the Closing Deadline if Escrow is to prepare a note and a deed of trust or mortgage 333 27.2 THE CLOSING DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to the federal TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rules ("TRID"), Buyer and Seller will each receive a 334 federally-required document called a "Closing Disclosure", which, among other things, summarizes each parry's closing costs. TRID requires that the 335 Closing Disclosure must be received by a residential loan borrower at least three (3) business days prior to "consummation" of the transaction, which in 336 most cases in Oregon will be the date on which Buyer signs the loan documents. Under certain circumstances, a change to the Closing Disclosure late in 337 the transaction could result in a delay in Closing to comply with the three business day rule. Such a delay beyond the Closing Deadline could result in 338 termination of the transaction unless Seller and Buyer mutually agree to extend it. 339 27.3 NOTICE REGARDING TITLE INSURANCE COSTS: The manner in which TRID requires title insurance costs to be disclosed differs from the actual 340 costs that may be charged to the parties under Oregon law. In such instances, at Closing, Escrow may issue a se te statement showing the actual costs Buyer Initial 9I / Datel/4/2018 1 14:20 PST Seller Initial Datel/8/2018 2 : 57 PM This form has been licensed for use solely by Danna Gibson pursuant to a Forms License Agreement with Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC. LINES WITH THIS SYMBOL REQUIRE A SIGNATURE OF BUYER AND/OR SELLER AND DATE Copyright Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC 2017 www.orefonline.com No portion may be reproduced without express permission of Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC OREF 001 RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE SALE AGREEMENT - Page 7 of 11 Produced with zipForm® by zipLogix 18070 Fifteen Mile Road, Fraser, Michigan 48026 www.zii3Loaix.com Harold Hardesty DocuSign Envelope ID: 0292A027-28A3-4F77-B155-BE5CFDA7A930 Sale Agreement # ggl22117 341 for an owner's policy of title insurance and, where applicable, the lender's policy of title insurance. Seller and Buyer are encouraged to discuss this with 342 Escrow prior to Closing. 343 28. DEED: Seller shall convey marketable title to the Property by statutory warranty deed (or good and sufficient personal representative's or 344 trustee's or similar legal fiduciary's deed, where applicable) free and clear of all liens of record, except property taxes that are a lien but not yet 345 payable, zoning ordinances, building and use restrictions, reservations in federal patents, easements of record that affect the Property, covenants, 346 conditions and restrictions of record, and those matters accepted by Buyer pursuant to Section 9. If Buyer's title will be held in the name of more 347 than one person, see Section 39 regarding forms of co-ownership. 348 29. POSSESSION: Seller shall remove all personal property (including trash and debris) that is not a part of this transaction, and deliver 349 possession of the Property to Buyer (select one): 350 (1) ❑X by 5:00 p.m. on Closing; 351 (2) ❑ by ❑ a.m. ❑ p.m. days after Closing; 352 (3)E] by ❑ a.m. ❑ p.m. on the day of 353 If a tenant(s) is currently in possession of the Property (check one): ❑ Buyer will accept tenant(s) at closing; ❑ Seller shall have full responsibility 354 for removal of tenant(s) prior to closing. 355 30. SELLER POSSESSION BEFORE/AFTER CLOSING: In the event that Buyer and Seller agree that Seller will deliver possession before or after 356 Closing, OREF 053 (Agreement to Occupy Before Closing) or OREF 054 (Agreement to Occupy After Closing) will be attached to this Sale 357 Agreement. 358 DEFINITIONSANSTRUCTIONS 359 31. DEFINITIONS/INSTRUCTIONS: (1) All references in this Sale Agreement to "Agent" and "Firm" shall refer to Buyer's and Seller's real estate 360 agents licensed in the State of Oregon and the respective real estate companies with which they are affiliated. 361 (2) Time is of the essence of this Agreement. 362 (3) Except as provided in Section 9, above, all written notices or documents, required or permitted under this Agreement to be delivered to Buyer or 363 Seller may be delivered to their respective Agent with the same effect as if delivered to that Buyer or Seller. Upon opening of this transaction with the 364 title company identified at Section 22, above, Buyer, Seller, and their respective Agents, where applicable, shall provide Escrow with their preferred 365 means of notification (e.g. email or text address, facsimile number, or mailing or personal delivery address, or other), which shall serve as the 366 primary location for receipt of all notices or documents (hereinafter, "Contact Location") 367 (4) Agent(s) and Firm(s) identified in the Final Agency Acknowledgment Section above are not parties to this Agreement. 368 (5) A "business day" shall mean Monday through Friday, except recognized state and federal holidays. 369 (6) Unless Seller and Buyer expressly provide otherwise, the phrase "signed and accepted" in the printed text of this Sale Agreement, or any 370 addendum or counteroffer, however designated (collectively, "the Agreement" or "the Sale Agreement"), shall mean the date and time that either the 371 Seller and/or Buyer has/have: (a) Signed their acceptance of the Agreement received from the other party, or their Agents, and (b) Transmitted it to 372 the sending party, or their Agent, either by manual delivery ("Manual Delivery"), or by facsimile or electronic mail/text (collectively, "Electronic 373 Transmission"). When the Agreement is "signed and accepted" as defined herein, the Agreement becomes legally binding on Buyer and Seller, and 374 neither has the ability to withdraw their offer or counteroffer, as the case may be. 375 (7) The sending of a signed acceptance of the Agreement via Electronic Transmission from one party, or their Agent, to the other party, or their 376 Agent, shall have the same effect as Manual Delivery of the signed original. If the parties intend to use any other method for transmitting a signed 377 offer or acceptance of the Agreement (such as regular mail, certified mail, or overnight delivery), they should so specify at Section 21 (Additional 378 Provisions) of this Sale Agreement. 379 (8) Time calculated in days after the date Buyer and Seller have signed and accepted this Agreement shall start on the first full business day after 380 the date they have signed and accepted it. 381 (9) This Agreement is binding upon the heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns of Buyer and Seller. However, Buyer's rights under 382 this Agreement or in the Property are not assignable without prior written consent of Seller. 383 (10) This Agreement may be signed in multiple legible counterparts with the same legal effect as if all parties signed the same document. 384 (11) Excepting only the Lead-Based Paint Contingency Period identified in Section 11, unless a different time is specified in the Agreement, all 385 deadlines for performance, however designated, that are measured in business or calendar days, shall terminate as of 5:00 p.m. on the last day of 386 that deadline, however designated. Ds Buyer Initial / Date1/4/2018 1 14:20 PST Seller Initial / Dat4-/8/2018 1 2 : 7 PM F This form has been licensed for use solely by Danna Gibson pursuant to a Forms License Agreement with Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC. LINES WITH THIS SYMBOL 1- REQUIRE A SIGNATURE OF BUYER AND/OR SELLER AND DATE Copyright Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC 2017 www.orefonline.com No portion may be reproduced without express permission of Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC OREF 001 RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE SALE AGREEMENT - Page 8 of 11 Produced with zipForm® by zipLogix 18070 Fifteen Mile Road. Fraser, Michigan 48026 www, zloLogix.com Harold Hardesty DocuSign Envelope ID: 0292AO27-28A3-4F77-B155-BE5CFDA7A930 Q Sale Agreement # gg122117 387 32. UTILITIES: Seller shall pay all utility bills accrued to date Buyer is entitled to possession. Buyer shall pay Seller for heating fuel/propane on 388 premises, at Seller's supplier's rate on the possession date. Payment shall be handled between Buyer and Seller outside of Escrow. 389 33. APPROVED USES: THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT MAY NOT BE WITHIN AFIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT PROTECTING 390 STRUCTURES. THE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS THAT, IN FARM OR FOREST ZONES, MAY NOT 391 AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION OR SITING OF A RESIDENCE AND THAT LIMIT LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES, AS 392 DEFINED IN ORS 30.930, IN ALL ZONES. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON TRANSFERRING FEE TITLE 393 SHOULD INQUIRE ABOUT THE PERSON'S RIGHTS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195.300, 195.301 AND 195.305 TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, 394 CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007, SECTIONS 2 TO 9 AND 17, CHAPTER 855, OREGON LAWS 2009, AND SECTIONS 2 TO 7, CHAPTER 8, 395 OREGON LAWS 2010. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD 396 CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY THAT THE UNIT OF LAND BEING TRANSFERRED IS A 397 LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED LOT OR PARCEL, AS DEFINED IN ORS 92.010 OR 215.010, TO VERIFY THE APPROVED USES OF THE LOT OR 398 PARCEL, TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF FIRE PROTECTION FOR STRUCTURES AND TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING 399 PROPERTY OWNERS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195.300,195.301 AND 195.305 TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 400 2007, SECTIONS 2 TO 9 AND 17, CHAPTER 855, OREGON LAWS 2009, AND SECTIONS 2 TO 7, CHAPTER 8, OREGON LAWS 2010. 401 34. IRC 1031 EXCHANGE: In the event Buyer or Seller elects to complete an IRC 1031 exchange in this transaction, the other party agrees to 402 cooperate with them and the accommodator, if any, in a manner necessary to complete the exchange, so long as it will not delay the Close of 403 escrow or cause additional expense or liability to the cooperating party. Unless otherwise provided herein, this provision shall not become a 404 contingency to the Closing of this transaction. 405 35.1 LEVY OF ADDITIONAL PROPERTY TAXES: The Property: (check one) ❑ is ❑ is not specially assessed for property taxes (e.g., farm, 406 forest or other) in a way that may result in levy of additional taxes in the future. If it is specially assessed, Seller represents that the Property is 407 current as to income or other conditions required to preserve its deferred tax status. If, as a result of Buyer's actions or the Closing of this 408 transaction, the Property either is disqualified from special use assessment or loses its deferred property tax status, unless otherwise specifically 409 provided in this Agreement, Buyer shall be responsible for and shall pay when due, any deferred and/or additional taxes and interest that may be 410 levied against the Property and shall hold Seller completely harmless therefrom. However, if as a result of Seller's actions prior to Closing, the 411 Property either is disqualified from its entitlement to special use assessment or loses its deferred property tax status, Buyer may, at Buyer's sole 412 option, promptly terminate this transaction and receive a refund of all deposits paid by Buyer in anticipation of Closing; or Close this transaction and 413 hold Seller responsible to pay into Escrow all deferred and/or additional taxes and interest that may be levied or recaptured against the Property 414 and hold Buyer completely harmless therefrom. The preceding shall not be construed to limit Buyer's or Seller's available remedies or damages 415 arising from a breach of this Section 35.1. 416 35.2 HISTORIC PROPERTY DESIGNATION: If the Property is or may be subject to a Historic Property local ordinance or is subject to or may 417 qualify for the Historic Property Special Property Tax Assessment under ORS 358.475 to 358.565, Seller shall provide OREF 045 Historic 418 Property Addendum. • • 419 36. FILING OF CLAIMS: All claims, controversies and disputes between Seller, Buyer, Agents, and/or Firms, arising under this Sale Agreement, 420 including those for rescission (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Claims"), shall be exclusively resolved in accordance with the procedures set 421 forth herein, which shall survive Closing or earlier termination of this transaction. All Claims shall be governed exclusively by Oregon law, and venue 422 shall be placed in the county where the real property is situated. Filing a Claim for arbitration shall be treated the same as filing in court for purposes 423 of meeting any applicable statutes of limitation or statute of ultimate repose, and for purposes of filing a lis pendens. BY CONSENTING TO THE 424 PROVISIONS HEREIN, BUYER AND SELLER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY ARE GIVING UP THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO HAVE THE CLAIM TRIED BY A 425 JUDGE OR JURY IN STATE OR FEDERAL COURT. 426 37. EXCLUSIONS: The following shall not constitute Claims: (1) Any proceeding to enforce or interpret a mortgage, trust deed, land sale contract or 427 recorded construction lien; (2) A forcible entry and detainer action (eviction); (3) If the matter is exclusively between REALTORS@ and is otherwise 428 required to be resolved under the Professional Standards Ethics and Arbitration provisions of the National Association of REALTORS; (4) If the 429 matter relates to a commission or fee with an Agent or Firm, and the written listing, service or fee agreement with Buyer or Seller contains a 430 mandatory mediation and/or arbitration provision; and (5) Filing in court for the issuance of provisional process described under the Oregon Rules of 431 Civil Procedure, provided, however, such filing shall not constitute a waiver of the right or duty to utilize the dispute resolution procedures described 432 herein for the adjudication of any Claims. 