Office of Emergency Management City of Philadelphia City of Philadelphia All Hazard Mitigation Plan 1 Contents Contents .......................................................................................................................... 0 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 4 1.1 Background ..................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Purpose and Scope ........................................................................................ 4 1.3 1.2.1 Premise .................................................................................................... 4 1.2.2 Grant Programs with Mitigation Plan Requirements ................................. 5 Authority and References ............................................................................... 8 2 Community Profile.................................................................................................... 11 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Physical Environment ................................................................................... 11 2.1.1 Geography ............................................................................................. 11 2.1.2 Hydrology and Hydrography ................................................................... 12 2.1.3 Topography and Geology ....................................................................... 16 2.1.4 Climate ................................................................................................... 18 Social Environment ....................................................................................... 22 2.2.1 History .................................................................................................... 22 2.2.2 Social Characteristics ............................................................................. 23 2.2.3 Economic Characteristics ....................................................................... 35 Built Environment .......................................................................................... 41 2.3.1 Districting ............................................................................................... 41 2.3.2 Land Use ................................................................................................ 44 2.3.3 Housing .................................................................................................. 46 2.3.4 Infrastructure .......................................................................................... 49 2.3.5 Emergency Services .............................................................................. 60 2.3.6 Hospitals and Healthcare Facilities ........................................................ 61 2.3.7 Cultural Facilities .................................................................................... 62 Data Limitations ............................................................................................ 63 3 Planning Process ..................................................................................................... 64 3.1 Planning Process and Participation Summary .............................................. 64 3.2 Planning Committee...................................................................................... 64 3.2.1 3.3 Participating Agencies ............................................................................ 65 Planning Committee Meetings ...................................................................... 66 0 3.3.1 Meeting Logistics.................................................................................... 69 3.3.2 Outreach and Community Feedback ...................................................... 70 3.3.3 Hazard Mitigation Plan Website ............................................................. 70 4 Risk and Vulnerability Assessment .......................................................................... 71 4.1 Update Process Summary ............................................................................ 71 4.2 Hazard Identification ..................................................................................... 73 4.3 4.4 4.2.1 Disaster Declarations ............................................................................. 73 4.2.2 Summary of Hazards .............................................................................. 80 Hazard Profiles and Vulnerability Analysis .................................................... 90 4.3.1 Active Shooter ........................................................................................ 90 4.3.2 Drought .................................................................................................. 95 4.3.3 Earthquakes ......................................................................................... 102 4.3.4 Extreme Cold........................................................................................ 117 4.3.5 Extreme Heat ....................................................................................... 126 4.3.6 Floods .................................................................................................. 140 4.3.7 Hazardous Materials Train Derailment ................................................. 167 4.3.8 Hurricane/Tropical Storm ..................................................................... 170 4.3.9 Improvised Explosive Device (IED) ...................................................... 184 4.3.10 Infrastructure Failure ......................................................................... 188 4.3.11 Wind Storms and Tornado ................................................................ 216 4.3.12 Winter Storms ................................................................................... 231 Risk Assessment ........................................................................................ 250 4.4.1 Documentation and Sources ................................................................ 250 4.4.2 Risk Analyses for Profiled Hazards ...................................................... 250 4.1.1. Description of Methodology for Risk Factor Assessment .................. 259 4.4.1. Hazard Vulnerability Summary .......................................................... 259 4.4.2. Future Land Uses and Development Trends .................................... 260 5 Capability Assessment........................................................................................... 263 5.1 Philadelphia Capability Assessment ........................................................... 263 5.2 Conducting the Capability Assessment....................................................... 263 5.3 Capability Assessment Findings ................................................................. 263 5.3.1 Planning and Regulatory Capability ..................................................... 263 1 5.3.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities ............................................ 278 5.3.3 Fiscal Capabilities ................................................................................ 280 5.3.4 Education and Outreach Capabilities ................................................... 281 5.3.5 Participation in the NFIP and Floodplain Management Plan/Floodplain Regulations....................................................................................................... 282 6 Mitigation Strategy ................................................................................................. 284 6.1 Mitigation Planning Strategy ....................................................................... 284 6.1.1 FEMA Requirements Addressed in this Section ................................... 285 6.2 Mitigation Goals and Objectives.................................................................. 285 6.3 Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Techniques ................................... 288 6.4 Mitigation Action Plan ................................................................................. 291 6.4.1 Existing Mitigation Actions .................................................................... 291 6.4.2 Potential Mitigation Actions .................................................................. 318 7 Plan Maintenance .................................................................................................. 406 7.1 Update Process Summary .......................................................................... 406 7.2 Monitoring, Evaluation and Updating the Plan ............................................ 406 7.3 Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms .......................................... 407 7.4 Continued Public Involvement .................................................................... 407 8 Plan Adoption ........................................................................................................ 408 9 Annex: Hazard Mitigation Plan Kick-off Meeting .................................................... 409 10 Annex: Past Drought Declarations.................................................................... 412 11 Annex: Past Occurrences of Earthquakes in or around SEPA ......................... 414 12 Annex: Flooding Past Occurrences .................................................................. 417 13 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Survey ........................................... 419 14 Annex: Capability Assessment Survey ............................................................. 423 15 Annex: Snow Disaster Declarations ................................................................. 425 16 Appendix: HAZUS Earthquake Report ............................................................. 426 17 Appendix: HAZUS Flooding Report .................................................................. 444 18 Appendix: HAZUS Hurricane Reports .............................................................. 456 19 Appendix: Public Outreach ............................................................................... 513 20 Appendix: Hazard Mitigation Public Presentation ............................................. 527 21 Community Annexes ........................................................................................ 550 2 1 Introduction 1.1 Background The term “hazard mitigation” as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) describes sustained actions taken to prevent or minimize long-term risks to life and property from hazards and their effects. Hazard mitigation: ▪ ▪ ▪ Identifies and profiles hazards; Analyzes risk factors to people, property, and the environment; and Develops mitigation actions in response to the above two actions. Mitigation actions are actions taken in advance of a hazard event and are essential to breaking the disaster cycle of preparedness, response, and recovery. According to a 2005 study by the National Institute of Building Sciences, for every one dollar spent on mitigation, four dollars is saved in post-storm cleanup and rebuilding. Examples of mitigation include:        Promoting sound land use planning based on known community hazards; Adopting and enforcing building codes and standards; Using fire-retardant materials in new construction; Buying flood insurance to protect personal property and belongings; Elevating structures above the floodplain; Elevating critical equipment (i.e. computer servers, generators, water heaters, above the base flood elevation); and Retrofitting highway overpasses to withstand earthquakes. The City and County of Philadelphia (hereinafter referred to as Philadelphia or the City) has developed this Hazard Mitigation Plan (hereinafter referred to as the HMP) to assess risks posed by natural and human caused hazards, and to develop mitigation strategies for reducing the risks of these hazards. The City has prepared the HMP in accordance with the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000). The Office of Emergency Management (OEM) has coordinated the preparations of the HMP in cooperation with other City agencies and departments, as well as private agency representatives and members of the public. 1.2 Purpose and Scope 1.2.1 Premise As a condition of receiving federal disaster mitigation funds, Section 322 of the DMA 2000 requires that local governments have a mitigation plan. The HMP describes the process for identifying hazards, creating a risk assessment and vulnerability analysis, 4 identifying and prioritizing mitigation strategies, and developing an implementation schedule. In order to satisfy this requirement OEM has prepared the HMP with the following objectives in mind:      Provide guidance for reducing property damage and saving lives from the effects of natural disasters within Philadelphia County; Qualify Philadelphia for applicable pre-disaster and post-disaster grant funding; Comply with state and federal legislative requirements related to local hazard mitigation planning; Demonstrate a firm local commitment to hazard mitigation principles; and Improve community resiliency following a disaster event. 1.2.2 Grant Programs with Mitigation Plan Requirements Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) The HMGP provides grants to state, local, and tribal entities to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after declaration of a major disaster. 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. Projects must provide a long-term solution to a problem (for example, elevation of a home to reduce the risk of flood damage rather than buying sandbags and pumps in response to flooding conditions). In addition, a project’s potential savings must be more than the cost of implementing the project. Funds may be used to protect either public or private property or to purchase property that has been subjected to, or is in danger of, repetitive damage. The amount of funding available for the HMGP under a particular disaster declaration is limited. Under the program, the federal government may provide a state or tribe with up to 20 percent of the total disaster grants awarded by FEMA; and may provide up to 75 percent of the cost of projects approved under the program. Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program The PDM Program provides funds to state, local, and tribal entities for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation projects before a disaster event. PDM grants are awarded on a nationally competitive basis. Like HMGP funding, the potential savings of a PDM project must be more than the cost of implementing the project. Funds may be used to protect either public or private property or to purchase property that has been subjected to, or is in danger of, repetitive damage. Congress appropriates the total amount of PDM funding available on an annual basis. The federal government provides up to 75 percent of the cost of projects approved under the program. 5 Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Grant Program The goal of the FMA Grant Program is to reduce or eliminate flood insurance claims under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This program places particular emphasis on mitigating repetitive loss (RL) properties. The primary source of funding for this program is the National Flood Insurance Fund. Grant funding is available for three types of grants: Planning, Project, and Technical Assistance. Project grants, which use the majority of the program’s total funding, are awarded to local entities to apply mitigation measures to reduce flood losses to properties insured under the NFIP. The cost-share for this grant is 75 percent federal/25 percent nonfederal. However, a costshare of 90 percent federal/10 percent nonfederal is available in certain situations to mitigate severe repetitive loss (SRL) properties. Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) Program The RFC Program provides funding to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to residential and non-residential structures insured under the NFIP. Structures considered for mitigation must have had one or more claim payments for flood damages. All RFC grants are eligible for up to100 percent federal assistance. Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) Program The SRL Program provides funding to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to residential structures insured under the NFIP. Structures considered for mitigation must have had:   At least four NFIP claim payments over $5,000 each, when at least two such claims have occurred within any 10-year period, and the cumulative amount of such claim payments exceeds $20,000; or At least two separate claims payments have been made with the cumulative amount of the building portion of such claims exceeding the value of the property, when two such claims have occurred within any 10- year period. The cost-share for this grant is 75 percent federal/25 percent nonfederal. However, a cost-share of 90 percent federal/10 percent nonfederal is available to mitigate SRL properties when the state or tribal plan addresses ways to mitigate existing and future SRL properties. 1.2.2.1 Purpose of the Plan The Philadelphia HMP represents the City’s approach to mitigate the adverse impacts of natural and human caused disasters. The 2017 HMP is organized into the following sections: 6 Introduction The Introduction provides a brief overview of the background and purpose, the legal authority for the plan, as well as the grant programs available to Philadelphia once the plan has been adopted. Community Profile The Community Profile provides a general overview of Philadelphia by summarizing demographics, economic characteristics, the City’s natural environment including its climate and waterways, growth trends, land use and more. To accomplish these goals, the profile is divided into three components:  - Physical Environment: the physical setting of Philadelphia, including Geography; Hydrography and hydrology; Topography and geology; and Climate information.  Social Environment: the City of Philadelphia’s history and population information, including Social characteristics; Demographic estimates; Economic characteristics; and Housing characteristics.  Built Environment: land use and infrastructure within Philadelphia’s boundaries Planning Process This section outlines the process in which Philadelphia developed the HMP. It identifies the 18 Philadelphia, Commonwealth, federal, and private organizations that were involved in planning process. The section also details the strategies employed to obtain public feedback. Risk Assessment The Risk Assessment provides an analysis of the hazards and risks facing Philadelphia. It contains detailed profiles of each natural hazard addressed in the plan, and estimates losses in Philadelphia in a realistic worst-case scenario for each hazard. Capability Assessment 7 The Capability Assessment reviews and analyzes Philadelphia’s authority, policies, plans, programs, and resources that are currently available to accomplish mitigation and reduce long-term vulnerability to hazards. The assessment includes overviews of the following capabilities: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Planning and regulatory capabilities to guide or manage growth and development in the City; Administrative and technical capabilities to plan for and implement mitigation actions; Financial capabilities to access resources to fund mitigation actions; and Education and outreach capabilities to implement mitigation activities and communicate hazard and risk related information to the public. Mitigation Strategy The Mitigation Strategy section describes how Philadelphia intends to reduce losses identified in the Risk Assessment. The section contains a prioritized list of cost-effective, environmentally sound, and technically feasible mitigation actions broken down by hazard and by the agency or agencies responsible for implementing each strategy. It identifies current and potential sources of funding and other resources needed to implement mitigation actions. Finally, it includes Philadelphia policies and programs that will assist in administering the identified mitigation actions. Plan Adoption This section states how Philadelphia will formally adopt the Plan, ensuring a citywide commitment to mitigation planning and program management. Plan Maintenance The Plan Maintenance section describes how Philadelphia will monitor, evaluate and update its HMP on an annual basis, or following major disasters or incidents, in consultation with key stakeholders. 1.3 Authority and References Authority for this plan originates from the following federal sources:      Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C., Section 322, as amended Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 44, Parts 201 and 206 Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, Public Law 106-390, as amended National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq. National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. 4101 8 Authority for this plan originates from the following Commonwealth of Pennsylvania sources:  Pennsylvania Emergency Management Services Code. Title 35, Pa C.S. Section 101  Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code of 1968, Act 247 as reenacted and amended by Act 170 of 1988  Pennsylvania Stormwater Management Act of October 4, 1978. P.L. 864, No. 167 The following FEMA reference documents and programs aided the preparation of this document:             Local Mitigation Planning Handbook, March 2013 Local Mitigation Plan Review Guide, October 2011 Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses, August 2001 Plan Integration: Linking Local Planning Efforts, July 2015 Using Benefit-Cost Review in Mitigation Planning, May 2007 Using the Hazard Mitigation Plan to Prepare Successful Mitigation Projects, August 2008 Mitigation Ideas: A Resource for Reducing Risk to Natural Hazards, January 2013 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program under Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 42 U.S.C., Section 322, as amended. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program under Section 203 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 42 U.S.C. 5133. Flood Mitigation Assistance Program under the National Flood Insurance Reform Act (NFIRA) of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 4101). Severe Repetitive Loss Program under section 1361A of the National Flood Insurance Act, as amended (NFIA), 42 U.S.C. 4102a. Repetitive Flood Claims Grant Program under Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 (P.L. 108–264), which amended the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001, et al). The following PEMA guides and reference documents were used prepare this document:   Mitigation Strategy Action Evaluation: PA STEEL Flood Plain Management Regulations, July 2010 9   Pennsylvania Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program: Project and Planning Funding Assistance, October 2010 Plan Integration Guide, July 2014 The following guidance document produced by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) assisted in the creation of this plan:  NFPA 1600: Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs. 2007. In addition, planners referenced numerous data sources to assist with hazard profiles, formulation of the risk assessments, and mitigation project development:           For climate and historical weather data, planners utilized the National Hurricane Center (NOAA) and the National Climatic Data Center (NOAA); For information about active shooter incidents, planners consulted active shooter resources and data available from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); For data on state-managed bridges within the planning area, planners accessed data portals at PennDOT to inform the infrastructure failure hazards profile; The National Earthquake Information Center (USGS) provided data on past earthquake events relevant to the planning area; The Global Terrorism Database was accessed to review incidents relevant to active shooter hazards in the planning area; USGS was accessed for information regarding natural hazards an information regarding climate and land use changes; NOWData (NOAA) provided weather data for the planning area Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for general information concerning hazards, presidential declarations, and hazard mitigation planning. FEMA Region III provided data regarding the National Flood Insurance Program, including data on repetitive loss properties, and severe repetitive loss properties City agencies, such as the Planning Commission, The Philadelphia Water Department, and the Department of Licenses and Inspections, were consulted throughout the planning process regarding flood management and building code enforcement. 10 2 Community Profile Philadelphia is home to over 1.5 million people and ranks as the fifth most-populous city in the United States.1 The City is located at the confluence of the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers, and has a diverse and growing population. With numerous universities and colleges, the City is an international study and education destination. Philadelphia’s gross domestic product (GDP) of $346 billion ranks the City as the 26th largest metropolitan GDP in the world.2 Rich history abounds, with 67 National Historic Landmarks located throughout the City.3 In 2015, Philadelphia became the first U.S. World Heritage City. These cultural strengths, along with increasing development, position Philadelphia for growth in residents, businesses, and industry. 2.1 Philadelphia:  Is the fifth most populous city in the United States with 1.5 million people  Has the 26th largest metropolitan GDP in the world  Encompasses 134.1 square miles of land Physical Environment 2.1.1 Geography Philadelphia, as originally laid out by William Penn, initially encompassed the area between South and Vine Streets, ending at the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers.4 Settlements sprang up outside the city’s borders, with Southwark and Moyamensing south of the city, and Northern Liberties, Kensington, Spring Garden and Penn District to the north, and West Philadelphia to the west.5 In 1854, citizens voted to pass a bill that consolidated these areas and numerous more into what would today be the county of Philadelphia. Today, the City encompasses 134.1 square miles of land in the southeastern region of Pennsylvania. The City is bordered by Bucks County to its north, Montgomery County to its west, Delaware County to its south, and the state of New Jersey to its east (the Delaware River separates the City of Philadelphia from the State of New Jersey). United States Census. American Community Survey: Philadelphia. Brookings Institute. Global MetroMonitor 2014. Retrieved November 20, 2015. 3 National Park Service. National Historic Landmarks Program: List of National Historic Landmarks by State. 4 “Philadelphia History”. Independence Hall Association. Retrieved November 18, 2015. 5 Ibid. 1 2 11 Philadelphia is the largest city in Pennsylvania. The City of Philadelphia is coterminous to Philadelphia County, meaning the City and County of Philadelphia share the same boundaries. The U.S. Census Bureau places Philadelphia as the urban center of a fourstate “Greater Philadelphia” region, otherwise known as the Delaware Valley, which is comprised of the 12 counties within the Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) of Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington. The Delaware Valley is home to approximately six million people, and is the country’s fifth-largest metropolitan area. 2.1.2 Hydrology and Hydrography Numerous creeks, rivers, and waterways pass through the city of Philadelphia, including the Delaware River, Schuylkill River, Wissahickon Creek, Pennypack Creek, Frankford Creek, Poquessing Creek, and Cobbs Creek. All of the major bodies of water within Philadelphia are part of seven primary and secondary watersheds. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines a watershed as the area of land where all of the water that is under it or drains from it goes into the same place. Within Philadelphia’s watersheds, 54 percent of the surfaces are impervious, leading much of the City prone to flash flooding. Over 24,170 linear miles of streams contribute to the extensive waterways crossing and bordering Philadelphia. 2.1.2.1 Primary Watersheds 2.1.2.1.1 Delaware River Watershed Philadelphia contributes approximately 40 square miles to the Delaware River Watershed, which drains 13,000 square miles overall. The watershed contains 23,700 linear miles of streams, 21 of which are located within Philadelphia. An estimated 7.7 million people reside within the watershed, 530,652 of which live in Philadelphia. The land use composition for this watershed is estimated at roughly 55 percent forest, 26 percent agriculture, and 15 percent developed. The area within Philadelphia is densely developed and estimated to be 72 percent impervious surface and therefore highly susceptible to flash flooding. The Delaware River watershed encompasses areas of four states, 42 counties, and all or parts of 838 municipalities in the Mid-Atlantic region. 6 6 “Delaware”. Philadelphia Water. Retrieved November 18, 2015. 12 2.1.2.1.2 Schuylkill River Watershed The Schuylkill River Watershed drains approximately 2000 square miles, and encompasses around 130 linear miles of streams. One-quarter of the watershed is designated as high quality or exceptional waters, and serves as a natural border between the City of Philadelphia and Lower Merion Township. The Schuylkill River flows through Fairmount Park, originally established to preserve the water quality in the Schuylkill for Philadelphia’s drinking water supply. The river is the largest tributary to the Delaware River. The watershed encompasses 11 counties including Philadelphia. Approximately 1.5 million residents live in the Schuylkill River Watershed. There is approximately 10 percent impervious cover in this area. The area is susceptible to flash flooding due to the amount of impervious coverage and other contributing factors. 7 2.1.2.2 Secondary Watersheds 2.1.2.2.1 Wissahickon Creek Watershed The Wissahickon Creek Watershed drains approximately 64 square miles, and contains around 134 linear miles of streams. Headwater tributaries begin in Montgomery County, flowing into the Schuylkill River in Manayunk. Altogether, 160,000 residents live within the Wissahickon Creek Watershed, including those from the areas of Montgomery and Philadelphia Counties, with all or parts of 15 municipalities. Approximately 48,441 Philadelphia residents currently live within the watershed. About 24 percent of the Wissahickon Creek Watershed is impervious, making those areas subject to higher risks for flash floods. The suburban portion of the watershed has developed rapidly over the last decades causing strain on 7 “Schuylkill”. Philadelphia Water. Retrieved November 18, 2015. 13 the water resources, mostly from increased storm water runoff and discharge of treated wastewater.8 2.1.2.2.2 Pennypack Creek Watershed Pennypack Creek rises from headwater springs and wetlands in the suburbs of Horsham, Warminster, and Upper Southampton, and drops into the winding greenbelt of Philadelphia’s Pennypack Park before discharging into the Delaware River. The watershed drains approximately 56 square miles, encompassing portions of Montgomery, Philadelphia and Bucks Counties. Philadelphia contributes 17.9 miles to the watershed. Pennypack Creek Watershed includes 137,010 Philadelphia residents. Roughly 33 percent of the watershed in the City limits is impervious, and therefore may be prone to flash floods.9 2.1.2.2.3 Poquessing Creek Watershed The Poquessing Creek Watershed forms from tributary streams in Lower Moreland and Lower Southampton Townships. These waters join the main stem of Poquessing creek, carving the border between Bensalem Township and Philadelphia before flowing into the Delaware River. Byberry Creek is a major contributing stream, draining backyards of Northeast Philadelphia before joining the Poquessing just above Frankford Avenue. The watershed encompasses about 22 square miles of drainage area in the areas of Philadelphia, Bucks, and Montgomery counties. Poquessing contains 45 linear miles of streams and is home to 105,000 8 9 “Wissahickon”. Philadelphia Water. Retrieved November 18, 2015. “Pennypack”. Philadelphia Water. Retrieved November 18, 2015. 14 residents, 75,550 of whom reside in Philadelphia. The watershed has 38 percent impervious cover within the City’s borders, increasing the area’s risk of flash flooding. 10 2.1.2.2.4 Tookany/Tacony/Frankford Watershed The Tookany/Tacony/Frankford Watershed drains approximately 33 square miles of parts of Philadelphia and Montgomery Counties, with all or parts of five municipalities, including Abington, Cheltenham, Jenkintown, Rockledge, and Springfield. Approximately 360,000 individuals reside within the Tookany/Tacony/Frankford Watershed, with 285,405 living in Philadelphia. Within the watershed and the City’s borders, 48 percent of the area is covered by impervious cover, making almost half of the watershed prone to flash flooding. 11 2.1.2.2.5 Darby-Cobbs Watershed The Darby-Cobbs Watershed drains approximately 77 square miles, including parts of Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia counties, with the Cobbs Creek subwatershed contributing approximately 22 square miles. The DarbyCobbs Watershed is home to approximately 460,000 residents, half of which live within the subwatershed. Darby-Cobbs watershed contains roughly 135 linear miles of streams, about 33 miles of which are in the Cobbs Creek subwatershed.12 An estimated 44 percent of the surfaces located within the watershed in Philadelphia are impervious.13 “Poquessing”. Philadelphia Water. Retrieved November 18, 2015. “Tookany/Tacony/Frankford”. Philadelphia Water. Retrieved November 18, 2015. 12 “Darby Cobbs”. Philadelphia Water. Retrieved November 18, 2015. 13 Ibid. 10 11 15 2.1.3 Topography and Geology Philadelphia resides 39 feet above sea level on average14, with the lowest point occurring at 10 feet above sea level, and the highest point occurring in the neighborhood of Chestnut Hill at about 445 feet above sea level.15 According to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey, Philadelphia straddles two physiographic provinces. A physiographic province is an area of land that is composed of a particular type(s) of rock because of having undergone environmental processes such as weathering and erosion over a period of time. Each province is distinguishable by its physical landforms, unique rock formations, and groundwater characteristics. Philadelphia spans the Atlantic Coastal Plain and the Piedmont Upland Section (otherwise known as the Southern Piedmont Province). The image on the following page depicts the physiographic provinces of Pennsylvania, and delineates the two physiographic provinces found within Philadelphia. The Atlantic Coastal Plain is a narrow strip of sandy low-lying land immediately adjacent to the Delaware River in southeastern Philadelphia. The Southern Piedmont contains schist, metagraywacke, amphibolite, and associated ultramafic rocks of the Wissahickon Formation overlain by unconsolidated Cretaceaous and tertiary sediments.16 Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access. Philadelphia topographic contours. Retrieved November 20, 2015. USGS. Map Locator. Retrieved November 20, 2015. 16 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Lowland and Intermediate Upland Section, Atlantic Coastal Plain Province. Retrieved November 3, 2011. 14 15 16 PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF . ct scaa OS ?9 w.9? .0. '9 2.0 39 ?9 5.0" wgv42' an: In. 1100? um I. I low 2?teau Becti low Plateau edio g, NEW ENGLAND 0' PROVINCE .u . 0 Reading Prong I ?m Section 2' I 75? i 1 ?90wont mm m" - ?59?O?\e .1 It nd DEL. N. -- \o ?o W. VA. MD. 7.. 77. MD- ??ye APPALACHIAN PLATEAUS PROVINCE RIDGE AND VALLEY PROVINCE PIEDMONT PROVINCE EXPLANATIW mam mu raw COASTAL memo mm mm: run A A 1 mama mm mm" 32. mm Non-fun :2.1.4 Climate The Delaware Valley lies about halfway between the equator and the North Pole. This mid-latitude location puts Philadelphia about equidistant from the reservoirs of cold air to the north and warm air to the south. This location contributes to the diverse types of weather the city sees. Moisture provided by the Atlantic Ocean to the east and the 3,000 miles of land to the west of the City also impacts weather variability. The table below illustrates the annual temperature and precipitation averages from 1981 to 2015 using NOAA’s NOWData from Philadelphia International Airport (PHL). Philadelphia Average Temperatures and Precipitation Averages17 Average Annual Temperature 55.8⁰F Change in Average Since 2012 - 0.7⁰F Liquid Precipitation Average 42.6 inches per year Change in Average Since 2012 + 1.1 inches Snowfall Average 23 inches per year Change in Average Since 2012 + 2.5 inches The following sections describe the climate characteristics of the City of Philadelphia, including data on temperature, precipitation, severe weather, and climate change. 17 Philadelphia Weather. NOWData - NOAA Online Weather Data. Retrieved November 3, 2015. 18 2.1.4.1 Temperature Philadelphia’s average annual temperature is 55.8⁰F, with mean summer temperatures around 75.6⁰F, and mean average winter temperatures around 36.2⁰F.18 Climatologically, Philadelphia’s winters are somewhat mild, with fewer than 85 days beneath the freezing mark. Days below 0⁰F are also highly infrequent, occurring at a similar rate as those days above 100⁰F, averaging once annually.19 The global position of Philadelphia does allow for large swings in temperatures from year to year. The temperature between Philadelphia’s hottest and coldest years is more than 8⁰F, a dramatic and dynamic range for climatology. The chart below captures the averages and records for winter (December through February) and summer (June through August) temperatures. Philadelphia Temperature Statistics for Winter and Summer20 Winter Average Temperature 36.2⁰F Winter Record High Temperature 74⁰F (set February 27, 1997, February 24, 1985) Winter Record Low Temperature -11⁰F (set February 9, 1934) Summer Average Temperature 75.6⁰F Summer Record High 106⁰F (set August 7, 1918) Temperature Summer Record Low 44⁰F (set August 29, 1986, and seven other Temperature times) Philadelphia Climate. NOAA NOWData. Retrieved November 3, 2015. Philadelphia Climate. NOAA NOWData. Retrieved November 3, 2015. 20 Ibid 18 19 19 2.1.4.2 Precipitation21 Precipitation in the Philadelphia area is fairly distributed throughout the year. The average annual rainfall is 41.45 inches, and the average snowfall is 23 inches. The greatest amounts of precipitation generally occur during the spring and summer months. Records show July to be the rainiest month, averaging 4.35 inches, while February is the driest, producing 2.64 inches of precipitation on average. 22 Average Precipitation in Inches 1981-2015 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 2.1.4.3 Severe Weather Not only does Philadelphia’s geographic location mean greater variability in temperature and precipitation throughout the year, the City’s situation ensures a variety of severe weather threats occurring throughout the year. Heavy snow, extreme cold, and ice storms are the main winter threats. Droughts, extreme heat, and thunderstorms, which can bring damaging winds, flash flooding, hail and even tornadoes are the primary natural hazards in late spring and summer. Philadelphia Severe Annual Average Weather Statistics23 Precipitation: 117 days Thunderstorms: 20 days Severe Thunderstorms: 2.3 days Hail: 1 day 2.1.4.4 Climate Change With the creation of the Office of Sustainability, the City of Philadelphia has committed itself to the analysis of climate-related City data, which has helped shape several Ibid. Philadelphia Climate Data 2000 to 2015. National Climatic Data Center. NOAA. Retrieved November 3, 2015. 23 Ibid 21 22 20 strategies, reports, and projects to lead to a more sustainable and climate-ready city.24 Since 1976, every year has been warmer than the 20th century mean. Philadelphia’s climate is no exception. In 2013 and 2014, Philadelphia experienced the rainiest summer and the second snowiest winter on record. Forty-nine daily high temperature records have been set in Philadelphia since the year 2000, 18 of them since the year 2010.25 The sea level around Philadelphia has been rising at a rate of roughly 0.11 inches per year since 1900, equivalent to an increase of nearly one foot in 100 years. 26 Scientists expect these trends to continue in the future, at an accelerating pace and with increasing severity. The best available climate information suggests that weather in Philadelphia will become warmer and wetter during all seasons in the years and decades ahead, and that the rate of sea level rise will increase, especially toward the end of this century.27 Much of that warmth and moisture will be concentrated in the form of heat waves and heavy precipitation events (rain or snow)—posing challenges to infrastructure, City services, businesses, and residents. Sea level rise is a particularly important risk for the City, even though Philadelphia lies 90 miles from the coast. A four-foot rise in sea level increases the extent and extremity of flooding and storm surge.28 Both flooding and storm surge occur in hurricanes, a known threat for Philadelphia. In addition, under this same model, more than 30 city-owned facilities, as well as numerous privately held facilities would be highly or moderately vulnerable to flooding due to sea level rise alone.29 To learn more about the impacts climate change will have on flooding, see the Flooding section of the Risk Assessment. A full list of reports and projects is available online on the Office of Sustainability’s website at www.phila.gov/green. Reports include the Greenworks progress reports, which detail the City’s status in reaching fifteen measurable targets for sustainability, and Growing Stronger, a report that details Citylevel climate adaptation measures and projects. 25 Pennsylvania State Climatologist, 2015. Retrieved November 3, 2015. 26 ICF International, 2014. Retrieved November 3, 2015. 27 Mayor’s Office of Sustainability and ICF International. Growing Stronger: Toward a Climate-Ready Philadelphia. November 2015. 28 Mayor’s Office of Sustainability and ICF International. Growing Stronger: Toward a Climate-Ready Philadelphia. November 2015. 29 Ibid. 24 21 2.2 Social Environment 2.2.1 History Long before the area currently known as Philadelphia was settled by Europeans, it was inhabited by Native American tribes. The earliest people, called PaleoIndians settled in the vicinity of Philadelphia over 10,000 years ago. When the Swedish settlers arrived in the Delaware Valley in 1638, they referred to the area as Lenapehocking or the Land of the Lenape after the members of the Lenni-Lenape tribe that inhabited the region. The English later renamed the river surrounding the area and the tribe, “Delaware” after Lord del la Warr, the governor of the Jamestown colony. William Penn came to the region in 1682, dreaming to build a city on the land between the Schuylkill and Delaware Rivers. Penn made numerous treaties with the Delaware Indians compensating them for the acquisition of the land.30 The future city was named Philadelphia from the Greek words “philos” and ‘adelphos’. Philos meaning loving and adelphos meaning brother, together Philadelphia became the City of Brotherly Love. 31 32 Philadelphia’s current ability to grow stems from Penn’s early city design plan. Long, straight streets running east-west and north-south were surveyed over the landscape creating a grid of the land between the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers. The grid was an efficient way of selling real estate and thereby growing the population of Philadelphia. Philadelphia grew rapidly during the first few decades of the city’s existence, expanding from a few hundred inhabitants in 1683 to over 2,000 in 1700.33 Immigration of the Germans and the Scots-Irish and the growth of the port turned Philadelphia into a major city by the 1750s. During the 1770s Philadelphia quickly grew into an important colonial city, hosting the First and Second Continental Congresses and the Constitutional Convention. Following the Revolutionary War, Philadelphia was selected to be the temporary capital of the United States. On December 6, 1790, the U.S. Capital officially moved from New York City to Philadelphia. The capital remained in Philadelphia until 1800 when it permanently settled in Washington, D.C. Lenni-Lenape (Delaware) Indians’ History, Culture and Food. Retrieved November 8, 2011. Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper. Retrieved February 24, 2012. 32 Image: Philadelphia. Free Library. Creative Commons License. Retrieved December 28, 2015. 33 Philadelphia: A 300 Year History. Weigley, Russell Frank. Retrieved December 28, 2015. 30 31 22 Manufacturing in the United States increased in the late 18th century and early 19th century. As a result, manufacturing plants and foundries were built and Philadelphia became an important center of textiles, paper-related industries, and leather industries. Coal and iron mines, along with the construction of new infrastructure and transportation systems helped Philadelphia’s manufacturing power grow. From 1800 to 1897 Philadelphia was the leading manufacturing city in the United States. To work within the factories, immigrants mostly from Germany and Ireland streamed into Philadelphia, increasing the population from 41,220 in 1800 to 565,529 by 1860. The city’s growth continued until the early 1950’s when Philadelphia’s population peaked. As in many cities of the Northeast, a decades-long period of de-industrialization resulted in closed factories, population loss, vacant land and urban decay. By 2010, reinvestment and economic diversification stabilized and reversed the decline of population (increasing by 0.6% from 2000 to 2010). 34 2.2.2 Social Characteristics The Social Characteristics section contains information on the population, geographic mobility, ethnicity, nativity and language, individuals with disabilities, and education levels for Philadelphians. The information in this section is pulled from the 2014 census data estimates from the American Community Survey (ACS), except where noted. The ACS produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates over a five-year period between censuses. 34 Image: Philadelphia. Free Library. Creative Commons License. Retrieved December 28, 2015. 23 2.2.2.1 Population The city of Philadelphia remains the fifth most populous city in the United States, with an estimated population of 1,560,297 as of 201435, up from 1,526,006 in the estimate conducted in 2012. City population continues to grow, and has increased approximately 2.2 percent since 2010, and 0.6 percent since the 2012 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Annual Population Estimates By Age 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 85 years and over 65 years and over 45 to 64 years 25 to 44 years 18 to 24 years 14 to 17 years 5 to 13 years Under 5 years 35 2010 28,111 185,309 358,778 434,385 203,697 79,908 162,876 101,053 2011 28,426 185,685 364,649 445,308 199,032 75,836 163,737 105,066 2012 28,710 189,222 365,996 455,809 194,055 73,314 164,930 107,070 2013 28,963 192,772 366,524 465,207 186,393 71,186 165,375 108,595 2014 28,908 195,315 367,498 473,857 177,282 70,855 165,364 110,126 Philadelphia. American Community Survey Data. US Census Bureau. Retrieved November 3, 2015. 24 The median age for Philadelphia residents is 35.3 years according to 2014 estimates, a small increase since the 2012 data. There are an estimated 668,806 housing units in the city, 580,017 of which are estimated to be occupied36. Of these units, 308,931 (53 percent) are owner occupied, and 271,086 (47 percent) are renter occupied.37 For the purposes of risk management, this division implies a difference in insurance coverage which impacts long-term recovery. Renters insurance coverage exists mainly to cover the occupants’ belongings, not the housing itself. This can present challenges in housing unit repair and re-occupancy. Vacant homes without insurance can also impact long-term recovery. Unoccupied or vacant homes pose a greater risk for both fires and collapse than occupied homes.38 Vacant properties that are also uninsured or under-insured greatly increase the likelihood of a longer recovery time. The charts below illustrates the renter versus owner occupancy breakdown of occupied properties. Occupied vs. Vacant Housing Units in Philadelphia (2014 Estimates) Owner vs. Renter Occupied Housing Units in Philadelphia (2014 Estimates) Owner occupied Occupied Renter occupied Vacant Within Philadelphia, 3,347 households (0.5 percent) lack complete plumbing facilities39, and 22,490 households (3.4 percent) have no telephone (home and/or cell phones) service available. Housing units without sufficient plumbing pose additional challenges to situations that may require sheltering in place. Those households without a phone available also pose a challenge for emergency responders in sending emergency notifications or relaying updated information during an incident. According to the most recent data, approximately 241,266 people commute into Philadelphia for work, while 149,903 commute from the County for employment 36American Community Survey: Philadelphia, 2013, 5 Year Summary. United States Census Bureau. Ibid. 38 Income, Housing, and Fire Injuries: A Census Tract Analysis. Donna Shai, PhD. Public Health Reports, Vol. 121, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 2006), pp. 149-154. Retrieved March 7, 2016. 39 Complete plumbing facilities include: Hot and cold running water; a flush toilet; a bathtub or shower. 37 25 elsewhere.40 This leads to a 91,363 net gain in daytime population, increasing the total population of Philadelphia to approximately 1,652,660 during daytime working hours. The chart below details the inbound and outbound population change by county. Average Daily Inbound and Outbound Population by County County Inbound to Outbound from Philadelphia Philadelphia Bucks County 35,140 28,905 Montgomery County 64,751 62,574 Chester County 16,689 10,488 Delaware County 57,122 26,028 New Castle County 6,482 2,976 Gloucester County 14,488 2,701 Camden County 29,087 10,033 Burlington County 17,507 6,198 Total 241,266 149,903 Population Gain 6,235 2,177 6,201 31,094 3,506 11,787 19,054 11,309 91,363 2.2.2.2 Vulnerable and Disabled Populations Vulnerable populations are those individuals who are at increased risk for negative impact in the event of an emergency incident due to financial circumstances, health, age (over 65 and under 5), functional status, developmental status, ability to communicate effectively, presence of chronic or terminal illness, or disability. Philadelphia has an exceptionally high percentage of vulnerable populations, with 26.5 percent of citizens living below the federal poverty line as of the most recent estimates, which is double the percentage of the state as a whole.41 This represents a decline of 0.6 percent from 2012 estimates. Philadelphia residents under the age of five make up seven percent of the population, while those over the age of 65 make up 12.4 percent. 42 There are six disability types reflected in the most recent version of the ACS: hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, and independent living disability. The U.S. Census Bureau defines disability as “a long-lasting sensory, physical, mental, or emotional condition or conditions that make it difficult for a person to do functional or participatory activities such as seeing, hearing, walking, climbing stairs, and learning”.43 The chart below details the number and percentage of Philadelphia residents who Pew Trusts. State of the City Report: Philadelphia. 2015. State and County QuickFacts: Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. Retrieved November 3, 2015. 42 Ibid. 43 United States Census Bureau. American Community Survey: Disability. Retrieved November 20, 2015. 40 41 26 reported having one or more disabilities that may require additional assistance in the event of an emergency.44 Individuals with Disabilities in Philadelphia by Disability 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 Number of Residents Percentage of Population 44 Hearing Difficulty Vision Difficulty Cognitive Difficulty Ambulatory Difficulty Self-care Difficulty 44512 2.9% 47883 3.1% 104386 6.7% 133029 8.5% 53382 3.4% Independen t Living Difficulty 100663 6.5% Ibid. 27 2.2.2.3 Ethnicity Philadelphia is an ethnically and culturally diverse city, with 43.0 percent of the population identifying as Black or African American, 41.4 percent identifying as White, 6.6 percent identifying as Asian, 6.0 percent identifying as another race, and 0.3 percent identifying as American Indian. City of Philadelphia's Population by Race 2.6% 0.1% 0.3% White 6.0% Black or African American 6.6% 41.4% American Indian and Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 43.0% Some other race Two or more races 2.2.2.4 Geographic Mobility Of the people one year or older residing in Philadelphia: 85.8 percent were living in the same residence one year earlier according to the 2013-2014 ACS;  9.7 percent had moved during the past year from another residence within Philadelphia;  1.6 percent moved to Philadelphia from another county in Pennsylvania;and  2.1 percent moved from another state, and 0.8 percent moved from abroad.45 Compared to the rest of the United States, Philadelphia’s geographic mobility is slightly higher for moves within the same county and for moves out of the state; however, the City’s moves from Philadelphia to another county within Pennsylvania are slightly lower.46  Geographic Mobility. American Community Survey. United States Census 2013-2014. Retrieved November 3, 2015. 46 Migration/Geographic Mobility. United States. United States Census. Retrieved December 28, 2015. 45 28 2.2.2.5 Nativity and Language 2.2.2.5.1 Nativity According to the most recent data, 12.2 percent of the people living in Philadelphia are foreign born, and 49.0 percent of those individuals are naturalized citizens. Approximately 88.0 percent of Philadelphia residents are U.S. born. The graph below depicts the population breakdown of Philadelphia by nativity. Philadelphia Population by Nativity 6% 6% Native Foreign born: Naturalized citizen Foreign born: Not a U.S. citizen 88% 29 2.2.2.5.2 Language As of 2014, 7.2 percent of the households in Philadelphia are linguistically isolated, meaning all adults in a household have some limitation in communicating in English. If these households include children under the age of 14 who speak English, those children would be considered linguistically isolated. Emergency responders may have difficulty communicating instructions during emergencies to less than proficient English speakers. The chart below details those households in Philadelphia who self-identify as less than proficient in English. Philadelphia Residents Who Are Less Than Proficient In English Speakers By Language Spanish or Spanish Creole 30% Chinese 40% Vietnamese Russian 3% Mon-Khmer, Cambodian 6% Other languages 8% 13% 30 2.2.2.6 Education According to the 2013 American Community Survey, 81.2 percent of people 25 years and over in Philadelphia had at least graduated from high school, and 23.9 percent had a bachelor's degree or higher. The 2013 ACS identified total school enrollment in Philadelphia for the population ages three years and over as 421,991, with 26,924 enrolled in nursery school or pre-school, 243,054 enrolled in elementary through high school, and 152,013 enrolled in college/graduate school.47 The number of high school graduates increased over the past nine years, but still remains well below national and state averages. The chart below shows Philadelphia’s graduation rates in comparison to national averages by year.48 49 High School Completion Rate for Philadelphia Students by Entrance Year Percent Graduated 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% Four years Five to Six Years National Averages 2005 52% 57% 88% 2006 52% 59% 88% 2007 53% 61% 89% 2008 57% 63% 90% 2009 56% 61% 90% 2010 58% 64% 90% 2011 61% 67% 91% 2012 64% 68% 91% High School Completion Rate: Philadelphia. 2013 American Community Survey. United States Census. Retrieved December 28, 2015. 48 High School Completion Rate: Philadelphia. 2013 American Community Survey. United States Census. Retrieved December 28, 2015. 49 Trends in High School Dropout and Completion Rates in the United States: 1972–2012. U.S. Department of Education. NCES 2015-015. Retrieved December 28, 2015. 47 31 2.2.2.7 Colleges and Universities Philadelphia has a large number of colleges, universities, continuing education institutions, and technical schools within its borders. Schools include: Art Institute of Philadelphia La Salle University Saint Joseph's University Chestnut Hill College Lincoln Technical Institute Community College of Philadelphia Moore College of Art and Design Strayer University, Center City Campus The Curtis Institute of Music Orleans Technical Institute Talmudical Yeshiva of Philadelphia Delaware Valley Academy of Medical and Dental Assistants Pennsylvania Institute of Technology Temple University Devry University, Center City Drexel University Harrison Career Institute Holy Family University Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts Peirce College Philadelphia University The Restaurant School at Walnut Hill College Hussain School of Art Star Technical Institute Thomas Jefferson University Thompson Institute University of the Arts University of Pennsylvania University of the Sciences in Philadelphia Combined, resident student populations exceed 130,600.50 College and university students make up nearly nine percent of Philadelphia’s overall residency population. 50 “Philadelphia, Pennsylvania”. City Data. Retrieved November 3, 2015. 32 2.2.2.8 Tourism Tourism is the sixth-largest industry in greater Philadelphia, providing $10 billion in economic impact and 90,000 full-time jobs.51 52 The city hosts several high profile annual events that draw people to the region, such as the July 4 th celebration and the Thanksgiving Day parade. Tourists dynamically affect Philadelphia’s population. As a transient population, tourists may have transportation, language, and accessibility needs during a disaster not captured in city-specific Census data. The graph below depicts tourism trends in Philadelphia by type of stay.53 Visitor Volume in Millions by Type of Visit Number of Visitors (in millions) 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Year Overnight Business Overnight Leisure Day Leisure Total Domestic Visitors Day Business “Philadelphia continues to see an increasing trend in tourism, with 39.7 million visitors in 2014 alone.” “Visit Philadelphia 2014 Annual Report: Executive Summary”. Visit Philadelphia. November 3, 2015. Ibid. 53 “Visit Philadelphia 2014 Annual Report”. Visit Philadelphia. November 3, 2015. 51 52 33 2.2.2.9 Historical significance Philadelphia is one of the oldest cities in the nation, and as such has numerous historically significant sites. These include the Betsy Ross House, Independence Hall, the Liberty Bell, and the Constitution Center, with numerous more varying in size and recognition throughout the city. The map below shows the distribution and concentration of historical sites registered with the City of Philadelphia. 34 2.2.3 Economic Characteristics 2.2.3.1 Industries Like many urban areas in the East and Midwest of the United States, Philadelphia’s economy has undergone a major transition in recent decades. Approximately half a century ago, manufacturing dominated the economy, providing almost half of Philadelphia’s jobs. As manufacturing employment declined, knowledge-based industries gained prominence with life sciences, information technology, professional services and chemicals ranking among Philadelphia’s top industries. More recently, sectors such as education and health services, professional and business services, financial activities and information technology have emerged strongly as principal drivers of the economy. The educational services, healthcare, and social assistance industries employ the greatest portion of the City’s working population, with 30 percent of residents working in these sectors. The chart on the following page depicts the complete breakdown of Philadelphia’s employment by industry. 35 Philadelphia Employment by Industry 2% 2% 0% Educational services, and health care and social assistance Professional, scientific, administrative, and waste management services Retail trade 4% 5% Arts, entertainment, and recreation, accommodation, and food services 31% 5% Manufacturing 6% Public administration 7% Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 7% Other services, except public administration 11% 10% Construction 10% Wholesale trade Industry Educational services, and health care and social assistance Individuals Employed Percentage Employed 188,938 31% Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing Industry Individuals Employed Percentage Employed 39,237 6% 32,800 5% Professional, scientific, administrative, and waste management services 70,523 11% Transportation and warehousing, and utilities Retail trade 64,384 10% Other services, except public administration 29,526 5% 59,917 10% Construction 24,837 4% 42,522 39,645 7% 6% Wholesale trade Information Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 13,123 12,494 2% 2% 1,148 0% Arts, entertainment, and recreation, accommodation, and food services Manufacturing Public administration 36 Since the completion of the 2012 Hazard Mitigation Plan, Philadelphia continues to see a modest increase in the growth of manufacturing and general service-sector firms. Philadelphia’s gross domestic product (GDP) per capita decreased 0.5 percent from 2013 to 2014. 54 Several Fortune 1000 companies are headquartered in Philadelphia.55 Fortune 1000 companies located in Philadelphia are listed below. Company Headquartered Comcast Aramark Crown Holdings FMC Urban Outfitters Chemtura Pep Boys Industry Telecommunications Hospitality Packaging Chemicals Apparel Manufacturing Automotive Rank 44 209 313 581 715 775 945 In addition to the Fortune 1000 companies located in Philadelphia, there are thousands of businesses that are located within the City’s borders. The largest private employers in Philadelphia include The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Temple University, Temple University Hospital, Albert Einstein Medical Center, Independence Blue Cross, Drexel University, Thomas Jefferson University, Allied Barton Security Services, Comcast, Pennsylvania Hospital, Aria Health, and Hahnemann University Hospital.56 “Beige Book – July 15, 2015: Third District Philadelphia”. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Retrieved November 3, 2015. 55 “Global MetroMonitor 2014: An Uncertain Recovery”. Brookings Institute. Retrieved November 3, 2015. 56 “State of the City Report: Philadelphia”. Pew Trusts. Retrieved November 4, 2015. 54 37 2.2.3.2 Income As of the 2013-2014 American Community Survey (ACS), the median income of Philadelphia households is $37,192, a decrease of $523 from the amount reported in the 2012 Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP). Of those 16 years and older, 50.3 percent of Philadelphians are employed, while 8.9 percent of the civilian labor force is unemployed.57 Forty percent of Philadelphians are not in the labor force. The graph below depicts the breakdown of the employment status of Philadelphia residents. 70.4 percent of Philadelphia households received their income through earnings, while 27.9 percent received Social Security, and 15.1 percent received retirement income other than Social Security.58 In addition, 10.5 percent of Philadelphians received Supplemental Security Income and 8.3 percent received public assistance income, with a mean cash public assistance income of $2,954.59 Some households received income from more than one source. The chart to the right displays this breakdown. Employment Status of Philadelphia Residents Employed 40% 51% Unemployed Not in labor force 9% Income Sources for Philadelphia Population (Not Exclusive) Earnings 8% 6% Social Security 12% 53% 21% Income other than Social Security Supplemental Security Income Unemployed status includes all persons who had no employment, but are available for work and made specific efforts to find employment sometime in the last 4 week-period. 58 Unemployment: Philadelphia. American Community Survey. Retrieved November 4, 2015. 59 Ibid. 57 38 2.2.3.3 Poverty and Participation in Government Programs The Census Bureau defines poverty as the total income for a family or unrelated individual falls below the relevant poverty threshold, as set by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Directive 14. As of the 2013-2014 ACS, 26.5 percent of all Philadelphians were living below the poverty level. With the national average poverty level down to 14.5 percent, Philadelphia’s poverty rate is 45.0 percent higher than the national average. 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Percentage of Families in Poverty Families and Individuals in Poverty: United States vs. Philadelphia 0.0% Year All families (US) All people (US) All families (Philadelphia) All people (Philadelphia) 39 Of these individuals, 36.3 percent of children under 18 were living in poverty, an increase of 2.3 percent since the 2012 Hazard Mitigation Plan. In the older population, 17.3 percent of people 65 years old and over were living in poverty, a decrease of 1.7 percent from the last iteration of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 0.0% Percentage of Residents Living in Poverty Poverty in Philadelphia by Age 2010-2014 Year Under 18 years 18 to 64 years 65 years and over Of those employed, 9.8 percent of the civilian labor force over the age of 16 were living in poverty, while 38.9 percent of the civilian labor force were unemployed and living in poverty. 40 2.3 Built Environment This section presents information on the built environment of the County, including neighborhoods, and land use and infrastructure. 2.3.1 Districting Philadelphia City Planning Commission (PCPC) aggregated Philadelphia neighborhoods into 18 planning analysis sections, as shown in the map below. 41 These districts overlap with 21 police districts, 11 fire battalion districts, and 48 zip codes within the City. 42 Zip Codes in Philadelphia '9m? (9059 '319~6 -141191'n - Philadelphia Planning Districts Central - Central theast - Lower Far Nottheast - anet Notth - Lowe; Northeast - Lower Northwest Lowe South - Lower Southwest Notth Notth Delaware - Rivet Welds - saw - Univas ity/Southwest - Uppet Fat Natl-least Uppe: Notth - Upper Notthwest West - West Park 43 2.3.2 Land Use Philadelphia has a diverse and growing population and expanding commercial and industrial sectors. Land use within the City reflects how Philadelphia businesses, residents, and government agencies use land in the city. Land use also demonstrates the growing number of green spaces in the City. Green space is land that is partly or completely covered with grass, trees, shrubs, or other vegetation.60 Green space includes parks, community gardens, and cemeteries. Philadelphia houses one of the largest metropolitan park systems in the United States. These green spaces also contain more than 200 historic buildings and 250 pieces of sculpture, comprising one of the largest collections of cultural and historic resources in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.61 As seen in the image on the following page, land usage is diverse across the city. Outside of industrial and open space land use, much of the different land uses are scattered across the city. Industrial areas are next to commercial, commercial areas are next to residential. Land use varies greatly block-to-block within the City. “What is Open Space/Green Space?” United States Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved February 10, 2016. 61 Philadelphia Parks and Recreation. Philadelphia Park System History. Retrieved November 20, 2015. 60 44 Philadelphia Land Use Landuse Land Use Residential Low Residential Medium Residential High Commercial Consumer Commerical Business/Professional Commerical Mixed Residential Industrial Civic/Institution Transportation Culture/Amusement Active Recreation Park/Open Space Cemetery Water Vacant Other/Unknown I lit-3i: I I I I E14 2.3.2.1 Future Land Use Since the creation and implementation of the Phila2035 comprehensive planning process, PCPC and other City agencies developed district plans to provide recommendations on future land use, development opportunities, urban design scenarios, and proposed zoning. Philadelphia City Council and PCPC adopt these plans on a district-by-district basis. 2.3.3 Housing The housing data for Philadelphia provides an overview of housing occupancy, number of units in a housing structure, number of housing units built by decade, whether the occupants own or rent the unit, average household size, and the year the household moved into the unit. According to the Census Bureau, Philadelphia has nearly 670,000 housing units in the city.62 Of these housing units, just over 13 percent are estimated to be vacant.63 The table below demonstrates the breakdown of Philadelphia’s housing occupancy by ownership type. Philadelphia Housing Occupancy64 Total housing units 669,642 Occupied housing units 580,297 Vacant housing units 89,345 65 Homeowner vacancy rate 2.7 66 Rental vacancy rate 7.4 N/A 86.7% 13.3% N/A N/A United States Census. Selected Housing Characteristics for Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. 2015. Ibid. 64 Ibid. 65 Homeowner vacancy rate is the proportion of the homeowner housing inventory which is vacant for sale. The Census computes this by dividing the number of vacant units for sale only by the sum of owneroccupied units and vacant units that are for sale only, and then multiplying by 100. 66 Rental vacancy rate is the proportion of the rental inventory which is vacant for rent. The Census computes the rate by dividing the number of vacant units for rent by the sum of the renter‑occupied units and the number of vacant units for rent, and then multiplying by 100. 62 63 46 Housing Structures in Philadelphia by Number of Units in the Structure Philadelphia’s housing units are largely single unit attached homes, commonly referred to as “row homes.” This style of housing contributes to the population density and distribution in the city. The chart to the right shows the varied types of housing structures built in Philadelphia. 0% 2% 4% 12% 1-unit, detached 8% 1-unit, attached 2 units 7% 3 or 4 units 9% 5 to 9 units 58% 10 to 19 units 20 or more units Mobile home Philadelphia Housing Units by Decade Built Philadelphia housing units are largely aging structures, with most units built prior to 1939. These features, along with high vacancy rates, cause greater risk of fire to housing units across the city.67 The chart to the right shows the housing units by the decade built. 0% 3% 2% 4% 7% 40% 11% 17% 16% 2010 or later 2000 to 2009 1990 to 1999 1980 to 1989 1970 to 1979 1960 to 1969 1950 to 1959 1940 to 1949 1939 or earlier 2.3.3.1 Housing Costs and Housing Cost Burden As of 2014, the median monthly housing costs for homeowners was $921. When households spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing, housing is considered to be a cost burden on that household. As of 2014, 30.9 percent of home owners and 51.4 percent of renters in Philadelphia County experienced a housing cost burden in Philadelphia. When households spend more than half of their income on housing costs, they are severely cost-burdened. Nearly 13 percent of homeowners and Income, Housing, and Fire Injuries: A Census Tract Analysis. Shai, Donna. NCBI NIH. Retrieved December 23, 2015. 67 47 Just over 30 percent of renters in Philadelphia are severely cost-burdened.68 The Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington metropolitan area ranks 82nd out of 381 metros for housing cost burdens.69 Higher costs burdens can contribute to increased poverty rates. 2.3.3.2 Population Density There has been no updated population density estimate since the 2010 U.S. Census. In 2010, the population density was 11,233.6/mi2. The highest density areas are in Center City, South Philadelphia, and portions of West Philadelphia. The Delaware Valley metropolitan area has the third highest population density of metropolitan areas in the United States. The New York metropolitan area and the greater Los Angeles area are the leading two areas in terms of population density. New York, Chicago and Philadelphia are the only cities in the United States that have both a population over one million and a population density of over 10,000 people per square mile. 2.3.3.3 Population Change From its founding through the early 19th century, Philadelphia’s boundaries encompassed the area between the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers between Vine and South Streets. The City and County of Philadelphia were consolidated in 1854, significantly enlarging the boundaries and creating Philadelphia’s current border. This resulted in a large population increase, evident in the 1860 census. Philadelphia experienced steady growth between 1860 and 1950, except for a brief lull in 1930, which was in part due to the Great Depression. The City’s population peaked in the 1950s and was on a steady decline until 2010. Since 2010, Philadelphia has seen low population growth, with a 0.6 percent increase in residential population since the last Hazard Mitigation Plan. “The State of the Nation’s Housing 2014”. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. Retrieved 26 October 2015. 69 Ibid. 68 48 Philadelphia Population Change 1790 to 2015 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 2.3.4 Infrastructure 2.3.4.1 Streets, Highways and Bridges The Philadelphia Streets Department (Streets), the Philadelphia Department of Parks and Recreation, and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PENNDOT) manage roadway travel in Philadelphia. The streets system in Philadelphia totals 2,575 miles: 2,180 miles of city streets, 35 miles of Fairmount Park roads, and 360 miles of state highways.70 The streets system in Philadelphia totals 2,575 miles: 2,180 miles of city streets, 35 miles of Fairmount Park roads, and 360 miles of state highways. Many major highways and roadways serve Philadelphia. Interstate 95 (I-95) is an interstate highway which runs from Miami, Florida to Houlton, Maine. The highway provides northern and southern access to the United States’ eastern seaboard. In Philadelphia, the route is commonly referred to as the Delaware Expressway. It runs for approximately 19.89 miles along the eastern boundary of Philadelphia, parallel to the Delaware River. An estimated 169,000 motorists utilize the highway daily within Philadelphia. Interstate 76 (I-76) is an interstate highway running 435 miles from Akron, Ohio to Camden, New Jersey. The stretch of I-76 close to Philadelphia is more commonly known as the Schuylkill Expressway. The Schuylkill Expressway is 25 miles Philadelphia Streets Department. About the Streets Dept. & Its Divisions. Retrieved December 29, 2015. 70 49 in length, extending from the Pennsylvania Turnpike at Valley Forge, through Center City Philadelphia, to the Walt Whitman Bridge. The highway runs 10.33 miles through Philadelphia, and is located along the southwest shore of the Schuylkill River. Interstate 675 (I-676), or the Vine Street Expressway, also serves as an essential part of Philadelphia’s highway system. Completed in 1991, I-676 runs seven miles between I-76 and I-95, crossing the Ben Franklin Bridge into Camden, New Jersey. U.S.-1 (also known as the Roosevelt Expressway/Roosevelt Boulevard) runs from Florida to Maine along the east coast. Construction crews completed the portion in Philadelphia in 1961 50 after three years of construction. In Philadelphia, U.S.-1 is an 18.43 mile stretch of road, connecting northeast Philadelphia with Center City. 2.3.4.2 Freight and Passenger Rail Philadelphia has served as a hub for major railroad transportation, including both freight, and passenger rail, since the early 19th Century, and has been home to both the Pennsylvania Railroad and the Reading Railroad companies. Philadelphia passenger rail service provides transportation both within the City’s borders and to surrounding counties. Amtrak provides both passenger and high speed rail service to the City, shuttling thousands of passengers to Washington DC and New York City annually. Freight cars transport a variety of goods throughout the region, supplying local businesses with the equipment and raw materials required for industrial processing plants and heavy equipment work. Freight lines carry an assortment of non-hazardous and distinct types of hazardous materials throughout the City and region. Philadelphia has seen an increase in the number of crude oil shipments by rail since the 2012 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Philadelphia is home to Philadelphia Energy Solutions (PES), the tenth largest refinery in the United States, and the largest oil refining complex on the eastern seaboard. This increase in rail traffic has led to joint planning and training efforts between PES, rail companies, and city stakeholders, including the Office of Emergency Management. To learn more about the plans that City stakeholders have for hazardous material trains, including those carrying crude oil, see the Capability Assessment section of this document and its associated annexes. To learn more about trains carrying hazardous materials, and the potential risks they may pose, see the Hazardous Material Train Derailment hazard profile in the Risk Assessment section of this document. 51 2.3.4.3 Freight Since the mid-1800s, rail transportation has been the centerpiece of industrial production and energy generation, and rail continues to be central to these industries. The Reading Railroad began in 1833 and was originally named the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad. In 1842, the Railroad connected markets in Philadelphia to the coal mining areas of Pennsylvania, but over time expanded business to incorporate coal mining and canal and ocean transport operations.71 The Reading Railroad fell under bankruptcy in 1971, and the federal government transmitted its assets to the Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail). 72 “Philadelphia’s core rail lines carry some of the highest volume in the nation.” The Pennsylvania Railroad was the largest railroad by traffic and revenue in the United States for the first half of the 20th century. In 1968 the railroad merged with its rival, New York Central Railroad, to form the Penn Central Transportation Company. Like many other railroads, Penn Central filed bankruptcy in 1970 and its assets were transmitted to Conrail. In 1997, Norfolk Southern Corporation and CSX Corporation agreed to acquire Conrail through a joint stock purchase.73 Today Norfolk Southern, Canadian Pacific (CP) Rail, and CSX continue to distinguish Philadelphia as one of few U.S. ports served by three class-one railroads. Philadelphia’s core rail lines carry some of the highest volume in the nation. For example, the former Pennsylvania Railroad main line—now Norfolk Southern—connects Philadelphia, Harrisburg and Pittsburgh and extends to Chicago. This line carries more than 120 million gross tons (MGT) annually. Other very high-traffic rail lines include the I-95 corridor in southeastern Pennsylvania. This line contains the CSX mainline and parallels I-95 at Chester north through Philadelphia to the New Jersey/Pennsylvania border at Yardley, PA. Reading Company Technical & Historical Society. RDG Co. – A Brief History. Retrieved 13 February 2012. 72 Image: "Philly blizzard 2" by Leizmonk - Own work. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved December 29, 2015. 73 Conrail Historical Society. Conrail Company History. Retrieved 13 February 2012. 