433 38.1. SMALL CLAIMS BETWEEN BUYER AND SELLER: All Claims between Buyer and Seller that are within the jurisdiction of the Small Claims 434 Court of the county in which the property is located, shall be brought and decided there, in lieu of mediation, arbitration or litigation in any other 435 forum. Notwithstanding ORS 46.455(3), neither Buyer nor Seller shall have a right to request a jury trial and so remove the matter from the Small 436 Claims Department of the Circuit Court. A judgment in Small Claims Court is final and binding and there is no right of appeal. r- D Buyer Initial = / Date 1/4/2018 1 1 :20 PST Seller Initial Date 1 /R/()1 RR 1 2 57 PM This form has been licensed for use solely by Danna Gibson pursuant to a Forms License Agreement with Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC. LINES WITH THIS SYMBOL REQUIRE A SIGNATURE OF BUYER AND/OR SELLER AND DATE Copyright Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC 2017 www.orefonline.com No portion may be reproduced without express permission of Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC OREF 001 RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE SALE AGREEMENT - Page 9 of 11 Produced with zipForm® by zipLogix 18070 Fifteen Mile Road, Fraser, Michigan 48026 www.zipLoQix.com Harold Hardesty I DocuSign Envelope ID: 0292A027-28A3-41777-13155-BE5CFDA7A930 Q Sale Agreement # ggl22117 437 38.2. MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION BETWEEN BUYER AND SELLER: If Buyer's and/or Seller's Agent is a member of the National 438 Association of REALTORS, all Claims shall be submitted to mediation in accordance with the procedures of the Home Seller/Home Buyer Dispute 439 Resolution System of the National Association of REALTORS@ ("the System"). If an Agent is not a member of the National Association of 440 REALTORSO, or the System is not available through the Agent's Realtoa organization, then all Claims shall be submitted to mediation through 441 the program administered by Arbitration Service of Portland ("ASP"). All Claims that have not been resolved by mediation as described herein shall 442 be submitted to final and binding arbitration in accordance the then-existing rules of ASP. The prevailing party in any arbitration between Buyer and 443 Seller shall be entitled to recovery of all reasonable attorney fees, filing fees, costs, disbursements, and mediator and arbitrator fees. Provided, 444 however, a prevailing party shall not be entitled to any award of attorney fees unless it is first established to the satisfaction of the arbitrator(s) (or 445 judge, if applicable) that the prevailing party offered or agreed in writing to participate in mediation prior to, or promptly upon, the filing for 446 arbitration. 447 38.3 MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION INVOLVING AGENTS/FIRMS: All Claims that include Agents or their Firms shall be resolved in accordance 448 with the mediation and arbitration process described in Section 38.2 above, and if applicable, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of 449 attorney fees, fling fees, cost, disbursements, and mediator and arbitrator fees, as provided therein. 450 SIGNATURE INSTRUCTIONS 451 39. OFFER TO PURCHASE: Buyer offers to purchase the Property upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Buyer 452 acknowledges receipt of a completely filled in copy of this Agreement which Buyer has fully read and understands. Buyer acknowledges 453 that Buyer has not relied upon any oral or written statements made by Seller or any Agents that are not expressly contained in this 454 Agreement. Neither Seller nor any Agent(s) warrant the square footage of any structure or the size of any land being purchased. If square 455 footage or land size is a material consideration, all structures and land should be measured by Buyer prior to signing or should be made 456 an express contingency in this Agreement. 457 Deed or contract shall be prepared in the name of City of Ashland 458 Co-Ownership Note: Buyer should secure advice from an expert or attorney regarding different forms of co-ownership and rights of survivorship. 459 Agents are not qualified to provide advice on these issues. Once the form of co-ownership is determined, Buyer should promptly notify Escrow. 460 This offer shall automatically expire on (insert date) January 08 , 2018 at 4 ❑ a.m. ❑X p.m., (the Offer Deadline), if not 461 accepted by that time. Buyer may withdraw this offer before the Offer Deadline any time prior to Seller's transmission of signed acceptance. If 462 Seller accepts this offer after the Offer Deadline, it shall not be binding upon Buyer unless accepted by Buyer in writing within business days 463 (two [2 jjg>Zk . in) after the date of Seller's acceptance by so indicating at Section 42.2. This offer may be accepted by Seller only in writing. 464 Buyer 366.11 6nn S Date 1/4/2018 14:20 PST _ a.m. _ p.m. t~ftybT"Agffand 465 Buyer Date _ a.m. _ p.m. 466 Address Zip 467 Phone Home Work (541)552-2412 E-mail scott.fleury(_ashland.or.us Fax 468 This offer was lrWd* ia0llerfo[9 nature on the day of 1/8/2018 1:00pm at a.m. p.m. 469 By CO(Agent(s) presenting offer). 470 40. AGREEMENT TO SELL / ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS / DISPOSITION OF EARNEST MONEY: Seller accepts Buyer's offer. Seller 471 acknowledges receipt of a completely filled-in copy of this Agreement, which Seller has fully read and understands. Seller acknowledges 472 that Seller has not relied upon any oral or written statements of Buyer or of any Agent(s) that are not expressly contained in this 473 Agreement. Seller instructs that all earnest money distributable to Seller pursuant to Section 25 shall be disbursed as follows after 474 deduction of any title insurance and Escrow cancellation charges: (check one) ❑ First to Seller's Agent's Firm to the extent of the agreed 475 commission just as if the transaction had been Closed, with residue to Seller, or[] 476 Seller Date _ a.m. p.m. Harold C Hardesty Trust 477 Seller Date _ a.m. _ p.m. 478 Address 262 Largent Rd Burbank Wa Zip 99323 479 Phone Home Work E-mail Fax Buyer Initial / Date 1/4/2018 1 1 :20 PST Seller Initi Is Date 1/8/2018 2: 1 57 PM This form has been licensed for use solely by Danna Gibson pursuant to a Forms License Agreement with Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC. LINES WITH THIS SYMBOL REQUIRE A SIGNATURE OF BUYER AND/OR SELLER AND DATE Copyright Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC 2017 www.orefonline.com No portion may be reproduced without express permission of Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC OREF 001 RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE SALE AGREEMENT - Page 10 of 11 Produced with zipForm® by zipLogix 18070 Fifteen Mile Road, Fraser, Michigan 48026 www.zipLogix.com Harold Hardesty DocuSign Envelope ID: 0292A027-28A3-4F77-B155-BE5CFDA7A930 Q Sale Agreement # gg122117 480 41. SELLER'S REJECTION/COUNTER OFFER (select only one): ® Seller does not accept the above offer, but makes the attached counter 481 offer. 482 ❑ Seller re' BuWh'9>jer. 483 Seller Date 1/8/2018 1 2:57 PM PST a.m. _ p.m. Har WW,Tsii 484 Seller Date _ a.m. _ p.m. 485 Address 262 Largent Rd Burbank Wa Zip 99323 486 Phone Home Work E-mail Fax 487 42.1 BUYER'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT: Buyer acknowledges receipt of a copy of Seller's signed response to Buyer's offer. (Note: The date and time 488 of Buyer's signed acknowledgment below is not the moment this Agreement becomes binding upon the parties. See, Section 31 (6), above.) 489 Buyer Date a.m. _ p.m. City of Ashland f 490 Buyer Date -a.m. -p.m. 491 42.2 SELLER'S LATE ACCEPTANCE: If Seller signed where indicated at Section 40 accepting Buyer's offer, but transmitted it to Buyer or Buyer's 492 Agent after the Offer Deadline identified at Section 39, above, Buyer (select only one) ❑ agrees ❑ does not agree, to be bound thereby. (The 493 failure to check either box shall constitute rejection of Seller's acceptance after the Offer Deadline.) If Buyer checks the box agreeing to be 494 bound by Seller's late acceptance occurring after the Offer Deadline, this Sale Agreement shall become binding on all parties only when Buyer(s) 495 has/have signed below and transmitted it to Seller or Seller's Agent. 496 Buyer Date _ a.m. _ p.m. - City of Ashland 497 Buyer Date a.m. _ p.m. ~ 498 If Buyer checked the box and signed where indicated in this Section 42.2, agreeing to be bound by Seller's late acceptance of Buyer's offer, Buyer or 499 Buyer's Agent must complete the information below and thereafter promptly transmit this Agreement to Seller or Seller's Agent: 500 Enter Date Time, and Method of Transmission of Buyer's Acceptance: 501 Enter Identity of Sender: 502 NO CHANGES OR ALTERATIONS ARE PERMITTED TO ANY PORTION OF THE PRE-PRINTED FORMAT OR TEXT OF THIS FORM. ANY 503 SUCH PROPOSED CHANGES OR ALTERATIONS SHOULD BE MADE ON A SEPARATE DOCUMENT. CHANGES BY BUYER'S OR 504 SELLER'S AGENT TO THE TERMS OR PROVISIONS ABOVE BUYER'S SIGNATURE SHOULD ALSO BE ON A SEPARATE DOCUMENT. os / Date!/412016 1 :20 PST Seller Initial 3 C-, / Date 1/9/2018 1 2 57 PM Buyer Initial SLI- This form has been licensed for use solely by Danna Gibson pursuant to a Forms License Agreement with Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC. LINES WITH THIS SYMBOL REQUIRE A SIGNATURE OF BUYER AND/OR SELLER AND DATE Copyright Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC 2017 www.orefonline.com No portion may be reproduced without express permission of Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC OREF 001 RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE SALE AGREEMENT - Page 11 of 11 Produced with zipForm® by zipLogix 18070 Fifteen Mile Road, Fraser, Michigan 48026 www.zii3Lociix.com Harold Hardesty DocuSign Envelope ID: 0292A027-28A3-4F77-B155-BE5CFDA7A930 J O R E F Sale Agreement # gg122117 Addendum# A ADDENDUM TO REAL ESTATE SALE AGREEMENT 1 This is an Addendum to: ❑X Real Estate Sale Agreement ❑ Seller's Counter Offer ❑ Buyer's Counter Offer 2 Buyer: City of Ashland 3 Seller: Harold C Hardesty Trust 4 The real property described as: 1291 Oak St Ashland OR 97520-1058 5 SELLER AND BUYER HEREBY AGREE THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE A PART OF THE REAL ESTATE SALE AGREEMENT REFERENCED ABOVE. 6 1) Buyer to have 30 days due diligence in which to research the property 7 2) Seller to perform and pay for a phase 1 environmental assessment on the property including the section where large vehicles were 8 parked in the past 9 a) Assessment to be performed by an Oregon licensed Environmental Consultant 10 b) Assessment to be ordered by seller within 7 business days of mutual agreement of offer 11 3) Buyer and seller to negotiate terms if the consultant recommends a phase 2 assessment 12 4) Offer conditioned upon the Ashland City Council's approval of the purchase by close of escrow. 13 5) Inspection contingency described on lines 180-196 of the Sale Agreement may include Professional House Inspection, Investigations 14 with Jackson County, and any other inquiries Buyer deems necessary or appropriate Cancellation during this period is at the full 15 discretion of Buyer with earnest money being fully refundable during this period. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dec Signe Gr. 29 Buyer Signature 16L, Fins Date 1/4/2018 14:20 PST _ a.m. _ p.m. "CWbf°'A"fand 30 Buyer Signature Date _ a.m. _ p.m. < 31 Seller Signature Date 1/8/2018 I 2:5Z PM PST a.m. _ p.m. - H 32 Seller Signature Date _ a.m. _ p.m. 33 Buyer's Agent Danna Gibson Seller's Agent Lisa Coleman This form has been licensed for use solely by Danna Gibson pursuant to a Forms License Agreement with Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC. LINES WITH THIS SYMBOL REQUIRE A SIGNATURE AND DATE Copyright Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC 2017 www.orefonline.com No portion may be reproduced without express permission of Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC OREF 002 John L Scott Ashland, 320 E Main St. Ashland OR 97520 Phone: (541)708-5775 Fax: 5414881511 Harold Hardesty Trust Dianna Gibson Produced with zipForme by zipLogix 18070 Fifteen Mile Road, Fraser, Michigan 48026 www.zipLogix.com I DocuSign Envelope ID: 0292A027-28A3-4F77-B155-BE5CFDA7A930 Q ~O O REF Sale Agreement # gg122117 PROFESSIONAL INSPECTION ADDENDUM 1 Buyer(s) City of Ashland 2 Seller(s) Harold C Hardesty Trust 3 Property Address 1291 Oak St Ashland, OR 97520-1058 4 PROFESSIONAL INSPECTIONS ARE ADVISABLE 5 This Addendum does not contain a complete list of all inspections that may be available in your area or that may be desirable. Additional inspections 6 may be included. The land and dwelling may be inspected as indicated below. The Real Estate Sale Agreement is contingent upon the Buyer's 7 approval of the specified inspections, tests and reports within the time requirements of this Addendum. Buyer shall promptly provide a copy of all 8 reports to Seller only if requested by Seller. Unless otherwise indicated, all reports shall be ordered by the party responsible for payment and shall 9 be in writing. Except as modified herein, all provisions of the Real Estate Sale Agreement remain unchanged. 10 REAL ESTATE AGENTS ARE NOT QUALIFIED LICENSED INSPECTORS AND DO NOT PERFORM THE INSPECTIONS, TESTS AND 11 REPORTS. 12 Perform Inspection or test Ordered & paid by Perform Inspection or test Ordered & paid by 13 Professional Home Inspection [K Yes L]No 0 Buyer ❑ Seller Plumbing XX Yes ❑ No ❑X Buyer ❑ Seller 14 Asbestos ❑X Yes ❑ No 0 Buyer ❑ Seller Radon ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Buyer ❑ Seller 15 Electrical 0 Yes ❑ No 0 Buyer L] Seller Roof ❑X Yes ❑ No 0 Buyer ❑ Seller 16 Exterior Siding 0 Yes ❑ No 0 Buyer ❑ Seller Structural Yes No 17 Fireplace/Chimney 0 Yes ❑ No 0 Buyer ❑ Seller 0 ❑ 0 Buyer ❑ Seller 18 Heating/Cooling 0 Yes ❑ No ❑X Buyer ❑ Seller Toxic/Hazardous Substances ❑ Yes L] No 0 Buyer Seller Underground Sprinklers Yes No Buyer Seller 19 Land Survey ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Buyer ❑ Seller ❑ ❑ ❑ 20 Mold/Mildew 0 Yes ❑ No ❑X Buyer ❑ Seller Underground Storage Tank ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Buyer ❑ Seller 21 PestlDry Rot ❑X Yes ❑ No ❑X Buyer ❑ Seller Sewer Scope ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Buyer ❑ Seller 22 Other ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Buyer ❑ Seller 23 TIME REQUIREMENTS 24 Time is of the essence. If Buyer needs additional time, Buyer should immediately attempt to secure Seller's written consent to an extension of time 25 before expiration of the time period described below. The time period agreed upon below may be shortened or extended only by written 26 agreement between Buyer and Seller. Expiration of the time period shall occur at 5:00 p.m. of the final day of that period. 27 1. Buyer shall have 15 business days (ten [10] if not filled in), after the date Buyer and Seller have signed and accepted this Sale Agreement 28 (hereinafter "the Inspection Period"), in which to complete all inspections and negotiations with Seller regarding any matters disclosed in any 29 inspection report. Buyer shall not provide all or any portion of the inspection reports to Seller unless requested by Seller or Seller's Agent. 30 However, at any time during this transaction, or promptly following termination, upon request by Seller or Seller's Agent, Buyer shall promptly 31 provide a copy of such reports, or portions of reports, as requested. During the Inspection Period, Seller shall not be required to modify any 32 terms of this Agreement already reached with Buyer. Unless a written agreement has already been reached with Seller regarding Buyer's 33 requested repairs, at any time during the Inspection Period, Buyer may notify Seller or Seller's Agent, in writing, of Buyer's unconditional 34 disapproval of the Property based on any inspection report(s), in which case, all earnest money deposits shall be promptly refunded, and this 35 transaction shall be terminated. If Buyer fails to provide Seller or Seller's Agent with written unconditional disapproval of any 36 inspection report(s) by 5:00 p.m. of the final day of the Inspection Period, Buyer shall be deemed to have accepted the condition of 37 the Property. Note that if, prior to expiration of the Inspection Period, written agreement is reached with Seller regarding Buyer's 38 requested repairs, the Inspection Period shall automatically terminate, unless the parties agree otherwise in writing. 39 2. IF BUYER DELIVERS WRITTEN UNCONDITIONAL DISAPPROVAL TO SELLER OR SELLER'S AGENT of any requested inspections, 40 tests, reports or other services selected above before expiration of the Inspection Period (or such other period as agreed upon between the 41 parties in writing), this transaction shall be deemed to be automatically terminated and Buyer's earnest money shall be promptly refunded. 42 3. IF BUYER FAILS TO DELIVER WRITTEN UNCONDITIONAL DISAPPROVAL TO SELLER OR SELLER'S AGENT before expiration of 43 the Inspection Period (or such other period as agreed upon between the parties in writing), this inspection contingency shall be deemed to 44 have been automatically waived by Buyer, and Buyer shall be deemed to have accepted the Property in its present condition. 45 -S4- by. 998 IMll $bial provisions see Addendum 46 Buyer .rkS Date 1/4/2018 1 _14:gAef ^ _t Date/8/2018 L2-:57 PM tiiW`W A9ffPand rnf J VrVJVyAclect »X 47 Buyer Date Seller Date 48 Buyer's Agent Danna Gibson Seller's Agent Lisa Coleman 49 Buyer's Agent's Firm John L Scott Ashland Seller's Agent's Firm John L Scott This form has been licensed for use solely by Danna Gibson pursuant to a Forms License Agreement with Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC. LINES WITH THIS SYMBOL F- REQUIRE A SIGNATURE AND DATE Copyright Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC 2017 www.orefonline.com No portion may be reproduced without express permission of Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC OREF 058 John E Scott Ashland, 320 E Main St. Ashland OR 97520 Phone: (541)708-5775 Fax 5414881511 Harold Hardesty Uanna Gibson Produced with zipFormCP by zipLogix 18070 Fifteen Mile Road, Fraser, Michigan 48026 www.zioLoax.com DocuSign Envelope ID: 0292A027-28A3-4F77-B155-BE5CFDA7A930 Q IN REF Sale Agreement # gg122117 PRIVATE WELL ADDENDUM TO REAL ESTATE AGREEMENT 1 Buyer(s) City of Ashland 2 Seller(s) Harold C Hardesty Trust 3 Property Address 1291 Oak St, Ashland OR 97520-1058 4 OREGON LAW: If this transaction includes a well that supplies domestic water to the Property, Oregon law requires that Seller shall have 5 the well tested for arsenic, nitrates and total coliform bacteria (ORS 448.271). For more information, see the Oregon.gov webpage titled 6 "Domestic Well Testing and Real Estate Transactions". Note: This only applies to wells that have been made operational to supply 7 groundwater for domestic purposes. Capped domestic wells on unimproved lots are not required to be tested. (See 8 https•//public health oregon gov/HealthyEnvironments/DrinkingWater/Rules/Documents/61-0305 p D. g REPRESENTATIONS, TESTING, TERMINATION & COOPERATION 10 1. SELLER REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING WELL AND WELL WATER: Seller represents to Buyer that to the best of Seller's 11 knowledge: (a) The domestic well has provided an adequate supply of water to the Property throughout the year for household use; 12 (b) The water is fit for human consumption; and (c) The continued use of the well and water complies with all applicable state and 13 federal laws. No other representations are made concerning the well and well water supply, except as expressly stated elsewhere in 14 this Agreement and the Seller's Property Disclosure Statement, if applicable. 15 2. SELLER TESTING DUTIES: Within 5 business days, (five [5] if not filled in) after Buyer and Seller have signed and accepted 16 this Agreement, Seller shall, at Seller's cost: (a) Have the well water testing ordered with a laboratory accredited according to Oregon 17 Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ORELAP) standards, for arsenic, nitrate, and total coliform bacteria; (b) Submit, 18 promptly upon receipt, the results to buyer and the Oregon Healthy Authority (the "Authority"). (c) Complete and submit to the 19 Authority its Water Systems Data Sheet ("Data Sheet") which must include: (i) Copies of the arsenic, nitrate, and total coliform 20 bacteria lab slips, and (ii) The Water Resources Department well identification number, description of the Property, and location, 21 identifying the street address, city, state, and zip code, together with the township, range, section number. (Note: (a) If the well is in a 22 designated area of public health concern, the Authority may require additional testing; (b) The lab tests may not be waived, even if 23 Buyer agrees not to have the well tested; (c) If the well is not located on the Property, but it includes a legal interest to a well on 24 adjacent property [e.g. an easement], the legal interest would be considered part of the Property that is the subject of this 25 transaction, and the preceding testing and submission requirements are required.) 26 See: ttps•//public health oregon gov/HealthyEnvironments/DrinkingWater/SourceWater/DomesticWeliSafety/Pages/Testing- 27 Regulations.aspx . 28 3. BUYER TESTING: Within 10 business days, (five [5] if not filled in) after Buyer and Seller have signed this Agreement, Buyer 29 may, at Buyer's expense, have the well water testing ordered with a qualified professional testing service. (See Section 8 below for 30 selected test, if any.) 31 4. BUYER RIGHT OF TERMINATION: Within three (3) business days after Buyer's receipt of all written reports from Buyer's and Seller's 32 tests, Buyer shall have the absolute right to terminate this transaction by delivering to Seller or Seller's Agents: (a) Written notice of 33 intent to declare an unconditional termination together with a list of substantial deficiencies identified by Buyer; and (b) Copies of all 34 test reports received by Buyer. Buyer and Seller shall thereafter have 5 business days (two [2] if not filled in) to reach written 35 agreement as to the method, cost and financial responsibility for correcting the substantial deficiencies identified by Buyer (the 36 "Negotiation Period"). If the parties are unable to timely reach a written agreement by 5:00 p.m. on the last day of the Negotiation 37 Period, all earnest money deposits shall be promptly refunded to Buyer, and this transaction shall be terminated. Notwithstanding 38 the preceding, Buyer shall have no obligation to reach any agreement with Seller during the Negotiation Period. 39 5. WELL REGISTRATION: In the event any wells located upon the Property are not currently registered as a part of the Oregon's Well 40 Identification Program, Seller agrees to assist Buyer, at Buyer's expense, in registering them. The preceding sentence shall survive 41 Closing of this transaction. See, http://www.orecion.gov/owrd/pages/clw/well id.aspx DS SL-,r- I / Date :20 PST Seller Initial / Date 1/8/2018 L 2:57 PM Buyer Initial This form has been licensed for use solely by Danna Gibson pursuant to a Forms License Agreement with Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC. LINES WITH THIS SYMBOL - REQUIRE A SIGNATURE AND DATE Copyright Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC 2017 www.orefonline.com No portion may be reproduced without express permission of Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC OREF 082 Page 1 of 2 John L Scott Ashland, 320 E Main St. Ashland OR 97520 Phone: (541)708-5775 Fax: 5414881511 Harold Hardesty Danna Gibson Produced with zipForm(@ by zipLogix 18070 Fifteen Mile Road, Fraser, Michigan 48026 www.zii)Lociix.com DocuSign Envelope ID: 0292A027-28A3-4F77-B155-BE5CFDA7A930 Q Sale Agreement # gg122117 42 WELL INFORMATION AND ADDITIONAL TESTS 43 WELL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY SELLER; 44 6. Seller shall provide Buyer with the following information regarding the well located on or serving the Property: 45 ❑X well logs (specify) 46 ❑X well test reports (specify) 47 ❑X other reports (specify) 48 ❑ none. Seller has no documents regarding the well. 49 PROFESSIONAL WELL TESTING: 50 7. Seller agrees, at Seller's expense, to have the well tested for arsenic, nitrates and total coliform bacteria and such matters as are required 51 by the Oregon Health Division (in accordance with section 2 above). 52 53 8. Buyer elects to have the following additional professional tests performed: 54 ❑X Well flow test ❑X Buyer's expense ❑ Seller's expense 55 ❑ Lead test ❑ Buyer's expense ❑ Seller's expense 56 ❑ Additional water quality tests: ❑ Buyer's expense ❑ Seller's expense 57 ❑X Other (specify) Buyer to order and pay for top 35 58 ❑ Buyer's expense ❑ Seller's expense 59 ❑ none. (Buyer should seek competent professional advice before checking this option. Buyer's rights to terminate this 60 transaction based upon any test report showing a substantial deficiency in quantity or quality of well water are set forth in Section 61 4 above. Buyer should review them carefully.) 62 TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE 63 9. All professional tests, inspections or reports agreed to be performed in this Addendum shall be ordered by the party responsible for paying 64 for them within 5 business days (five [5] if not filled in) after the date both parties have signed and accepted the Sale Agreement. 65 10. Buyer and Seller shall use their best efforts to obtain the required or selected tests, inspections or reports in a timely manner. Completed tests, 66 inspections or reports shall be submitted to the other party within forty-eight (48) hours after receipt. 67 BUYER'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT 68 Buyer acknowledges that the Property is served by one or more private wells. Buyer understands that while Seller has represented 69 that, to the best of Seller's knowledge, the private well(s) located on or serving the Property has/have provided an adequate supply 70 of water throughout the year for household use, and, to the best of Seller's knowledge, is/are fit for human consumption, this is not 71 a warranty or guarantee. Natural and man-made events can and do occur that may quickly change well water quality and quantity. 72 Events such as development and drought can affect the quality and quantity of well water. Any well test is merely a reflection of 73 the condition of the well at that time, and is not a guarantee of a well's future performance. All well tests, inspections or reports 74 should be viewed in this light. Buyer acknowledges that Buyer has not received or relied upon any oral or written statements 75 regarding the well(s) made by any real estate agent not expressly contained in the Real Estate Sale Agreement or this Addendum. 76 Buyer should secure expert advice. Your real estate agent is not an expert in well water quality or quantity. o«.sio,Ke by DocuSigned by: 77 Buyer AL, 6MS Date 1/4/2018 1 F14:AePST _ a /812018 1 4:57 PM P WY01AW14and Harol A 78 Buyer Date f- Seller Date 79 Buyer's Agent Danna Gibson Seller's Agent Lisa Coleman 80 Buyer's Agent's Firm John L Scott Ashland Seller's Agent's Firm John L Scott This form has been licensed for use solely by Danna Gibson pursuant to a Forms License Agreement with Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC. LINES WITH THIS SYMBOL e- REQUIRE A SIGNATURE AND DATE Copyright Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC 2017 www.orefonline.com No portion may be reproduced without express permission of Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC OREF 082 Page 2 of 2 Produced with zipForri by zipLogix 18070 Fifteen Mile Road, Fraser.. Michigan 48026 www zioLogix com lla-ld Har&,(V DocuSign Envelope ID: 0292A027-28A3-4F77-B155-BE5CFDA7A930 Q :J OR E F Sale Agreement # gall22117 ONSITE SEWAGE SYSTEM ADDENDUM TO REAL ESTATE SALE AGREEMENT 1 Buyer(s) City of Ashland 2 Seller(s) Harold C Hardesty Trust 3 Property Address 1291 Oak St, Ashland, OR 97520-1058 4 Buyer and Seller hereby agree the following shall become a part of the Real Estate Sale Agreement. 5 1. DEFINITION OF ONSITE SEWAGE SYSTEMS: Generally, onsite sewage (or "wastewater") systems collect and treat wastewater and 6 sewage from residences that are not connected to public or community systems. The generic term "septic system," is commonly used to 7 describe them. They may include gravity flow systems, sand filter systems, alternative technology treatment systems, seepage pits, 8 cesspools and other disposal systems. All such systems shall hereinafter collectively be referred to as an "onsite 9 sewage system" or "system". For more information go to Oregon Septic Smart web site: 10 http://www.oreaon.gov/DEQMQ/pages/onsite/septicsmart.aspx. 11 2. NOTICES: (a) Inspections of onsite sewage systems must be performed by a DEQ certified professional; (b) There may be more than 12 one onsite sewage system on a property; (c) Not all elements of the onsite sewage system may be located on the property they service; (d) 13 Oregon DEQ may require decommissioning of abandoned onsite sewage systems. 14 3. SELLER REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING ONSITE SEWAGE SYSTEM: Seller represents that to the best of Seller's knowledge, 15 the onsite sewage system serving the Property is: (a) Operating properly; and (b) Complies with all applicable local, state and federal laws. 16 These representations shall be in addition to any others made by Seller in the Sale Agreement, other Addenda, and Seller's Property 17 Disclosure Statement, if any. 18 4. ONSITE SEWAGE SYSTEM INFORMATION PROVIDED BY SELLER: Seller agrees to provide Buyer, or Buyer's Agent, with all 19 written documentation regarding the onsite sewage system, including all inspections/testing done within the last six (6) months, existing 20 maintenance contracts for the onsite sewage system (which may be a DEQ requirement for sand filter and alternative technology systems), 21 and any other material information regarding the system within 5 business days (three [3] if not filled in) after Buyer and Seller have 22 both signed and accepted the Sale Agreement. 23 5. PROFESSIONAL INSPECTIONS/TESTS/PUMPING/CLEANING/ REQUESTED BY BUYER: Buyer requests the following services 24 (hereinafter collectively referred as "Service" or "Services') be performed on the onsite sewage system (check all boxes that apply): 25 ❑X inspections/Tests (specify) Tank, field and all related equipment/systems to the septic 26 ❑ Seller pays ❑X Buyer pays 27 ❑X Pumping/Cleaning (specify) 28 ❑X Seller pays ❑ Buyer pays 29 ❑ Other (specify) 30 ❑ Seller pays ❑ Buyer pays 31 ❑ None. (Buyer should seek competent professional advice before checking this option. Buyer's rights to terminate this 32 transaction based upon any test report showing a substantial deficiency in the onsite sewage system are set forth in 33 section 6 below. Buyer should review them carefully.) 