71 52 Another important core line is Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, a portion of which passes through Philadelphia. Some freight is moved on this predominantly passenger rail corridor.74 Although Conrail no longer handles commercial matters for customers, they continue to play a critical role in serving shippers and receivers as an agent for their owners. Conrail operates about 372 miles of track in the Philadelphia/southern New Jersey area.75 American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 2010 Report Card for Pennsylvania’s Infrastructure. Retrieved 13 February 2012. 75 Conrail. Freight Service. Retrieved 13 February 2012. 74 53 2.3.4.4 Passenger The first passenger railroad in Philadelphia was the Philadelphia, Germantown and Norristown Railroad, which opened in 1832. Many other rail lines were established in the years following. Congress created Amtrak in 1970 to take over the passenger rail services that private freight railroad companies previously operated.76 In 2015, Philadelphia’s 30th Street Station was the 3rd busiest station for Amtrak in the United States. In modern day railroad history, Amtrak is the major semi-national railroad company that serves Philadelphia at 30th Street Station. In 2015, Philadelphia’s 30th Street Station was the 3rd busiest station for Amtrak in the United States, following New York City and Washington, D.C. 77 2.3.4.5 Public Transit Philadelphia has three major public transportation lines running through the city that conduct hundreds of millions of trips throughout a single year, helping 26.5 percent of Philadelphia’s population commute every day.78 Public transit providers in Philadelphia include: ▪ ▪ ▪ Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) Port Authority Transit Corporation (PATCO) New Jersey Transit Public transit systems provide transportation beyond the borders of Philadelphia, extending to the surrounding counties and across state borders. The details and description of the major public transit providers are listed below. 2.3.4.5.1 Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority Philadelphia’s primary source of public transportation is the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA). Within Philadelphia, SEPTA operates the public buses, trolleys, trackless trolleys, Broad Street Subway, and Market-Frankford Elevated subway. In addition, SEPTA operates regional rail lines and bus services throughout Philadelphia, Bucks, Montgomery, Chester, Amtrak. Historical Background on Amtrak. Retrieved 13 February 2012. Amtrak National Facts. Amtrak. Retrieved December 29, 2015. 78 Commuting Characteristics by Sex: Philadelphia County. 2014 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. Retrieved February 10, 2016. 76 77 54 Delaware counties, as well as provides additional service to portions of southern New Jersey.79 80 SEPTA began in the early 1950’s and consisted of the subway, trolleys and buses. At this time, private companies such as the Philadelphia Transportation Company, Philadelphia Suburban Transit Company, Pennsylvania Railroad, and Reading Company owned many of the bus and trolley routes. In 1961, the city of Philadelphia along with Bucks, Montgomery, and Chester counties signed to the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Compact. This initial agreement gave SEPTA the function of coordinating government subsidies to the railroads and transit companies. In1968, SEPTA took control of the Philadelphia Transportation Company which included all buses, trolleys, trackless trolley lines, the Broad Street Subway and the MarketFrankford Elevated.81 At the end of the 2014 reporting period, SEPTA's buses, subways, trolleys, and trains had approximately 330 million trips, down from the recorded 334 million reported in the 2012 Hazard Mitigation Plan. 82 Over the past 15 years, however, regional rail ridership alone has increased 50 percent, from 24 million to 36 million trips, in annual ridership.83 The system map on the following page illustrates the regional rail, subways, elevated rail, and trolley lines throughout the greater Philadelphia area associated with SEPTA operations. SEPTA. Driven to Achieve: Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Report. Retrieved 15 November 2011. Image: "SEPTA R2 Gliding Along" by jpmueller99 from Shenandoah Valley of VA, USA - Gliding Along. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 via Commons. Retrieved December 29, 2015. 81 The Philadelphia Chapter of National Railway Historical Society. John Amelia, 2004. Retrieved 8 November 2011. 82 Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority. “SEPTA Operating Facts”. Retrieved 23 October 2015. 83 Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority. Revenue & Ridership Report September 2015. Retrieved 23 October 2015. 79 80 55 Wu! Mon v-v-v .6 Wu. W. 6 I'm Nun-mm 6 Saw Imam-u Mon 6 Wu Luck 5mm Md run am 6 Ranch-.06. (W Who-5 5 smamcv. 6. 3 ig?gis ?t gig Wit-'6' 0 was 5M 0 LEGEND ?Want-n ?ammo him-aliph- IWWMW. IS. - 31.39.1quan WNW mum PA MWULWOWAW) on? ?mm mm mm 6 INFORMATION Moo: 216-680-7800 W: 215-500-789 mm: mm 1 2.3.4.5.2 Port Authority Transit Corporation The Port Authority Transit Corporation (PATCO) Speedline first began in 1926 with the creation of the Delaware River Bridge Commission and the construction of the Benjamin Franklin Bridge. In 1931, the Delaware River Bridge Commission received permission to construct a high-speed transit line connecting Philadelphia and Camden, New Jersey. On June 7, 1936, the new bridge line completed its first run from Camden to Philadelphia. Speedline operations began on February 15, 1969, with the first trip from Lindenwold, New Jersey to Center City Philadelphia. Back then, the 14.2 mile line carried 21,200 people per day. Today, more than 38,000 people rely on the high speed line.84 PATCO began service with eight stations in Camden County, New Jersey and four in Philadelphia. Today there are 13 stations, extending from 15th to 16th St. and Locust St. in Philadelphia to Lindenwold, New Jersey.85 84 85 PATCO. A History of Commitment. Retrieved 8 November 2011. Image: Transportation Map. PATCO. Retrieved September 2015. 57 2.3.4.5.3 New Jersey Transit New Jersey Transit (NJ Transit), founded in 1979, is New Jersey's public transportation corporation. Covering a service area of 5,325 square miles, NJ Transit is the nation's third largest provider of bus, rail and light rail transit, linking major points in New Jersey, New York, and Philadelphia. The agency operates a fleet of 2,027 buses, 711 trains and 45 light rail vehicles.86 In Philadelphia, NJ Transit provides a train line service from Philadelphia to Atlantic City, New Jersey.87 2.3.4.6 Airports Philadelphia is the home of two airports: Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) and Northeast Philadelphia Airport (PNE). PHL operates under the jurisdiction of the 77th PPD district, a police district solely responsible for PHL. PNE operates under the 8th PPD district. 2.3.4.6.1 Philadelphia International Airport Originally called Philadelphia’s “Municipal Aviation Landing Field,” PHL opened in 1925 as a training space for aviators in the Pennsylvania National Guard. On October 22, 1927, however, pilot Charles A. Lindbergh touched down his Spirit of St. Louis plane in Philadelphia during his tour of the United States. Because of this historical event, the training field’s name changed to Philadelphia Municipal Airport. In 1930, the county purchased Hog Island, a World War I shipbuilding yard, for $3 million from the federal government, expanding the airport. The Great Depression 86 87 NJ Transit. About Us. Retrieved 9 November 2011. Image: NJ Transit. About Us. Retrieved 9 November 2011. 58 delayed construction until 1936. On June 20, 1940, the Philadelphia Municipal Airport officially opened. In its first year of operation, Philadelphia Municipal Airport transported 40,000 passengers. In the 1940s American Overseas Airline launched transatlantic service, and the airport was renamed Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) to reflect the change.88 In the 1950’s, PHL became accessible by all means of transportation including highways, waterways, and railways. The Overseas Terminal, which catered to international and charter flights, opened in April of 1973. The airport spent over $300 million in the late 1970’s for the development and transformation of the domestic terminal. In 1985, SEPTA created a rail line connecting Center City Philadelphia to the Airport. In 2014, PHL accommodated 30.74 million passengers, down from 30.8 million from numbers reported in the 2012 Hazard Mitigation Plan. These passengers included 4.5 million international passengers, increased from 4.2 million international passengers 89 reported in the 2012 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Thirteen airlines provided approximately 525 daily departures including more than 131 nonstop flights. Nearly 404,050 tons of cargo (down from 441,000 in 2011) and 28,702 tons of mail (up from 22,000 tons in 2011) are moved annually by commercial airlines and a half-dozen cargo carriers. 90 91 The airport contains more than 200 businesses, which employ more than 141,000 workers. PHL has a $14.4 billion economic impact on the region, making it one of the largest economic engines in Pennsylvania. The airport encompasses 7 terminal buildings with 126 boarding gates and is situated on about 2,370 acres.92 Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) Rankings for 2014 Among U.S. Airports: 19th Total Passengers 18th Total Cargo (freight + mail) 12th Total Movements (takeoffs + landings) Among Worldwide Airports: 53rd Total Passengers 56th Total Cargo (freight + mail) 15th Total Movements (takeoffs + landings) 2.3.4.6.2 Philadelphia Northeast Airport Philadelphia Northeast Airport (PNE) originally opened in June 1945. By 1953, it was ranked 21st in the nation for airfreight tonnage handled. Originally operated by the City of Philadelphia, the Civil Aeronautics Administration (this later evolved into the Federal Philadelphia International Airport. History of Philadelphia International Airport. Retrieved 8 November 2011. 89 Philadelphia International Airport. Retrieved 23 October 2015. 90 Philadelphia International Airport. Fast Facts. Retrieved 23 October 2015. 91Philadelphia International Airport. About Philadelphia International Airport. Retrieved 8 November 2011. 92 Philadelphia International Airport Liaison - John Glass. Retrieved 14 February 2012. 88 59 Aviation Administration, FAA) took over the Airport’s traffic control tower in 1957. In the early 1980’s, Augusta Aviation Corporation opened a Northeast Service Center at the Airport and a few years later moved its headquarters from Bucks County to PNE. In 2014, PNE managed approximately 75,720 airport flight operations. PNE has 85 Thangars, nine (9) corporate hangers, and six (6) open hangars for general aviation activities.93 2.3.4.7 Water transit 2.3.4.7.1 RiverLink Ferry The Delaware River Waterfront Corporation (DRWC) operates the RiverLink Ferry System, seasonally providing cross-river transportation between the Camden and Philadelphia Waterfronts on the Delaware River. 2.3.5 Emergency Services Philadelphia’s emergency services include the Fire Department (PFD), the Fire Department Emergency Medical Services (PFD-EMS), the Police Department (PPD), and hospitals. A number of other City agencies, including OEM, the Philadelphia Department of Public Health (PDPH), the Department of Behavioral Health and Intellectual disAbility Services (DBHIDS), and the Department of Licenses and Inspections (L&I) also have emergency response functions.94 Ibid Image: Office of Emergency Management. Family Assistance Center Functional Exercise. June 17, 2014. 93 94 60 2.3.6 Hospitals and Healthcare Facilities Philadelphia is one of the United States’ leading major metropolitan areas in healthcare. The City is home to 30 hospitals dedicated to high-quality patient care and service. Philadelphia Hospitals Emergency Hospital Name Department Angela Jane Pavilion Rehabilitation Hospital Aria Health – Frankford Campus X Aria Health – Torresdale Campus X Cancer Treatment Centers of America Eastern Region Medical Center Chestnut Hill Hospital X Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia X Einstein Medical Center Fox Chase Cancer Center Germantown Community Health Services Girard Medical Center Hahnemann University Hospital Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania Jeanes Hospital Kindred Hospital of Philadelphia Magee Rehabilitation Hospital Mercy Philadelphia Hospital Methodist Hospital Moss Rehab Nazareth Hospital Penn Medicine at Rittenhouse Penn Presbyterian Medical Center Pennsylvania Hospital Roxborough Memorial Hospital Shriner’s Hospital for Children – Philadelphia St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children St. Joseph’s Hospital Temple University Hospital Temple University Hospital – Episcopal Campus Thomas Jefferson University Hospital Philadelphia VA Medical Center X X X X Trauma Center Burn Center Pediatric Level 2 Level 1 X Level 1 Level 1 Level 1 X X X X X X X X X X Level 1 X Level 1 X X X X X Level 1 61 2.3.7 Cultural Facilities Philadelphia has one of the greatest concentrations of cultural institutions in the world. The table below displays some of Philadelphia’s most visited museums, stadiums, iconic sites, zoos, theaters and concert halls. Cultural Facilities Museums Philadelphia Museum of Art Polish American Cultural Center Museum The Franklin Institute Historical Society of Pennsylvania Academy of Natural Sciences National Liberty Museum Please Touch Museum Fabric Workshop and Museum Penn Museum Civil War Library and Museum Rodin Museum Wagner Free Institute of Science National Museum of American Jewish History Mummers Museum Mutter Museum Franklin Court African American Museum Fireman’s Hall Independence Seaport Museum USS Becuna Simeone Foundation Museum Rosenbach Museum and Library Iconic Sites Independence Hall Bishop White House Masonic Temple Second Bank of the U.S. Independence National Historical Visitors Center Cathedral Basilica of SS. Peter and Paul Eastern State Penitentiary Pennsylvania Convention Center National Constitution Center Gloria dei Church City Hall Boathouse Row U.S. Mint Love Park Liberty Bell Center Rittenhouse Square Todd House Washington Square Christ Church Reading Terminal Market Independence Mall Italian Market Congress Hall Betsy Ross House Theaters/Concert Halls Kimmel Center for the Performing Arts Painted Bride Art Center Arden Theatre Company Academy of Music Wilma Theater Curtis Institute of Music Walnut Street Theatre Mann Center for the Performing Arts Stadiums/Arenas Citizens Bank Park Palestra Lincoln Financial Field Liacouras Center Wells Fargo Center Tom Gola Arena Franklin Field Zoos/Nature Centers Philadelphia Zoo Shofuso Japanese House and Garden Morris Arboretum Bartram’s Garden Fairmount Park John Heinz Wildlife Refuge 62 2.4 Data Limitations It should be noted that the analysis presented within the plan is based upon “best available data.”. Data used in updates to this Hazard Mitigation Plan should be reassessed upon each review period to incorporate new or more accurate data if/when possible. 63 3 Planning Process This section includes a description of the planning process used to develop the HMP, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the plan development, and how planners engaged the public. The plan was developed following the process outlined by DMA 2000, FEMA requirements and FEMA and PEMA guidance. 3.1 Planning Process and Participation Summary Philadelphia applied for and was awarded funding under the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Competitive Grant Program to assist in the development of a Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP). The Office of Emergency Management hired a Hazard Mitigation Planning Coordinator to oversee the development of the plan. In November 2015, OEM began the development of Philadelphia’s second HMP, the first to include human-caused hazards. The HMP planning process concluded in December 2016 and the City submitted the plan to PEMA and FEMA for approval. The Philadelphia HMP was based on the best available information obtained from a wide variety of sources. Throughout the plan development, an effort was made to solicit information from individuals with specific knowledge of certain natural hazards and their past impacts to Philadelphia. 3.2 Planning Committee The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee is a core group agencies that manage, operate, and/or plan for some of the City’s largest infrastructure networks. The planning committee provides subject-matter expertise in the following areas:  Emergency management;  Public safety;  Land use planning;  Building codes;  Transportation;  Infrastructure development;  Maintenance; and protection; and  Natural resource protection. This committee combines skills, expertise, and experience to achieve a common goal of natural hazard mitigation for Philadelphia. The planning committee helps develop, manage and implement Philadelphia’s HMP. The following list summarizes the planning committee’s responsibilities:  Support plan development 64        Attend HMP Planning Committee meetings Provide subject matter expertise Assist in ranking hazards of concern Develop mitigation actions pertinent to their agency Assist in evaluating and prioritizing mitigation actions Review and comment on draft HMP sections provided by OEM Assist with plan maintenance OEM served as the coordinating agency for the development of the HMP. OEM facilitated the overall plan development to ensure the HMP met the requirements of DMA 2000. As the HMP coordinator, OEM had many responsibilities including administration, content organization, and text development. The following list summarizes OEM’s responsibilities:          Organize and guide all meetings with the planning committee Provide support for all participants in the hazard mitigation planning process Coordinate with planning committee to identify relevant material for HMP Develop and implement the community involvement process Guide plan development to adhere to DMA 2000 requirements Manage identification, collection and analysis of capabilities submitted by the Planning Committee Guide hazard ranking process Draft, compile, and edit document language Manage identification, collection and analysis of mitigation actions submitted by the planning committee 3.2.1 Participating Agencies OEM engaged the following planning committee agencies:            Federal Emergency Management Agency Region III (FEMA) Philadelphia City Planning Commission (PCPC) Philadelphia International Airport Philadelphia Parks and Recreation (PPR) Philadelphia Streets Department (Streets) Army Corps of Engineers Fleet Management Licensing and Inspections (L&I) Office of Emergency Management (OEM) Office of Innovation and Technology (OIT) Office of Sustainability (OOS) 65                   Office of Transportation and Infrastructure Systems (OTIS, formerly MOTU) PECO PennDOT Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC) Philadelphia Historical Commission (PHMC) Philadelphia Department of Public Health (PDPH) Philadelphia Fire Department (PFD) Philadelphia Gas Works Philadelphia Historical Commission Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA) Philadelphia International Airport (PIA) Philadelphia Police Department (PPD) Philadelphia Water Department (PWD) SEPTA U.S. Coast Guard Veolia 3.3 Planning Committee Meetings OEM coordinated the following planning committee meetings during the planning process. November 12, 2015 – Hazard Mitigation Kickoff Meeting hosted by OEM (participants invited via email) The in-person meeting introduced all Planning Committee participants to the mitigation planning process, discussed timelines for implementation, reviewed potential hazards for inclusion and described specific expectations and roles of planning committee members. A brief summary was given on what hazard mitigation planning entails and why Philadelphia needs a Hazards Mitigation Plan. A review of current capabilities occurred at this meeting as well. The Planning Committee was broken down into sectorspecific working groups to discuss past mitigation actions and review sector-relevant portions of the 2012 Hazard Mitigation Plan. The following agencies participated in the kick-off meeting: Agency Licenses and Inspections Planning Commission Office of Sustainability PADEP Representative Deputy Commissioner City Planner Deputy Director for Planning Operations Manager Work Group Development Development Environment Environment 66 PADEP Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission FEMA FEMA FEMA Health Department Office of Emergency Management Office of Emergency Management Office of Emergency Management Office of Emergency Management PEMA PEMA PEMA Fleet Management Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation Streets Department Water Department Water Department Water Department Water Department Planning Manager Coordinator Intern Lead Community Planning Specialist Community Planner Resilience Action Partners Bioterrorism and Public Health Preparedness Manager Hazard Mitigation Planning Coordinator Deputy Director for Planning Deputy Director for Operations Infrastructure Program Manager PEMA State Hazard Mitigation Officer PEMA State Hazard Mitigation Planner Operations Officer Occupational Safety Administrator Executive Staff Special Projects Manager Chief Engineer Planning and Research Environmental Engineer Planning Program Manager Environment Historical Mitigation Historical Mitigation Historical Mitigation Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Transportation Transportation Transportation Transportation Utilities, Development Utilities, Development Utilities, Development Utilities, Development 67 November 18, 2015; November 23, 2015; November 24, 2015 - Work Group Meetings Additional work group meetings carried on throughout the rest of November, during which time groups discussed sector-specific mitigation concerns, plan updates, and potential future mitigation actions. Works group meetings were coordinated via email and included the following: Agency Representative Work Group Meeting Date Licenses and Inspections Deputy Commissioner Development November 18, 2015 PIDC – Navy Yard General Manager Development November 18, 2015 Philadelphia City Planning Commission City Planner Development November 18, 2015 Philadelphia City Planning Commission Senior Zoning Planner Development November 18, 2015 Public Property Deputy Commissioner Development November 18, 2015 Philadelphia Water Department Environmental Engineer / Emergency Planner Development November 18, 2015 Fleet Management Deputy Manager Transportation November 23, 2015 Parks and Recreation Deputy Commissioner of Operations Transportation November 23, 2015 Philadelphia International Airport Manager for Public Safety Transportation November 23, 2015 SEPTA Chief Control Center Officer Transportation November 23, 2015 Streets Chief Highway Engineer Transportation November 23, 2015 Energy Office Energy Manager Environment November 24, 2015 68 Office of Sustainability Deputy Director for Planning Environment November 24, 2015 Philadelphia Water Department Engineering Supervisor Environment November 24, 2015 Philadelphia Water Department Environmental Engineer Environment November 24, 2015 November 2015 to May 2016 – Targeted outreach Ongoing outreach to the individual agencies and departments above occurred throughout the drafting process to obtain more in-depth information. Agency and department outreach conducted in-person, via conference call, or via email focused on the internal processes that made up capital planning project development, and prioritization. Meetings also identified upcoming projects that could affect mitigation activities or general City preparedness and resilience. Public Meetings In compliance with hazard mitigation planning requirements, the planning team sought and encouraged public participation throughout the development of the HMP. To engage the community in the hazard mitigation planning process, OEM developed a comprehensive community involvement strategy that included a series of public meetings, extensive social media outreach, and a survey targeting city residents. 3.3.1 Meeting Logistics OEM posted invitations to residents of Philadelphia via media releases and advertisements on social media sites. The Public Outreach Meeting Annex includes the press releases and agendas for each of the four public meetings. OEM’s website contains public meeting dates and agendas. The table below lists public meetings held specific to the Hazard Mitigation Plan. Philadelphia Hazard Mitigation Public Meetings Date and Time Location June 8, 2016, Eastwick Library Branch, 2851 Island Ave, 6PM Philadelphia, PA 19153 June 29, 2016 Roxborough Branch, 6245 Ridge Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19128 September 14, Community Advisory Group: Eastwick (guest 2016 speaker – no sign in sheet) September 26, Fishtown Branch FLP, 1217 East Montgomery 2016 Avenue Attendance 5 4 18 7 69 3.3.2 Outreach and Community Feedback The hazard mitigation public meetings provided an opportunity to outline the Hazard Mitigation planning process, identify the hazards of concern, and discuss implemented and future mitigation actions. At each meeting, the public had the opportunity to provide feedback on the plan and process, and a chance to express concerns. In addition, OEM developed an 11 question survey to gauge city residents’ level of general preparedness, perception of threat from hazards, and knowledge of personal mitigation actions. The survey also asked several demographic questions to help analyze trends. In all, 441 City residents completed the survey. OEM made the survey available both in electronic and hard copy formats. Staff members distributed paper copies during public meetings and events including:  HMP meetings  ReadyHOME workshops  ReadyBUSINESS workshops  Service fairs OEM compiled electronic and hard copy surveys for analysis. The Public Outreach Annex contains the compiled survey results. OEM heavily promoted both the survey and community meetings via social media and website blog content during the summer and early fall of 2016. The survey, plan, and meetings were promoted a couple times a week. Regular tweets and blog posting drove traffic to our website and 441 unique survey respondents from City residents. Sample tweets and blog posts are also posted in the Public Outreach Annex. 3.3.3 Hazard Mitigation Plan Website OEM and OIT launched a public website https://alpha.phila.gov/departments/oem/programs/hazard-mitigation-plan/ in February 2016 to inform Philadelphia residents of the project. The website contains the draft versions of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan update, a copy of the 2012 Hazard Mitigation Plan as approved, information on hazard mitigation planning, a link to the natural hazards survey, and answers to frequently asked questions regarding hazard mitigation. 70 4 Risk and Vulnerability Assessment According to the FEMA Guidance 386-2, “risk assessment is the process of measuring the potential loss of life, personal injury, economic injury and property damage resulting from natural hazards by assessing the vulnerability of people, buildings and infrastructure to natural hazards.” Philadelphia’s risk assessment is organized into three sections:     Section 4.1 outlines the risk assessment and hazard identification process. Section 4.2 identifies both natural and human caused hazards of concern for further profiling and evaluation. Section 4.3 profiles hazards identified in Section 4.1, defining the hazard, describing the hazard’s range of magnitude, environmental impact, past occurrences, and future occurrences. Section 4.4 overviews the methodology and risk factors for profiled hazards. 4.1 Update Process Summary The risk assessment process used for Philadelphia’s 2017 HMP is consistent with the process and steps presented in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 386-2, State and Local Mitigation Planning How-to- Guide, Understanding Your Risks – Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses. This process, broken down into four unique steps 1. 2. 3. 4. Identifies the hazards of concern, Profiles the hazards of concern, Assesses the overall risk of the city, and Assesses the vulnerability of assets (population, structures, critical facilities and the economy) at risk in Philadelphia. The 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan expanded on the hazards included in the 2012 Hazard Mitigation Plan. In addition to human-caused hazards included in this iteration of the Hazard Mitigation Plan, extreme temperature was broken down into extreme heat and extreme cold for the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. The 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan also includes climate change to a much greater degree within the specific hazard that climate change affects. The planning process also identified hazards through research provided by the Philadelphia Office of Sustainability, which shaped the climate change approach used throughout the document. This plan includes those human-caused hazards from the Human-caused Annex appended to the 2012 Hazard Mitigation Plan, as well as from the City of Philadelphia’s Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. Following guidance from Emergency Management Accreditation Program’s and PEMA’s 71 Pennsylvania All-Hazard Mitigation Standard Operating Guide, the Office of Emergency Management included both natural and human caused hazards in this hazard mitigation plan. Subject matter expert consensus as well as public feedback were taken into consideration when selecting the hazards for this plan. The planner received feedback from stakeholder and public meetings, as well as from public survey responses. The planner also conducted research on hazards included in several other cities of similar size, threat level, and/or community profile. These cities included: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Boston Seattle Miami-Dade Dallas Houston-Galveston San Francisco South Hampton Roads The 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan list of hazards also takes into consideration those hazards included in plans from surrounding counties. These counties include: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Bucks County Chester County Delaware County Montgomery County The “Pennsylvania Standard List of Hazards” profiles sixteen natural hazards the Commonwealth as a whole is susceptible to, and details the likeliness of each hazard to occur in Pennsylvania.95 Using these sources and previous historical occurrences of disaster declarations and input from the Philadelphia Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee, eight natural hazards were selected to be profiled in more depth within this Plan as they are considered the most likely to occur in the future within Philadelphia. These natural hazards include (alphabetically):       95 Drought Earthquake Extreme Cold Extreme Heat Floods Hurricanes and Tropical Storms Pennsylvania 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Retrieved November 3, 2011. 72  Windstorms and Tornadoes  Winter Storms Additional natural hazards do pose a threat to Philadelphia, though their expected occurrence will not be as frequent as those mentioned within this HMP. The natural hazard profiles also capture the effects of climate change, illustrating the compounding or exacerbating effects a shift in the climate can have on each of these hazards. Because climate change causes a shift in the magnitude and extent of hazards, each profile addresses climate change influence on the hazard’s effects. Additional natural hazards do pose a threat to Philadelphia, though their expected occurrence will not be as frequent as those mentioned within this HMP. In addition to these natural hazards, six human-caused hazards are also included in the Philadelphia hazard profiles. Using the Human Caused Annex amended to the 2012 Hazard Mitigation Plan as well as the City’s Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, and taking into consideration nationally identified trends, six human caused hazards were selected to be profiled in more depth within this Plan, as they are the most likely to occur in the future within Philadelphia. These human caused hazards include (alphabetically): ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ 4.2 Active Shooter Bridge Failure Dam Failure Hazardous Material Train Derailment Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Urban Conflagration Hazard Identification 4.2.1 Disaster Declarations Since 1955, declarations have been issued for numerous natural hazard events in Philadelphia, including hurricanes, tornadoes, severe winter storms, flooding events, and droughts. Understanding the disaster history of Philadelphia helps provide direction on the identification of the primary natural hazards and their significance. 4.2.1.1 Presidential Major Disaster Declaration A Presidential Major Disaster Declaration (hereon referred to as a ‘Presidential Disaster Declaration’) is defined by FEMA as “any natural catastrophe (including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind-driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, 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 under [The Stafford] Act to supplement the efforts and available resources of 73 States, local governments, and disaster relief organizations in alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused thereby.” The Governor of the affected state makes a request for a declaration by the President that a major disaster exists. The Governor makes this request in the event that the disaster is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the state and the affected local governments, and that federal assistance is necessary. As part of such a request, and as a prerequisite to major disaster assistance, the Governor takes appropriate response action under state law and direct execution of the state’s emergency plan. Based on the request of a Governor, the President may declare that a major disaster or emergency exists.96 A Presidential Disaster Declaration puts into motion long-term federal recovery programs designed to aid disaster victims, businesses and public entities. The following is a list of some of the major assistance programs that may be available with a Presidential Disaster Declaration under the Stafford Act:97           Public Assistance Program Individual Assistance Program Small Business Administration (SBA) Physical Loan Small Business Administration (SBA) Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) Tax Refunds National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Disaster Recovery Assistance Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Debris Removal/Public Facility Restoration through the Department of Defense (DOD) Flood Protection and Recovery through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Emergency Relief Funds 44 C.F.R. § 206.36 sets out the requirements to be fulfilled by the Governor or Acting Governor in his or her absence in requesting a Presidential major disaster declaration: § 5191. Procedure for declaration § 206.36 Requests for major disaster declarations. 96 This list represents a selection of the programs that may be available after a disaster. For a complete listing of Federal Disaster Assistance programs, please refer to DisasterAssistance.gov. 97 74 The table below identifies Major Disaster Declarations issued between 1955 through 2014 for Philadelphia. These dates indicate the declaration date, not the date of the disaster. Presidential Major Disaster Declarations that Affected Philadelphia Disaster Public Individual Date Event Number Assistance Assistance Severe Winter Storm and 4267 X March 2016 Snowstorm January 4099 X 2013 Hurricane Sandy September Tropical Storm 4030 X 2011 Lee September 4025 X X 2011 Hurricane Irene Severe Winter 1898 X April 2010 Storm Severe Storms 1649 X X June 2006 and Flooding August Multiple Storm 1538 X 2004 Systems September Tropical 1557 X 2004 Depression Ivan September 1294 X X 1999 Hurricane Floyd Severe Storms/ 1219 June 1998 Tornadoes January 1093 Public Assistance/ Individual 1996 Flooding Assistance data not available prior to January 1998 1085 1996 Blizzard September 312 1971 Floods 4.2.1.2 Emergency Declaration FEMA defines an Emergency Declaration as “any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, federal assistance is needed to supplement state and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and 75 safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States.” An Emergency Declaration is more limited in scope and without the long-term federal recovery programs of a Presidential Disaster Declaration. Federal assistance and funding are provided to meet a specific emergency need or to help prevent a major disaster from occurring. The table below identifies Emergency Declarations issued between 1955 through 2014 for Philadelphia. These dates indicate the declaration date, not the date of the disaster. Presidential Emergency Declarations that Affected Philadelphia Date Event Number February 2014 Severe Winter Storm 3367 October 2012 Hurricane Sandy 3356 September 2011 Remnants of Tropical Storm Lee 3340 August 2011 Hurricane Irene 3339 4.2.1.3 Small Business Administration Disaster Declaration Philadelphia has also received numerous Small Business Administration (SBA) Disaster Declarations. An SBA declaration can activate the Physical Loan and/or Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) programs, which make disaster assistance available to affected homeowners, renters, and businesses in the form of low-interest loans. The table below illustrates SBA Disaster Declarations issued for Philadelphia between 1992 and 2016.98 Disaster Events Receiving Small Business Administration Loan Assistance Date Event January 2016 Winter Storm Jonas April 2013 Hurricane Sandy September 2011 Tropical Storm Lee September 2011 Hurricane Irene February 2010 Fire August 2009 Storms and Flooding September 2008 Fire August 2008 Fire November 2007 Fire April 2007 Severe Storms and Flooding October 2001 Fire May 2001 Fire Data limitations from Small Business Administration limit the time span available for Small Business Administration disaster loan assistance. 