34 The party responsible for paying the above-selected Service shall promptly order it and promptly share all results (collectively "Documents 35 and Information") with the other party. 36 6. BUYER'S RIGHT TO TERMINATE TRANSACTION: Buyer shall have 10 business days (ten [10] if not filled in), after the date 37 Buyer has received any Documents and Information concerning the onsite sewage addendum from Seller (hereinafter "the System 38 Contingency Period"), in which to complete all negotiations with Seller regarding any matters disclosed in any Documents and Information 39 concerning the onsite sewage system. However, during the System Contingency Period, Seller shall not be required to modify any terms of 40 this Agreement already reached with Buyer. Unless a written and signed modification is reached, at any time during the System 41 Contingency Period, Buyer may notify Seller or Seller's Agent, in writing, of Buyer's unconditional disapproval of the system based upon 42 any Documents and Information. In such case, all earnest money deposits shall be promptly refunded and this transaction shall be terminated. Buyer Initial / Date 1/4/2018 11 1 :20 PST Seller Initials / Date This form has been licensed for use solely by Danna Gibson pursuant to a Forms License Agreement with Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC. LINES WITH THIS SYMBOL F- REQUIRE A SIGNATURE AND DATE Copyright Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC 2017 www.orefonline.com No portion may be reproduced without express permission of Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC OREF 081 Page 1 of 2 John L Scott Ashland, 320 E Main St. Ashland OR 97520 Phone. (541)708-5775 Fax'. 541418815 1 11 Harold Ilard,vy Danna Gibson Produced with zipForni by zipLogix 18070 Fifteen Mile Road. Fraser, Michigan 48026 www.zioLooix.com DocuSign Envelope ID: 0292A027-28A3-4F77-B155-BE5CFDA7A930 Q Sale Agreement # gg122117 43 Buyer shall promptly provide Sellerwith a copy of all Documents and Information not previously turned over to Seller. If Buyer fails to 44 provide Seller or Seller's Agent with written unconditional disapproval by 5:00 p.m. of the final day of the S ystem Contingency 45 Period, Buyer shall be deemed to have accepted the condition of the onsite sewage system. Note that if, prior to expiration of the 46 System Contingency Period, written agreement is reached with Seller regarding ALL Buyer's requested repairs to the onsite sewage 47 system, the System Contingency Period shall automatically terminate, unless the parties agree otherwise in writing. Termination of 48 this transaction shall not excuse either party from paying for any Service they agreed to be responsible for in Section 5, above. 49 7. BUYER'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT: Buyer acknowledges that by closing this transaction, it shall mean that Buyer is satisfied with all 50 Documents and Information, received pursuant to this Onsite Sewage System Addendum. Buyer understands that while Seller has made 51 certain representations regarding the condition of the onsite sewage system, they do not represent a guarantee or warranty of future 52 performance. Events may occur that can change the condition of the system after it has been inspected. All Documents and Information 53 and other such information should be viewed in this light. Buyer acknowledges that Buyer has not received or relied upon any oral or 54 written statements regarding the onsite sewage system made by Seller or any real estate agent not expressly contained in the Real Estate 55 Sale Agreement or this Addendum. Neither Seller's nor Buyer's Agents licensees are experts in onsite sewage systems and should not be 56 relied upon to provide opinions, advice or information concerning their current condition or future performance. D sq any: DocuSigned by: 57 Bu e~ S Date 1/4/2018 -4:2geIPe~T D el/8/2018 1 2:57 PM 1 A -8 y tilty,efo,As"and Harold s , rWst 3E18F858CA61465... 58 Buyer Date E Seller Date 59 Buyer's Agent Danna Gibson Seller's Agent Lisa Coleman 60 Buyer's Agent's Firm John L Scott Ashland Seller's Agent's Firm John L Scott This form has been licensed for use solely by Danna Gibson pursuant to a Forms License Agreement with Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC. LINES WITH THIS SYMBOL - REQUIRE A SIGNATURE AND DATE Copyright Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC 2017 www.orefonline.com No portion may be reproduced without express permission of Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC OREF 081 Page 2 of 2 Produced with zipForm® by zipLogix 18070 Fifteen Mile Road, Fraser, Michigan 48026 www zioLocrx.com Harold Hardesty DocuSign Envelope ID: 0292A027-28A3-4F77-B155-BE5CFDA7A930 O R E F Sale Agreement # gg122117 .wm uw. R~l lstx.F<mLf.C PROMISSORY NOTE FOR EARNEST MONEY 1 Buyer(s) City of Ashland 2 Seller(s) Harold C Hardesty Trust 3 Property Address 1291 Oak St, Ashland, OR 97520-1058 4 [This Promissory Note ("Note") should be used in conjunction with "Receipt For Earnest Money" Section of Sale Agreement] 5 Buyer(s): City of Ashland 6 jointly and severally promise to pay to: 7 Seller(s): Harold C Hardesty Trust 8 the sum of $ 10,000.00 9 1) Upon redemption of this Note, check shall be made payable to (select only one): 10 ❑ Real Estate Firm Trust Account: 11 ❑ Seller(s): Harold C Hardesty Trust 12 ❑X Escrow / Title Company: First American Title 13 2) This Note is due and payable on the following Due Date (select only one): 10 ❑X business ❑ calendar days (three [3] 14 if not filled in) after Seller and Buyer have signed and accepted this Real Estate Sale Agreement; 15 ❑ Date 16 3) If this Note is not paid on or before the Due Date, Buyer(s) shall pay interest at the rate of nine percent (9.00%) per annum on the unpaid 17 balance from the Due Date until it is paid in full. BUYER(S) UNDERSTAND(S) THAT TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE, AND THAT THE 18 FAILURE TO PAY THIS NOTE WHEN DUE MAY ALSO CONSTITUTE A DEFAULT UNDER THE REAL ESTATE SALE AGREEMENT 19 WITH SELLER. 20 4) This Note is hereby incorporated into and made a part of the Real Estate Sale Agreement between Seller(s) and Buyer(s). In the event of 21 any dispute between said Seller and Buyer, the mediation, arbitration and attorney fee provisions therein shall expressly apply. If this 22 Note is for $10,000 or less, notwithstanding the dispute resolution provisions of the Real Estate Sale Agreement, Seller may, but shall not 23 be required, to enforce collection in Small Claims Court. 24 5) If payment is not made on or before the Due Date, and this Note is being held by Seller's or Buyer's Agent, said Agent, or Agent's 25 Principal Broker, shall, upon demand, turn it over to Seller for enforcement. It is expressly understood and agreed that neither 26 Agents, nor Agents' Principal Brokers, nor their respective Firms, its owners, officers or directors, licensees, employees or 27 representatives, shall have any duty, responsibility or liability to Seller(s) to enforce collection of this Note, nor for any fees or costs 28 associated therewith. DocuSi ned b : 29 Buyer 34~aytns Date 1/4/2018 1 _14:Aer5T Datel/8/2018 2: 57 PM VtT°'AVfFand Haro o&%A4,,S 30 Buyer Date Seller Date 31 Buyer's Agent Danna Gibson Seller's Agent Lisa Coleman 32 Buyer's Agent's Firm John L Scott Ashland, Seller's Agent's Firm John L Scott This form has been licensed for use solely by Danna Gibson pursuant to a Forms License Agreement with Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC. LINES WITH THIS SYMBOL - REQUIRE A SIGNATURE AND DATE Copyright Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC 2017 www.orefonline.com No portion may be reproduced without express permission of Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC OREF 060 John L Scott Ashland, 320 E Main St. Ashland OR 97,520 Phone: (541)708-5775 Fax: 5414881511 Harold Hardesty Hanna Gibson Produced with zipForm® by zipLogix 18070 Fifteen Mile Road, Fraser. Michigan 48026 www.zit)Lociix.com Council Business Meeting May 15, 0: Title: City Administrator Recruitment Update and Opportunity for Public Comment on Selection Criteria to be used during Interviews From: Tina Gray Human Resources Director Tina.gray(D-ashland.or.us Summary: The application deadline for the City Administrator recruitment was extended to May 11, 2018 to allow for maximum outreach by the recruiter. After the close of the recruitment, staff and the recruiter will be seeking input from the Mayor and Council to narrow the semi-finalists to a short-list of finalists who will be invited to Ashland mid-June for an intensive selection process. The Council will be convening in a closed session to interview the finalists, so staff is recommending the Council seek input and formally adopt the selection criteria that will be utilized during the interview and selection process. In addition to the minimum qualifications outlined in the recruitment brochure, the Council will be determining which candidate most closely matches our candidate profile during the interview and selection process. Staff has provided the criteria used in the last City Administrator Recruitment which focuses on 5 Key Dimensions: • Vision • Experience (Knowledge of City operations) • Leadership • Communication Style • Self-Management (Interpersonal Skills) Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: 1. After hearing Public Comment, Council can approve the selection criteria as presented by staff. 2. Council can approve a modified version of the selection criteria based on public input. Potential Motion: I move approval of the selection criteria as presented (or with modifications) to be utilized in final interviews for City Administrator. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council formally adopt the selection criteria to be used during interviews of the finalists. Resource Requirements: Staff included funding to support the recruitment and selection of a new City Administrator in the 2017-2019 Biennial budget. Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: Page 1 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND ORS 192.610 Background and Additional Information: The City contracted with Springsted lWaters to conduct a nationwide search for a new City Administrator. Consultants worked with Council and staff to create a Job Announcement Brochure to utilize as a recruitment tool in a national search process. Initial interest in the position was not as strong as we had hoped, so the deadline for applications was extended to May 11, 2018, to allow additional time for direct outreach by the Recruitment Team of Chuck Rohre, and Art Davis. As the Council will convene in Executive Session to evaluate the finalists and discuss hiring of a public officer, they must first adopt hiring standards, criteria and policy directives in meetings open to the public in which the public has had the opportunity to comment on the standards, criteria and policy directives. The Council previously discussed the selection process in a Study Session Open to the Public on February 5. 2018. Staff is recommending that the Council formally discuss and approve selection criteria that will be used to evaluate the candidates, and provide the public opportunity to comment on the criteria prior to the interviews which are tentatively scheduled for the week of June 11, 2018. Attachments: • Recruitment Brochure • Selection Criteria • Selection Process Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND -7 -T f ji I , y w i t 47, SEEKS A PROVEN, INNOVATIVE AND TO SERVE JTS NEXT... THE COMMUNITY A vibrant and historic community of 21,000 residents, Ashland' is located near the south end of the Rogue Valley along Interstate 5 and is part of the cultural and economic heart of Southern Oregon. Just 16 miles north of the Oregon-California border and a little more than a 4' - two-hour-drive west to the Pacific Ocean, Ashland is nestled in the foothills of the Siskiyou i" Mountains and is one of the most scenic and picturesque communities in the Pacific Northwest. The community's rich cultural milieu includes the nationally-recognized Oregon Shakespeare Festival, cutting-edge local theater, and an award-winning Ashland Independent Film Festival. Artistic-creativity is prominently featured through art galleries, open studio events, public art projects, Friday Art Walks and numerous music venues. Nearby recreational and outdoor amenities include lakes, mountain trails for hiking and biking, downhill'skiing runs, and beautiful, historical Lithia Park, named by the American € i Planning Association as one of the top ten Great American Spaces. These outdoor and cultural riches attract well over 400,000 visitors annually. Ashland is also home to Southern Oregon University and a public school district consistently rated among the top 100 school`. - districts in the nation. Ashland has managed to maintain a strong sense of community, in part because of the quality services it offers to its citizens. THE POSITION e The City Administrator has responsibility for overseeing all City functions with the exception of the Parks Department, which reports to the Parks &,Recreation Commission. The City .Administrator recommends the appointment or removal of the City's department directors, i including Administrative Services and Finance, Community Development, Electric, Fire, Police, and Public Works. The City Administrator also assists the City Council in establishing goals, policies and objectives in order to provide appropriate and effective services based on an analysis of City needs. The City Administrator is responsible for overseeing all City programs and activities to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of City operations. The position is responsible for reviewing departmental work plans, programs and procedures and will recommend changes in approach or methods to ensure that City services are innovative and cost effective. As the organization's chief administrative officer, the City Administrator oversees and directs the biennial budget development process and is responsible for preparing the proposed Budgetthat is presented tii:tlle Citizen .Budget Committee, and to the City Council for review. . THE CITY OF ASHLAND PLACES A HIGH VALUE ON THE FOLLOWING: ■ Participatory Government ■ Sustainability i ■ Natural Environment ■ Diversity ■ Responsible Use of ■ Economy - Resources ■ Distinctiveness ■ Continuous Learning & Improvement m Basic Needs r provement ■ Transparency r ■ Available and Attainable Housing ■ Community THE ORGANIZATION ■ Free Expression ■ Green Buildings The • elected for a • and elected the six City Councilors are at-large, for OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES • The following is a list of high-priority opportunities and challenges the confirmation appoints a City new City Administrator will need to address within the first twelve to Administrator and City Attorney. Other elected eighteen months on the job. This list was compiled after discussions with Recorder, • the Mayor, City Councilors, Department Directors and other staff, plus Court judge, and the five-member Parks & input received during a community forum. Recreation Commission. ■ New communications and collaboration techniques make it possible The City ' viewed by many as a for the City to significantly improve its ability to reach out to leader among community constituencies. entrepreneurial approach ■ Rising healthcare and pension expenses make it necessary to find to its residents and embracing civic ways to deliver critical services to residents with less cost and greater engagement. The City's 20.17-19 biennial budget • : • • efficiency. Successful implementation of the City's recently-adopted Climate and Energy Action Plan will require constant attention and full-time personnel, along with another 37 difficult choices by City staff and elected officials, as well as significant employees for Parks & Recreation. Five voluntary action by residents and businesses. unions represent a majority of the • Police • ■ Ashland has several potential sites for major residential and Association Local #1269, commercial infill development or redevelopment. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ■ Housing available for rent or purchase by persons with low or (IBEW), a clerical unit • Laborers moderate incomes is in acute short supply. Unions. ■ The needs and impacts of a growing number of homelessness Ashland is a full-service City with its own water, individuals in Ashland have not yet been adequately addressed. and electrical utility ■ At least initial steps must be undertaken to replace or reconstruct the operations, own fiber network. outmoded, energy-inefficient, and earthquake-susceptible City Hall. The city limits of Ashland encompass almost ■ A high and growing percentage of Ashland's population is comprised seven square miles, but the service areas of of retirees, many with special skills and some with special needs. some of the departments extend beyond traditional city boundaries. example, ■ Non-drivers in Ashland currently have limited access to transportation Ashland's Fire and Rescue Department operates services, but mindful implementation of new ride-sharing and ride- Advanced Life Support/Emergency Medical hailing systems has the potential to substantially improve such access. Services (ALS) in an • ■ Better collaboration with other jurisdictions in the Rogue Valley has to residents and businesses the potential to help resolve some of the City's challenges. ■ Ashland's leadership in implementing forest fire prevention and miles. addition various issue-specific, ad hoc management programs has set the stage for it to become recognized advisory and federally supported as a model for progressive municipal forestry advisory boards and commissions involving over management. 120 citizens "appointed by the Mayor and ■ Community policing is already embedded in the policies and practices confirmed by the Council. of the City's police department. POSITION PROFILE Responsibilities: The City Administrator is responsible for overseeing all City functions with the exception of the Parks Department, which reports to the Parks & Recreation Commission. The City Administrator recommends the appointment or removal of the City's department directors, including Administrative Services A- ` and Finance, Community Development, Electric, Fire, Police and Public Works. The City Administrator also assists the City Council in establishing goals, policies and objectives in order to provide appropriate and effective services. The City Administrator is responsible for overseeing all City programs and activities to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of City operations. The position is responsible for reviewing departmental work plans, programs and procedures and will recommend changes in approach or methods to ensure that City services are innovative and cost-effective. As the organization's chief administrative officer, the City Administrator oversees and directs the biennial budget development process and is responsible for preparing the proposed Budget for review by the Citizen Budget Committee, and the City Council. Education and Experience: A bachelor's degree in business, public administration or finance is required, and a master's degree is highly desirable. A minimum of 10 years of public sector administrative and management experience is preferred; experience 'managing a municipal government similar or larger than Ashland in terms of budget complexity, scope of services and staff resources is also desired. An established record of collaboration, transparency and integrity while working with elected officials, employees and labor groups is a prerequisite. Ashland's City Administrator must have outstanding oral and written communication and strategic planning skills; be able to utilize financial and quantitative information to draw accurate and unbiased conclusions; be able r' to provide options and recommendations for City Council consideration to x maximize resources and ensure fiscal sustainability; and have a good understanding of the dynamics of a visitor-oriented community. ns t Personal Qualities: The ideal candidate will have high personal and professional ethical standards ' and yet an approachable personality and style, with the self-confidence and wisdom to respectfully listen to all points of view and to diplomatically say "no" when warranted. She or he should be comfortable working with a sophisticated constituency with high expectations for responsiveness and service levels. The capacity to remain neutral and even empathetic in the midst of politically-charged situations is essential. Ashland's City Administrator is expected to become visibly involved in the daily life of the community; establishing one's residence within the City is not ,.t required, but certainly makes such prominence easier to accomplish. The City Administrator should have a strong professional interest in building a cohesive workforce, including encouraging employee training and growth opportunities to develop future leadership and as a hedge against loss of _ institutional knowledge through retirements and attrition. She or he should be willing to seek employees' input on ideas for the betterment of the organization. ' Mm u 1 RE Irr ENC` Abb 41 - Jim. ® ► i APPLICATION PROCEDURE Interested applicants should submit a cover letter and resume on-line at: https://springsted- waters.recruitmenthome.com/postings/1796. This position is open until filled; however, prospective candidates are encouraged to submit their application by the first review deadline of Wednesday, April 25, 2018. For more information, please contact Chuck Rohre at crohre@springsted.com or 214.466.2436 or Art Davis at adavis@springsted.com or 816.868.7042. The City of Ashland is an Equal Opportunity Employer and values diversity at all levels of its workforce. For more information, please visit at www.ashland.or.us. Applicants selected as finalists for this position will be subject to a criminal history/credit/driver's license check prior to the interview. Under Public information statutes, information from your resume may be subject to public disclosure. Springsted I Waters Executive Recruitment Serv' d ~ ~p T ~ 14285 Midway Road, Suite 340 Phone: 972-481-1950 CA li Addison, TX 75001 Fax: 972-481-1951 Vp~ r Springsted L ` & O It A►N I ZATI O 380 Jackson Street, Suite 300 Phone: 651-223-3000. Saint Paul, MN 55101 Fax: 651-223-3002 i Ashland City Administrator Evaluation Criteria Candidate Dimension Evaluation Scale 1. Vision • Knowledge and understanding of the current issues, culture and trends 1 2 3 4 within the community and how they may affect the community in the 10future 2. Experience • Knowledge of Police operations and issues 1 2 3 4 • Knowledge of Fire operations and issues 1 2 3 4 • Knowledge of Public Works operations and issues 1 2 3 4 • Knowledge of municipal finance and budgeting 1 2 3 4 • Knowledge of Community Development operations and issues 1 2 3 4 • Knowledge of City utilities including water, sewer, storm drain, electric and 1 2 3 4 broadband services • Knowledge of Economic Development and Urban Renewal 1 2 3 4 • Experience of General Administrative Oversight and Direction of Capital 1 2 3 4 Projects • Understanding of state, regional and local politics 1 2 3 4 • Ability to utilize political acumen without being political 1 2 3 4 • Knowledge of tourism and tourism impacts to community and City services 1 2 3 4 • Understanding of policy formulation and implementation 1 2 3 4 3. Leadership • Ability to present ideas in a clear and persuasive way 1 2 3 4 • Leadership style which is collaborative, inclusive and action oriented 1 2 3 4 • Ability to work with diverse citizens groups 1 2 3 4 • Ability to direct, supervise and evaluate staff 1 2 3 4 • Ability to interact and provide guidance to City Council 1 2 3 4 • Ability to interact and provide administrative guidance to Mayor 1 2 3 4 • Demonstrate team building and team oriented management style 1 2 3 4 • Ability to respond appropriately to change and adapt to new information 1 2 3 4 and changes • Ability to understand and manage the often conflicting financial pressures 1 2 3 4 omplex, multi-departmental public agency of ac i 4. Communication • Ability to communicate effectively verbally and in writing 1 2 3 4 • Ability to utilize active listening skills 1 2 3 4 5. Self Management • Candidates responses and interview presence 1 2 3 4 • Candidates tone and inflection were appropriate 1 2 3 4 • Interpersonal skills were appropriate to situation 1 2 3 4 Other Observations or Comments: i I 2018 DRAFT City Administrator Selection Process Initial Screening of Candidates Springsted I Waters will present the City with the most qualified candidates (usually 15- 25). Human Resources will send candidate materials to the Mayor and Council for review. Council will respond to Tina Gray no later than May 30th with their top candidate selections and any summary details regarding their selections. Council will be asked to select a minimum of 2, maximum of 5 Finalists to be interviewed in June. The Mayor and Human Resources Director will select a maximum of 6 finalists based on input from the Council. Council will be informed of the Finalists. If necessary, an Executive Session can be called to discuss further so there is consensus of the Council on the Finalists. Interview and Selection Process Wednesday, June 13 • Kick-off meeting welcoming Candidates (Mayor & Department Heads) • Candidates are hosted on City Tours by City staff • Candidate Community Reception (Location TBD) Thursday, June 14 • Panel Interviews - Council, outside experts, Department Heads and citizen representatives will be divided into (2) Panels. Each candidate will interview twice. • Both panels will debrief with the City Council • Council will meet to discuss who to invite back the next day for a second interview Friday, June 15 Council meets with top 2-3 candidates and may decide to extend a conditional job offer to a new City Administrator Council Business Meeting May 15, 0: Title: Support for Transportation and Growth Management Grant From: Paula C. Brown, PE Public Works Director Pau la.brown(a)-ashland.or.us Scott A. Fleury, PE Deputy Public Works Director scott.fleury(_ashland.or.us Summary: This item requests Council support for submission of an Oregon Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) Grant to "Revitalize Downtown Ashland," which will develop an implementation strategy to provide specific short, medium and long-term actions to enhance our downtown core. Actions, Options, or Potential Motions: 1. Move approval to authorize submission of the City's TGM grant application. 2. Move to direct staff to revise the grant with the following direction from Council. 3. Move to deny the grant application and redirect staff. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council approve the grant submission and authorize the mayor to sign the attached letter of support. Resource Requirements: TGM requires a local grant match of 12 percent of the total project cost. The remainder of the funds are from an Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) competitive grant program. In addition to the match requirement, the City must provide a project manager to oversee the project and keep decision makers informed. This project is a goal of Public Works management staff, and both Paula and Scott would jointly manage the success of this project, along with coordination among the Planning Department and Ashland Police Department. Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: Council Goals: 1. Leverage our regional and state relationships to increase effectiveness in relevant policy arenas 4. Evaluate real property and facility assets to strategically support city mission and goals. 