98 76 March 2001 September 1999 June 1998 January 1998 January 1996 January 1996 January 1994 July 1994 March 1993 March 1993 July 1992 Fire Hurricane Floyd Severe Storms/Tornadoes Fire Severe Winter Storm Flooding Severe Winter Storm Flooding Blizzard Fire Fire 4.2.1.4 Commonwealth Declarations In addition to the presidentially declared events, the Governor of Pennsylvania is authorized under state law to declare a Gubernatorial State of Emergency (also referred to as a Proclamation) upon the occurrence of a natural or man-made disaster. The law gives the Governor broad authorities to implement emergency measures to ensure the safety and health of the residents of the Commonwealth, take appropriate steps to mobilize state assets, and conduct other emergency business for the protection of the Commonwealth. The Governor of Pennsylvania may declare a disaster emergency by executive order or proclamation if a disaster has occurred or if the threat of a disaster is imminent. When a disaster affects two or more counties, the Governor will exercise directional authority and control through PEMA. The PEMA Director shall be prepared to become the Executive Officer in charge of carrying out the decisions of the gubernatorial administration for direction, coordination, and support of response activities for all commonwealth departments/ agencies, counties, municipalities, and designated institutions. PEMA will exercise this authority through the affected county emergency management agencies. The table below outlines the Gubernatorial Disaster Proclamations issued for Philadelphia between 1955 and 2010. Several other natural hazard events received Gubernatorial Disaster Proclamations, including all events listed under the Presidential Disaster and Emergency Declaration table. The table below only lists the events that escalated to the state level, and does not include those which required federal assistance. Pennsylvania Gubernatorial Disaster Emergency Declarations or Proclamations Date Event January 2016 Severe Winter Storm June 2013 High Winds, Thunderstorms, Heavy Rain, Tornado, Flooding 77 October 2012 April 2012 August 2011 January 2011 February 2010 April 2007 February 2007 September 2006 September 2005 February 2002 July 1999 March 1996 September 1995 November 1980 December 1972 February 1958 September 1955 Hurricane Sandy Spring Winter Storms Severe Storms and Flooding (Lee/Irene) Severe Winter Storm Severe Winter Storm Severe Winter Storm Severe Winter Storm Tropical Depression Ernesto Hurricane Katrina Drought and Water Shortage Drought Highway Bridge (I95) Destruction Drought Drought Emergency Steam Heat Problem Heavy Snow Drought 4.2.1.5 Philadelphia Declarations Chapter 75, Section 7501 of the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Services Code authorizes both cities and counties to issue local state of emergency declarations. The effect of these declarations varies by county and articulated in local statutes.99 Philadelphia operates under a Home Rule Charter, where the mayor may declare a municipal state of emergency.100 The Mayor is authorized to declare a State of Emergency if he or she finds that the city or any part thereof is suffering or is in imminent danger of suffering civil disturbance, disorder, riot, or other occurrence, which will seriously and substantially endanger the health, safety and property of the citizens.101 By declaring a State of Emergency, the Mayor may take any of the following measures: ▪ Prohibit or limit the number of persons who may gather or congregate upon the public highways or public sidewalks, or in any outdoor place, except persons who are awaiting transportation, engaging in recreational activities at a usual and customary place, or peaceably entering or leaving buildings; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Emergency Management Handbook for Elected Officials. Retrieved 21 February 2012. 100 The Philadelphia Code and Home Rule Charter. Title 10. Regulation Of Individual Conduct and Activity. Chapter 10-800. Safety §10-819. State of Emergency. 101 City of Philadelphia Emergency Operations Plan. Office of Emergency Management. June 2015. 99 78 ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Halt access or egress upon public highways to or from the city or any part thereof; Suspend operations at municipal airports; Halt the movement of trains, boats or other vehicles into, within or from the city; Establish a curfew limiting the hours when persons may go upon or travel the public streets; Require the closing of taprooms and bars and prohibit the sale or service of alcoholic beverages in any hotel, restaurant, club or other establishment; Prohibit or restrict the sale of gasoline or other inflammable liquids; Prohibit the sale, carrying or possession on public streets or public sidewalks, or in any public park or square, of weapons including, but not limited to, firearms, bows and arrows, air rifles, slingshots, knives, razors or missiles of any kind. 102 The State of Emergency declared by the Mayor is in place for the period set forth in the Proclamation, but not exceeding two weeks.103 The City provides prompt and general publicity for all declarations and files declarations with the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA). The table below outlines the Mayoral State of Emergencies issued for Philadelphia between 1985 and 2016. Mayoral State of Emergency for Philadelphia Date Event October 2012 Hurricane Sandy August 2011 Hurricane Irene December 1985 Racial Violence Ibid. The Philadelphia Code and Home Rule Charter. Title 10. Regulation Of Individual Conduct and Activity. Chapter 10-800. Safety §10-819. State of Emergency. 102 103 79 4.2.2 Summary of Hazards The table below provides brief description for each hazard identified as a threat to the City of Philadelphia. Profiled Hazards for Philadelphia’s Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Description Active Shooter An active shooter is an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area”.104 Bridge Failure A bridge collapse consists of a failure of decking, superstructure, or foundation leading to a progressive or immediate collapse of the entire assembly.105 Bridges can span waterways, railways, or roadways and provide overpasses for surface transportation or passenger/freight rail lines. Dam Failure A dam is a barrier across flowing water that obstructs, directs, or slows down water flow. Dams provide benefits such as flood protection, power generation, drinking water, irrigation, and recreation. Failure of these structures results in an uncontrolled release of impounded water. Failures are relatively rare, but immense damage and loss of life is possible in downstream communities when such events occur. Aging infrastructure, hydrologic, hydraulic and geologic characteristics, population growth, and design and maintenance practices should be considered when assessing dam failure hazards.106 The failure of the South Fork Dam, located in Johnstown, PA, was the deadliest dam failure ever experienced in the United States. It took place in 1889 and resulted in the Johnstown Flood which claimed 2,209 lives.107 Today there are approximately 3,200 dams and reservoirs throughout Pennsylvania.108 Failures and breaches can occur without warning, or happen over a span of days to weeks, such as in result of debris jams, the accumulation of melting snow, or by the buildup of water pressure on a dam.109 Federal Bureau of Investigation. “Active Shooter Incidents”. Retrieved October 5, 2015. City of Philadelphia Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 106 “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 107 FEMA, 1997. 108 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 2009. 109 Why Dams Fail. FEMA. Retrieved January 29, 2016. 104 105 80 Drought Drought is a natural climatic condition which occurs in virtually all climates, the consequence of a natural reduction in the amount of precipitation experienced over a long period of time, usually a season or more in length. High temperatures, prolonged winds, and low relative humidity can exacerbate the severity of drought. This hazard is of particular concern in Pennsylvania due to the presence of farms as well as water-dependent industries and recreation areas across the Commonwealth. A prolonged drought could severely affect these sectors of the local economy, as well as residents who depend on wells for drinking water and other personal uses.110 Earthquake An earthquake is the motion or trembling of the ground produced by sudden displacement of rock usually within the upper 10-20 miles of the Earth's crust. Earthquakes result from crustal strain, volcanism, landslides, or the collapse of underground caverns. Earthquakes can affect hundreds of thousands of square miles, cause damage to property measured in the tens of billions of dollars, result in loss of life and injury to hundreds of thousands of persons, and disrupt the social and economic functioning of the affected area. Structural failure and collapse due to ground shaking causes most property damage and earthquakerelated deaths.111 Ground shaking is dependent upon amplitude and duration of the earthquake. Extreme Cold Extreme cold temperatures drop well below what is considered normal for an area during the winter months and often accompany winter storm events. Combined with increases in wind speed, such temperatures in Pennsylvania can be life threatening to those exposed for extended periods of time.112 Extreme Heat Extreme heat can be described as temperatures that hover 10°F or more above the average high temperature for a region during the summer months. Extreme heat is responsible for more deaths in Pennsylvania than all other natural disasters combined.113 “Drought Basics”. National Drought Mitigation Center. Retrieved February 16, 2016. “Earthquake”. FEMA. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 112 Lawrence County 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan. MCM Consulting Group, Inc. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 113 2013 York County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 110 111 81 Floods Hazardous Material Train Derailment Flooding is the temporary condition of partial or complete inundation on normally dry land and it is the most frequent and costly of all hazards in Pennsylvania. Flooding events are generally the result of excessive precipitation. General flooding typically occurs when precipitation occurs over a given river basin for an extended period of time. Flash flooding is usually a result of heavy localized precipitation falling in a short time period over a given location, often along mountain streams and in urban areas where much of the ground cover is primarily impervious surfaces. The severity of a flood event is dependent upon a combination of: - stream and river basin topography and physiography, - hydrology, - precipitation and weather patterns, - present soil moisture conditions, - the degree of vegetative clearing, and - the presence of impervious surfaces in and around flood-prone areas.114 Winter flooding can include ice jams which occur when warm temperatures and heavy rain cause snow to melt rapidly. Snow melt combined with heavy rains can cause frozen rivers to swell, which breaks the ice layer on top of a river. The ice layer often breaks into large chunks, which float downstream, piling up in narrow passages and near other obstructions such as bridges and dams. All forms of flooding can damage infrastructure.115 Deficiencies with a train or rolling stock can cause a train’s chassis to unseat from the rail. This reduces the train’s ability to brake or control the vehicle’s movement, possibly resulting in a derailment. Depending on the train’s speed and surroundings, the momentum of rail cars can be sufficient enough to rupture tanks and cause significant impact damage to surrounding structures or buildings. Impacts and damaged rail equipment present numerous ignition sources for flammable or explosive materials exposed to the environment, possibly resulting in combustion and explosion. “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 115 “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 114 82 Hurricane/ Tropical Storm Improvised Explosive Device Urban Conflagration PEMA classifies hurricanes, tropical storms, and nor'easters as cyclones. Cyclones are any closed circulation developing around a low-pressure center in which the winds rotate counter-clockwise (in the Northern Hemisphere) and whose diameter averages 10-30 miles across. While most of Pennsylvania is not directly affected by the devastating impacts cyclonic systems can have on coastal regions, many areas in the state are subject to the primary damaging forces associated with these storms including high-level sustained winds, heavy precipitation, and tornadoes. Areas in southeastern Pennsylvania could be susceptible to storm surge and tidal flooding. The majority of hurricanes and tropical storms form in the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of Mexico during the official Atlantic hurricane season (June through November).116 An IED attack is the “use of a ‘homemade’ bomb and/or destructive device to destroy, incapacitate, harass, or distract”.117 IEDs come in a range of forms, from a small pipe bomb to a larger scale, more sophisticated explosive capable of causing large loss of life. Delivery of the explosive can be by a device strapped to an individual, in a package, or in a vehicle, among various other techniques. Explosive materials can range from simple to complex based upon the difficulty of procurement or the technical capability required to develop them from constituent substances. The majority of terrorism-related attacks worldwide use explosives.118 Shrapnel material, propellant, or additional hazardous materials can worsen the impact of an IED. Conflagrations are extensive, widespread fires that damage property and potentially endanger lives. Urban conflagrations spread beyond artificial and natural barriers to destroy whole sections of a city.119 While conflagrations are rare in modern, developed cities, there is the risk that they could occur after a large storm, earthquake, or during civil unrest. Simultaneous ignitions can overwhelm emergency responders. “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 117 Department of Homeland Security. “IED Attack Improvised Explosive Devices”. News & Terrorism Communicating in a Crisis. Retrieved 6 October 2015. 116 118 William Michael Kramer. “Disaster Planning and Control”. Fire Engineering. Retrieved January 11, 2016. 119 83 A wind storm can occur during severe thunderstorms, winter storms, coastal storms, or tornadoes. Straight-line winds such as a downburst have the potential to cause wind gusts that exceed 100 miles per hour. Based on 40 years of tornado history and over 100 years of hurricane history, FEMA identifies western and central Pennsylvania as being more susceptible to higher winds than eastern Pennsylvania.120 Windstorm/Tornado A tornado is a violent windstorm characterized by a twisting, funnel-shaped cloud extending to the ground. Tornadoes are most often generated by thunderstorm activity (but sometimes result from hurricanes or tropical storms) when cool, dry air intersects and overrides a layer of warm, moist air forcing the warm air to rise rapidly. The damage caused by a tornado is a result of high wind velocities and wind-blown debris. According to the National Weather Service, tornado wind speeds can range between 30 to more than 300 miles per hour. They are more likely to occur during the spring and early summer months of March through June and are most likely to form in the late afternoon and early evening. Most tornadoes are a few dozen yards wide and touch down briefly, but even small, short-lived tornadoes can inflict tremendous damage. Destruction ranges from minor to catastrophic depending on the intensity, size, and duration of the storm. Structures made of light materials such as mobile homes are most susceptible to damage. Waterspouts are weak tornadoes that form over warm water and are relatively uncommon in Pennsylvania. About 1,200 tornadoes hit the U.S. yearly121, resulting in an average of 60 deaths per year, most from flying or falling (crushing) debris.122 The actual number of tornado deaths in a year can vary wildly -- from single digits to hundreds, depending on many factors from both weather and society. Based on NOAA Storm Prediction Center Statistics, the number of recorded F3, F4, & F5 tornadoes between 1950-1998 ranges from <1 to 15 per 3,700 square mile area across Pennsylvania.123 A water spout is a tornado over a body of water.124 125 FEMA, 1997. National Severe Storms Laboratory. 122 “Tornado FAQ: Tornado Climatology And Data”. NOAA Storm Prediction Center. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 120 121 84 Winter Storm Winter storms may include snow, sleet, freezing rain, or a mix of these wintry forms of precipitation. A winter storm can range from a moderate snowfall or ice event over a period of a few hours to blizzard conditions with winddriven snow that lasts for several days. Many winter storms are accompanied by low temperatures and heavy and/or blowing snow, which can severely impair visibility and disrupt transportation. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has a long history of severe winter weather.126 4.2.2.1 Hazard Relationships Hazards can have secondary affects that trigger a secondary hazard, called cascading hazards. For example, a dam failure could trigger a flooding incident or an extreme heat event could cause a drought. The chart below displays the interaction between hazards, showing the cascading effects a hazard can create. The chart also captures climate change, which is addressed in those hazards it impacts rather than as a separate hazard. FEMA, 2009. American Meteorological Society, 2009. 125 “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 126 “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 123 124 85 Hazard Relationship Chart X Winter Storms Wind Storms/ Tornado Urban Conflagration X X X X X X X X X X Extreme Heat X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Urban Conflagration Wind Storms and Tornado X X Winter Storms Climate Change Improvised Explosive Device X Hurricane/ Tropical Storm Extreme Heat Extreme Cold X Extreme Cold Primary Hazard Earthquakes Drought Dam Failure X Drought Floods Hazardous Materials Train Derailment Hurricane/Tropical Storm Improvised Explosive Device X X Infrastructure Failure Earthquakes HazMat Train Derailment Bridge Failure Floods Active Shooter Bridge Failure Active Shooter Secondary Hazard X X X X X X X X X 86 4.2.2.2 Limitations of Hazard Inclusion The table below outlines the natural hazards not covered in the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan, as well as the rationale for omission. Natural Hazard Reason for Non-Inclusion Avalanche/Glacier While avalanches and glaciers are present in North America, they have not existed in Pennsylvania for approximately 17,000 years. Coastal Erosion With the exception of portions of Erie County, coastal erosion is not a hazard for communities in Pennsylvania. Dust, Sand Storm Dust and sandstorm events occur in the dry regions of the United States and historically have not been considered a significant hazard in Pennsylvania. Expansive Soils The City of Philadelphia’s soil types are primarily sandy and silt, not clay which causes expansive soil events. Invasive species There is little impact to the entire community in Philadelphia from an invasive species. While there have been some invasive species in the Philadelphia area, such as stink bugs and English Ivy, these species do not pose a large, widespread impact to life, property, infrastructure, or economy. Landslide Given the topography of Philadelphia, a landslide is unlikely to occur. Lightning Strike Lightning strike is included as an effect of hazards, such as hurricanes and tropical storms. It is not treated as a separate hazard as it is a secondary, cascading hazard rather than a primary. Radon Exposure While singular incidents of radon exposure occur throughout Philadelphia, authorities handle incidents without widespread affects to the City’s infrastructure, economy, environment, or population. Subsidence, Sinkhole Subsidence and sinkholes are addressed as a result of hazards such as flooding and earthquakes, rather than as a primary hazard. 87 Tsunami No known tsunami events have been documented in Pennsylvania in the past 200 years. Wildfire Philadelphia’s limited expanse of fields and forests drastically reduces the risk of wildfires, but increases the risk for urban conflagration, which is addressed in the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Volcano There are no active or dormant volcanoes in Pennsylvania. Human Caused Hazard Reason for Non-Inclusion Civil Disturbance While small incidents of civil disturbances occur throughout Philadelphia, authorities handle incidents without widespread affects to the City’s infrastructure, economy, environment, or population. Operations and tactics for handling such events are outside the scope of this document. Disorientation Disorientation refers to people becoming lost or disoriented in remote or rugged wilderness areas.127 The City of Philadelphia does not have extensive wilderness areas. Drowning While singular incidents of drownings occur throughout Philadelphia, authorities handle incidents without widespread affects to the City’s infrastructure, economy, environment, or population. Levee Failure The City of Philadelphia does not have any levees within its jurisdiction. The surrounding counties’ levees play a small role in flood protection and would not affect Philadelphia. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All-Hazard Mitigation Planning Standard Operating Guide. PEMA. October 18, 2013. Retrieved April 7, 2016. 127 88 Mass Food/Animal Feed Contamination The City of Philadelphia has no history of mass food contamination. Additionally, less than 1% of Philadelphia is farmland, and the extremely limited number of livestock limits the effect of mass animal feed contamination. Nuclear Incidents The City of Philadelphia is not in the plume exposure pathway for surrounding nuclear power plants, and is therefore not in an emergency planning zone. War and Criminal Activity While singular incidents of criminal acts occur throughout Philadelphia, authorities handle incidents without widespread affects to the City’s infrastructure, economy, environment, or population. Operations and tactics for handling such events are outside the scope of this document. 89 4.3 Hazard Profiles and Vulnerability Analysis 4.3.1 Active Shooter The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines an active shooter as one or more individuals “actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area.”128 4.3.1.1 Location Active shooter incidents occur primarily in commercial or educational environments; other locations may include private residences, places of worship, open spaces, hospitals or military bases. In some cases, an active shooter may target more than one place. The graphic below shows the number of incidents by location as identified by the FBI where the public may be most at-risk for active shooter attacks in the United States.129 Federal Bureau of Investigation. “Active Shooter Incidents”. Retrieved October 5, 2015. Federal Bureau of Investigation. “A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States Between 2000 and 2013”. Retrieved January 14, 2016. 128 129 90 4.3.1.2 Magnitude The immediate consequences of an active shooter attack include death or injury to people. The extent of those affected depends on the level of training, motivation, ammunition, and targeted area of the attacker. The chart below illustrates incidents by casualty type between the years 2000 and 2013.130 4.3.1.2.1 Worst-case Scenario The following worst case scenario is derived from analysis of events in San Bernardino, Virginia Tech, Paris, and other recent active shooter incidents. A small group of trained gunmen obtain a cache of weapons. They target a local busy street fair, with approximately 20,000 people in attendance in a six block stretch of road. The gunmen open fire at several locations along the route and side streets. Thirty fair goers and bystanders are killed, and nearly one hundred are injured. Officials lock down local schools and surrounding neighborhoods because of the shootings until the killers are confirmed to be dead or in custody. Federal Bureau of Investigation. “A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States Between 2000 and 2013: Broken Down by Casualty Type; Killed or Wounded”. Retrieved January 14, 2016. 130 91 4.3.1.2.2 Environmental Impact Active shooter incidents typically occur in or near facilities or public spaces where groups are gathered, and often result in little to no impact on the environment. Additionally, active shooter incidents typically have little to no impact on essential utilities, as the goal of an active shooter is to cause injury and death to people, not physical damage to the environment. 4.3.1.3 Past Occurrences Most of the gun crime in the City is largely criminal rather than active shooter. The table below shows incidents where the shooter’s gun discharged, causing three or more casualties, not including the shooter131 132 Data access is limited to 2013 to 2016. Shootings in Philadelphia Resulting in Three of More Casualties 2013-2016 Incident Date Deaths Injuries 17-Apr-16 3 1 26-Dec-15 0 4 15-Nov-15 0 4 20-Sep-15 1 3 22-Jun-15 0 7 20-Jun-15 0 11 28-Sep-14 0 4 21-Sep-14 2 2 9-Aug-14 0 4 1-Aug-14 1 3 28-Jul-14 1 4 21-Nov-13 0 4 6-Oct-13 1 5 13-Aug-13 0 4 16-May-13 0 4 11-May-13 0 4 9-Apr-13 1 3 Gun Violence Archive. Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Three or more victims. Retrieved May 25, 2016.s City of Philadelphia Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. 2014. Retrieved January 14, 2016. 131 132 92 4.3.1.4 Future Occurrences Past active shooter incidents in Philadelphia do not provide enough data points to determine a local trend, but rising trends nationally suggest an increasing likelihood of an active shooter incident occurring. Between the 2000 and 2013, for example, average annual incidents increased from 6.4 to 16.4, with the largest percentage of these incidents occurring in commercial areas (46.5 percent) or educational environments (24.3 percent).133 The chart below depicts national trends for active shooter incidents.134 4.3.1.5 Vulnerability Assessment All loss estimates for this active shooter vulnerability assessment are from Philadelphia’s 2014 and 2015 Threat and Hazard Risk Assessment. The largest impact of an active shooter is the loss of life and injuries caused by the event. The 2015 evaluations estimated that approximately 150 individuals would require triage and treatment in an active shooter scenario. In a worst-case scenario, deaths could reach 115 fatalities.135 As a result, local hospitals and medical services would need to implement surge procedures and disaster plans, and request additional resources. Ibid. Image: “A Study of 160 Active Shooter Incidents in the United States Between 2000-2013: Incidents Annually”. A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States Between 2000 and 2013. Federal Bureau of Investigation. September 2014. Retrieved January 29, 2016. 135 2015 City of Philadelphia Threat and Hazard Risk Assessment. 133 134 93 An active shooter scenario would have minimal impact to city infrastructure. Ingress and egress routes would close around the immediate area of the event, except to allow first responders priority access to victims. Economic impacts resulting from an active shooter scenario are minimal, with only short-term economic disruption occurring in the area due to transportation corridor closures. 94 4.3.2 Drought Drought is a natural climatic condition which occurs in virtually all climates, the consequence of a natural reduction in the amount of precipitation experienced over a long period of time, usually a season or more in length. High temperatures, prolonged winds, and low relative humidity can exacerbate the severity of drought. Such imbalances can cause problems, including crop damage and water supply shortages. The severity of the drought depends on the degree of moisture deficiency, the size of the affected area, and the duration of the drought. There are four types of droughts136: Meteorological Hydrological Agricultural Socioeconomic Meteorological droughts occur when dry weather patterns dominate a region. Hydrological droughts typically follow prolonged meteorological droughts and occur when water supplies become meaurably lower in streams, resevoirs and ground water levels. Agricultural droughts occur when a lack of water and moisture in the soil adversely affect agricultural crops. Socioeconomic droughts happen when the supply and demand of certain goods and services, such as drinking water, food, and enegy, are threatened or reduced by drought conditions. The two types of drought of most concern to Philadelphia are hydrological drought and socioeconomic drought. 4.3.2.1 Location As regional climatic events, droughts can affect many counties to varying degrees throughout the region. In rural counties surrounding Philadelphia, for example, droughts affect agriculture and water supply. In Philadelphia, droughts primarily affect water supply for water use activities, such as pool filling and landscaping. The Philadelphia Water Department in coordination with Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) closely monitor drinking water levels and quality during times of drought. The actions of the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC), neighboring states, federally and privately owned reservoirs work together to prevent severe declines in the rivers that Philadelphia and other municipalities use as drinking water supplies. The agricultural land in Philadelphia is not immune to the effects of a drought. However, only about 60 acres of land in Philadelphia is for agricultural purposes.137 136 137 National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC). Types of Drought. Retrieved 23 January 2012. Vitiello, D, Nairn, M.; Community Gardening in Philadelphia, 2008 Harvest Report. October 2009 95 4.3.2.2 Magnitude Droughts are normal meteorological occurrences that result from natural decreases in precipitation over prolonged periods, usually a season or more. Most droughts cause direct impacts to aquatic resources. High temperatures, sustained winds, and low relative humidity may exacerbate the severity of a drought. 138 The Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA), with direct support from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), monitors Pennsylvania’s water resources during droughts with the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PSDI). The PSDI uses temperature and precipitation data to calculate water supply and demand. The numerical value assigned under the PSDI reflects this data, with zero being normal, a negative number implying drought conditions, and a positive number implying moist conditions. The table below details the PDSI: Palmer Drought Severity Index Extreme Drought Severe Drought Moderate Drought Near Normal Unusual Moist Spell Very Moist Spell Extremely Moist -4.0 or less -3.0 to -3.9 -2.0 to 2.9 -1.9 to +1.9 +2.0 to +2.9 +3.0 to +3.9 +4.0 and above Image: Brian Rademaekers. The lack of rain in May led to wilted and stunted plants in this Chestnut Hill garden”. Philly Watersheds – Philadelphia Water Department. Retrieved January 15, 2016. 138 96 4.3.2.2.1 Phases PADEP and PEMA qualify drought using the drought phase conditions watch, warning, and emergency. Agencies use these indicators to identify, on a county basis, the overall water supply conditions. While some of the indicators can help identify meteorological, agricultural, and other types of droughts, the primary objective is to identify and manage hydrological droughts. The chart below describes the drought phases in order of increasing severity.139 Drought Phase Conditions Drought Watch A drought watch alerts government agencies, public water suppliers, water users, and the public of the potential for future drought-related problems. The watch triggers increased monitoring, awareness, and preparation for response if conditions worsen. The issuing agency may request voluntary water conservation to manage water in the affected areas. Due to varying conditions, individual water suppliers or municipalities may ask for more stringent conservation actions. The Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) classifies a drought watch as a “moderate” drought. Drought Warning A drought warning involves a coordinated response to imminent drought conditions and potential water supply shortages through concerted voluntary conservation measures. The objective of voluntary water conservation measures during a drought warning is to reduce overall water uses by 10-15 percent in the affected areas. Due to varying conditions, individual water suppliers or municipalities may request more stringent conservation actions. The PDSI classifies a drought warning as a “severe” drought. Drought Emergency A drought emergency is a phase of concerted management operations to marshal all available resources to respond to actual emergency conditions. Operations aim to avoid depletion of water sources, to assure at least minimum water supplies to protect public health and safety, and to support essential and high priority water uses. Mandatory restrictions on nonessential water uses (as defined in the Pennsylvania Code, Chapter 119), may be ordered by the Governor. The objective of water use restrictions is to reduce consumptive water use in the affected area by 15 percent. The PDSI classifies a drought emergency as an “extreme” drought. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Managing Drought in Pennsylvania. Retrieved 2 November 2011. 139 97 4.3.2.2.2 Worst-case Scenario The following worst-case scenario is based on droughts experienced in Philadelphia in 1960, 2002, 2005, and 2010.140 In mid-September, a hot dry spell affects northeastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Over a four-month period, the average flow of the Delaware River is one quarter the long-term average flow. The salt front advances up the estuary as far as the Benjamin Franklin Bridge, affecting regional water intakes. Unusually high salinities stresses shellfish production. The supply of groundwater dwindles, and the monthly precipitation falls to half an inch. The Governor declares a drought emergency and requires residents to conserve water by 15 percent. Those found in noncompliance face penalties for violating regulations. The Fire Department suspends pump testing and water training. The heat and lack of water affect regional food supplies, causing damages to temperature-sensitive plants such as lettuce, parsley, cabbage, leeks, and arugula. Tomatoes, peppers, beans, and squash plants blister. Milk production is down due to stress on cows. Tree leaves begin to show signs of scorching along their edges, and dogwoods and maples show signs of water stress. 4.3.2.2.3 Environmental Impacts Drought affects the environment in numerous ways. Depending on the severity of the drought, varying degrees of environmental effects can occur. Some impacts can last a short period, while others can last years if the drought is severe enough. The lack of water during a drought can cause the loss or destruction of wildlife habitats, in both waterways, green spaces, and a shortage of food and water for wild animals, as well as an increase in disease in wild animals due to food and water supply reductions. Longer-term droughts may cause wildlife to migrate to better-stocked areas, and as depicted in the scenario above, may cause the salt front to advance up the estuary and affect the area’s water intake from the Delaware River. A drier environment increases the risk for brush fires in the area. Erosion can also occur because of very dry soil, as winds can pick up and carry away the topsoil. Erosion, as well as the lack of water and nutrients, can also reduce soil quality. 4.3.2.2.4 Response Techniques Local Water Rationing: Local municipalities, with the approval of the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Council, may implement local water rationing to share a The droughts of 1960, 2002, 2005, and 2010 encompass droughts that had a large impact on the City of Philadelphia. Narratives and detailed descriptions on droughts are limited prior to 1949. 140 98 rapidly dwindling or severely depleted water supply in designated water supply service areas. Water rationing plans, authorized through provisions of the Pennsylvania Code (Chapter 120), would require specific limits on individual water consumption to achieve significant reductions in use. 141 Philadelphia Water Department Drought Emergency Restrictions: In the event a drought emergency occurs in Philadelphia, the Philadelphia Water Department (PWD) has developed mandatory water use restrictions to conserve water resources. Throughout a drought emergency, these restrictions make it illegal to: 142          Use water to clean personal, leased or rented vehicles, trailers, and boats by any means other than by bucket. Use water to clean sidewalks, streets or gutters, unless determined to be necessary for public health and safety. Use water for ornamental purposes, like fountains, waterfalls, and reflecting pools. Water gardens, trees, shrubs, except between 5 p.m. and 9 a.m. and then only by a bucket, can, or hand-held hose equipped with an automatic shutoff nozzle. Water lawns at all, except newly seeded or sodded lawns, which may be watered between 5 p.m. and 9 a.m. by bucket, can, or hand-held hose equipped with an automatic shutoff nozzle; sprinklers are strictly prohibited. Fill residential swimming pools; (NOTE: The state has permitted water providers, depending on their supplies, to allow residential swimming pools to be filled.) Fill swimming pools serving at least 25 dwelling units such as hotels, motels, and apartment complexes, unless they have filtration equipment to allow for continued use and recycling of water over the swimming season. Fill swimming pools unless they are operated by health care facilities used in relation to patient care and rehabilitation. Serve water in restaurants, clubs or eating places, unless requested by an individual. 4.3.2.3 Past Occurrences The table below captures the 10 worst drought instances in Philadelphia’s recent history, with PSDI values where available. Drought conditions led to one Presidential Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Managing Drought in Pennsylvania. Retrieved 2 November 2011. 142 The Philadelphia Water Department. Philadelphia Water Department Outlines Drought Emergency Restrictions. Retrieved 7 November 2011. 141 99 and five Gubernatorial Declarations.143 144 The Drought Past Occurrences Annex encompasses a full list of declarations. Top Ten Drought Occurrences in Philadelphia Month and Year PSDI Monthly Value Ranges (where available) January 2002 to September 2002 -10.18 to -7.38 December 1998 to May 1999 -6.64 to -5.16 July 1999 -5.80 November 2001 to December 2001 -5.72 to -4.19 December 1965 to August 1965 -5.58 to -4.06 March 1992 to July 1992 -5.15 to -4.42 March 1969 to May 1969 -4.74 to -4.38 October 1964 to December 1964 -4.55 to -3.37 December 1965 to January 1966 -4.49 to -4.42 June 1966 to August 1966 -4.19 to -3.56 4.3.2.4 Future Occurrences It is difficult to forecast the severity and frequency of future drought events in Philadelphia. Occasional drought is a normal occurrence in virtually every climate in the PSDI Monthly Average 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 1941 143 144 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Drought Status. Retrieved 2011. Drought Risk Atlas. National Drought Mitigation Center. Retrieved January 14, 2016. 100 United States. There is a slight downward trend in PSDI over the past seven decades, indicating the possible increase in drought risk for the future. The graph below illustrates these trends. 4.3.2.5 Vulnerability Assessment The impact of a drought depends not only on its severity, duration, and spatial extent, but also on ever-changing social conditions. A wide-range of factors, both physical and social, determines vulnerability to drought. According to the 2013 Pennsylvania Hazard Mitigation Plan, Philadelphia has an estimated 262 acres of farmland in the city.145 The USDA estimates that economic losses resulting from drought impact on agricultural production for Philadelphia’s farmland is approximately $487,000.146 Reduced water levels and subsequent curtailment of water usage will have a direct economic impact on businesses and industries that are water-dependent. The indirect impacts associated with drought are far-reaching but so diffuse that financial estimates of potential damages are not feasible. “Drought: Jurisdictional Loss Estimation”. 2013 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania State Standard AllHazard Mitigation Plan. 146 “Table 4.3.2-10: Estimated jurisdictional losses relating to agricultural production”. USDA, Census of Agriculture, 2007. 2013 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania State Standard All-Hazard Mitigation Plan. 145 101 4.3.3 Earthquakes An earthquake is the motion or trembling of the ground produced by sudden displacement of rock usually within the upper 10-20 miles of the Earth's crust. Earthquakes result from crustal strain, volcanism, landslides, or the collapse of underground caverns. An earthquake’s severity depends on the amount of energy released from the fault or epicenter. The image below depicts how an earthquake feels and spreads. In this image, the focus is the point within the earth where an earthquake rupture starts; the epicenter is the point directly above the focus at the surface of the earth; and a body wave is a seismic wave that moves through the interior of the earth, as opposed to surface waves that travel near the earth's surface.147 148 According to the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, more than 90 percent of earthquakes occur at boundaries where the earth’s tectonic plates converge, though it is possible for earthquakes to occur within plates. As plates continue to move and plate boundaries change over geologic time, weakened boundary regions become part of the interior of the plates. These zones of weakness within the continents cause earthquakes in response to stresses that originate at the edges of the plate or in the deeper crust. 149 4.3.3.1 Location Philadelphia is located within the North American plate, far from the plate boundary located approximately 2,000 miles east in the Atlantic Ocean. Due to zones of USGS. Earthquake Glossary. Retrieved 6 October 2015. Image: FEMA. Earthquake Description. 2001. Retrieved January 15, 2016. 149 United States Geological Survey (USGS). Earthquakes and Plate Tectonics. Retrieved 15 November 2011. 147 148 102 weakness or deep fault lines within the North American plate, earthquakes are a possible hazard within Philadelphia. East of the Rocky Mountains earthquake faults do not break the ground surface. Their focuses are a few miles below the Earth’s surface and their locations are determined by interpreting seismographic records. The closest fault to Philadelphia is the Ramapo Fault that is part of a system of northeast striking, southeast-dipping faults. These faults occur from southeastern New York to eastern Pennsylvania and beyond. The Ramapo Fault and its series were active at different times during the evolution of the Appalachians approximately 200 million years ago.150 151 Soil type can have an impact on the severity of an earthquake at a given location because some rock types transmit seismic wave energy more readily. Seismic waves propagate out from the earthquake epicenter and travel outward through the bedrock up into the soil layers. A soil’s firmness affects the wave speed and velocity. Generally, in a stiff or hard soil, the wave will travel at a higher velocity. With soft soils, the wave will slow, traveling at lower velocities. Slower waves modify the seismic energy, resulting in waves with greater amplitude, which results in greater earthquake damage. Some soils can liquefy when saturated.152 When liquefaction occurs, the strength of the soil decreases and, the ability of a soil to support structural foundations reduces.153 The National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) Soil Classification System describes how soils affect seismic waves. The soil classification system ranges from A to E, where A represents hard rock that reduces ground motions from an Columbia University. Earthquakes and the Ramapo Fault System in Southeastern New York. Retrieved 21 February 2012. 151 Ramapo Fault, USGS, Retrieved 13 October 2015. 152 The Encyclopedia of Earth. Earthquake. Retrieved 16 November 2011. 153 The transformation of loose sediment or soil into a fluid state as a result of increasing the pressure of the fluid in between the grains due to strong ground shaking. Liquefaction typically occurs in poorly consolidated, water-saturated sediment. Liquefaction can cause significant earthquake-related damage because structures located on ground that liquefies can collapse or sink into the ground. 150 103 earthquake and E represents soft soils that amplify and magnify ground shaking and increase building damage and losses.154 EHRP Soil Classifications Soil Classification Description A Very hard rock (e.g., granite, gneisses) B Sedimentary rock or firm ground C Stiff clay D Soft to medium clays or sands E Soft soil including fill, loose sand, waterfront, lake bed clays Philadelphia has a variety of soil types, including siltstone, shale, sandstone, limestone, claystone, coal, granite, and phyllite. Most of Philadelphia is classified as Class D (soft to medium clays or sands), and Class B (sedimentary rock or firm ground), with small amounts of Class A (very hard rock), and Class E (soft soils). The image on the following page shows the breakdown of Philadelphia by rock type.155 Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA Region II Hazard Mitigation Plan Toolkit: Risk Assessment. Retrieved 12 November 2011. 155 “County Rock Type Maps of Pennsylvania: Philadelphia”. PA DCNR. Retrieved March 23, 2016. 154 104 Damn PHILADELPHIA COUNTY Streamomver 1. Dim (If present) mum: bomdary we? see: WkW-m i"8,meemne - 2, Light aystaline rocks 6. Unconsolidated sediments? - 9, Dolomite - 3, Schist' - 7, Red sedimentary rocks? - 11. Limestone or dolomite' 105 4.3.3.2 Magnitude The severity of an earthquake depends on the amount of energy released at the epicenter, the distance from the epicenter, and the underlying soil type. The United State Geological Survey (USGS) relies on specific measurement tools to account for magnitude and intensity, and describe the overall severity of an earthquake. Magnitude refers to the energy released at the source of the earthquake. The Richter scale, an open-ended logarithmic scale, measures the magnitude of earthquakes. Since it is logarithmic, each higher number on the Richter scale represents a tenfold increase in the magnitude of the tremors, and a thirtyfold increase in the energy released. A twopoint quake is barely noticeable while an 8.0 quake can cause serious damage across a large area. According to PEMA, earthquakes in Pennsylvania historically do not exceed a 6.0 magnitude. Richter Scale Magnitudes & Associated Effects156 Richter Magnitudes Less than 3.5 Earthquake Effects 3.5 - 5.4 Often felt, but rarely causes damage. 5.5 - 6.0 At most, slight damage to well-designed buildings; can cause major damage to poorly constructed buildings over small regions. Can be destructive up to about 100 kilometers from epicenter. 6.1 - 6.9 7.0 - 7.9 8.0 or greater Generally not felt, but recorded. Major earthquake; can cause serious damage over large areas. Great earthquake; can cause serious damage in areas several hundred kilometers across. Intensity refers to the strength of shaking produced by the earthquake at a certain location.157 It considers the effects earthquakes have on people, human structures, and the natural environment. The Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale measures intensity. Intensity measurements provide insights to the amount of damage caused by an earthquake. The table on the following page describes the MMI Scale. “Table 4.3.3-1 Richter scale magnitudes and associated earthquake size effects”. Pennsylvania 2013 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Retrieved March 23, 2016. 157 United States Geological Survey (USGS). Earthquake Hazard Program: Earthquake Facts. Retrieved 15 November 2011. 156 106 Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale1 1 Scale Intensity Description of Effects I Instrumental II Feeble Detected only by seismographs Some people feel it III Slight IV Moderate V Slightly Strong VI Strong VII Very Strong VIII Destructive IX Ruinous X Disastrous XI Very Disastrous Corresponding Richter Scale Magnitude <4.2 <4.2 Felt by people resting; like a truck rumbling by Felt by people walking <4.2 Sleepers awake; church bells ring Trees sway; suspended objects swing; objects fall off shelves Mild alarm; walls crack; plaster falls <4.8 Moving cars uncontrollable; masonry fractures; poorly constructed building damaged Some houses collapse: ground cracks; pipes break open Ground cracks profusely; many buildings destroyed; liquefaction and landslides widespread Most buildings and bridges collapse; roads, railways, pipes, and cables destroyed; general triggering of other hazards <6.9 <4.2 <5.4 <6.1 <6.9 <7.3 <8.1 107 XII Catastrophic Total destruction; trees fall; ground rises and falls in waves >8.1 The USGS further evaluates the intensity of earthquakes through Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) and Spectral Acceleration (SA)158. PGA expresses the severity of an earthquake and measures how hard the earth shakes or accelerates in a given geographic area. The map below shows the probability of shaking in Pennsylvania over a 50-year period. As seen in the map, Philadelphia falls largely within the 10 to 14 percent range, with a small portion of the City falling into the 8 to 10 percent range.159 This means that for the majority of Philadelphia, there is a two percent risk that the City will experience and earthquake with 10 and 14 percent-g. This range implies the City would feel strong perceived shaking, but experience only light damages. Additional information distinguishing Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) and Spectral Acceleration (SA) is available at USGS: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/about/technical.php. 159 USGS. 2014 Seismic Hazard Map. Retrieved December 4, 2015. 158 108 Spectral association (SA) determines approximately what a building experiences during an earthquake, and a better indicator of damage for specific building types and heights than PGA, which models what a particle on the ground experiences.160 Both PGA and SA can be measured in g (the acceleration of gravity), or expressed as a percent acceleration force of gravity (%g). 161 The chart below provides the approximate equivalents MMI for each range of PGA. MMI I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII MMI/PGA Equivalents Chart162 Acceleration (%g) Perceived Shaking Potential Damage (PGA) <.17 Not felt None .17 - 1.4 Weak None .17 - 1.4 Weak None 1.4 - 3.9 Light None 3.9 - 9.2 Moderate Very Light 9.2 - 18 Strong Light 18 - 34 Very Strong Moderate 34 - 65 Severe Moderate to Heavy 65 - 124 Violent Heavy >124 Extreme Very Heavy >124 Extreme Very Heavy >124 Extreme Very Heavy 4.3.3.2.1 Worst-case Scenario The following worst-case scenario is derived from analysis of the earthquakes experienced in the Philadelphia region, as well as PA DCNR information and risk analysis for the region. Around 7PM on a September weekday, an earthquake measuring V. Moderate on the MMI scale shakes the greater Philadelphia region. Homes shake, with almost everyone in the city able to feel the equivalent of a heavy truck hitting a building. Cracked plaster and some broken windows occur throughout the City. Household contents shift and fall, Ibid United States Geological Survey. What do the ground-motion parameters on these maps mean? Retrieved 1 December 2011. 162 “Approximate Relationship between MMI and PGA”. 2014 New York City Hazard Mitigation Plan. Retrieved April 13, 2016. 160 161 109 and some unsecured furniture overturn. Slight damage occurs in some well-built houses with a few instances of fallen plaster. Poorly constructed or maintained homes exhibit some damage, such as cracks in the masonry. Stopped vehicles noticeably move. The 9-1-1 call center quickly becomes overwhelmed with calls from concerned citizens. 4.3.3.2.2 Environmental Impacts More severe earthquakes can result in subsidence, soil liquefactions, and landslides. The sections below explore each of these results and their respective environmental impacts. Subsidence Earthquakes can result in subsidence, which is the gradual caving in or sinking of an area of land. Subsidence can result from the ground shaking, which causes looser sediment to “settle” and lose bearing strength.163 Subsidence can affect a large area, and can permanently shift flooding patterns if the land sinks far enough, or if the subsidence occurs near a body of water. Soil Liquefactions Earthquakes generate a large amount of pressure on soil and sand. Saturated or partially saturated soil may lose strength and stiffness, causing it to act like a liquid. Soil liquefaction can affect trees and plants, causing felled trees and damaged habitats. Landslides Earthquakes can shift or add loads to an existing slope, resulting in a landslide. Philadelphia is more prone to shallow landslides, which include debris flows, debris slides, and failures of roads in cut-slopes. Shallow landslides often result where there is an existing slope on permeable soil. Upper soil fills with water and becomes heavy, creating pressure on wet lower soil. As the pressure increases, slopes can become unstable, resulting in top soil sliding over lower soil. Landslides can wipe out areas of plant life, as well as increase the level of sediment in a waterway if the landslide flows into a waterway. 4.3.3.3 Past Occurrences Based on seismic records, thousands of earthquakes have occurred in Pennsylvania over the past few centuries. Many earthquakes are so slight that they go largely unnoticed by the general population. The tables below list the top ten earthquakes that have occurred in or around Southeast Pennsylvania. The United States Geological Survey keeps an active and up-to-date record of earthquakes around the nation. For a 163 Earthquake Hazards. GNS Science. Retrieved January 28, 2016. 110 full list of those earthquakes with epicenters in or around Southeast Pennsylvania, visit the Past Occurrences of Earthquakes in or around Southeast Pennsylvania Annex. Top Ten Earthquakes by Magnitude Date Location Magnitude Intensity 10/9/1871 Deepwater, NJ 4.1 VII 2/28/1973 Penns Grove, NJ 3.8 V-VI 11/15/1939 Folsom, NJ 3.8 V 12/17/1752 Sadsburyville, PA 3.6 IV 3/5/1980 Abington, PA 3.5 IV 1/26/1926 Cinnaminson, NJ 3.5 N/A 4/28/1974 Centerville, DE 3.3 IV 7/10/1973 Newark, DE 3.3 IV 8/14/1972 Wilmington, DE 3.3 IV 12/29/1971 Wilmington, DE 3.3 IV Top Ten Earthquakes by Intensity Date Location Magnitude Intensity 10/9/1871 Deepwater, NJ 4.1 VII 2/10/1977 Wilmington, DE 2.6 VI 3/11/1975 Wilmington, DE 2 VI 2/28/1973 Penns Grove, NJ 3.8 V-VI 11/15/1939 Folsom, NJ 3.8 V 12/27/1961 Croyden Heights, PA 3.3 V 1/26/1921 Cinnaminson, NJ 3.3 V 2/11/1972 Wilmington, DE 3.2 V 1/8/1944 Bellefonte, DE 3.2 V 12/10/1968 Medford, NJ 3 V 111 The epicenter of an earthquake does not need to be within a close distance of Philadelphia for the city to experience its effects. On August 23, 2011 a magnitude 5.8 earthquake centered northwest of Richmond, VA, shook most of the East Coast, including Philadelphia. Numerous buildings in Center City Philadelphia evacuated as a precaution (this is not the recommended course of action during an earthquake), and many people around the region reported feeling structures shake. The image below depicts the intensity of the August 23, 2011 earthquake.164 164 Image: USGS. Intensity Map. Retrieved 2011. 112 4.3.3.4 Future Occurrences Though the Eastern United States experiences far fewer moderate or large magnitude earthquakes than the Pacific Coast, which sits directly on an active tectonic plate boundary, this does not mean the area is immune to such a hazard. A few very large and very damaging earthquakes have occurred in stable continental regions like the one Philadelphia lies within. The table below demonstrates the probabilities associated with higher magnitude earthquakes in or around 50 km of Philadelphia, using the most recent USGS calculations from 2009. Earthquake Probability Within the Next 100yr: 50 km vicinity of Philadelphia165 166 Magnitude Probability Magnitude Probability 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 2.957% 2.402% 2.402% 1.954% 1.592% 1.301% 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 0.342% 0.269% 0.229% 0.208% 0.153% 0.123% 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 1.209% 0.992% 0.877% 0.725% 0.677% 0.545% 0.472% 0.373% 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 0.106% 0.067% 0.046% 0.035% 0.015% 0.002% 0.001% Data limitations exist in the data used by USGS to create this probability. No data for earthquakes after 2006 are included in calculations. The USGS tool utilized states that the tool will underestimate the probability because it is based on the 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps. 166 2009 Earthquake Probability Mapping. USGS. Retrieved December 11, 2015. 165 113 4.3.3.5 Vulnerability Assessment A strong earthquake with an epicenter located in downtown, though a low probability would cause extensive critical services disruptions, financial losses, and casualties. The following list of earthquake-induced impacts either directly or indirectly would affect Philadelphia’s economy, environment, and residents. Earthquake Impacts Economy ▪ Damage/destruction of infrastructure ▪ Disruption of transportation systems ▪ Disruption of communication systems ▪ Disruption of utility systems ▪ Disruption of marketing systems ▪ Loss of business ▪ Loss of industrial output ▪ Higher insurance premiums ▪ Increased fire hazard ▪ Loss to tourism industry ▪ Reduction of economic development Environment ▪ Induced flooding ▪ Landslides/Mudslides ▪ Poor water quality ▪ Damage to vegetation ▪ Breakage in sewage or toxic material containments ▪ Breakage of gas mains ▪ Breakage of water mains ▪ Soil liquefaction ▪ Increased fire hazard People ▪ Loss of life, livelihoods, property ▪ Loss of housing ▪ Decrease in quality of life ▪ Break down of social order ▪ Disease ▪ Lack of basic necessities ▪ Increased fire hazard ▪ Loss in aesthetic values ▪ Increased poverty 114 The table below summarizes earthquake losses for Philadelphia predicted by a HAZUS analysis run in April 2016. HAZUS, in its most up to date form, analyzes population and building data provided in the 2010 Census data. The table also includes analyses from the Pennsylvania 2013 Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) and 2012 Philadelphia Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) for comparison. As shown in the divergence in the 2012 Philadelphia HMP model and the 2013 PEMA HMP Model, the Hazus-MH modeling used in the 2012 plan resulted in much lower damages than both the 2017 and 2013 models. The 2017 Philadelphia modeling produced numbers much closer to those of the 2013 PEMA model, potentially due to more accurate data used for modeling and updated Hazus-MH software. Earthquake Impacts Buildings at Least Moderately Damaged Buildings Damaged Beyond Repair Economic Losses for Buildings – Including Capital and Income Losses (Millions) Shelter Requirement Injury Estimates (2AM) Casualty Estimates (2AM) 2017 Philadelphia HMP Model 2013 PEMA HMP Model 2012 Philadelphia HMP Model 120,147 157,484 37,980 9,908 7,428 873 $23,377.88 $20,547.92 $6,321.69 18,861 1,548 372 9,695 25 1 2,237 1,375 41 The image below shows the distribution of potential total economic losses for the HAZUS scenario. According to the HAZUS model, the densely populated area of Center City Philadelphia would incur the largest economic losses. 115 Below is a full overview of the HAZUS-MH Loss Estimation for the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Planners used HAZUS loss estimation methodology software to estimate impacts contained in this overview. There are uncertainties inherent in any loss estimation technique. Therefore, there may be discrepancies between these numbers and the results of an actual earthquake event. Earthquake Information Magnitude: Epicenter Latitude/Longitude: Depth: Type: Maximum PGA: Ground Motion/Attenuation: 5 39.99 / -75.11 10 feet Arbitrary 1.00 Central & East US (CEUS 2008) Estimated Economic Loss ($ Billions) Category Description Range General Building Stock Building Damage 7.00-28.10 Building Contents 0.40-1.60 Business Interruption 2.20-8.70 Infrastructure Lifelines Damage Total 11.70-46.80 Estimated Building Damage (Thousands of Buildings) Description Residential Commercial Other Total Minor 100-400 6-30 2-9 110-500 Major 17-70 2-10 1-3 20-80 Total 120-500 9-40 3-12 130-500 Estimated Casualties: Night Time Severity Level Description # Persons Level 1 Medical Aid 3,000-12,000 Level 2 Hospital Care 700-3000 Level 3 Life-threatening 90-400 Level 4 Fatalities 190-700 Estimated Shelter Needs Type Households People Displaced Households 12,000-50,000 30,000-125,000 Public Shelter 7,544 18,861 116 4.3.4 Extreme Cold Extreme cold events are days where the mean daily temperature, the average between the high-recorded temperature and the low-recorded temperature over a 24-hour period, falls below 32°F. In Philadelphia, extremely cold temperatures often accompany a winter storm, which can bring snow and ice. Prolonged exposure to cold temperatures, whether indoors or outside, can lead to serious or life-threatening health problems, such as hypothermia, cold stress, frostbite, or freezing of exposed extremities. Extreme cold can cause emergencies in susceptible populations, including those without shelter, or those who live in a poorly insulated home, or a home without heat. Infants and the elderly are particularly at risk, but extremely cold temperatures can affect anyone.167 168 4.3.4.1 Location Located about 60 miles from the Atlantic Ocean, Philadelphia generally experiences warm summers and mild winters. Extreme temperature events typically affect all neighborhoods within Philadelphia, making them equally subject to the impacts of these events. Cold artic air masses can move down from Canada during winter months bringing frigid temperatures to the region for an extended period. A Polar Vortex—large pockets of very cold air in the northern polar region—can move into the Philadelphia region when the vortex is pushed farther south by a powerful high-pressure system in the Eastern or Western Pacific. A Polar Vortex can deliver below-zero temperatures for extended periods until it moves back 169 above the pole. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Emergency Preparedness and Response Extreme Cold: A Prevention Guide to Promote Your Personal Health and Safety. Retrieved December 7, 2011. 168 Image: Frozen Schuylkill River, Philadelphia 2014" by Shuvaev - Own work. Licensed under CC BYSA 3.0 via Commons. Retrieved December 28, 2015. 169 Image: Accuweather. Polar Vortex. Retrieved December 1, 2015. 167 117 4.3.4.2 Magnitude The Wind Chill Temperature Index for extreme cold measures the severity or magnitude of extreme temperatures. Whenever temperatures drop well below normal, and wind speed increases, heat leaves a body rapidly. NWS has developed a wind chill chart depicting apparent temperature felt on exposed skin due to the combination of air temperature and wind speed.170 170 Image: NWS Wind chill Chart. National Weather Service. Retrieved January 29, 2016. 118 When conditions warrant, NWS issues wind chill watches, advisories, and warnings. The table below describes the criteria for these weather products. NWS Wind Chill Products171 Product Description Wind Chill Watch Conditions are favorable for wind chill temperatures to meet or exceed local wind chill warning criteria in the next 24 to 72 hours. Wind chill temperatures may reach or exceed 25°F. Wind Chill Advisory Wind chill temperatures are expected to meet or exceed local wind chill advisory criteria in the next 12 to 36 hours. Wind chill temperatures may reach or exceed -15°F. Wind Chill Warning Wind chill temperatures are expected to meet or exceed local wind chill warning criteria in the next 12 to 36 hours. Wind chill temperatures may reach or exceed -25°F. National Weather Service Expanded Winter Weather Terminology. National Weather Service. Retrieved January 29, 2016. 171 119 4.3.4.2.1 Common Extreme Temperature Health Concerns The table below describes the heath-related illness and health concerns associated with extreme cold temperatures. Cold Related Illnesses/Health Concerns Illness/Health Concern Frostbite Hypothermia Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Exacerbation of Pre-Existing Respiratory Conditions Description Frostbite is the most common injury caused by exposure to cold. Before the onset of frostbite, exposed skin may become slightly flushed, pink in color, then change to white or yellow as the condition develops. Pain sometimes occurs, followed by a feeling of intense cold and numbness. In cases of severe frostbite, large blisters appear on and beneath the skin. The affected area is hard, cold and without sensation. Hypothermia is the rapid and progressive physical and mental collapse that results from a loss of body heat. Hypothermia occurs from a combination of cold, exhaustion, wind chill and moisture. Hypothermia can occur in above freezing (32º F) temperatures, and symptoms include uncontrollable shivering, drowsiness or exhaustion, slurred speech, fumbling or staggering, and lack of concern for physical well-being. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, non-irritating, toxic gas that is undetectable without a monitoring device. Sources of carbon monoxide poisoning include heating systems and any appliance that burns fuel, such as poorly ventilated gas ranges and kerosene space heaters. Automobile exhaust fumes are another source of carbon monoxide. The risk of CO exposure increases in the winter because windows and doors are shut tight, trapping gases inside. Cold air constricts soft tissue of the respiratory tract. Thus, individuals with a history of respiratory ailments, such as asthma, emphysema, chronic bronchitis are particularly susceptible to a worsening of their conditions. Death 120 4.3.4.2.2 Climate Change According to the Environmental Protection Agency, “climate change refers to any significant change in the measures of climate lasting for an extended period of time”172. Changes include major deviations in temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, among other fluctuations, that occur over several decades or longer.173 The EPA states that the Earth's average temperature has risen by 1.5°F over the past century174. The EPA also projects that the planet’s temperature will rise another 0.5 to 8.6°F over the next hundred years175. These seemingly small changes can translate to large and potentially dangerous shifts in climate and weather. Climate data project changes in the average winter temperature to be greater than changes in average summer temperature.176 The most extreme scenarios show a 9.3°F increase by 2081-2099, with more conservative models projecting a 2.5°F to 4°F increase in the winter months.177 The Mayor’s Office of Sustainability conducted an analysis in 2015, tracking annual temperature trends for Philadelphia from 1948 to 2014. The image below shows the upward trend resulting from this analysis.178 Environmental Protection Agency. Glossary. Retrieved 5 October 2015. Ibid. 174 Environmental Protection Agency. Climate Change: Basic Information. Retrieved 6 October 2015. 175 Ibid. 176 Useful Climate Science for Philadelphia. ICF International. Mayor’s Office of Sustainability. Retrieved December 9, 2015. 177 Useful Climate Science for Philadelphia. ICF International. Mayor’s Office of Sustainability. Retrieved December 9, 2015. 178 Mayor’s Office of Sustainability and ICF International. Growing Stronger: Toward a Climate-Ready Philadelphia. November 2015. Retrieved January 12, 2016. 172 173 121 4.3.4.2.3 Worst-case Scenario The following scenario is a hypothetical worst-case scenario that uses trends in temperature and gas/electricity consumption in combination with occurrences from real extreme cold events from 2015, 2007, and 2000 in Philadelphia. An arctic air mass that originated near the North Pole moves down into Eastern Pennsylvania in mid-January. Temperatures drop into the single digits, and combined with gusty northwest winds, wind chills fall to 15 below zero for the next few mornings. Many pipes freeze across the region. Two large water mains burst in Center City, flooding basements in the area and creating localized icy situations. The Fire Department experiences difficulties in battling blazes in these conditions. The City declares a Code Blue, expanding homeless shelter capacity and extending additional assistance. Schools close for two days, and delay openings during the most extreme temperatures. PECO experiences a new winter usage record for electricity consumption. PGW sets a new consumer gas usage record city-wide. 4.3.4.2.4 Environmental Impacts Extreme cold affects growing season of plants, particularly when frost and freeze events occur early or late in growing seasons. Absolute temperature and duration of extreme cold can have detrimental effects on trees and winter crops as well. Extreme cold events can also negatively affect pets and other animals not suited for colder temperatures. Extreme cold events, when longer term, can cause water in and along waterways to freeze. During the spring and early winter, there is the risk that these ice bodies can break free and float into the river creating an ice floe. Ice floes can create ice jams on the river, potentially causing flooding and affecting turbidity and flow of the waterway. 4.3.4.3 Past Occurrences Since the 2012 update of the Hazard Mitigation Plan, Philadelphia has seen 207 days where the daily average temperature was below 32 degrees.179 In late 2013, and early 2014 and 2016, Philadelphia experienced the effects of a polar vortex, sending temperatures into single digits for three consecutive days. Philadelphia has never experienced temperatures remaining below zero for longer than a 24-hour period, but 179 NOWData. NOAA Online Weather Data. Retrieved December 7, 2015. 122 single-digit temperatures have persisted through a 24-hour period on 12 different occasions.180 The tables below show the coldest days recorded in Philadelphia, followed by the longest freezing streaks in Philadelphia. Top Ten Coldest Days on Record in Philadelphia181 Low Low Date Date Temperature (°F) Temperature (°F) Feb 9, 1934 -11 Jan 21, 1985 -6 Jan 17, 1982 -7 Jan 10, 1875 -5 Jan 22, 1984 -7 Dec 30, 1880 -5 Feb 10, 1899 -6 Jan 29, 1963 -5 Feb 11, 1899 -6 Jan 19, 1994 -5 Top Ten Longest Freezing Streaks in Philadelphia182 Number of Days Dates 15 Feb. 6 to, Feb. 19, 1979 15 Jan. 19 to, Feb. 2, 1961 13 Jan. 10 to, Jan. 22, 1893 12 Jan. 23 to, Feb. 3, 1936 12 Feb. 3 to, Feb. 14, 1895 11 Jan. 8 to, Jan. 18, 1981 11 Dec. 21 to, Dec. 31, 1935 10 Dec. 16 to, Dec. 25, 1989 10 Jan. 10 to, Jan. 19, 1982 10 Dec. 7 to, Dec. 16, 1958 4.3.4.4 Future Occurrences Currently, several extreme cold temperature events occur each year in Philadelphia. Warming trends related to climate change may cause these extreme cold events to decrease in frequency. Climate warming trends vary by the model used, but all predict an increase in temperature. Several climate models forecast that changes in the average winter temperature will be greater than changes in average summer temperature.183 The extreme scenarios show a 9.3°F increase by 2081-2099 during winter months, with more conservative models showing a 2.5°F to 4°F increase in the NOWData – NOAA Online Weather Data. National Weather Service Forecast Office: Philadelphia/Mount Holly. Retrieved December 8, 2015. 181 Nese, Swartz, 2002. 182 NOWData – NOAA Online Weather Data. National Weather Service Forecast Office: Philadelphia/Mount Holly. Retrieved December 8, 2015. 183 Useful Climate Science for Philadelphia. ICF International. Mayor’s Office of Sustainability. Retrieved December 9, 2015. 180 123 winter months.184 Climate science data project that Philadelphia will experience more frequent and intense precipitation events, including snow events. Increasing precipitation in winter has several effects detailed in the Winter Storms hazard profile of this document. 4.3.4.5 Vulnerability Assessment Though extreme temperatures generally occur over a short period of time, they can cause a range of impacts to humans, animals, and infrastructure. The most impacted populations in extreme temperatures include vulnerable populations with little or no access to adequate cooling or heating, such as those groups listed as most affected by extreme heat scenarios. During periods of extreme cold, inadequate protection from the harsh temperatures is extremely dangerous to individuals. Subsequently, Philadelphia’s homeless population is especially vulnerable. The City of Philadelphia plans for extreme weather, including extreme cold events that takes into consideration outreach strategies to the homeless population. A portion of Philadelphia’s utility infrastructure is susceptible to extreme temperatures. Frozen pipes can create service interruptions in water, drainage, and gas supply. In addition, water intakes in Philadelphia can freeze, slowing operations. Following an extreme cold event, there is often an increase in water main breaks and gas main breaks. Water or gas expands following a cold period, sometimes cracking or rupturing the line. Unlike other natural hazards, extreme temperatures have limited physical destructive force. Economic losses can be observed through the repairing of damaged infrastructure like roads and bridges following a freeze-thaw cycle associated with extreme cold scenarios. However, the primary concern associated with extreme temperatures is public health and safety. Fatalities caused by extreme temperatures rank the highest in the United States, with 6,660, or 63 percent, of all weather-related deaths resulting from exposure to excessive natural cold, hypothermia, or both. 185 The image below illustrates extreme cold temperature-related fatalities between 2006 and 2010 as they compare between different populations. In this graphic, Philadelphia would qualify as a “large central metro” in the Northeast.186 Useful Climate Science for Philadelphia. ICF International. Mayor’s Office of Sustainability. Retrieved December 9, 2015. 185 Deaths Attributed to Heat, Cold, and Other Weather Events in the United States, 2006–2010. Jeffrey Berko, M.P.H., Deborah D. Ingram, Ph.D., National Center for Health Statistics; Shubhayu Saha, Ph.D., National Center for Environmental Health; and Jennifer D. Parker, Ph.D., National Center for Health Statistics. National Health Statistics Reports, Number 26. Retrieved March 30, 2016. 186 Image: Ibid. 184 124 U1 Beams pat rnlinn population Cold-calmed daath rate? West ?West Nurthaast - South I I I I i Larga cantral Lama ?Indium Small Mimap-dllan Normal-a mm metro 125 4.3.5 Extreme Heat Extreme heat occurs when summertime temperatures hover 10 degrees or more above the average high temperature for a region, and lasts for several weeks. The National Weather Service defines a heat wave as a period of at least three days when the temperature reaches 90 degrees or higher. The term ‘heat wave’ applies to routine weather variations and to extraordinary spells of heat, which may occur only once a century. Individuals exposed to extreme heat for a prolonged time may experience serious health problems including heat cramps, heat stroke, heat exhaustion, and death. Seniors, young children, and those who have respiratory problems, or are overweight, are more likely to succumb to extreme heat than others are.187 Extreme heat events can also affect infrastructure. Heat can cause the buckling of roadways and bridges, affecting vehicular traffic. Hot weather can also cause rail expansion on rail lines, diverting both passenger and freight trains until repairs can occur. The denser air that comes with extreme heat events can effect air travel as well when temperatures reach above 118°F. 4.3.5.1 Location Extreme heat is often a regional event that can affect an area hundreds of miles long; therefore, all neighborhoods within Philadelphia are subject to the impacts of these events. Extreme heat in Philadelphia can exacerbate a phenomenon known as the urban heat-island effect. As urban areas develop, changes occur in their landscape. Buildings, roads, and other infrastructure replace open land and vegetation. Surfaces that were once permeable and moist become impermeable and dry. Impervious surfaces such as asphalt may release heat hours after the sun is down. These changes cause urban regions to become warmer than their rural surroundings, forming an "island" of higher temperatures in the landscape. Other by-products, such as exhaust fumes, burning furnaces, heating units, and smokestacks contribute to heat retention and entrapment. The image below depicts the variance in surface and air temperatures for both night and day in a spectrum of urban and rural locations. Note how the air temperature above the “Downtown” (urban) region does not vary much between day and night. This leaves little opportunity for the region to cool and can affect a community’s environment and quality of life.188 Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Emergency Preparedness and Response Extreme Heat: A Prevention Guide to Promote Your Personal Health and Safety. Retrieved 7 December 2011. 188 Image: Variance in Surface and Air Temperatures by Rural/Urban Location, EPA 2011. Retrieved January 29, 2016. 187 126 4.3.5.2 Magnitude The National Weather Service (NWS) generally measures extreme heat through the Heat Index. Conditions that induce extreme temperature-related illnesses include stagnant atmospheric conditions and poor air quality. This section, therefore, also discusses the air quality index and illnesses associated with extreme temperatures. Additionally, climate change will affect temperature trends in the future. This section also addresses climate change in order to take into considerations the affects climate change will have on temperature trends in the future. As identified by the NWS and NOAA, the Heat Index is the temperature the body feels when heat and humidity combine. Higher humidity plus higher temperatures often combines to make individuals feel a perceived temperature that is higher than the ambient air temperature. The figure below identifies the Heat Index that corresponds to the actual air temperature and relative humidity. 189 189 Image: NWS Heat Index. National Weather Service. Retrieved January 29, 2016. 127 The table below identifies the four NWS categories for heat hazards, as well as their associated heat index and health hazards. Health Hazards Associated with Heat Index Values190 Category Heat Index Health Hazards Extreme Heat Stroke/Sunstroke is likely with continued 130°F-Higher Danger exposure Sunstroke, muscle cramps, and/or heat exhaustion Danger 105°F-129°F possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity Sunstroke, muscle cramps, and/or heat exhaustion Extreme 90°F-105°F possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical Caution activity Fatigue possible with prolonged exposure and/or Caution 80°F-90°F physical activity NOAA bases Heat Alert procedures on heat index values. Research has shown that heat index thresholds do not always fully account for a variety of factors that could 190 Summer Heat: The Silent Killer. NOAA, Red Cross, FEMA. Retrieved January 29, 2016. 128 influence public health. Based on this research, NOAA/NWS has supported the implementation of a new Heat Health Watch/Warning System (HHWS) to guide the production of localized daily warnings and forecast products. Philadelphia currently uses this system. The system considers not only heat and humidity, but also cloud cover, wind, and expected duration of the event.191 When conditions warrant, NWS issues the heat-related weather products described in the table below for Philadelphia. NWS Heat Products192 Product Criteria NWS issues an Excessive Heat Outlook when the potential exists for Excessive an excessive heat event in the next 3-7 days. An Outlook provides Heat information to those who need considerable lead-time to prepare for Outlook the event, such as public health officials, emergency managers, and public utilities. NWS issues heat watches when conditions are favorable for an excessive heat event in the next 24 to 72 hours. The NWS issues a Excessive Watch when the risk of a heat wave has increased but its occurrence Heat Watch and timing is still uncertain. The purpose is to allow those who need to set plans in motion enough lead time to do so. Excessive NWS issues an advisory when an event is occurring, is imminent, or Heat has a very high probability of occurring. The purpose of an Advisory is Advisory to strongly recommend that people take caution when outside. NWS issues an Excessive Heat Warning within 12 hours of the onset of extremely dangerous heat conditions. A Warning occurs when the Excessive NWS expects the maximum heat index temperature to be 105° or Heat higher for at least two days and night time air temperatures will not Warning drop below 75°. People living in an area under an excessive heat warning should take precautions immediately as this level of heat poses a threat to life and/or property. 