21. Be proactive in using best practices in infrastructure management and modernization 21.1 Complete downtown parking management and traffic circulation plan 22. Prepare for the impact of climate change on the community. Department Goals: • Maintain and improve infrastructure that enhances the economic vitality of the community • Evaluate all city infrastructure regarding planning management and financial resources Page I of 2 CITY OF -ASH LAN D Economic Development Strategy (adopted July 2011): 5.3 Develop a capital improvement plan and maintenance strategy for the Plaza and downtown. Background and Additional Information: The TGM Program works in partnership with local governments to accomplish interrelated transportation goals and objectives. Ashland's proposed project meets the TGM stated goals to: • Provide transportation choices with balanced interconnected transportation networks • Create vibrant communities and lively centers linked by accessible transportation • Support economic vitality by planning for movement of people and goods • Save public and private costs with compact land uses and well-connected transportation • Promote environmental stewardship through sustainable land uses and transportation planning The TGM process is highly competitive. Staff prepared and submitted a pre-application to the local ODOT Region 3 coordinator and received positive support and feedback. The pre- application focused on building upon the downtown parking strategy and prior work for beautification and revitalization of the downtown core. Project elements focused on transforming the state highway into an enriched local street with safer pedestrian access, inviting sidewalks, enhanced biking, convenient transit and functional parking to better sustain the unique qualities and improve the prosperity of downtown Ashland. Goals were two-fold with actions to identify an attractive and vibrant downtown core, enhanced wayfinding, better pedestrian scale lighting and enhanced crossings. The project would also provide safe routes to schools, better transit amenities and identification of truck loading and delivery zones complimenting shared parking. Coordination between the City of Ashland's Engineering, Planning, and Police Department, along with various commissions, the Chamber and ODOT partners has led to the final TGM Application. Successful implementation of this project will lead to continued partnerships with ODOT on the section of downtown that remains within ODOT's jurisdiction and will ultimately meet the intent of one of the 2012 Transportation System Plan (TSP) recommendations to make some necessary changes to the downtown core. Ashland is ready for change and the TGM Grant will be the start to some fresh new actions to revitalize downtown, complete many of the parking study recommendations and take some bold steps to implement new crime prevention through environmental _ design strategies to include lighting, signage and artwork, for a more ~livable downtown. Truck loading/unloading, parking, pedestrian vitality and safer bicycle systems will be another result of this ° fiHOUT successful partnership between downtown businesses, residential - fH PLAN community members and tourists. A Attachments: • TGM Grant application and site map • Ashland Council Letter of support Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2018 GRANT APPLICATION' APPLICATIONS DUE 4:00 PM, June 8, 2018 Note: This form must be filled out using the latest version of Adobe Acrobat or Reader. Download the latest f version of Reader here: https://-qet.adobe.com/reader/ Download the Application, Application Packet, and Racial and Ethnic Impact Statement at. https://www.oregon.goy/LCD/TGM/Paaes/Grants.asux Also on the web page are examples of successful TGM Applications, a list of all7GM grants to date, and help.for developing a project approach and budget. Type of Grant category 1 ODOT Region (1-5): Region 3 Primary Applicant Jurisdiction: City of Ashland Project Title: Revitalize Downtown Ashland 1 Mailing Address: 20 E. Main St t Gty/Zip: Ashland 97520 Contact Person: - Scott A. Fleury Contact Person Title: Deputy Public Works Director Telephone/Email: 541-552-2412 scottfieury@ashland.or.us MATCH YES NO Co-Applicants involved in the project: O O a a O d Summary Description of Project: This section must be completed. Do notrefer to text within the application form. In no more than 7000 characters; describe the purpose of your project and the.expected outcomes. The Revitalize Downtown Ashland Plan will build upon the completed and adopted Transportation System Plan (TSP) and subsequent Downtown Parking Plan along with prior work involving.the downtown corridorto beautify and revitalize the City's historic downtown core. The project goal is to create an affordable, safe and functional multi-use transportation network The project transforms a practical district level state highway through the heart of downtown Ashland into an enriched local street network with increased opportunities for safer and attractive walking experience, enhanced bicyde connections and parking, convenient access to transit and functional parking, including loading zones to better sustain the unique qualities and improve the prosperity of downtown Ashland. Project implementation will result in specific short, medium and long-term actions to the downtown core. Project will also define funding mechanisms to ensure project goals are met in -a timely efficient manner. i I 2018 TGM Grant Application I , Jurisdiction: CityofAshland Project Title: Revitalize Downtown Ashland TGM Funds Requested Local Match' Total Project Cost Eligible Grantee Expenses r N [Labor (salary plusbenefits)and $0.00 $15,000.00 x$1500000 f Direct Expenses] f Consultant Personal Services $110,000.00 $114,0000- - EMU I TOTAL $It00000(F 9~ MAW. E $125A0009X ,..~.x..-z>,u T-vrv.3siaaa.`Ltc `e'4ms..'cestm'~" +v.e sr~ia:_i. we.a nxmv' 'This amount should bee minimum of 12 percent of the total project budget, or. $15,000.00 I " i Type of match to be. provided: AMix i I Certifications 09 This application was prepared by staff of the primary applicant or staff of one of the involved jurisdictions. QThis application was prepared by the following compensated consultant Consultant Name- Consultants may prepare the jurisdiction's application. However, uncompensated consultants are not eligible to participate in the project itself. Consultants who are paid to prepare the application maybe eligible to participate in the project. Contact CindyLesmeisterat503-986-4349ifyou have questions. i i ® By checking this box, I certify that City of Ashland supports the proposed project has the legal authority to i pledge matching funds, and has the legal authority to apply for Transportation and Growth Management funds. I further certify that matching funds are available or will be available for the proposed project I understand that all State of Oregon rules for contracting, auditing, underwriting (where applicable), and payment will apply to this project. ~ Date- I i i i i I 2079 TGM Grant Application i Jurisdiction: CityofAshland ProjectTitle: Revitalize Downtown Ashland Eligibility Requirements The following three eligibility requirements are reviewed on apass/fail basis. Applications found to not meet each of these requirements will not be scored against the award criteria and will not be awarded a grant. 1. Clear Transportation Relationship A proposed project must have a clear transportation relationship and produce transportation benefits. A project must entail analysis, evaluation of alternative scenarios, development of implementation measures, and public involvement that results in a transportation plan, land use plan, or other product that addresses a transportation problem, need, opportunity, or issue of local or regional importance. 1000 character limit. The City updated its TSP under a previous TGM grant The 2012 TSP adopted by Council and amended into the City's comprehensive plan, details policies, goals, studies and capital improvements for interconnected transportation modes. The City completed an associated study (S2)-Downtown Parking and Multimodal Circulation, including development of a parking strategy and preliminary analysis for modal improvements-The approved parking strategy requires additional'workto complete the modal analysis. Through stakeholder engagement and sound engineering practice, the plan will develop inter-connected modal alternative improvements; roadway, i i bicycle, sidewalk, plus parking and signage to provide a safe environment for the traveling public. Alternatives will be vetted and by consensus engraved into final recommended implementation measures. The City will partner with ODOT on project solutions to meet defined objectives as the downtown is an STA under ODOT jurisdictional control. 1 2. Adoption of Products to meet Project Objectives A proposed project must include preparation of an adoption-ready product or products that lead to a local policy decision and that directly address the project objectives, such as a transportation system plan, comprehensive plan amendment, land use plan, code amendment, implementation program, or intergovernmental agreement. Projects are expected to include adoption hearings or will be part of a larger project to be adopted. 800 character limit Ashland will have an open, public process for the development of this initiative driven implementation plan. Upon completion of the Revitalize Downtown Ashland Plan, the final document will be presented before the City's Planning Commission and the City Council for adoption as an amendment to the TSP and the City's comprehensive plan. The listed projects will then be added to the City's long-term Capital Improvement Plan and funded through the biennial budget approval process. j i 3. Support of Local Officials A proposed project must clearly demonstrate that local officials, both the primary applicant and any co-applicants, understand the purpose of the grant application and support the project objectives. A letter or resolution of support from the governing body of the applying jurisdiction,(e.g. City Council, Board of Commissioners, or Transit Board) must be submitted With the application to meet this 'requirement 400 character limit Development of the Revitalize Downtown Ashland Plan is supported by the Transportation Commission, Planning Commission and City Council. The City understands the importance of its vital downtown core and connection to the region's transportation network through vehicles, transit, bicycling and walking. Letters of support are provided by partners above and the Ashland Chamber of Commerce and RViD. i i I f I 2018 TGM Grant Application f t Jurisdiction: City Ashland Project'rit.le: Revitalize Downtown Ashland Award Criteria Applications are scored on a range of criteria and receive up to 100 points. Projects are selected primarily based on the points scored; also considered are the grant amounts requested, the estimated amounts TGM believes may be required to complete a project, the amount of grant dollars available foraward within a geographic region, and the balance of grant dollars between Category 1 and Category 2 projects. A, scoring consideration is ensuring a fair distribution of grantfunds to smaller or economically distressed communities. 1. Proposed project addresses a need and supports TGM objectives (up to 40 points) C The project clearly and effectively addresses a local or regional transportation or transportation-related land use issue, problem, need, or opportunity and will achieve one or more of the TGM objectives. 'Revitalize Downtown Ashland' is meant to build upon work previously completed as part of the Downtown Parking Plan and augment the preliminary modal improvement analysis. The goal is to create an affordable, balanced, safe, and functional multi-use transportation network, while also enhancing the streetscape in a way that incorporates environmental changes to build a sense of ownership and placemaking. The City of Ashland's downtown is a thriving community center and the hub of the City, supporting commercial businesses, tourism, and residential activity. This heavily used activity center falls short of delivering a progressive and well integrated transportation network with balanced modal equity. Accessibility is limited in the downtown core due toa lack of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards for accessible design, wayfinding, ramps, and generally narrow sidewalks. Safety of the traveling public is challenged with inadequate truck loading zones, uncontrolled pedestrian crossings which in turn create mainline and side-street queuing, and intermittent congestion issues within the corridor. Finally the downtown lacks bike lane connectivity to either end of the couplet where bike lanes do exist Transportation Choices: The Main Street and Lithia Way Couplet in downtown Ashland are under thejurisdictional control of the Oregon Department of Transportation (COOT) and are part of district level highway 99. Ashland's' downtown core is also considered a Special Transportation Area (STA). The 1999 Oregon Highway Plan details development and planning guidelines for STAB that include: • Sidewalks with ample width located adjacent to the highway and the buildings; • People arriving by car or transit find it convenient to walk from place to place within the area; • On-street parking, structured parking, or shared, general purpose parking lots located behind or to the side of buildings; • Streets designed with a pedestrian orientation for the ease of crossing by pedestrians; • Adjacent land uses provide for compact, mixed=use development with buildings oriented to the street; • A well-developed parallel and interconnected street network facilitates local automobile, bicycle, transit and pedestrian circulation except where topography severely constrains the potential for street connections; • Provisions made for well-developed transit stops including'vanlbus stops, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and including street amenities that support these modes. The Revitalize Downtown Ashland Plan will consider enhancements consistent with STA planning guidelines within the downtown couplet Plan alternatives and final recommendations` shall improve the system limitations now in place and.providefor better transportation choices through an enhanced interconnected transportation network. Current limitations include: • existing sidewalks that have numerous constriction points and that are too narrow for such a heavily trafficked downtown corridor; + a lack of pedestrian scale energy efficient lighting to promote a safer and attractive walking experience for our community; - a lack of complete signalized control throughout the couplet which would help to promote safety by reducing congestion related issues to both mainline and side street traffic queuing; a lack of managed truck loading zones which in turn challenges safe driving and increases congestion issues; • enhancements are needed to better define and adyertise existing transit locations and facilities; and no dedicated bike'connectivity within the couplet to adjacent-bike lanes on North Main and Siskiyou Boulevard, and a lack of bicycle parking facilities completely limits this convenient choice. The Revitalize Downtown Ashland Plan is consistent with the City s Economic Development Strategy (adopted July 2011) and ties directly to item 5.3 "Develop a capital improvement plan and maintenance strategy for the Plaza and downtown." Downtown Ashland is the-heart of the community fo(both residents and visitors. It sets the tone for our tourism economy and plays a strong role in the quality of life of residents. Because of its importance and the heavy use it receives, elements of the infrastructure and associated amenities are in need of repair, improvement, or replacement, including trash cans, benches, bike parking, sidewalks; lighting upgrades, landscaping, tree grate installation, etc Additionally, parking needs must be considered including how it is managed (time limits, charges, loading, bus, etc), how much and what types are available.' Public art is also a way to further showcase the community and strengthens the ties of our cultural tourism promotion, quality of life for residents and energizing of the plaza/downtown: To enhance current transportation choices, the City is also currently working on ordinance development to allow Transportation Network Companies (TNC) access to the Citys transportation system. The City believes one of the primary destination points for TNCs will be downtown and the final plan should identify connections to account for the potential impacts on the transportation system. The City has also adopted a Climate Energy Action Plan (CEAP) that provides strategies for minimizing our environmental impact, including a reduction in greenhouse gases (GHG).Thefinal _Revitalize Downtown Ashland Plan will'also support the City's CEAP efforts and the specific strategies including: • StrategyULT-1. Support better public transit and rideshwing. - Strategy ULT-2 Make-Ashland more bike and pedestrian-friendly. The Downtown Parking Plan defined a clear set of implementation strategies and programs that included improving wayfinding (signage), parking turnover and tirriing,.extending timed parking within the downtown core and into the adjacent Railroad District. I Create Communities: Ashland currently has a very strong sense of community and a connection to its vibrant downtown. Current land use allows for a mix of commercial and residential in the downtown core. Downtown Ashland beginning at the historic downtown plaza has direct connections to City Hall, the library, Oregon Shakespeare Festival, Southern Oregon University, Ashland High School, Fire Station #t, and the gem of Lithia Park The downtown often is the community center area for parades and special events. The downtown core hosts First Friday Art Walks, the Ashland Independent Film Festival, Saturday farmers market and the link to summer weekend markets in Calle Guanajuato. The Fourth of July, Halloween and the Festival oftight parades draw thousands of citizens and visitors every year to the downtown core. Downtown Ashland is more than all these things put together. It defines much of our quality of life, why people choose to relocate here, establish businesses and-raise their families. Enhancing the core of our community reaches Across all ages, incomes, mobilities and race improving access and enjoyment for everyone. The City experiences incidents of crime within the downtown core and through this project with Police assistance, the usebf "Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED)"standardswill'be employed to minimize inappropriate/negati ve'behavior. Innovative planted areas with positive adiv'i gpherators and active wavfindinct devices could help to Qeate en as spaces throughout downtown. Through improve connecti=and enhanced safety to public spaces, Ashland will revitalize its downtown core and continue to retain vital part of our community. Economic Vitality. The downtown commercial area supports a diverse mix of dining, hotels, Oregon Shakespeare Festival, boutique shopping/retail; City Hall facilities, general office and residential. The City, receives thousands of visitors from near and far throughout the year that enjoy the vibrant downtown atmosphere. Deliberate improvements that enhance f the transportation network will not only improve safety, but also sustain the positive aspects of an engaging downtown and encourage improvement to the economic viability of the City and in turn the region. With i developable land left in the downtown core, a comprehensive, interconnected and well balanced transportation plan with short, medium and long term improvements will positively spur development and bring even more life to the downtown core. A lively and energetic downtowncore'with balanced transportation connections to the rest of the community activity centers creates better accessibility for the entire community. Public and Private Costs: The City strives to ensure the appropriate use of tax dollars and will identify better options to develop public/ C private opportunities for improvements. Improved design and layout of pedestrian movement, and developing a strong sense of "place" employing CPTED standards can help to decrease incidences of crime and unwanted behavior, thereby reducing the burden on Police action in the downtown. Improved design and facilities for ADA j accessibilities will enhance the downtown experience for those with disabilities and enable further connectivity with transit and futureTNCs. Improved transit features and connections along with bike share facilities can also reduce the impact on parking requirements and the need for additional parking structures. There may be opportunities to provide enhanced wayfinding with active (or passive) community involvement or advertising spaces to help with funding options. Public art could be combined with some of the CPTED options to create innovative solutions to enhancing positive activity-downtown. Environmental Stewardship: Providing wide inviting sidewalks that promote a safer and attractive walking experience, dedicated bike lanes and direct access to a comprehensive transit system, the City expects to reduce vehicle miles traveled and support the Climate Energy Action Plan by producing a GHG reduction. Improved signalization will also reduce congestion and idling times. Installation of LED pedestrian scale lighting will reduce energy burdens. Penrious and improved sidewalk drainage can help maintain a robust street tree network providing an improved visual streetscape and shade canopy. City staff will actively coordinate with ODOT, RVTD, citizens, the Chamber, business and other powerful stakeholders, City commissions, the Police Department, and finally the City Council throughout the plan development phase in order to ensure all voices are heard in order to develop programmatic alternatives and a final framework of executable projects that meet the needs of all users within the downtown transportation system. 2. Proposed project is timely and urgent (up to 25 points) The application demonstrates timeliness and urgency. The project is needed now to:address pressing local transportation and land use issuermake amendments to local plans or regulations necessitated by changes in federal regulations, state requirements, or regional plans;make amendments to local plans or regulations necessitated by changes that were not anticipated in previous plans including growth or lack of growth, changes in land use patterns, or changes in available fundingbuild on, complement, ortake a necessary step toward completing or implementing other high priority community initiatives, including supporting a Governor's Regional Solutions team priority; orresolve transportation= or land use-related issues affecting the- project readiness of local, regional, orstate transportation projects for which funding is expected to be obligated within the near future. The timing for this project aligns with many other programs the City is currently planning and implementing. The Crtyis currently developing action strategies identrfied in'the Downtown Parking Plan, as well as;performing a transit easy i qty study, acting upon CEAP recommendations; an developing a I NC ordinance. Enhancements to these programslitemsand there connection to bring people downtown, along with general growth will lead to 1 evermore pressure on our downtown transportation system. The City needs, and is ready, to develop a plan that gamers consensus of all users and stakeholders to improve mobility and safety within the corridor while visually enhancing the streetscape consistent with Ashland standards and supportive of OPTED actions. In addition, i development opportunities still exist within the core and a clear straightforward plan will spark interest in these opportunities. 3. Proposed project approach is reasonable (up to 20 points) The applicatiom'demonstrates a clear approach to achieving the expected outcome and results in consideration for adoption. Where substantial coordination with other local, regional, and state planning efforts occurs (or will need to occur), the mechanisms and responsibilities forthe coordination are clear. Public Works staff will takethe lead forthe project with the Director and Deputy acting as principal and direct backup. The City's planning staff and staff from the Police Department are committed to supporting the success of this project The leads will work directly with the consultant and coordinate with all parties moving the project forward. The project will take into account previous and current work associated with the downtown core. It is critical to develop a project schedule that is reasonable and also to maintain the schedule throughout the plan. Staff f has the capacity to ensure project time lines and goals are met. ! The City plans to establish a technical advisory committee (TAC) that will advise the principals/project managers for the City on all phases of the project In addition,a public advisory committee (PAC) will 6e appointed by the City Council to review any and all plan alternatives and make final plan recommendations that will then be presented before the City Council for adoption. The City expects to hold 3-4 open houses at various phases of the project to obtain public input Throughout the project City staff will coordinate with outside agencies, including ODOT, RVTD, Southern Oregon University, and Chamber of Commerce. It is the intent of the City to ensure the appropriate use of ODOT right of way and that recommended transit system improvements align with RVTD's long term goals (it is expected:to have member representatives on the TAC from these local.agencies). Plan development outline: 1. Project kickoff meeting and open house 2. Perform a walking audit of the couplet, capture and.itemize through GIS all deficiencies and safety concerns 3. Analyze previous and current work associated with adopted plans and policies 4. Develop improvement alternatives (CPTEDanalysis of alternatives) and prioritization criteria 5. Alternatives open house 6. Develop final planrecommendations 7. Analyze funding sources and mechanisms 8. Develop financial plan to support capital improvements 9. Develop final documents, including specific project prioritization 10. Public Hearings for adoption of final plan 4. Proposed project has community support (up to 5 points) The application demonstrates that there 'is local support for the Pro1'ect objectives, a commitment to participate, and . j a desire to implement the expected outcome.' i The City of Ashland's Council, Planning Commission and Transportation Commission support the project and its stated objectives. Each througha separate action have developed letters of support forthe project In addition the Rogue Valley Transportation District, Southern Oregon University, Ashland Chamber of Commerce and the Oregon Shakespeare Festival have provided letters of support for the project as well. All letters of support are attached to the application. ' _ List attached letters of support on Application Checklist. 5. Proposed project sponsor, readiness and capacity (up to 10 points) The application demonstrates that the local govemment is ready and able to begin the project within the TGM timetable and that there is local commitment and capability to manage the project considering the complexity of the project, the size of the jurisdiction, and performance on previous TGM projects. Where substantial coordination with other local, regional, and state planning'efforts will need to occur, all of the partners are ready and able to begin the project within the TGM timetable. The City of Ashland has two staffmembers dedicated to ensure the project meets TGM time lines, Public Works Director, Paula Brown, will act as the principal in charge for the project ensuring the project stays on path. Deputy Public Works. Director, Scott Fleury, will serve as acting backup throughout the project Both are versed in_managing public projects of this nature and coordinating with multiple agencies and stakeholders.Th e City s Planning staff and staff from the Police department are committed to supporting the success of this project Inaddition; the City has capable administrative staff that can assist throughout the project life ona multitude of requirements. 6. Up to 10 Bonus Points: Proposed project is innovative The application demonstrates that the project will be innovative in its subject matter, approach, or expected outcomes. For example, the project will use health impact assessments or economic impact analysis as part of the evaluation of transportation, alternatives or will include an innovative multimodal analysis. DO NOT answer criterion #6 separately. Scores will award points based an the entirety of the application. By the nature of this criterion, most projects will not receive any points. f I I I - i I , I I i 2018 TGM Grant Application Checklist i Jurisdiction: City of Ashland Project Title: Revitalize Downtown Ashland I ® Application materials must include in separate files: ® Grant Application form (12 pages may, including Application Checklist) Supplemental Materials: ® Project area map ® Resolution or letter of support from governing body of applying jurisdiction(s) (eligibility criterion #3) ® Optional additional letters of support from stakeholders (award criterion #4) List attached letters of support r I . City of Ashland Transportation Commission 2. City of Ashland Planning Commission 3. Ashland Chamber of Commerce 4. Ashland Police Department 5. Rogue Valley Transportation District 6. Oregon Shakespeare Festival 7. Southern Oregon University 8. ® Racial and Ethnic Impact Statement Submit the grant application and all supplemental materials by emailing as email attachments to TGMG ra ntAp as(aod ot.state.or.us. If your materials exceed 9 MB, divide them into two emails. Put thejurisdiction name and project name in the subject line, along with 1 of 2 and 2 of 2. Request a Read Receipt if you want confirmation that your application has been received. If you encounter any issues with the submittal process, contact Rebecca Coffelt, Planning Section Web Coordinator Rebecca.b.CoffeltCdodot.state.or.u s. 503-986-4254 City of Ashland Revitalize Downtown Plan TGM Site Map downtown couplet N. Main Street and Lithia Way r i r gg r ~ 1 t ! r r rr ? ! u r ; Ff~ f ~ ft , j 1! r + .r + r; ti L I I CAL~4 1 J P LITHIA PAFtx + ~f >tr' o' f'~ ~ ~r t ~ rr ~ ~ r rim ~-~I f e~ V.' ` ~ C 37 ted by the Cikv A Ashland .r rz CITY OF ASHLAND May 16, 2018 Oregon TGM Program Attn: John McDonald ODOT Region 3 3500 NW Stewart Parkway Roseburg, OR 97470-1687 Dear Mr. McDonald, Please accept this letter of support for the "Revitalize Downtown Ashland" application for a Transportation Growth Management (TGM) grant opportunity to develop a strategy to provide specific short, medium and long-term actions to enhance our downtown core. "Revitalize Downtown Ashland" will build upon work previously completed as part of the Downtown Parking Plan and augment the preliminary modal improvement analysis. The goal is to create an affordable, balanced, safe, and functional multi-use transportation network, while also enhancing the streetscape in a way that incorporates environmental changes to build a sense of ownership and placemaking. The Main Street and Lithia Way Couplet in downtown Ashland is under the jurisdictional control of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and part of district level highway 99. Ashland's downtown core is considered a Special Transportation Area (STA). The 1999 Oregon Highway Plan details development and planning guidelines for STAs. The Revitalize Downtown Ashland Plan will consider enhancements consistent with STA planning guidelines. The Plan will build upon the Downtown Parking Plan and augment the preliminary modal improvement analysis, and is consistent with the City's adopted Economic Development Strategy and the Climate Energy Action Plan. Ashland is ready for change and the TGM Grant will be the start to some fresh new actions to revitalize downtown, complete many of the parking study recommendations and take some bold steps to implement new crime prevention through environmental design strategies to include lighting, signage and artwork, for a more livable downtown. Building convenient connections for transit and bicyclists, including street amenities and better wayfinding to support all interrelated transportation modes is a clear objective of this plan. Truck loading/unloading, parking, pedestrian vitality and safer bicycle systems will be another result of this successful partnership between downtown businesses, residential community members and tourists. Thank you for your positive consideration and approval of the City's "Revitalize Downtown Ashland" TGM grant application. Sincerely, John Stromberg Mayor ADMINISTRATION Tel: 541-488-6002 -4-6~_, 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-488-6006 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us i Council Business Meeting May 15, 0: Title: Policy on Acceptance of Donations Item Type: Approval of formal policy From: Dave Lohman City Attorney david.lohman(a)-ashland.or.us Summary: This agenda item seeks formal Council approval of a policy clarifying the a circumstances under which donations to the City will be accepted. Actions, options, or Potential Motions: Options: • The Council could adopt the proposed policy, possibly with amendments. • Alternatively, Council could decide that such a policy on acceptance of donations is overly prescriptive and that a case-by-case response to prospective donations is preferable. Suggested Motion: I move to approve the proposed Policy on Acceptance of Donations [with the following modification:]. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council approval of the attached policy on acceptance of donations to the City. Resource Requirements: None Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: • Council Goal 43: Support and empower our community partners. • Council Goal #14: Encourage and/or develop public spaces that build community and promote interaction. • Administrative Objective #36: Ensure new development protects and is in keeping with the attractiveness of Ashland's natural and built environment. Background and Additional Information: On several occasions in the recent past, generous citizens have offered to donate to the City significant gifts of items intended to enhance the appearance or urban design of Ashland's civic spaces. An ordinance already establishes guidelines for accepting gifts of public artwork. but not other items. such as services. goods. structures. or trees and plants. Page I of 2 CITY OF -AS H LA N D Councilmembers expressed general agreement with the draft donation policy presented at the April 30 Study Session, with just one exception. Several Counselors questioned a criterion that would have precluded donations that involved any initial or ongoing City costs. Their point was that some donations necessarily require at least some, reasonable City expenditures and that such donations should be allowable on a case-by-case basis. Accordingly, the draft policy now proposed for adoption replaces the disfavored criterion with one which says (in the third item under "Approval Criteria") a proposed donation must "include estimated initial and outgoing costs for which the City will be responsible if it accepts the donation." With this change, the Council will be assured of having information on potential cost to the City before exercising its discretion to accept or reject a proposed donation. Except for this change, the attached draft policy is the same as the one discussed at the April 30 Study Session. Staff believes having clear guidelines in place will foster the impulse to make civic donations while minimizing the chances of having to unwilling accept or ingraciously decline well- meaning but incompatible gifts. Attachments: 1. City Council Study Session Minutes (Page 2) dated 4/30/2018 2. Council Policy on Acceptance of Donations To The City Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND CITY OF ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION DRAFT MINUTES Monday, April 30, 2018 Council Chambers, 1 175 E. Main Street Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM Councilor Slattery, Councilor Bachman, Councilor Morris and Councilor Seffinger were present. Councilor Rosenthal was absent. 1. Public Input (15 min) Huelz Hutcheon- Ashland- Spoke regarding the speakers and monitor in the lobby not working. He spoke regarding having solar panel roofs on old and new buildings. ll. Discussion of Senior Issues (45 min) Councilor Slattery gave a Staff report. He spoke that it was discussed to create a study group to discuss aging in Ashland and the services provided. Councilor Seffinger spoke that she brought this issue up 4 years ago and that there have been changes since that time. She gave Council a handout that she wrote up in the Ashland Daily Tidings 4 years ago (see attached). Items discussed were: • Ageism • Growing senior population • Future senior issues • Services for seniors • Budget and Strategic Planning • Installing a handrail at the Japanese Garden • Senior Services Division in the Parks and Recreation Department • The search for a Superintendent for Senior Services • Creating a Senior Program Advisory Committee • Poverty growth in seniors • 46% of people in Ashland are over 50 • Homelessness in elderly individuals • Housing for all ages • Council and Parks role to this issue • Parking for seniors 0 Trails for seniors • Transportation for seniors It was decided to have Councilor Bachman and Councilor Seffinger work with Staff on establishing a working group to discuss senior issues and bring it back to the Council. III. Civic Donations Policy Review (30 min) City Attorney, David Lohman gave a staff report. He went over the draft policy. Council discussed whether or not to accept donations that have initial or ongoing costs. The Council came to a consensus to look at these donations case by case. It was decided that the policy would be revised and brought back to Council. Interim City Administrator discussed the Look Ahead. It was suggested to move the selection of Councilor Position #6 and the Approval of Employee Health Benefits Plan before the Public Hearing at the Council Business Meeting tomorrow night. Mayor Stromberg spoke regarding marijuana dispensaries staying open later than 7 PM. This would need an Ordinance change. This was decided to bring back to the Council with more information. The Council adjourned to Executive Session at 6:41 PM for real property transaction, pursuant to ORS 190.660(2)(e) Respectfully submitted by: City Recorder, Melissa Huhtala Attest: Mayor Stromberg In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735- 2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). "It's paradoxical that the idea of living a long life appeals to everyone, but the idea of getting old doesn't appeal to anyone." - Andy Rooney i By Stefani Seffinger, City Counselor Not coincidently, in recent years I have become interested in the social and health needs of aging senior people. After all, aging is something none of us can escape. And with advances in health care and technology many of us will be living longer. Statistics bear this out: • It is estimated that the number of people in Jackson County, age 80 and older, is expected to more than double in the next 20 years. • Jackson County has a distinctly higher than average number of elderly seniors than other Oregon metropolitan areas and almost 30% of them live alone. The World Health Organization along with AARP have developed programs and guidelines to help cities prepare for the rapid aging of the U.S. population by paying increased attention to the environmental, economic, and social factors that influence the health and well-being of older adults. Many cities in Oregon and throughout the United States have created Commissions on aging to make their city more age friendly. These commissions focus on the needs of the elderly including , transportation, age friendly and affordable housing, and health care support. An example of this are senior advocates that help seniors learn about services, coordinate resources and identify gaps in service. Senior advisory committees also support existing commissions to include the needs of the elderly when recommending proposals to their city Council. Examples of this would be in advocating for housing options like single level houses, age-friendly design, multi- generational housing development and a continuum of support housing, assisted living and long-term care options. Someone turning 65 today has a 68% chance of needing some form of long term care. Our community is lacking in these facilities. For many seniors losing their ability to drive has devastating consequences particularly when there are few public transportation options available. Ashland has limited bus service and valley lift provides service only to those within a short radius of a bus stop. Riding a bicycle or walkin Y 9 9 to town are not realistic options for many aging seniors. Social isolation is a very significant cause of depression and decline in mental ability for seniors so getting to a volunteer job or the senior center may be very important. Other cities have worked to expand transportation options and develop creative programs to connect seniors to rides. Looking at the built environment and outdoor spaces through the eyes of less mobile senior is another important role a senior commission can play. Examples include keeping pathways well maintained and free of obstructions and providing drop off areas that are safe and convenient for both older citizens and our many older visitors to our city. A specific concern that came to my attention recently was the entrance to the Japanese garden in Lithia Park. The beautiful entry includes natural rock stairs from the road up to the garden. Adding an attractive railing to help navigate the uneven surfaces of the natural rock steps would greatly increase the safety of this feature for unsteady older people. There are many other roles that an Ashland Senior commission or Adhoc committee might fill. These include an assessment of the city to identify how to make if more age friendly. There are programs and checklists available from the World Health Organization for this purpose. Other areas could include a compilation of existing services and resources, looking for grants for new and innovative programs that have a good chance to be implemented, and working with with both the city and the Parks and Recreation Commission to achieve city goal 6.3 which is to explore expansion of the Senior Center and senior services in Ashland. I recently participated in a television program the mayor hosted on needs of seniors in Ashland which has reenforced how important it is to understand and coordinate the needs of Ashland's aging population before the need is critical. I think a senior commission would help fill this role. " Source:Office of Economic Analysis, Department of Administrative Services, Oregon Source: US Census COUNCIL POLICY ON ACCEPTANCE OF DONATIONS TO THE CITY This Council Policy was adopted by the City Council on Purpose: This policy is intended to provide guidelines for accepting gifts and donations of cash, real property, services, or goods, except for artwork, in a responsible, transparent, and accountable manner that is consistent with the City's strategic goals and deemed to be in the public interest of the City. City acceptance of donated artwork is governed by Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 2.29. Objectives: • To establish and guide relationships with donors who share the City's commitment to provide a high quality civic environment. • To enrich the community by responsibly and efficiently managing donations. Process: Acceptance of any proposed donations must be approved by the City Council. Only proposed donations which the City Administrator has deemed to be in compliance with this policy will be forwarded to the Council for possible acceptance. To enable evaluation of a proposed donation, the perspective donor must submit to the City Administrator a written proposal addressing at least the approval criteria below. If appropriate. the City Administrator will forward the donation proposal to the City Council for final approval. The City has no obligation to accept a proposed donation. Approval Criteria: Any proposed donation must: • be consistent with applicable City laws, policies, ordinances, and resolutions; • be compatible with the City's existing capital projects and with its long range plans, including adopted master plans, the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and the Land Use Code; • include estimated initial and ongoing costs for which the City will be responsible if it accepts the donation; • not preclude prompt removal or sale if the contributed item becomes an impediment to an approved City project; • meet the Right-of-Way Encroachment Guidelines if the donation is intended for placement in any public right-of-way; • not detract from or overpower the scenic or architectural values of the existing natural or built environment; • become the property of the City upon final acceptance; and Page I of 2: Policy on Acceptance of Donations to City of Ashland • be in the City's best interests. A donation must be declined if: • the donation is made in exchange for consideration of a right, privilege, material benefit or advantage, such as promotions or advertising; • the donation will have a direct benefit to the donor, a relative of the donor, or a business with which the donor is associated, as defined in ORS 244.020 (3); or • promotional material to be associated with the donation includes the logo, slogan, address, or phone number of a business, as defined in ORS 244.020 (2). Income Tax Receipt: A donation to the City of Ashland, which is a 501(c)(1) government entity, may be tax deductible. Upon confirmation that the contribution has been received in full, the City Recorder will issue a letter of receipt to the donor acknowledging the donation. The letter will serve as the donor's receipt for tax purposes. l Donor Recognition: The City will issue a news release alerting the media about an accepted donation and include the donor's name unless the donor wishes to remain anonymous. The news release will be sent to the local media and posted on the City's website. Information about the donation and the donor will also be included in the City's monthly newsletter City Source which is mailed with City utility bills. Donations will not be recognized with plaques placed on City property. Page 2 of 2: Policy on Acceptance of Donations to City of Ashland