191 192 Heat Wave a Major Summer Killer. National Weather Service (NWS). Accessed 5 December 2011. Heat Watch vs. Warning. National Weather Service. Retrieved January 29, 2016. 129 4.3.5.2.1 Air Quality The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created the Air Quality Index (AQI), a color-coded scale to exhibit pollution levels in the atmosphere. The AQI breaks air quality down into six categories: Good (green), Moderate (yellow), Unhealthy for Sensitive Populations (orange), Unhealthy for Everyone (red), Very Unhealthy (purple), and Hazardous (maroon). Each color relates to quantitative levels of air pollution and indicates the health risks associated with air quality conditions. The table below depicts the six AQI ranges, with each range assigned a descriptor and a color code.193 4.3.5.2.2 Climate Change According to the Environmental Protection Agency, “climate change refers to any significant change in the measures of climate lasting for an extended period of time.”194 Changes include major deviations in temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, among other fluctuations, that occur over several decades or longer.195 The EPA states that the Earth's average temperature has risen by 1.5°F over the past century.196 The EPA also projects that the planet’s temperature will rise another 0.5 to 8.6°F over the next hundred years.197 These seemingly small changes can translate to large and potentially dangerous shifts in climate and weather. Image: Air Quality Index. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved May 2011. Environmental Protection Agency. Glossary. Retrieved 5 October 2015. 195 Ibid. 196 Environmental Protection Agency. Climate Change: Basic Information. Retrieved 6 October 2015. 197 Ibid. 193 194 130 Climate science shows rising temperatures correlate with an increasing frequency and intensity of storms. Rising global temperatures also mean that droughts will be more frequent, as will flooding and intense rains. The Office of Sustainability conducted a trend analysis in 2015, tracking annual temperature trends for Philadelphia from 1948 to 2014. The image below shows the upward trend resulting from this analysis.198 4.3.5.2.3 Worst-case Scenario The following scenario is a hypothetical worst-case scenario that uses trends in temperature and energy/water consumption in combination with real extreme heat events from 1999, 1997, and 2011 in Philadelphia. A strong and oppressive high-pressure system that extends from the surface to aloft moves into Eastern Pennsylvania just prior to July 4. High temperatures reach 90 degrees by July 2. The combination of temperature and high humidity produces heat indices of 115 degrees by mid-afternoon over the next week. Philadelphia declares a Code Red, extending cooling center hours. Mayor’s Office of Sustainability and ICF International. Growing Stronger: Toward a Climate-Ready Philadelphia. November 2015. Retrieved January 12, 2016. 198 131 Tourists and residents in town for the July 4 celebration find themselves out in the sun and heat for an extended period, causing numerous cases of heat exhaustion and other heat-related illnesses. There are reports of at least 30 heat-related deaths in the City. The heat affects regional food supplies, causing damage to temperature-sensitive plants such as lettuce, parsley, cabbage, leeks, and arugula. Tomatoes, peppers, beans, and squash plants blister. Milk production is down due to stress on cows. Tree leaves begin to show signs of scorching along their edges, and dogwoods and maples show signs of water stress. The heat causes buckling of I-95 and Route 1 in the City, affecting traffic patterns already stressed by incoming tourists for the July 4 celebrations. Schools throughout the City dismiss students early and remain closed for two days. Philadelphia Water Department sees record levels of water usage. Surrounding counties experience stressed water supplies. PECO sees record usage of power at 7650 megawatts, forcing the reduction of voltage citywide causing brownouts. Electric suppliers curtail power delivery to numerous industrial customers. Despite these precautions, customers experience outages across several areas of the City. 4.3.5.2.4 Environmental Impacts Extreme heat can have many of the same effects on the environment that drought does. Extreme heat, when sustained for an extended period combined with low rainfall, can trigger a drought. The lack of water during a drought can cause the loss or destruction of wildlife habitats, both in waterways and green spaces. Even in the shorter term, extreme heat can have an effect on the environment. Heat waves affect livestock, pets, and other animals. Above average temperatures can affect the growth of plants and trees negatively, inhibiting their development. Rises in water temperature from a sustained period of extreme heat contributes to the degradation of water quality and negatively impacts fish populations.199 Research links high temperatures to increased algae growth, causing fish deaths in rivers and lakes.200 In addition, with climate change comes the increased likelihood of more frequent extreme heat events. 4.3.5.3 Past Occurrences Due to its location, extreme heat events occur frequently in Philadelphia. No extreme heat event in Philadelphia has resulted in a Presidential Disaster Declaration. On Adams, Christopher. “Impacts of Extreme Temperatures”. Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere Foothills Research Campus, Colorado State University. Fort Collins, CO. Retrieved January 28, 2016. 200 Ibid. 199 132 average, the temperature reaches 90°F between 25 and 30 days annually in Philadelphia. The National Weather Service (NWS) measures summer heat by three different methods: ▪ ▪ ▪ Identifying average temperature; Identifying the longest stretches of days 90°f and above; and Identifying summers that had the most days over 90°F. Using the first method, the table below depicts the highest average summer temperatures in Philadelphia. Measured in this way, three of the hottest summers in Philadelphia occurred since 2011. Hottest Summers by Average Temperature201 Year Average Temp (°F) 2010 79.6 2016 78.8 1995 78.5 1994 78.3 1993 78.2 2011 78.0 2012 78.0 Year 1991 2015 1900 1973 1988 1999 Average Temp (°F) 77.9 77.6 77.1 77.1 77.1 77.1 NOWData – NOAA Online Weather Data. Monthly Mean Avg Temperature for Philadelphia Intl Ap, PA. Retrieved December 9, 2015. 201 133 Another way to understand the hottest summers in Philadelphia is to look at which summers had the longest stretches of days over 90°F. Hottest Summers by Longest Stretches of 90°F or Greater Days202 Dates Length Dates Length Jul 29- Aug 15, 1988 18 days Jun 28- Jul 9, 2012 12 days Jul 20- Aug 5, 1995 17 days Jul 23- Aug 3, 1999 12 days Aug 24- Sep 5, 1953 13 days Jul 12- Jul 23, 1952 12 days Jun 25- Jul 6, 1901 12 days The final way the National Weather Service observes extreme heat events is by looking at those summers that had the most numbers of 90°F or greater days. Hottest Summers by Most 90°F or Greater Days203 Year Number of 90+ F days Year 2010 55 1943 1991 53 1983 1988 49 1993 1995 49 Number of 90+ F days 42 41 41 NOWData – NOAA Online Weather Data. Calendar Day Summaries: Max temp for Philadelphia Intl Ap, PA. Retrieved December 9, 2015. 203 Ibid. 202 134 Philadelphia’s all-time record high temperature is 106 °F, set on August 7, 1918. The table below illustrates the nine hottest days on record in Philadelphia. Hottest Days on Record 204 High Temperature Date (°F) Aug 7, 1918 106 July 10, 1936 104 July 3, 1966 104 July 2, 1901 103 Aug 6, 1918 103 Date July 21, 1930 July 9, 1936 July 4, 1966 July 7, 2010 July 22, 2011 High Temperature (°F) 103 103 103 103 103 4.3.5.4 Future Occurrences Several extreme heat events occur each year in Philadelphia, and climate data projects this trend will continue. Given the compounding effects of climate change, climate modeling projects that the number of days that qualify as an extreme heat event will increase. By the end of the century, the projections suggest that Philadelphia may experience 17 to 52 days above 95°F, and 2 to 16 days above 100°F, depending on the scenario.205 The image below depicts these projections and their effects on the number of days.206 NOWData – NOAA Online Weather Data. Calendar Day Summaries: Max temp for Philadelphia Intl Ap, PA. Retrieved December 9, 2015. 205 Useful Climate Information for Philadelphia. ICF International. Mayor’s Office of Sustainability. Retrieved December 9, 2015. 206 Projected Temperature Extremes in Philadelphia. Useful Climate Science Data for Philadelphia. ICF International. Retrieved December 9, 2015. 204 135 Extreme heat events can also influence, complicate, or compound other hazards in Philadelphia such as hail, windstorms, drought, human health impacts, utility failures, and transportation accidents. For a full list of how hazards influence one another, see the graphic in the introduction of the Risk Assessment. 4.3.5.5 Vulnerability Assessment Though extreme temperatures generally occur over a short time, they can cause a range of impacts to humans, animals, and infrastructure. Often the most impacted populations in extreme temperatures include vulnerable populations with little or no access to adequate cooling or heating. According to the CDC, populations most at risk to extreme temperature events include the following:207 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Emergency Preparedness and Response: Information for Specific Groups. Retrieved 7 December 2011. 207 136         The elderly, who are less able to withstand temperatures extremes due to their age, health conditions and limited mobility to access shelters; Infants and children up to four years of age; Individuals who are physically ill; Individuals who have pre-existing conditions (e.g., heart disease or high blood pressure); Low-income persons that cannot afford proper cooling; Those living without adequate shelter; Individuals with limited access to healthcare; and The general public who may overexert during work or exercise during extreme heat events. A significant portion of Philadelphians meet criteria that make them more susceptible to hazardous effects of extreme heat, such as seniors (12.3% of the population), infants/children up to five years of age (6.9%),208 and those living below the poverty line (26.7%).209 Philadelphia’s homeless population is especially vulnerable. The City of Philadelphia plans for extreme weather events, including extreme heat, which includes outreach strategies to vulnerable populations. In addition, Philadelphia’s susceptibility to the urban heat-island effect exacerbates hazardous conditions to individuals from extreme heat. Consequently, people living in Philadelphia are at greater risk from the effects of a heat wave than those living in rural or less urbanized areas. A portion of Philadelphia’s utility infrastructure is susceptible to extreme temperatures. During extreme heat episodes roads and bridges can buckle due to expansion. To limit these effects, utility providers monitor conditions, perform routine maintenance and address problems as they arise. In warmer months, a direct link exists between extreme heat and power disruptions. The demand for electricity rises during extreme heat events as residents use air conditioners, fans and other devices to keep cool. This increase in demand stresses the electrical generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructure, which in turn increases the likelihood that sections or components of the electrical system will fail, causing power outages. Unlike other natural hazards, extreme temperatures have limited physical destructive force. Economic losses can be observed through the repairing of damaged American FactFinder. Age and Sex. 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved April 26, 2016. 209 American FactFinder. Selected Economic Characteristics. 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5Year Estimates. Retrieved April 26, 2016. 208 137 infrastructure like roads and bridges, as well as through the disruption in transportation services caused by the unreliability of equipment, such as rail switches and trolley lines. However, the primary concern associated with extreme temperatures is public health and safety. Fatalities caused by extreme temperatures ranks the highest of all weatherrelated deaths in the United States. Between 2006 and 2010, 3332 heat-related deaths occurred in the United States, 31 percent of all weather-related deaths.210 The image below illustrates heat-related fatalities between 2006 and 2010 as they compare between different populations. In this graphic, Philadelphia would qualify as a “large central metro” in the Northeast.211 Deaths Attributed to Heat, Cold, and Other Weather Events in the United States, 2006–2010. Jeffrey Berko, M.P.H., Deborah D. Ingram, Ph.D., National Center for Health Statistics; Shubhayu Saha, Ph.D., National Center for Environmental Health; and Jennifer D. Parker, Ph.D., National Center for Health Statistics. National Health Statistics Reports, Number 26. Retrieved March 30, 2016. 211 Image: Ibid. 210 138 According to the Philadelphia Department of Public Health Medical Examiner’s Office (PDPH-MEO), Philadelphia generally begins to experience heat-related fatalities when an excessive heat event lasts three days or more. In the past, however, shorter excessive heat spells led to heat-related deaths. Heat-related deaths vary from year-toyear depending on the frequency, severity, and length of excessive heat events. The table below depicts heat-related deaths within Philadelphia by month from 2003 to 2015. 212 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Apr 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 May 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Jun 2 1 5 1 0 18 0 4 1 2 0 0 1 Jul 5 0 11 4 2 7 0 11 31 8 3 0 2 Aug 0 0 7 24 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 Sept 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept The Philadelphia Department of Public Health Division of Disease Control (PDPH-DDC) receives de-identified emergency department chief complaint data on a daily basis as a part of an effort to conduct near-real time all hazards surveillance. PDPH-DDC also periodically requests data from 911 ambulance dispatches for heightened surveillance situations. During a heat emergency, PDPH-DDC examines this data for visits that may be due to excessive heat (i.e. heat exhaustion syndrome), as well as 911 dispatch data that is related to environmental exposures. This provides a near real-time citywide view into the impact of the heat wave on health care utilization. Data provided by the Philadelphia Department of Public Health (PDPH). PDPH specifically disclaims responsibility for any analyses, interpretations or conclusions. 212 139 4.3.6 Floods Flooding is the temporary condition of partial or complete inundation on normally dry land. Floods are one of the most common natural hazards in the United States. They can develop slowly over a period of days or develop quickly within hours resulting in disastrous effects that can be local (affecting a neighborhood or community) or regional (affecting entire river basins, multiple counties or states). Most communities in the United States have experienced some kind of flooding after spring rains, heavy thunderstorms, coastal storms, or winter snow thaws. According to the 2013 Pennsylvania Hazard Mitigation Plan, Pennsylvania is one of the most flood-prone states in the United States, with the southeastern region of the state being the most susceptible. A flood is any high flow, overflow, or inundation by water that causes or threatens damage. 213 Floods are the result of a combination of meteorological and hydrological extremes as indicated in the table below. In most cases, human factors compound the effects of flooding. While diverse, these human factors generally tend to aggravate flood hazards by accentuating flood heights.214 NWS Glossary. Retrieved on 14 December 2011. World Meteorological Organization. Associated Programme on Flood Management. Urban Risk Management. Retrieved 14 December 2011. 213 214 140 Factors contributing to flooding Meteorological Factors ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Rainfall Large-scale storms – hurricanes, tropical storms, mesoscale convective systems Small-scale storms – severe thunderstorms, cloudbursts, Temperature Snowfall and snowmelt Ice jams on waterways Hydrological Factors ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Soil moisture level Groundwater level prior to storm Natural surface infiltration rate Presence of impervious cover Channel cross-sectional shape and roughness Presence or absence of over bank flow, channel network Synchronization of runoffs from various parts of watershed High tide impeding drainage Human Factors Aggravating Natural Flood Hazards ▪ Land-use changes (e.g. surface sealing due to urbanization, deforestation) increase run-off and may be sedimentation ▪ Occupation of the floodplain obstructing flows ▪ Inefficiency or nonmaintenance of infrastructure ▪ Climate change affects magnitude and frequency of precipitations and floods ▪ Urban microclimate may enforce precipitation events Floodwaters washout a billboard in Stella Ling Park at Green Lane and Main Street in Manayunk. 141 Three types of flooding occur in Philadelphia due to these contributing factors:215    Riverine floods; Surface floods; and Flash floods. Riverine Flooding Riverine floods, also called river floods, occur when the river run-off volume exceeds local flow capacities. Heavy rainfall or snowmelt in upstream areas can trigger river floods. In the case of the Delaware River, tidal influence from downstream can also trigger flooding. Ground conditions such as soil, vegetation cover, and land use have a direct bearing on the amount of run-off generated. Flooding from large rivers usually results from large-scale weather systems that generate prolonged rainfall over wide areas. Small rivers, streams and creeks are susceptible to flooding from more localized weather systems that cause intense rainfall over small areas.216 Surface Flooding Surface floods result from increased volumes of water due to poor drainage capacity. Built environments like cities generate higher volumes of surface run-off that is in excess of local drainage capacity, thereby causing localized floods. Local drainage capacity refers to the local storm water management systems. Storm water management systems include components such as: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Storm drainpipes, Curb inlets, Manholes, Minor channels, Roadside ditches, and Culverts Storm water systems convey storm flows as efficiently as possible to the community’s primary drainage system. However, debris can clog drainage grates, thus reducing drainage capacity. This leads to increasing surface runoff and back up effects and causes surface floods. Federal Emergency Management Institute. Types of Floods and Floodplains. Retrieved 16 December 2011 216 Image: Manayunk Neighborhood Council. "Billboard washout in Stella Ling Park at Green Lane and Main”. September 28-29, 2004. Retrieved January 15, 2016. 215 142 Flash Floods Flash floods are a rapid and extreme flow of high water into a normally dry area, or rapid water level rise in a stream or creek above a predetermined flood level.217 Flash floods occur because of the rapid accumulation and release of runoff waters caused by heavy rainfall, cloudbursts, landslides, or the sudden break-up of an ice jam. Ongoing flooding can intensify into flash flooding in cases where intense rainfall results in a rapid surge of rising floodwaters. Densely populated areas have a high risk for flash floods, as the construction of buildings, highways, driveways, and parking lots increases runoff by reducing the amount of rain absorbed by the ground. 4.3.6.1 Location The most damaging floods in Philadelphia appear to occur within the designated floodplains. A floodplain is the land adjoining the channel of a river, stream, ocean, lake or other body of water that floodwaters inundate during a flood event. The recurrence interval of flooding dictates the size of the floodplain. The risk of flooding for a floodplain inversely relates to the size of the flood plain in the case of Philadelphia. A floodplain associated with a flood that has a 1.0 percent chance of occurring annually is smaller than the floodplain associated with a flood that has a 0.2 percent-annual-chance of occurring. In other words, the higher the percentage of a flood occurring annually, the smaller the area of the floodplain. 217 Ibid 143 Note: 100 Year FEMA Flood Hazard Area in this image is the equivalent of the 1.0 percent floodplain and the 500 FEMA Flood Hazard Area is the equivalent of the 0.2 percent floodplain. 144 In addition to floodplain location impacts, flooding can occur more frequently on certain types of roadways. The table below looks at the roadways located in the 1.0 percent and 0.2 percent floodplains, and the percentage of those roads likely to incur flooding during a flood event. Flood Risk For Philadelphia’s Roadways, By Road Class218 Road Class219 Description Total Miles 1 Expressway 2 Major 3 Arterial 4 Collector 5 Local 6 9 Driveway Low speed ramps High speed ramps Nontravelable 10 12 Interstate highways and other limited access roads and primary thoroughfares. Principal routes through the city e.g., I-95, I-76, Roosevelt Expressway Semi-limited access road, typically multi-lane and usually divided. e.g., Roosevelt Blvd, West River Drive, Cheltenham Ave, Byberry Rd, Broad St Medium-high volume road, feeds traffic to and from limited or semi-limited access roads. Speed limit about 35 mph. e.g., Market St, 23rd St, Haverford Ave Through streets in residential areas. e.g., Morris St, 60th St, Arch St in W. Philly Non-through streets in residential areas Common driveways On- and off-ramps from expressways and major roads Interchanges; ramps connecting expressways Roads which cannot be driven on. e.g., Wissahickon Drive 110 Percentage of Miles in Floodplain 1.0% 0.2% Floodplain Floodplain 30% 43% 259 18% 21% 362 6% 9% 873 1% 3% 1,122 4% 6% 2 19 5% 28% 18% 37% 41 45% 63% 42 65% 67% Growing Stronger: Toward a Climate-Ready Philadelphia. Pg. 36. Mayor’s Office of Sustainability. Retrieved December 9, 2015. 219 Road classes are as provided by the Philadelphia Streets Department. 218 145 4.3.6.2 Range of Magnitude The severity of a flood depends not only on the amount of water that accumulates in a period of time, but also on the time of year, the coverage area of the storm, and the land’s ability to absorb the amount of water. Two general types of storm systems produce large amounts of precipitation: convective systems and non-convective systems. Convective events hit quickly, and produce heavy rainfall for one-to-two consecutive hours. Non-convective events produce steady rain events that can take place over the course of several hours and last as long as 24 hours. The National Weather Service (NWS) uses Flood Categories to depict the degree of flooding experienced in an area following an event, and issues several different notifications prior to an event, as seen in the table below. NWS Flood Categories Convective Non-Convective ▪ Minor Flooding The NWS would issue an Urban and/or Small Stream Flood Advisory for this event. For Urbanized Areas: ▪ Rainfall rates of 0.5 inch per hour lasting more than one hour. Minimal or no property damage. Minimal risk to the public. For Rural Areas: ▪ Rainfall rates from .75 to 1.0 inch per hour lasting more than one hour. Minimal or no property damage. Minimal risk to the public. ▪ ▪ ▪ There is less of a distinction between urbanized and rural areas in non-convective events. Rainfall rates from 0.25 to 0.5 per hour depending on duration of event. A 0.5 inch rainfall rate over six hours can have similar impacts compared to a 0.25 inch rainfall rate over 12.0 hours. There is minimal or no property damage, and minimal risk to the public. 146 Moderate Flooding The NWS would issue a Flood or Flash Flood Warning for this event. For Urbanized Areas: ▪ Rainfall rates of at least 1.0 inch per hour lasting more than one hour. Impacts include inundation of structures, road closures, evacuations of people and/or the transfer of property to higher ground. For Rural Areas: ▪ Rainfall rates from 1.25 to 1.50 inches per hour lasting more than one hour. Impacts include inundation of structures, road closures, evacuations of people and/or the transfer of property to higher ground. ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Major Flooding The NWS would issue a Flood or Flash Flood Warning for this event. For Urbanized Areas: ▪ Rainfall rates of at least 1.50 inches per hour lasting more than one hour. Impacts include extensive inundation of structures, road closures and a significant evacuation of people and/or transfer of property to higher ground. For Rural areas: ▪ Rainfall rates from 1.75 to 2.0 inches per hour lasting more than one hour. Impacts include extensive inundation of structures, road closures, and a significant evacuation of people and/or transfer of property to higher ground. ▪ ▪ ▪ There is less of a distinction between urbanized and rural areas in non-convective events. Rainfall rates from 0.5 to .75 per hour depending on duration of event. A .75 inch rainfall rate over six hours can have similar impacts compared to a 0.5 inch rainfall rate over ten hours. Impacts include inundation of structures, road closures, evacuations of people and/or the transfer of property to higher ground. There is less of a distinction between urbanized and rural areas in non-convective events. Rainfall rates from 0.75 to 1.0 per hour depending on duration of event. A 1.0 inch rainfall rate over six hours can have similar impacts compared to a 0.75 inch rainfall rate over eight hours. Impacts include extensive inundation of structures, road closures, and a significant evacuation of people and/or the transfer of property to higher ground. 147 The NWS issues the following products when conditions warrant. NWS Flood Products Products Description ▪ Urban and/or Small Stream Advisory Flash Flood Watch ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Flood Watch ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Flash Flood Warning ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Flood Warning ▪ ▪ ▪ Alerts the public to nuisance flooding, which is generally non-lifethreatening. Issued when rain will cause flooding of streets and low-lying areas in both urban and rural settings. May be upgraded to a Flash Flood Warning if flooding worsens and poses a threat to life and property. Forecaster confidence is at least 80%. Usually associated with quick-hitting convective rain events. Indicates that current or developing hydrologic conditions are favorable for flash flooding in and close to the watch area, but the occurrence is neither certain or imminent. Issued 24 to 48 hours before a potential event. Forecaster confidence is approximately 50%. Usually associated with non-convective events. Indicates current or developing hydrologic conditions are favorable for flooding in and close to the watch area, but the occurrence is neither certain or imminent. Issued 24 to 48 hours before a potential event. Forecaster confidence is approximately 50%. Usually associated with quick-hitting convective rain events. Indicates that flooding is occurring or is determined to be imminent within about a six-hour period from the start of the causative event. There is a serious risk to life and property. Typically issued several hours before flooding occurs. Forecaster confidence is at least 80%. Can also be issued for ice jams and dam breaks. If the flooding is expected to persist for more than several hours, the product may be converted to Flood Warning. Usually associated with non-convective rain events. Indicates that flooding is occurring or is determined to be imminent and is expected to persist for more than a six hour period. There is a serious risk to life and property. Can be issued several hours before flooding occurs. Forecaster confidence is at least 80%. 148 4.3.6.2.1 Climate Change According to the Environmental Protection Agency, “climate change refers to any significant change in the measures of climate lasting for an extended period of time.”220 Changes include major deviations in temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, among other fluctuations, that occur over several decades or longer.221 The EPA states that the Earth's average temperature has risen by 1.5°F over the past century.222 Climate data projects that the planet’s temperature will rise another 0.5 to 8.6°F over the next hundred years.223 These seemingly small changes can translate to large and potentially dangerous shifts in climate and weather. For example, more intense and frequent storms will add to flooding risks, putting areas already at risk for flooding at a higher risk in the future. Climate change increases the likelihood of flooding through sea level rise and elevated precipitation levels. Sea level rise trends show a steady rise in sea level over the past century. The image below depicts the mean sea level rise trend in Philadelphia from 1900 to 2014, with a projected trend line to 2020.224 Environmental Protection Agency. Glossary. Retrieved 5 October 2015. Ibid. 222 Environmental Protection Agency. Climate Change: Basic Information. Retrieved 6 October 2015. 223 Ibid. 224 ICF International. Useful Climate Information for Philadelphia: Past and Future. August 2014. 220 221 149 Climate change also means an increase in the level of precipitation. Weather officials track increases in precipitation in several ways. NOAA keeps record of monthly and annual precipitation data. This data includes both rain and snowfall. Tracked over time, there is an upward trend in annual precipitation. The graph below shows this increasing trend.225 226 Annual Precipitation in Philadelphia 1941 to 2014 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 1941 1943 1945 1947 1949 1951 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 25 Annual Linear (Annual) 4.3.6.2.2 Worst-Case Scenario The following worst-case scenario is derived from analysis of past flooding events in Philadelphia and takes into consideration flooding trends in the City. Following a heavy snowfall in mid-March, a warm front moves in from the southwest, bringing widespread, heavy rain across the southeastern Pennsylvania region. The rapid snowmelt and heavy rainfall quickly overwhelm the ground’s ability to absorb the rain, and instances of flash flooding occur along Kelly Drive and Martin Luther King Drive, trapping vehicles and their passengers in quickly rising waters. Flooding occurs along the Schuylkill River as tributaries, snowmelt, and rainfall exacerbate already high water levels. High water and fast currents make evacuations and rescues on the river a challenge. Manayunk experiences extensive flooding along Main Street, requiring evacuations from homes, businesses, and schools in the area. East Falls floods to a lesser degree, affecting local roadways such as Kelly Drive and Midvale Avenue. Eastwick homes also experience extensive flooding, causing the NOWData – NOAA Online Weather Data. Philadelphia Int, PA: Monthly Summarized Data, Precipitation, Sum. Retrieved January 12, 2016. 226 No data is available from NOAA for the year of 1953. 225 150 evacuation of homeowners to a local shelter. Flooding closes roadways along the Schuylkill for several days until floodwaters recede. Heavy rainfall triggers surface flooding in Germantown as wastewater systems quickly become overwhelmed. The water table in the area rises, causing sewage back flow into homes without a backflow valve. Standing pools of water along I-95 and I-76 produce hazardous driving conditions. The storm also causes low visibility in the area, delaying numerous flights at the Philadelphia International Airport. Total rainfall measures five inches by the time the storm is over, and recovery is challenging due to floodwaters. 4.3.6.2.3 Environmental Impacts Erosion Typically, erosion results from stream flooding or flash flooding and can erode away stream banks and roadbeds, presenting a threat to roads, railroads, and bridges as well as trees and plant life. Larger levels of erosion can also result in ruined pipelines and undermine utility poles. In the past, erosion resulting from flooding has caused damage to roads, sidewalks, and railroads in Philadelphia. Debris Flow Debris flows, also known as landslides or mudslides, result from the combination of Heavy rains can cause debris flows along moving water and loose mud, sand, soil, Kelly Drive. or rock. Similar to flash floods, debris flows can occur suddenly and without warning. The likelihood of a debris flow increases with the amount of loose debris that could become involved in such an event. Debris flows from Philadelphia stem from heavy rainfalls, such as those with a strong thunderstorm or tropical storm. Debris flow damages roadways through standing water that can degrade the road base or lead to pavement softening. Philadelphia has experienced small-scale debris flows that temporarily close and damage roads. Debris flows can also wash into local waterways, increasing the sediment and turbidity of the water.227 227 Image: Philadelphia Water Department. 151 Contaminated Groundwater Floodwaters can mix with household hazard wastes, pesticides, and heavy metals present in flooded areas. These floodwaters can then seep into the ground and affect groundwater. An additional environmental concern is the flooding of Superfund sites. Floodwaters can contribute to the spread of contaminants, as seen in New Jersey following Hurricane Irene.228 Philadelphia has four Superfund sites throughout the city. The table below shows sites designated as Superfund sites by the EPA. Contamination would require the EPA or other qualified agency to decontaminate affected sites. Philadelphia Superfund Sites229 Site Name Site Location Size Details Metal Bank of America230 40.02416, 75.02778 10 acres The Metal Bank of America, Inc., a former scrap metal and transformer salvage facility on the Delaware River, drained oil from used transformers to reclaim copper parts. Metal Bank's recycling operations released oil in various locations on the property with the majority of the contamination near an underground storage tank. Franklin Smelting and Refining Corporation231 39.98319, 75.08388 3 acres The site consists of a covered slag pile containing about 68,000 cubic yards of slag material – a byproduct from the copper smelter at the neighboring Franklin Smelting and Refining Corp. MDC, the operator of the site from the 1950s to 1999, had slag material migrating off the site in all directions. The slag previously covered the nearby rail line and area sidewalks, caked the inside of storm drains, and blew away from the site. EPA determined that the slag contains concentrations of lead. Additional sampling revealed concentrations of beryllium, copper and lead in the air near the pile. Investigations are under way to determine the nature and extent of contamination, and to identify appropriate cleanup actions. NPR. “Sandy Stirs Up Superfund Site in New Jersey”. November 20, 2012. Retrieved January 20, 2016. 229 EPA. “Cleanups In My Community (CIMC)”. 230 EPA. “EPA Superfund Program: METAL BANK, PHILADELPHIA, PA”. Retrieved January 20, 2016. 231 EPA. “EPA Superfund Program: FRANKLIN SMELTING AND REFINING CORP, PHILADELPHIA, PA”. Retrieved January 20, 2016. 228 152 Publicker Industrial Site232 39.90805, 75.13528 40 acres Located along the Delaware River near the Walt Whitman Bridge, Publicker Industries produced liquor and industrial alcohols from 1912 to 1985. Enterprise Avenue Landfill233 39.885, 75.2125 57 acres From 1971 through 1976, incineration residue, fly ash and bulky debris were disposed of on the site, which is located near Fort Mifflin. Several waste handling firms also buried drums containing industrial and chemical wastes on the property, which resulted in contaminated soil and groundwater. The EPA took the site off the Superfund program’s National Priorities List (NPL) in 1986. Mold and Fungi Flooding also creates wet or damp conditions for an extended period, increasing the likelihood of mold and fungi. While some types of mold and fungi can be beneficial in assisting in breaking down fallen trees, other types of mold and fungi can kill plants and trees that help sustain the local ecosystem. EPA. “EPA Superfund Program: PUBLICKER IND SITE, PHILADELPHIA, PA”. Retrieved January 20, 2016. 233 EPA. “EPA Superfund Program: ENTERPRISE AVE LANDFILL, PHILADELPHIA, PA”. Retrieved January 20, 2016. 232 153 4.3.6.3 Past Occurrences As the most common hazard for Philadelphia, flooding is a near routine occurrence for some regions of the city. Numerous instances happen throughout the year, each causing various levels of damage. The table below summarizes the top five most expensive flooding events in terms of estimated property damage costs that occurred between 1996 and 2015234 (specific areas noted where available). The flooding events annex lists flooding events from 1996 to 2015235 as well as a list of Federal and Gubernatorial disaster declarations resulting from flooding. Top Five Most Costly Flooding Events in Philadelphia 1996-2015 Date Estimated Property Damage Cost 1/19/1996 $3 million 6/28/2006 $1 million 4/30/2014 $1 million 5/1/2014 $1 million 8/28/2011 $0.1 million 234Data available for this table is limited to 1996 to present due to source limitations. Only the years 1990 and forward are available for the National Climatic Data Center’s Storm Events Database. Records resulted from the implementation of NWS Directive 10-1605. 235 Data available for this table is limited to 1996 to present due to source limitations. Only the years 1990 and forward are available for the National Climatic Data Center’s Storm Events Database. Records resulted from the implementation of NWS Directive 10-1605. 154 The table below summarizes the top ten historical crests on the Schuylkill. Top Ten Highest Historical Crests: Schuylkill River in Philadelphia236 Crest Date of Flood 17.0 ft. 10/4/1869 14.8 ft. 3/1/1902 14.7 ft. 8/24/1933 14.65 ft. 6/23/1972 14.57 ft. 6/2/1946 14.32 ft. 11/25/1950 14.32 ft. 8/19/1955 14.10 ft. 9/17/1999 14.1 ft. 7/9/1935 13.91 ft. 5/1/2014 Weather Comments On October 4, the "Saxby Gale" hurricane brought widespread heavy rain to the northeastern U.S., from Virginia to Maine. Eastern Pennsylvania collected more than 5 inches. Severe flooding occurred throughout the Mid-Atlantic and New England regions. A series of snowstorms followed by heavy rains caused flooding on the Lehigh and Delaware Rivers as well as the most destructive flood on the Susquehanna in the Wyoming Valley since 1865. A strong Category 1 storm, the Chesapeake-Potomac Hurricane brought more than 10 inches of rain to Maryland, Delaware, and Southern New Jersey. Other locations throughout the Mid-Atlantic measured more than four inches of rain. Hurricane Agnes made landfall over southeastern New York on June 22 and moved westward into Pennsylvania. Rainfall totals from June 20-25 ranging from 2-3 inches in the Upper Potomac to 18 inches near Shamokin, Pennsylvania. Weather summary unavailable. Record-breaking cold air spawned a coastal "bomb" that retrograded back to the lower Great Lakes underneath a deep closed vortex. Several inches of rain fell across the area. Hurricane Diane made landfall 5 days after Hurricane Connie. Hurricane Diane produced several inches of rain with locally heavier amounts of 10 to 20 inches. Hurricane Floyd produced heavy rainfall from Virginia to Long Island. Rainfall totals ranged from 12 inches in Delaware to 16.57 inches in Newport News, Virginia. Two dams burst in New Jersey and several flood records were broken in New Jersey. 10 inches of rain fell at Cortland, NY, in 48 hours. A boundary between cold air and warm moist air produced heavy rainfall and flooding. Rain started on April 30, 2014 at noon. The NWS reported two inches of rainfall over a six-hour period.237 Event precipitation totaled 4.81 inches at the Philadelphia International Airport.238 4.3.6.3.1 National Flood Insurance Program The U.S. Congress, through the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to enable property owners in participating communities to purchase federally backed flood insurance. To maintain NFIP eligibility, Philadelphia adopted floodplain management ordinances to regulate proposed development in floodplains, and designated a local floodplain administrator (Philadelphia City Planning Commission) to enforce these ordinances. Top Ten Highest Historical Crests: Schuylkill River at Philadelphia. NOAA. Retrieved December 3, 2015. Storm Events Database. NOAA: National Centers for Environmental Information. Retrieved April 13, 2016. 238 Given the distance between Blue Marsh and Philadelphia, timeline and size of releases, and the magnitude of streamflow in Philadelphia, Blue Marsh Reservoir did not contribute to flooding in Philadelphia on April 30, 2014. On April 30, Blue Marsh Reservoir released water at a rate of approximately 1,500 CFS to lower pool elevation from 290 to 289 Ft and increase flood storage in preparation for forecasted severe precipitation. Release gates closed during the storm to allow the reservoir to capture water. Blue Marsh Reservoir began releasing flood storage nearly twenty-four hours after the Schuylkill River at Philadelphia had crested and floodwaters began to recede. 236 237 155 Philadelphia’s ordinances ensure that new construction better withstands flooding and does not exacerbate existing flood hazards. For example: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Newly constructed structures must be 18 inches above the base flood elevation; New construction is prohibited within the floodway; Restrictions are placed on manufactured mobile homes; and Certain hazardous chemicals are not stored within floodplains. Philadelphia has also established Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that depict floodways, the 1-percent annual chance flood zones, and the 0.2-percent annual chance flood zones. Though FEMA sets the FIRM floodplain determinations, the Philadelphia City Planning Commission (PCPC) has the authority to determine the base flood elevation in Zone A, those areas most prone to flooding. As FEMA updates FIRM maps, PCPC conducts public outreach on the availability and value of flood insurance. The City adopted the latest FIRM map update in November 2015. For additional information on how the City conducts floodplain management activities on a day-to-day basis, refer to Annex 13: National Flood Insurance Program. NFIP also collects information on insured structures, including the number and location of flood insurance policies, number of claims per insured property, dollar value of each claim, and repetitive loss claims. Repetitive loss insurance claims indicate areas where floodplain occupancy continues in spite of repeated inundation. Repetitive loss properties are structures insured under the NFIP, which have had at least two paid flood losses of more than $1,000 over any 10-year period since 1978. FEMA considers a property as a severe repetitive loss property when there are at least four losses each exceeding $5,000, or when there are two or more losses where the cumulative building payments exceed the property value. NFIP Flood insurance statistics for Philadelphia, according to FEMA, are as follows:      Number of policies: 4,219 Total premiums: $ 3,258,910 Insurance in force: $956,845,200 Total number of closed paid losses: 815 Total amount of closed paid loses: $19,572,226 The majority (94 percent) of the insurance policies in the City are for residential structures. Less than half (41 percent) of the policies are pre-FIRM structures, with thirty-two (32) percent of the total policies located outside of the floodplain. There are two (2) manufactured home policies in the City. In 2016, the City participated in a Community Assistance Visit with FEMA Region III to assess the City’s compliance with the NFIP program. Based on recommendations from the CAV, the City is implementing actions to strengthen or clarify its floodplain management regulations and administrative and enforcement procedures. 156 NFIP data helps indicate the location of potential flood events. The following map identifies the number of NFIP policies in Philadelphia by zip code. The table on the following page details the number of losses and the amount in USD of payouts resulting from those losses. Repetitive loss properties are a high priority for flood mitigation for federal, state, and local mitigation partners. 157 Community Assistance Visit 158 4.3.6.4 Future Occurrences The probability of future flooding in Philadelphia is high, especially for communities located in the 1.0-percent annual chance zone. This probability increases with the compounding effects of climate change. Several circumstances resulting from climate change—such as higher sea levels and increased rainfall–could raise the risk of flooding to the City. Higher sea levels could cause Philadelphia’s Delaware and Schuylkill rivers to rise (despite being 90 miles inland from the mouth of the Delaware Bay), and increase the depth and extent of flooding in and around the city from storm surges. 239 240 An increase in rainfall, as local climate data projects, could result in more frequent and intense rainfall events.241 4.3.6.5 Vulnerability Assessment Flooding is a significant concern for Philadelphia. To assess vulnerability, this analysis includes potential losses for 100-year mean return period for flood events. Office of Property Assessment (OPA) tax account data from March 2016 was used to upgrade the HAZUS aggregated data tables, including building counts, square footage, and exposure by census block; City GIS data was also incorporated for critical facilities. For capital stock loss estimates, OPA building market values were used in addition to building replacement costs, as this was the best currently available source of data. OEM created a floodwater depth grid for the 1-percent annual chance flood zones and associated base flood elevations and cross sections from the National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL), which comes from on the 2007 and 2015 updates of FEMA’s Digital Flood Insurance Mapping (DFRIM). Mapping used this data in conjunction with the SFHA data and BFE information. Data was overlaid with a 2015 digital elevation model (DEM) at approximately five-foot resolution. This floodwater depth grid is only riverine, and does not account for storm water drainage issues that may occur in urban areas. The 1-percent annual chance of flood area covers an area of 18.8 square miles, including a portion of all 24 police districts within the City of Philadelphia. The image below is a basic representation of the City of Philadelphia’s 1-percent annual chance area. This map provides a general reference of the areas of Philadelphia vulnerable to flooding during a 1-percent annual chance flood event. Elevation and depth of flooding affects the extent of flooding and related flood damages. The map on the following page shows the extent and depth of flooding that may occur in a 1-percent annual flood event. Growing Stronger: Toward a Climate-Ready Philadelphia. Mayor’s Office of Sustainability. Pg 5. Retrieved December 9, 2015. 240 Ibid. 241 Growing Stronger: Toward a Climate-Ready Philadelphia. Mayor’s Office of Sustainability. Pg 6-5. Retrieved December 9, 2015. 239 159 Flooding can cause structural losses within the city of Philadelphia, including homes, businesses, and critical facilities. According to the March 2016 OPA tax account data, 160 there are an estimated 579,912 properties in Philadelphia, an increase from the estimate of 530,000 properties included in the 2012 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Approximately 3,902 of those are located within the 1-percent annual chance area, an increase from 3,600 properties estimated in the 2012 Hazard Mitigation Plan likely attributable to zoning decisions, permitting, and development trends. Some of the properties within the 1-percent chance area include critical facilities. A critical facility is a facility that provides services and functions essential to a community, especially during and after a disaster.242 These properties include a number of critical facilities, listed in the table below. Critical Assets Located in the 1-percent Annual Chance Floodplain Total Number in Number in Critical Asset City Floodplain Rail Stations 48 3 Subway/Subsurface Trolley Stations 57 1 Airports Police Stations 2 22 1 1 Fire/EMS Stations 62 3 1 0 438 2 Colleges/Universities Hospitals Dialysis Centers 30 31 43 0 0 1 Nursing Homes Water/Wastewater Treatment Facilities 51 0 6 1 Number Unknown 2+ 405 42 Emergency Operations Center Schools Electric Substations Hazardous Material Reporting Facilities FEMA: Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration. “Critical Facilities and Higher Standards”. Retrieved April 27, 2016. 242 161 The table below provides the estimated building damage count and extent of damage by occupancy type based on the HAZUS analysis for a 1-percent annual flood event.243 The HAZUS software calculated that in a 1-percent annual flood event, the most significant damages would occur in residential properties with some commercial and industrial properties damaged. HAZUS analysis calculated that no fire stations, hospitals, or police stations would sustain substantial damages in a 100-year flood. Government Residential Commercial Religious Agricultural Education Industrial None 0 29 1 0 0 0 0 Number of Buildings by Range of Damage 1 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 0 0 0 0 0 167 560 641 402 126 5 39 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 Substantial 0 193 1 0 0 0 0 Total 0 2118 48 2 0 0 6 Please note that the total number of buildings in the 1-percent annual chance area is different from the number of buildings potentially damaged by flooding. Damage estimates take into account elevation and depth of flooding, not just location within the floodplain. As a result of structural damages, HAZUS estimates this flooding scenario will generate 39,052 tons of debris.244 Data generated using HAZUS-MH’s “Building by General Occupancy” report for a return period of 100 for Census tracts within Philadelphia. Report run on May 2, 2016. 244 Data generated using HAZUS-MH’s “Debris Summary Report” for a return period of 100 for Census tracts within Philadelphia. Report run on May 2, 2016. 243 162 In addition to building loss, the City of Philadelphia may also experience highway bridge damage and functional losses in a 100-year flood. HAZUS calculations show a total of seven bridges could experience 0.16 percent damage.245 No light rail bridges, railroad bridges, or potable water systems would sustain damages in this flooding scenario. A 100-year flood event could damage one waste water facility according to HAZUS analyses. The facility would sustain 40 percent damage, with a total loss of $29,038,000.246 The table below breaks down the total direct economic loss citywide that may result from a 100-year flood event as calculated by HAZUS. Total direct economic loss due to flooding includes not only building and content loss but also projected loss of income, worker wages, and inventories. This increases potential losses in commercial or industrial areas, where larger numbers of jobs may be unavailable because of flood damage. The table below includes both 2012 and 2017 estimates calculated through HAZUS for comparison. As shown in the divergence in the 2012 Philadelphia HMP model and the 2012 HMP Model, the Hazus-MH modeling used in the 2017 Philadelphia modeling produced numbers much higher than the model used five years ago, potentially due to more accurate inundation mapping, updated Hazus-MH software, and more accurate loss estimates. Direct Economic Loss from a 100-Year Flood Event Dollar Amount ($) Type of Loss 2017 2012 Building Loss $425,512,000 $211,514,000 Contents Loss $524,679,000 $340,797,000 Inventory Loss $13,864,000 $81,646,000 Relocation Cost $733,000 $1,213,000 Capital Related Loss $1,515,000 $2,859,000 Rental Income Loss $421,000 $941,000 Wage Loss $1,632,000 $4,226,000 Total Loss $986,356,000 $643,196,000 The image below shows the spatial distribution of this economic loss throughout the City in terms of percentage of total loss based on full replacement values. The areas with the highest potential loss include several blocks on the east and west ends of Center City adjacent to the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers, as well as blocks in Manayunk along the Data generated using HAZUS-MH’s “Highway Bridge Damage and Functionality” report for a return period of 100 for Census tracts within Philadelphia. Report run on May 2, 2016. 246 Data generated using HAZUS-MH’s “Waste Water Facility Damage” report for a return period of 100. Report run on May 2, 2016. 245 163 Schuylkill River. In addition, the Navy Yard in South Philadelphia and areas in Southwest and Northeast Philadelphia could experience significant economic loss during a 1-percent annual chance flood event. Direct Economic Losses for Depreciated Replacement Costs Due to Flooding Percentage of Total Flood Loss Less than 0.5% 0.5% - 1% Source: HAZUS-MH May 2, 2016 ¯ 1% - 2% 2% - 5% 5% or Greater City Outline This model might not accurately assess damages to larger, high replacement cost facilities located in the floodplain. In particular, the model may not correctly assess the damages to Philadelphia International Airport and PES Refinery, which cover significant geographic areas that may experience varying extents of flood damage throughout. 164 While no casualty data calculations are currently available, modelling can predict the extent to which a 1-percent annual flood event affects the housing needs of individuals. HAZUS estimates that a 1-percent annual chance flood event would displace 13,703 individuals, with 12,539 people needing short-term shelter. HAZUS calculates displaced persons as anyone who would evacuate if any portion of a flooded census block. The number of persons requiring sheltering is a subset of the displaced or evacuated population based on the extent of projected building damage within a census block. This data is weighted by income and age, such that elderly and low-income persons are more likely to require sheltering. 4.3.6.5.1 Repetitive Loss Areas and Structures Summary In order to protect personal information, this section summarizes repetitive loss data by zip code. Data for the number of losses, payments, and number of policies in force came from FEMA Region III. NFIP policy counts are accurate as of January 1, 2016, while the total number of losses and amounts paid through the NFIP are accurate as of 2015. The following table reviews the number of repetitive losses and resulting payments. This table only covers payments from the NFIP. Data on other insurance payments received in conjunction with NFIP policy money, such as private policy reimbursements or payments are not available and are beyond the scope of this document. The following table captures the number of NFIP policies in force in the zip codes where there are repetitive losses reported. Repetitive Loss Claims Data by Zip Code in Philadelphia Zip Code Number of Losses Total Paid Average Paid Per Loss NFIP Policies in Force 19103 19106 19112 19113 19114 19116 19119 19120 19122 19123 19127 19128 19129 19130 19134 19135 19136 4 4 4 6 2 10 2 2 6 4 68 20 2 5 2 2 3 $ 119,383.65 $ 64,941.15 $ 29,745.95 $ 571,413.53 $ 5,239.87 $ 67,649.06 $ 13,142.43 $ 2,521.94 $ 94,895.25 $ 43,608.71 $ 9,217,051.58 $ 300,671.80 $ 22,000.12 $ 36,327.62 $ 14,621.99 $ 57,840.68 $ 18,534.85 $ 29,845.92 $ 16,235.29 $ 7,436.49 $95,235.59 $ 2,619.94 $ 7,035.94 $ 6,571.22 $ 1,260.97 $ 15,776.61 $ 10,902.18 $135,544.88 $ 15,033.59 $ 11,000.06 $ 6,539.94 $ 7,311.00 $ 28,920.34 $ 6,178.28 669 170 13 1 31 250 37 6 6 503 173 39 38 28 8 4 7 165 19138 19141 19145 19147 19148 19149 19152 19153 19154 Totals 5 2 2 5 4 5 13 154 2 338 $ 28,847.93 $ 12,939.73 $ 25,764.91 $ 24,238.49 $ 14,016.62 $ 60,886.36 $ 103,213.05 $ 2,989,137.49 $ 4,991.25 $13,943,626.01 $ 5,066.95 $ 6,469.87 $ 12,882.46 $ 4,648.83 $ 3,504.16 $ 10,814.40 $ 6,533.95 $ 19,409.98 $ 2,495.63 $ 18,279.79 22 16 19 349 39 10 23 848 41 3,350 Total residential repetitive loss properties: 84; total losses: 264 Total non-residential properties: 20; total losses: 73 166 4.3.7 Hazardous Materials Train Derailment Train derailments can happen for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Issues with the track, roadbed, and structures the train travels on; Signal and communications issues; Human error in train operations; Mechanical and/or electrical failures; or Other causes such as environmental conditions or loading procedures.247 In many cases, derailments do not result in the compromise of tank cars carrying hazardous materials or the release of dangerous chemicals. In rare cases, a derailment can result in the release of hazardous materials. Depending on the characteristics of the material released, these events can pose explosive, inhalation, and/or contaminant threats to the community. 4.3.7.1 Location Location information is proprietary and considered for official use only. For more details, please refer to the Vulnerability Assessment section of this hazard profile. 4.3.7.2 Magnitude The extent of effects of a train derailment involving hazardous materials is variable. Physical damage to infrastructure and the built environment from the derailment would be limited to areas directly adjacent to the rail right-of-way. The effects of a hazmat release and/or explosion from a derailment would depend upon the quantity and type of material present and the weather conditions at the time of the incident. A crude oil spill and explosion typically require an evacuation radius of one-half mile. The magnitude of the explosion could affect a large number of built structures. Spilled, non-combusting hazardous material could reach waterways, leading to environmental contamination. Non-liquid hazardous materials could form a plume, extending the area that would require evacuation or sheltering in place. The hazard Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis. Train Accident Cause Codes. Retrieved April 13, 2016. 247 167 could persist for days to a week. Rail equipment would require cranes and other industrial vehicles to be re-railed. Fire crews may not be able to extinguish fires easily because of the potential for a large amount of combustible fuel to be present. Spilled hazardous materials and damage to property from contamination or thermal and explosive impacts could take months depending on the scale of derailment and materials involved. 4.3.7.2.1 Worst-case Scenario Information included in the worst-case scenario is proprietary and considered for official use only. For more details, please refer to the Vulnerability Assessment section of this hazard profile. 4.3.7.2.2 Environmental Impact The effects of a derailment of a train carrying hazardous materials depends on the quantity of hazardous material released as well as the type of material or materials involved. The release of hazardous materials can affect groundwater supplies and waterways should the material be absorbed into the groundwater or washed into a waterway. Certain materials could prove dangerous to fish and wildlife through exposure or consumption. Non-liquid hazardous materials could result in a plume that may affect the surrounding environment. 4.3.7.3 Past Occurrences The table below lists those incidents where a train carrying hazardous materials derailed, resulting in a release of said materials. Derailments of Hazardous Material Carrying Trains in Philadelphia 1975 to 2015248 Date Speed at Time of Derailment Number of Cars Derailed 3/11/1983 20 mph 22 11/19/1999 8 mph 2 12/21/2000 18 mph 12 4.3.7.4 Future Occurrences Several factors contribute to the likelihood of future occurrences. Recent data analysis shows a steady rate or downturn in several hazardous materials transported in and around the region. The annual quantity of hazardous waste the state generates has declined by 23 percent over the past 10 years.249 Additionally, the greater southeastern Pennsylvania region contains refineries, chemical processing plants, and storage facilities that continue to store and transport potentially hazardous materials throughout Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis. “3.18 Accident by State/Railroad”. January 1975 to December 2015. Retrieved on May 19, 2016. 249 2014 Report Card for Pennsylvania’s Infrastructure. American Society of Civil Engineers. 248 168 the City. These amounts fluctuate based on market demands and operational capacities. Exact amounts transported and received are considered proprietary information. Numerous pieces of federal legislation regulate facilities’ reporting requirements.250 Reported information informs preparedness and planning efforts. High-hazard flammable unit trains are subject to speed restrictions in urban areas,251 such as the City of Philadelphia, further reducing the risk of a derailment. 252 Additionally, “high-hazard flammable unit trains” require a more stringent braking standard that reduces the risk of “pile up.” This standard will be fully implemented by 2021.253 4.3.7.5 Vulnerability Assessment The City of Philadelphia Office of Emergency Management recently conducted hazardous material risk and vulnerability assessments with a private vendor. The assessments evaluated the transportation and storage of chemicals throughout the region. Chemical facilities voluntarily supplied proprietary information in support of this study. Due to the proprietary nature of the information, and concerns surrounding potential theft and terror activities, the hazardous materials train derailment vulnerability assessment is available for official use only. For a full listing of federal reporting requirements for hazardous materials. Refer to the Environmental Protection Agency website. 251 DOT 42-15: DOT Announces Final Rule to Strengthen Safe Transportation of Flammable Liquids by Rail. U.S. Department of Transportation. May 1, 2015. Retrieved January 29, 2016. 252 Image: DOT 117 Specification Car. DOT Announces Final Rule to Strengthen Safe Transportation of Flammable Liquids by Rail. U.S. Department of Transportation. May 1, 2015. Retrieved January 29, 2016. 253 DOT 42-15: DOT Announces Final Rule to Strengthen Safe Transportation of Flammable Liquids by Rail. U.S. Department of Transportation. May 1, 2015. Retrieved January 29, 2016. 250 169 4.3.8 Hurricane/Tropical Storm A tropical cyclone is a general term for large thunderstorm complexes rotating around an area of low-pressure that has formed over warm tropical or sub-tropical ocean water. These complexes go by a variety of names depending on their intensity and location. The NOAA Hurricane Research Division classifies tropical cyclones as follows:254 255 ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Tropical Disturbance: A discrete tropical weather system of apparently organized convection - generally 200 to 600 km (100 to 300 nmi) in diameter - originating in the tropics or subtropics, having a non-frontal migratory character, and maintaining its identity for 24 hours or more. It may or may not be associated with a detectable perturbation of the wind field. Disturbances associated with perturbations in the wind field and progressing through the tropics from east to west are also known as easterly waves. Tropical Depression: A tropical cyclone in which the maximum sustained wind speed (using the U.S. one minute average standard) is up to 33 kts (38 mph, 17 m/s). Flooding in Manayunk during Depressions have a closed circulation. Tropical Storm: A tropical cyclone in which Hurricane Ivan the maximum sustained surface wind speed (using the U.S. 1 minute average standard) ranges from 34 kts (39 mph,17.5 m/s) to 63 kts (73 mph, 32.5 m/s). The convection in tropical storms is usually more concentrated near the center with outer rainfall organizing into distinct bands. Hurricane: When winds in a tropical cyclone equal or exceed 64 kts (74 mph, 33 m/s) it is called a hurricane (in the Atlantic and eastern and central Pacific Oceans). Hurricanes are further designated by categories on the Saffir-Simpson scale. A tropical disturbance must meet several conditions to reach hurricane status:256 ▪ Warm tropical waters must be at least 80°F, ideally to the depth of a few hundred feet. Warm water means plenty of evaporation, which leads to water vapor fueling a thunderstorm. (Water temperatures off New Jersey and Delaware rarely get this warm for long periods of time and over a large area. Consequently, for a tropical system to affect Philadelphia, it has to form farther south and move northward). Hurricane Research Division. Frequently Asked Questions: What is a tropical disturbance, tropical depression or tropical storm? NOAA. Retrieved 10 December 2011. 255 Image: Manayunk Neighborhood Council. “Hurricane Ivan--September 18 2004”. Retrieved January 15, 2016. 256 Hurricane Research Division. Frequently Asked Questions: How do tropical cyclones form? NOAA. Retrieved 10 December 2011. 254 170 ▪ The mid-troposphere (approx. three miles up from the earth’s surface) must be relatively moist (high dew points), to allow the continuing development of widespread thunderstorm activity. ▪ The wind speed and direction must not vary greatly from lower to higher levels in the atmosphere (low values of vertical wind shear). Strong high-altitude winds or winds that change direction with height tend to blow tops of thunderstorms, interrupting development. ▪ A tropical disturbance must be at least 300 miles from the equator. This insures non-negligible amounts of the Coriolis force (a fictitious force used to account for the apparent deflection of a body in motion with respect to the earth) to provide circulation within the system. Atlantic hurricanes form off the coast of Africa, in the Caribbean Sea, or in the Gulf of Mexico. Hurricanes can produce violent winds, tornadoes, powerful waves and storm surge, and torrential rains and floods. By the time most tropical systems reach Pennsylvania, they do not have hurricane-force winds. The official hurricane season for the Atlantic Basin (the Atlantic Ocean, the Caribbean Sea, and the Gulf of Mexico) is from June 1 to November 30. Most hurricanes in Philadelphia have occurred in August and September.257 However, deadly hurricanes can occur any time during the year.258 4.3.8.1 Location Philadelphia is located about 80 miles inland from the mouth of the Delaware Bay (30 miles inland from where the Delaware River meets the Bay), and approximately 60 miles from the Atlantic Coast. As such, Philadelphia is located in an area where tropical cyclones could track inland causing heavy rain and strong winds. Tropical cyclones are regional events that can affect an area hundreds of miles long; therefore, all neighborhoods within Philadelphia are equally subject to the impacts of these storms. 4.3.8.2 Magnitude Meteorologists classify hurricanes by their wind speed on a damage-potential scale developed by Herbert Saffir, a consulting engineer, and Robert Simpson, a NWS meteorologist, in the 1970s. The Saffir-Simpson Scale divides storms into five categories based on the highest one-minute average wind speed in the storm, as seen in the table below. A hurricane’s category typically changes as it intensifies or weakens. Meteorologists describe Category 3 through Category 5 hurricanes as major hurricanes. The chart on the following page provides details on the Saffir-Simpson Scale and its damage descriptions. “Historical Hurricane Tracks”. NOAA, National Ocean Service. Retrieved April 14, 2016. National Hurricane Center. Tropical Cyclone Climatology. National Weather Service. Retrieved December 10, 2011. 257 258 171 Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale 259 Category Storm Surge Winds Damage Damage Description ▪ 1 6.1 – 10.5 ft. 74-95 mph Moderate ▪ ▪ ▪ 2 13.0-16.6 ft. 96-110 mph Moderate – Severe ▪ ▪ ▪ 3 14.8-25 ft. 111-130 mph Extensive ▪ ▪ ▪ 4 24.6-31.3 ft. 131-155 mph Extreme ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ 5 Not predicted >155 mph Catastrophic ▪ ▪ ▪ Damage primarily to trees and unanchored homes Some damage to poorly constructed signs Coastal road flooding Some roofing material, door, and window damage to buildings Considerable damage to shrubbery and trees Flooding of low-lying areas Some structural damage to residences and utility buildings Foliage blown off trees and large trees blown down Structures close to the coast will have structural damage by floating debris Curtain wall failures with utilities and roof structures on residential buildings Shrubs, trees, and signs all blown down Extensive damage to doors and windows Major damage to lower floors of structures near the shore Complete roof failure on many residences and industrial buildings Some complete building and utility failures Severe, extensive window and door damage Major damage to lower floors of all structures close to shore NOAA. The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale. The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale Team. Retrieved December 2, 2015. 259 172 Wind speeds in most hurricanes diminish exponentially once they make landfall; their wind speed typically halves within about seven hours after the storm crosses the coastline.260 However, hurricanes occasionally do not lose their strength and transition to become extratropical cyclones, cyclones in the middle or high latitudes often associated with an extensive cold front. In 1954, Hurricane Hazel made landfall in North Carolina, yet maintained close to 100mph winds when entering the Philadelphia region. 4.3.8.2.1 Environmental Impact Hurricanes and tropical storms can cause high winds and flooding. For more information on the environmental impacts of flooding, see the Flooding environmental impacts section in this risk assessment. Hurricanes and tropical storms are also associated with both wind gusts and sustained winds that may affect the environment. Winds can cause damage to trees. Felled trees and limbs can partially block waterways, affecting turbidity if the downed tree is large enough, or the tributary small enough. High winds can also cause erosion of top soil if the soil is dry or loose enough. Additionally, a tropical storm or hurricane winds can spread trash and debris over a large area, complicating cleanup efforts. 4.3.8.2.2 Worst-case scenario The following worst-case scenario is based off past occurrences, projections from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and climate change/storm surge modeling. A late summer hurricane with a track initially similar to that of Hurricane Sandy of 2012 moves northwest up the Delaware Bay at high tide. The eye of the storm tracks west of the Delaware Bay and the storm makes landfall as a Category 3 hurricane near Lewes, Delaware, skirting the Delaware coast before turning north near Wilmington, Delaware. This track causes a maximum storm surge up the Delaware River and its tributaries, and the storm produces hurricane force winds across the Philadelphia region. Building collapses result due to the strong sustained winds. As the storm weakens to a tropical storm and then depression, and stalls over central eastern Pennsylvania, severe riverine flooding occurs across much of the southeastern region of the state, including the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers, and Frankford and Pennypack Creeks. Critical infrastructure, homes, and businesses are flooded along waterways. Keller, Blodgett. Natural Hazards: Earth’s Processes as Hazards, Disasters, and Catastrophes. Second Edition.2008. 260 173 4.3.8.3 Past Occurrences The following table lists the ten most destructive hurricanes and tropical storms in terms of damage estimates and loss of life with centers of circulation occurring within 65 miles of Philadelphia.261 261 Year Event 1999 Floyd 1878 Unnamed 1972 Agnes 2012 Sandy Ten Most Deadliest and Most Destructive Hurricanes/ Tropical Storms Passing Within 65 Statute Miles of Philadelphia Strength In/ Near Peak Intensity Damage Notes Philadelphia Caused eight deaths in Pennsylvania Category 4 Tropical Storm Produced 2.8 ft. storm surge Hurricane 3,500 homes were flooded and 1,000 residents were evacuated Caused seven deaths in Philadelphia Caused $2 million in damage Category 2 Tropical Storm Hurricane Destroyed several buildings Peak winds at 72 mph Caused three deaths in Philadelphia Category 1 Tropical Storm Hurricane Highest flooding on record at Fairmont Dam Caused 2 deaths in Philadelphia Caused $20 million dollars in damage in Pennsylvania Left 850,000 customers without power Refineries within the city could not operate at full capacity Category 3 because of power outages Category 1 Hurricane Hurricane All SEPTA and Amtrak service suspended Interstates 95, 76, 476 and 676 as well as Route 1 closed during the storm Caused flooding along the Delaware River on Delaware Avenue and Columbus Boulevard Save for the storms of 1878 and 1933, very few details concerning loss of life and property are available for storms prior to 1945. 174 2011 Lee Tropical Storm Tropical Storm 2011 Irene Category 2 Hurricane Tropical Storm 1933 Unnamed Category 4 Hurricane Tropical Storm 1954 Hazel Category 4 Hurricane Tropical Storm 1955 Connie Category 1 Hurricane Tropical Storm 1955 Diane Category 1 Hurricane Tropical Storm Caused one death in Philadelphia Caused rockslide in the vicinity of the Conshohocken Curve, flooding near Belmont Avenue and a mudslide by Girard Avenue on the Schuylkill Expressway Caused widespread flash flooding, as well as flooding in Manayunk and on Kelly Drive Regionally, Lee destroyed 22 homes and businesses, 201 structures suffered major damage, 672 received minor damage and 1,217 were affected Manayunk and Lincoln Drive flooded Caused the collapse of seven buildings and damage to thirteen other structures within the city The Schuylkill and Delaware rivers crested at 13.5 ft. and 9.77 ft. respectively, in Philadelphia Estimated 11,800 flights cancelled at PHL, grounding 650,000 passengers More than 500 trees fell in the city and twenty roads were closed The storm surge of 3 to 5 feet caused moderate tidal flooding along tidal sections of the Delaware River Three shelters opened in Philadelphia Pennsylvania Highway Department estimated $800,000 in damages to streets and bridges in Southeastern Pennsylvania Caused the third highest crest on the Schuylkill River at 14.7 feet Widespread flooding occurred along the Schuylkill River Caused widespread destruction - most of the damage caused by wind 94 mph gusts recorded in Philadelphia Many people evacuated (exact number unknown), including 800 scouts from Camp Delmont Flooding caused along Delaware River Flooding caused along Delaware River Heavy runoff from northeastern rivers caused extensive flooding downstream Occurred a week following Connie 175 4.3.8.4 Future Occurrences General scientific consensus suggests that tropical storms may decline in number globally, but increase in the number of Category 3, 4, and 5 storms.262 There is some suggestion that the greatest increase in major hurricanes could occur over the western Atlantic basin in response to warmer sea surface temperatures and reductions in vertical wind shear.263 Taking into additional considerations by NOAA’s Hurricane and Research Division’s North Atlantic hurricane season classifications, Philadelphia can expect the following seasonal means and ranges for a below-normal, near-normal, and above-normal season.264 Season Type AboveNormal NearNormal BelowNormal All Seasons Mean # of Tropical Storms Range of Tropical Storms Mean # of Hurricanes Range of Hurricanes Mean # of Major Hurricanes Range of Major Hurricanes 16.5 12 to 28 9.7 7 to 15 4.8 3 to 7 12.3 10 to 15 6.3 4 to 9 2.3 1 to 4 6.7 4 to 9 3.3 2 to 4 1 0 to 2 12.1 4 to 28 6.4 2 to 15 2.7 0 to 7 4.3.8.5 Vulnerability Assessment High winds and flooding are the primary hazards associated with tropical cyclones. High winds often result in power outages, disruptions to transportation corridors and equipment, loss of workplace access, significant property damage, injuries and loss of life, and the need to shelter and care for individuals impacted by these events. A large amount of damage can be inflicted by trees, branches, and other objects that fall onto power lines, buildings, roads, vehicles, and, in some cases, individuals. Additionally, tropical cyclones can bring heavy rains and storm surge, which can cause significant flooding. Storm surge is an abnormal rise in sea level accompanying an intense storm, whose height is the difference between the observed level of the sea Growing Stronger Toward a Climate-Ready Philadelphia. Mayor’s Office of Sustainability. Retrieved December 11, 2015. 263 Climate of the Southeast United States: Variability, Change, Impacts, and Vulnerability. Pg 35. Keith T. Ingram, Kirstin Dow, Lynne Carter, and Julie Anderson. Retrieved December 11, 2015. 264 Table: Background Information: The North Atlantic Hurricane Season. National Weather Service: Climate Prediction Center. Retrieved April 14, 2016. 262 176 surface and the level that would have occurred in the absence of the storm.265 In general, storm surge is greatest in the right forward quadrant of the storm as it makes landfall. In simple terms, the right forward quadrant includes the area of the storm that is in front of the storm’s eyewall and on the right side of the storm. The height of the surge is generally greatest near the time of maximum wind speed and is greater if landfall takes place at high tide. In addition, the shape of the coastline affects storm surge. In a narrow Bay, such as the Delaware Bay, storm surge may increase as water sloshes back and forth in the partially enclosed body of water. Therefore, a worst-case scenario for Philadelphia would include a high magnitude hurricane moving up the Delaware Bay during high tide with the center of the storm slightly to the west of Philadelphia. Due to Philadelphia’s mid-latitude, inland location, by the time most storms reach the area, they fail to satisfy the definition of a hurricane or tropical storm. However, the City has experienced flooding in association with hurricanes and tropical storms in the past. The Flood Hazard Profile within this plan addressed flooding due to heavy rains, but this section covers storm surge related flooding. Two computer models were used to assess the two primary impacts associated with hurricanes: SLOSH for storm surge and HAZUS for hurricane winds. NOAA’s Sea, Lake, and Overland Surge from Hurricanes (SLOSH) Display Package estimates storm surge heights for different hurricane scenarios and can be used to assess potential flooding and need for evacuation. The SLOSH analysis presented here is based on maximum storm surge heights at high tide for all hurricanes of a given category. NOAA’s SLOSH Maximum of Maximum inundation maps for hurricane categories one through three were overlaid with flood depth grids and Census data to estimate the impact of hurricanes within the SLOSH zones. HAZUS is FEMA's methodology for estimating potential losses from disasters, and contains a hurricane module that focuses on hurricane winds and estimates related effects on population and infrastructure. This model was applied using the same general building stock data compiled for the flood hazard analysis. No additional modifications were made to the hurricane model, as reliable data was not readily available. The likelihood for hurricane-strength winds in Philadelphia is relatively low because of its northern, inland location. Wind speeds of 74 mph and higher are generally considered hurricane-strength. Philadelphia has approximately a one percent chance of experiencing this in any given year. The following table shows the peak wind gusts that Philadelphia could experience associated with a hurricane and the related probability of occurrence. 265 Ibid 177 Peak Wind Gusts Associated with Hurricanes in Philadelphia Likelihood of Exceeding Return Period Peak Wind Gust in any Given Year 10-Year 10% 37 - 40 mph 20-Year 5% 49 – 53 mph 50-Year 2% 63 – 68 mph 100-Year 1% 73 – 78 mph 200-Year 0.5% 81 – 86 mph 500-Year 0.2% 92 – 96 mph 1000-Year 0.1% 98 – 103 mph The environmental impacts associated with tropical cyclones in Philadelphia are consistent with those described for flood hazards and wind hazards within the respective vulnerability sections of each hazard profile. 178 Structural and economic damages come from both wind and flood damages in a hurricane scenario. The table below details building damages associated with hurricane winds. No building damage or economic loss is associated with the 10 or 20-year return periods. Thus, the likelihood of experiencing building damage or economic loss due to hurricane winds in Philadelphia is approximately 2 percent in any given year, although total destruction of buildings is less likely. Building Damage Counts due to Hurricane Winds (Probabilistic) Return Minor Moderate Severe Destruction Period Damage Damage Damage 10-Year 0 0 0 0 20-Year 0 0 0 0 50-Year 449 12 0 0 100-Year 1,682 67 0 0 200-Year 6,297 356 10 0 500-Year 24,896 2,106 34 10 1000-Year 46,044 5,097 103 49 Direct Economic Loss (in Dollars) due to Hurricane Winds (Probabilistic) Capital Stock Business Interruption Return Period Total Losses Losses (Income) Losses 10-Year $ $ $ 20-Year $ - $ - $ - 50-Year $ 18,430,000.00 $ 18,406,000.00 $ 100-Year $ 86,166,000.00 $ 85,445,000.00 $ 721,000.00 200-Year $ 230,673,000.00 $ 219,177,000.00 $ 11,496,000.00 500-Year $ 603,453,000.00 $ 565,247,000.00 $ 38,206,000.00 1000-Year $ 1,064,123,000.00 $ 966,695,000.00 $ 97,428,000.00 Annualized $ 6,232,000.00 $ 5,715,000.00 $ 517,000.00 24,000.00 179 The table below provides more specific information on economic losses associated with a 100-year return period or hurricane winds with a 1 percent chance of occurring in any given year in Philadelphia. In contrast to flooding, damages related to hurricane winds would more significantly affect the exterior and structure of buildings themselves, as opposed to building contents and inventory, particularly because total destruction of buildings is not expected during a 100-year event. Direct Economic Losses for Buildings in a 100-Year Hurricane Event (All values are in thousands of dollars) Cost Building Damage $84,572 Capital Stock Losses Cost Contents Damage $873 Inventory Loss $ Relocation Loss $369 Capital Related Loss $ Income Losses Wages Losses $ Rental Income Loss $352 Total Loss $86,166 180 In addition to wind damage, there is a possibility for flood damage from hurricane storm surge and a different subset of population and infrastructure that may be affected or further impacted. The table below shows the SLOSH zones associated with a Category 3 hurricane in Philadelphia, the worst-case scenario for a hurricane. SLOSH zones represent areas that may experience flooding from hurricane storm surge. Though SLOSH zones and floodplains may overlap, these are different. Category 3 Hurricane Storm Surge Inundation SLOSH, Maximum of Maximums Inundation Depths Up to 3 feet above ground Greater than 3 feet above ground ¯ Greater than 6 feet above ground Greater than 9 feet above ground Data processed by the National Hurricane Center (NHC) Storm Surge Unit and web mapping services generated by the NOAA Office for Coastal Management (NOAA OCM). Source: NOAA NHC Category 3 Hurricane Storm Surge Inundation May 2, 2016 181 As a Category 3 hurricane is the worst-case scenario for Philadelphia, modeling using SLOSH inundation data for such an event layered with 2014 American Community Survey population data can provide displacement and sheltering estimates. Using block group level population data, those block groups whose centroids fell within a SLOSH feature based on the Category 3 maximum of maximums (show in the map above) would be temporarily displaced. The table below calculates the displaced population, as well as sheltering and access and functional needs for the affected population using percentages from FEMA guidance. Displaced Population in a Category 3 Hurricane Displaced population 111,348 Displaced population with access and 22,270 functional needs Displaced population requiring shelter 14,475 Displaced population requiring shelter 2,895 with access and functional needs 182 Of particular concern are critical facilities located within the SLOSH zones that potentially could be damaged by storm surge flooding or may require special consideration during an evacuation. The table below lists the critical assets located in the Category 1, 2, and 3 SLOSH zones. Critical Assets in the SLOSH Zones in Philadelphia Total Number Number in SLOSH Zone 1 Number in SLOSH Zone 2 Number in SLOSH Zone 3 48 0 2 0 57 0 0 0 2 22 0 0 1 0 0 0 61 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 438 0 1 4 Colleges/Universities 30 0 0 0 Hospitals 31 0 0 0 Dialysis Centers Nursing Homes Water/Wastewater Treatment Facilities 43 51 0 0 0 0 1 1 6 0 1 1 Electric Substations Total Unknown 0 1 4 Hazardous Material Reporting Facilities 398 1 19 56 Critical Asset Rail Stations Subway/Subsurface Trolley Stations Airports Police Stations Fire/EMS Stations Emergency Operations Center Schools 183 4.3.9 Improvised Explosive Device (IED) An IED attack is the “use of a ‘homemade’ bomb and/or destructive device to destroy, incapacitate, harass, or distract”.266 IEDs come in a range of forms, from a small pipe bomb to a larger scale, more sophisticated explosive capable of causing large loss of life. Delivery of the explosive can be by a device strapped to an individual, in a package, or in a vehicle, among various other techniques. Explosive materials can range from simple to complex based upon the difficulty of procurement or the technical capability required to develop them from constituent substances. The majority of terrorism-related attacks worldwide use explosives.267 Shrapnel material, propellant, or additional hazardous materials can worsen the impact of an IED. 4.3.9.1 Location Locations at the greatest risk for IED attack are those that have high densities of people; low security measures; high visibility; and an iconic, religious, or geopolitically significant location. Locations that meet such a criteria include, but are not limited to museums, government buildings with a public interface, landmarks, and festivals. As seen in the 2015 attacks in Paris, terrorists may target numerous locations and types of facilities at the same time. 4.3.9.2 Magnitude The IED’s construction, composition, and location control the explosive’s effects on both the population and the built environment. The type and quantity of explosive determines the extent of the damage. Primary impacts of an IED are generally limited to the area of detonation. Immediate health effects resulting from an IED include: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Overpressure damage: Overpressure is the pressure caused by a shock wave. Organs such as the lungs and ears are pressure-sensitive. Fragmentation injuries: Shrapnel from the bomb and objects around it can cause serious harm as they fly through the air. Impact injuries: Impact injuries occur when a person or object launches into another person or object, causing bodily harm. Thermal injuries: These include burns internally and externally as a result of the explosion.268 “IED Attack Improvised Explosive Devices”. Department of Homeland Security. News & Terrorism Communicating in a Crisis. Retrieved 6 October 2015. 267 Ibid. 268 Ibid. 266 184 The chart below illustrates the primary impact range surrounding an explosive device. 269 Secondary effects may exist, depending on the built environment surrounding the area of the blast. Built environment secondary impacts include structural collapse of damaged buildings. Secondary effects may also include psychological effects, eye injuries, and abdominal injuries that can manifest hours or even months later. 4.3.9.2.1 Worst-case scenario The following worst-case scenario is derived from analysis location projections and trends in terrorist attacks. In the late summer, a domestic terror group targets a private celebration taking place in the early afternoon at the Philadelphia Constitution Center. The group detonates a single IED at the nearby Liberty Bell, causing the Center and the surrounding attractions to evacuate. As tourists and workers from nearby businesses stream towards the exits, the terrorists detonate two IEDs inside the Constitution Center. Simultaneously, the terrorists detonate a vehicle borne IED located between tour buses parked alongside the Center, causing additional casualties and partially blocking access to the Center for emergency vehicles. 4.3.9.2.2 Environmental Impacts The environmental impact of an IED would largely depend on the location and size of the detonation. Given that the most likely areas targeted would be largely urban, environmental impact would be minimal. In the event of an IED attack, damage would be limited to the immediately surrounding trees and vegetation. If an attack occurs along 269 Bomb Threat Stand-Off Chart. Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved March 23, 2016. 185 a waterway and causes structural collapse, larger pieces of debris in a waterway could also disrupt flow and local currents, leading to sediment build-up and increases in turbidity. 4.3.9.3 Past Occurrences The Philadelphia Police Department Bomb Disposal Unit (BDU) responds to numerous suspicious object calls every week. Few are legitimately dangerous. The BDU renders dangerous devices safe and properly disposes of them. The frequency of founded devices requiring actions is sensitive and beyond the scope of this document.270 4.3.9.4 Future Occurrences Philadelphia continues to host high-profile events, and to serve as a rich cultural and historical city drawing local, national, and international crowds. As a result, there is an ongoing risk that terrorists may target sites and events that draw large groups of people. The Philadelphia Police Department Bomb Disposal Unit, along with other local and federal partners addresses suspicious devices and activities as swiftly and safely as possible.271 4.3.9.5 Vulnerability Assessment The loss estimations for an explosive device incorporates data from the 2015 THIRA. The impact of an explosive device largely depends on the material, location, and size of the device. This vulnerability assessment assumes a large, vehicle-borne improvised explosive device at a heavily attended public event. The human impact of the improvised explosive device in this scenario would be large. The City could expect 210 fatalities and over 1,216 casualties resulting from the detonation, debris projectiles, and partial building collapses in the immediate area. Local hospitals and medical services implement surge procedures and disaster plans, requesting additional resources as needed. The evacuation of all spectators at an event would result in potentially 65,000 people or more requiring short term sheltering. If any surrounding hotels or homes are affected, an additional 1,000 displaced residents and hotel guests may require medium-stay sheltering. Of the affected population, approximately 45% will seek some type of health or social services. An explosive device attack at a landmark or near a stadium would result in large economic losses. The cost to rebuild a landmark or stadium, compounded with a loss of revenue at and around the location, could exceed $500 million dollars. Over 800 tons of debris must be cleared from around bombed sites. Officials or site operators may close major cultural venues indefinitely because of an attack, affecting schedules of concerts, Global Terrorism Database. Retrieved January 14, 2016. Image: “Philadelphia Police Ordinance Disposal Unit-Bomb Squad 2”. Phillycop. March 18, 2009. Retrieved February 5, 2016. 270 271 186 sporting events, and other cultural activities. Short and long term economic consequences could occur within travel, tourism, and entertainment industries. An improvised explosive device attack would also affect access and transportation. Ingress/egress routes would close to the immediate area of the site, except to allow first responders priority access to arenas. SEPTA would close mass transit lines through the affected area are closed until it is determined there is no longer a threat. 187 4.3.10 Infrastructure Failure Infrastructure may collapse if a natural or human-made hazard compromises a structure’s integrity. Older or weak construction, as well as structures that do not meet building codes, are more susceptible to hazards. This section takes into consideration three types of structural infrastructure failures or collapses: ▪ ▪ ▪ Bridge failures, Dam failures, and Building collapses. Bridge Failure A bridge collapse consists of a failure of decking, superstructure, or foundation leading to a progressive or immediate collapse of the entire assembly. Bridges can span waterways, railways, or roadways and provide overpasses for surface transportation or passenger/freight rail lines. Potential causes of bridge collapse include: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Unchecked oxidation – Oxidation occurs when an iron or an alloy that contains iron is exposed to moisture and oxygen for an extended period. The resulting rust causes degradation of the integrity of structures. Additionally, because rust has a much higher volume than the iron or alloy it originated from, rust build up can occur and cause failure of adjacent parts. Concrete deterioration – Concrete deterioration can result from numerous causes, the most common of which results from the corrosion of reinforcing steel through unchecked oxidation.272 Other causes include carbonation, exposure to chloride ions such as in deicing salts, freeze-thaw deterioration, and abrasion/erosion. Repetitive stress fractures – Stress fractures can result from repetitive traffic loads that cause fatigue cracking in the top and bottom of a pavement. Repetitive wear from tires or rail loads causes cracks along the top of the pavement, while repetitive tensile stresses (the continuous bending of the pavement layers from vehicle loads) causes cracks along the bottom of the pavement.273 Harmonic vibration- Harmonic vibration occurs when a bridge, or any other structure, oscillates or vibrates at a regular rate. Heavy traffic, heavy foot loads, or machinery can cause vibrations. If the vibrations happen at a system’s resonance frequency, or the natural frequency of an object determined by the materials used and construction type, the oscillation increases the amount of energy stored. When this stored energy exceeds an object’s load limit, it will lose structural integrity. Excessive traffic loads- Engineers and regulating agencies will often rate bridges for a load rating. A load rating evaluates the capability of various Portland Cement Association. “Concrete Information: Types and Causes of Concrete Deterioration”. Retrieved January 14, 2016. 273 S.M.J.G. Erkens and J. Moraal. “Cracking in asphalt concrete”. Delft University of Technology. Retrieved January 14, 2016. 272 188 ▪ structural parts to carry moving vehicles, foot traffic, and other loads. When a bridge experiences excessive traffic loads in excess of the load rating, there is the risk for structural damage. Wind load – Wind load refers to the push and pull of wind, which can cause undue stress for those bridges not reinforced to withstand excessive wind loads.274 Dam Failure A dam failure is the systematic failure of a dam structure, resulting in the uncontrolled release of water. In the event of a dam failure, the energy of the stored water behind even a small dam can cause significant property damage if structures exist downstream. Flash flooding events can occur when a dam fails, resulting in fast-moving waters, uprooted trees, and damaged bridges and roads. Dam failures can result from natural events, accidental or intentional human causes, or a combination of the two. FEMA lists reasons for dam failure as one or a combination of the following:        Overtopping caused by floods that exceed the capacity of the dam; Deliberate acts of sabotage; Structural failure of materials used in dam construction; Movement and/or failure of the foundation supporting the dam; Settlement and cracking of concrete or embankment dams; Piping and internal erosion of soil in embankment dams; Inadequate maintenance and upkeep.275 Failures and breaches can occur without warning, or happen over a span of days to weeks, such as in result of debris jams, the accumulation of melting snow, or by the buildup of water pressure on a dam. Building Collapse Buildings may collapse for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Overall structural integrity; Poor construction or maintenance Accidents; Environmental forces, such as wind or heavy snowfall; or Earthquakes. When the internal load bearing structural elements of a building fail—because of overall structural integrity, construction, or similar activity—the building will collapse into itself. If 274 275 LSU College of Agriculture. “What’s a wind load?” Retrieved January 14, 2016. Why Dams Fail. FEMA. Retrieved January 29, 2016. 189 natural forces such as weather or an explosion cause the structural failure, the building may collapse in an outward direction, resulting in a more dispersed debris field.276 4.3.10.1 Location 4.3.10.1.1 Bridge Failure Locations Structurally deficient bridges are at a higher risk for collapse than those not graded as such. A “structurally deficient bridge” typically requires maintenance and repairs to remain in service, or rehabilitation or replacement to address the underlying issue.277 278 Depending on the type and extent of deterioration, the Philadelphia Streets Department or PennDOT may impose weight restrictions. If the deterioration is severe, regulating agencies may shut down the bridge to traffic until maintenance crews can repair the damage. Safety is always the City’s and State’s top priority, and if officials find a bridge is unsafe, it is closed. Reports cite that Pennsylvania has the greatest absolute number of structurally deficient bridges in the United States.279 Of these structurally deficient bridges, nine out of 10 of the most travelled in Pennsylvania are located in the Philadelphia area.280 Philadelphia has 422 State, city, and privately owned bridges.281 Of these bridges, regulating agencies identified 63 as structurally deficient.282 As seen in the graph below, structurally deficient bridges make up 15 percent of the bridges in Philadelphia. Clusters of structural deficiencies exist along the following routes: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Interstate 95, from Interstate 676 to Bucks County; Schuylkill River crossings between Interstate 676 and Walnut Street; 34th Street Bridge; and The length of the Glenwood and Sedgley Avenue Conrail/Amtrak rail lines. “Structural Collapse Guide”. Occupational Safety & Health Administration, Safety and Health Guides. Retrieved April 14, 2016. 277 2010 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance - System Conditions: Highways and Bridges. Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved March 23, 2016. 278 Ibid. 279 American Society for Civil Engineers (ASCE). Report Card for Pennsylvania’s Infrastructure 2014: Bridges. Retrieved March 23, 2016. 280 City of Philadelphia Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. 2014. Retrieved January 14, 2016. 281 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Bridge Information. Retrieved January 14, 2016. 282 City of Philadelphia Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. 2014. Retrieved January 14, 2016. 276 190 The map below shows the location of structurally deficient bridges in the Philadelphia area. 191 4.3.10.1.2 Dam Failure Locations The City of Philadelphia has 17 dams within its borders, each governing different amounts of water from the waterways that pass through the city. Philadelphia and the surrounding region originally used dams as a way to manage water for numerous different uses such as preventing brackish water in the Delaware River from mixing with fresh water, as in the case of the Fairmount Dam. Other uses included flood mitigation and drinking water control. Regulating agencies can classify dams as “high-hazard” depending on dam failure consequences. A high-hazard dam is one that will result in the loss of at least one human life if the dam fails. The Army Corps of Engineers works with FEMA and state regulatory offices to collect the data that leads to a high-hazard classification. Philadelphia maintains emergency plans for its high-hazard dams, which include inundation modeling and emergency response operations for the communities and infrastructure located downstream from the dams. The table on the following page lists A view of the Fairmount Dam. the location of these high-hazard dams, along with all other dams in Philadelphia.283 283 “Philadelphia Dams”. PASDA, City of Philadelphia. Retrieved March 24, 2016. 192 Dams in Philadelphia284 Dam Name High-Hazard Dam Permittee Waterway Dam Number Flat Rock Yes DEP Schuylkill River 51-001 Fairmount No Philadelphia Water Department Schuylkill River 51-002 Tacony Creek Park No City Of Philadelphia Tacony Creek 51-006 Debris No City Of Philadelphia Tacony Creek 51-008 Margaree No City Of Philadelphia Wissahickon Creek 51-009 East Park Reservoir Yes Philadelphia Water Department Watershed Schuylkill River 51-012 Franklin Mills Detention Basin Yes Franklin Mills Associates Limited Partnership Poquessing Creek 51-013 Veree Road No City Of Philadelphia Pennypack Creek 51-015 Queen Lane Raw Water Basin Yes Philadelphia Water Department Watershed Schuylkill River 51-016 Belmont Raw Water Basin Yes Philadelphia Water Department Watershed Schuylkill River 51-017 Image: "Fairmount Water Works Dam" by Ben Franske - Own work. Licensed under GFDL via Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved January 29, 2016 284 193 Robeson-Vandaren Mill Upper No City Of Philadelphia Wissahickon Creek 51-018 Grant Street No City Of Philadelphia Wissahickon Creek 51-019 Thomas Mill Road No City Of Philadelphia Wissahickon Creek 51-020 Livezey No City Of Philadelphia Wissahickon Creek 51-021 Baxter Raw Water Basin No Philadelphia Water Department Watershed Delaware 51-023 River Morris Arboretum Swan Pond No Morris Arboretum Wissahickon Creek 51-024 Roosevelt Boulevard No City Of Philadelphia Pennypack Creek 51-026 194 Dams in Philadelphia VEREE ROAD MORRISARBORETUM SWAN POND THOMAS ROAD MARGAREE FRANKLIN MILLS DETENTION BASIN A LIVEZEY ?gm FLAT Ro CK TACONY CREEK WATER BASIN ROBESON VANDAREN MILL UPPER-G GRANT STREET DEBRIS ELMONT RAW WATER BASIN QU EEN LANE RAW ER BASIN EAST PARK RESERVOIR Legend Philadelphia Dams 195 In addition to those dams located in Philadelphia, dams outside the area also affect waterways in the city. Although this document focuses strictly on infrastructure within Philadelphia, it is important to note that dams outside of the City’s jurisdiction may affect Philadelphia. Dam releases upstream may affect the water levels of Philadelphia tributaries. Dam collapses upstream produce similar effects as a riverine flooding event. However, upstream dam collapses would not create the same levels of debris or infrastructure loss than if the dam collapse occurred in Philadelphia. To learn more about riverine flooding and its consequences, see the Flooding hazard profile. The table below details those dams that may impact Philadelphia in the event of a dam failure. Regional Dams that may Affect Philadelphia in the Event of a Breach Dam Name County High Hazard? Blue Marsh285 Berks Yes Pine Grove Chester Yes 4.3.10.1.3 Building Collapse Locations Three factors contribute to the collapse of buildings in Philadelphia, and can assist in identifying those areas at greater risk for building collapses. These three factors are: ▪ ▪ ▪ Building age; Vacancy rates; and Imminently dangerous property designation. The maximum controlled reservoir release rate from the flood control gates at Blue Marsh is 5,400 CFS. Uncontrolled releases in excess of 5,400 CFS are possible, however, only when the pool elevation exceeds the spillway elevation at 307 Feet. Uncontrolled spillway releases have only happened twice since the installation of Blue Marsh Reservoir in the mid-1970s. During high streamflow conditions on the Schuylkill River, releases from Blue Marsh take approximately 1-2 days to reach Philadelphia. During normal to low streamflow conditions, releases from Blue Marsh take approximately 2 -3 days to reach Philadelphia. 285 196 Building age and ongoing maintenance affect the risk of building collapse. Older, vacant and under-maintained structures are at particular risk. Thirty-nine percent of Philadelphia’s housing units were built prior to 1939.286 The image below shows the number of properties built prior to 1939. As the image shows, many of the older homes are located in the central area of Philadelphia and in the residential areas along the Delaware River. Physical Housing Characteristics for Occupied Housing Units: Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. American Factfinder. United States Census. Retrieved April 8, 2016. 286 197 Vacant properties also increase the risk of a building collapse, as these properties fall into disrepair and neglect. Philadelphia has a higher percentage of vacant properties than the national average, with 13.3 percent of properties vacant as of 2013 census estimates.287 Vacancy Status: Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. American Factfinder. United States Census. Retrieved April 8, 2016. 287 198 Philadelphia Licenses and Inspections (L&I) records imminently dangerous structures found each year through inspections. The map below shows the location of imminently dangerous structures at a zip code level. These locations have a higher risk of building collapses. 199 4.3.10.2 Magnitude Infrastructure collapses typically affect adjacent structures and properties. Secondary impacts can range from temporary traffic disruption to longer-term traffic congestion on alternate routes. Obstruction or damage to infrastructure, rail systems, and waterways can lead to temporary disruptions. In the case of a dam failure, flooding is also a higher risk than for a bridge or building collapse. The magnitude and extent of the flooding depends on the size and location of the dam. 4.3.10.2.1 Worst-Case Scenarios 4.3.10.2.1.1 Bridge Failure The following worst-case scenario is derived from analysis of bridge collapses elsewhere in the nation and the bridge traffic in Philadelphia. During a snowy weekday rush hour, a section of the Delaware Expressway over Palmer-Cumberland streets collapses on to the under-passing roadway. The incident involves cars, a semi-truck, and their passengers on both the bridge and underpass. The collapse traps drivers in crushed vehicles and under debris. Severe traffic back-ups occur as a result, complicating extrication and rescue efforts. 4.3.10.2.1.2 Dam Failure The following worst-case scenario is derived from analysis of City dam inundation maps and local demographics and geography. After an unusually heavy rain and prolonged lack of maintenance, the eastern wall of the East Park Reservoir fails, releasing water at a rapid rate. Swift-moving water covers the immediate area of 33rd and 32nd Streets. The water picks up and carries cars along 33rd Street by the reservoir. The release sweeps up pedestrians walking nearby. Several injuries result. Water washes away unsecured items, leaving the streets littered with propane grills, trashcans, bikes, and debris after the water recedes. The damaged area spans 51 blocks in total, with varying levels of damage, ranging from significant to minor flooding in the basement. The majority of the structures affected are residential, but two area schools are reporting significant damage. Floodwaters impact a local PECO substation, knocking out power for the area. Debris litters rail lines running through the area, and the rail bed receives some water damage. As a result, SEPTA and other rail companies suspend transit through the area until the crews can clear and repair tracks and rail beds. SEPTA redirects all bus traffic around the area until water recedes. 200 4.3.10.2.1.3 Building Collapse The following worst-case scenario is derived from analysis of the collapse of the Salvation Army Thrift Store on June 5, 2013. An unoccupied, four-story building underwent demolition by a private construction firm over several weeks. As demolition progressed, demolition crews left an unsupported brick wall standing next to an adjacent one-story Salvation Army Thrift Store. At 10:43 AM, the building under demolition fell onto the Salvation Army store, causing the collapse of both buildings. Debris covered the street, and a thick dust cloud moved down 22nd Street. Emergency workers responded to the scene to conduct search and rescue operations, with work carrying on into the night. Six people died as a result of the collapse and responders rescued 14 others from the rubble. Adjacent streets remained closed as officials conducted investigations. 4.3.10.2.2 Environmental Impacts 4.3.10.2.2.1 Bridge Failure The collapse of a bridge above a waterway can have additional effects through the destruction of costal habitats. Larger pieces of debris in a waterway could also disrupt flow and local currents, leading to sediment build-up and increases in turbidity. 4.3.10.2.2.2 Dam Failure Environmental impacts of a dam collapse largely depend on the size and location of the dam. In a dam collapse, there is the risk of flooding which can lead to erosion or contaminated ground water. For more information on the effects flooding can have on the environment, see the Environmental Impact section of the Flooding hazard profile. Additionally, the structure itself impacts waterway habitats for fish and wildlife. Larger dams could result in pieces of debris in the waterway, which can disrupt flow and local currents. This disruption leads to sediment build-up and increases in turbidity. 4.3.10.2.2.3 Building Collapse The environmental impact of a building collapse depends on the size, type, and location of the building. Smaller, residential buildings, for example, will have a smaller environmental impact footprint due to the limited size of the debris field generated because of the collapse. 201 4.3.10.3 Past Occurrences The following table details the available data on those building collapses in Philadelphia which resulted in five or more deaths. These collapses do not take into account those collapses that are a direct result of structural fires. Data is currently only available from 1997 to 2015288. There are numerous building collapses annually, with the full count and detail beyond the scope of this document. Location 2138 - 2140 Market Street Structure Type Construction 5-Jun-13 site and Commercial Date Details As a result of the collapse, six people died and 14 were injured. There have been no bridge or dam collapses in Philadelphia history. Bridge inspections have identified bridge sections at greater risk for collapse in the past. Inspectors declared these bridges as functionally obsolete until maintenance crews conducted significant repairs. One re-inspected, those bridges re-opened since repairs reduced the risk for collapse. For example, PennDOT found significant bridge damage in March 2008 beneath Interstate 95. PennDOT contractors observed a large crack in a support column, resulting in the closure of the road for several days until emergency repairs were completed. An additional building collapse of note which caused mass casualties occurred in 1903 when Philadelphia Baker Bowl’s top left field balcony collapsed during a game, resulting in twelve deaths and 232 injuries. 288 202 4.3.10.4 Future Occurrences 4.3.10.4.1 Bridge Failure The failure rate for bridges is one out of 4,700 annually according to predictive modelling using national data.289 The failure rate data set shows that the causes for bridge collapse are: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ 52 percent hydraulic, 20 percent collision, 12 percent overload,290 and 7 percent deterioration.291 There is a correlation between structurally deficient bridges and bridge collapses. Structurally deficient bridges have an increased risk of collapse with an elevated risk level of 1/1,100 annually.292 With 63 structurally deficient bridges in Philadelphia, there is an elevated risk of bridge collapse compared to other areas in the nation. 4.3.10.4.2 Dam Failure Shifting weather patterns due to climate change may put more strain on dams. As a result, Philadelphia may see an increased risk of dam failure in the future. As precipitation increases, the risk of overtopping increases. Maintenance and upkeep failures can also increase dam failure risks. FEMA reports “the number of high-hazard dams is increasing at a significant rate”, displaying a trend towards a higher risk of impactful dam failure in the future.293 4.3.10.4.3 Building Collapse Philadelphia continues to have a high vacancy rate and aging housing stock. As these factors persist, or in the case of aging housing stock, increase, there is the ongoing risk for building collapses in the future. 4.3.10.5 Vulnerability Assessment The most vulnerable areas of the County are those with the highest concentration of deteriorating structures. In the case of bridges, this involves the number and location of structurally deficient bridges through the City of Philadelphia. The list on the following Cook, Wesley, "Bridge Failure Rates, Consequences, and Predictive Trends" (2014). Utah State University. Paper 2163. Retrieved January 29, 2016. 290 Research shows that the risk for an overload-related bridge collapse on a bridge that is load restricted is 1/2,800 annually. (Cook, Wesley, "Bridge Failure Rates, Consequences, and Predictive Trends" (2014). Utah State University. Paper 2163. Retrieved January 29, 2016.) 291 Cook, Wesley, "Bridge Failure Rates, Consequences, and Predictive Trends" (2014). Utah State University. Paper 2163. Retrieved January 29, 2016. 292 Ibid. 293 FEMA. Summary of Existing Guidelines for Hydrologic Safety of Dams: United States Dam Inventory Data. Retrieved March 24, 2016. 289 203 page covers the location of structurally deficient bridges in the City, as well as the year the bridge was built. 204 Structurally Deficient Bridges in Philadelphia Bridge Name Location Year Built AMTRAK (32ND), SEPTA, F N.30TH ST.STATION 1964 AMTRAK(NEC) NR Expressway & 31 St 1964 Amtrak and Conrail, Montgomery Avenue 1913 Indian Creek, Sherwood Avenue W of 66th Street 1918 SEPTA, 49th Street S of Chester Ave 1894 CONRAIL (Richmond Bridge), Mascher Street N of Indiana Ave 1931 Pennypack Creek, Krewstown Road Krewstown Rd 1907 AMTRAK (NE corridor), 2nd Street North of Venango Street 1926 CONRAIL, Cambria & "A" Sts Cambria & "A" Sts 1916 Abandoned CONRAIL, Cayuga Street West of Fifth St 1930 Wissahickon Creek, Bell's Mill Road Bells Mill Rd 1820 Delaware Expy (I-95), Ashburner Street West of State Road 1964 SEPTA (AHSL), 70th Street South of Lindbergh Blvd 1980 Abolished Conrail, 15th Street North of Callowhill 1898 SEPTA (Norristown Br), Calumet Street West of Cresson St 1925 CONRAIL (Fairhill Bridge), Hunting Park Ave West of G St 1930 Schuylkill River, Falls Bridge Falls Bridge 1895 Valley Green Road, Cherokee Street West Springfield Ave 1960 Tacony Creek, Fisher's Lane Fisher's Lane 1801 Tacony Creek, Tabor Road Tabor Rd 1957 AMTRAK (Hsbg Branch), 41st Street South of Poplar 1928 AMTRAK (NE Corridor), G Street North of Venango St 1914 SEPTA, Glenwood Avenue 15th Street 1912 SEPTA (AHSL), 61st Street South of Eastwick Ave 1928 AMTRAK and SEPTA, 59th Street North of Lancaster Ave 1926 Frankford Creek (Former), Margaret & Lefevre Gaul St 1941 AMTRAK (NE Corridor), 62nd Street South Paschall Ave 1910 AMTRAK, Margie Street Nineteenth St 1919 CONRAIL, Sedgley Avenue West of Seventh St 1907 SEPTA, Willow Grove Ave. North of Martins Ln 1883 AMTRAK (NE Corridor), 72nd Street South Paschall Ave 1913 SEPTA (NEWTOWN BRANCH), Pine Road Pine Rd 1964 CSX, 68th Street Kingseesing 1926 CONRAIL (Richmond Br), Lycoming Street West of Broad St 1929 Poquessing Creek, Red Lion Rd PA-13 1845 Poquessing Creek, Old Lincoln Hwy US 1 1805 205 Using inflation calculators and cost estimates for already existing bridges in Philadelphia, the direct economic structural loss of a traffic bridge would be between $6,302,079.19 and $37,103,76.00. Taking into consideration that bridges may also have economic losses because of loss of revenue through tolls, such as in the case of the Benjamin Franklin Bridge, economic losses could incur an additional $250,000 to $750,000 per day given current traffic estimates and toll rates. Indirect loss of revenue from public transportation service suspension may also occur. Whereas SEPTA can redirect or add additional bus routes, certain public transportation routes, such as the PATCO lines on the Benjamin Franklin Bridge, may be affected to a greater degree. Using daily ridership estimates on PATCO lines and fares, a suspension of services on the Benjamin Franklin Bridge alone would cost $56,000 per day. Due to sensitivity issues, the dam vulnerability assessment is available as official use only. Imminently dangerous buildings are those buildings that are at risk for collapse. L&I keeps statistics on imminently dangerous buildings that inspectors find. Some have partially collapsed, some are found and acted upon before they collapse. The table below lists the number of imminently dangerous structures by zip code. Imminently Dangerous Structures by Zip Code in Philadelphia Zip Code 19103 19104 19107 19111 19119 19120 19121 19122 19123 19124 19129 19130 19131 19132 Imminently Dangerous Structures 1 13 1 3 7 2 42 10 1 7 2 2 12 49 Zip Code 19133 19134 19138 19139 19140 19141 19142 19143 19144 19145 19146 19147 19148 19150 19152 Imminently Dangerous Structures 15 18 9 27 24 6 12 22 22 12 15 3 3 2 1 206 Urban Conflagration Conflagrations are extensive, widespread fires that damage property and potentially endanger lives. Urban conflagrations spread beyond artificial and natural barriers to destroy whole sections of a city.294 While conflagrations are rare in modern, developed cities, there is the risk that they could occur after a large storm, earthquake, or during civil unrest. Simultaneous ignitions can overwhelm emergency responders. 4.3.10.6 Location The prevalent contributing factors to urban conflagration occur because of another natural or human caused event. Natural disasters that could cause a conflagration include flooding, tropical storms or hurricanes, severe weather, and earthquakes. 295 Philadelphia has varying risks for each of these events. For more information on the level of risk for each of these events, see their respective hazard profile. Several factors contribute to an increased risk for widespread fires. Densely built urban environments pose several risks for conflagration, including assisting in the spread of fire through shared roofs. Narrow separations between homes also increases the risk of fire spread. Density mapping assists in the identification of densely built environments. The map below uses the most recent housing unit density information from the United States Census to demonstrate where the greatest concentration of buildings exists.296 The map shows that those areas where housing density is the greatest are in the Central and South districts of the City. These locations are therefore at a greater risk for widespread fire, and in turn, urban conflagration. William Michael Kramer. “Disaster Planning and Control”. Fire Engineering. Retrieved January 11, 2016. 295 William Michael Kramer. “Disaster Planning and Control”. Fire Engineering. Retrieved January 11, 2016. 296 United States Census. “Population, Housing Units, Area, and Density: 2010 - Philadelphia”. Retrieved January 11, 2016. 294 207 Phialdelphia Housing Unit Density 1? Ana,? ?g Lwer Faanheaj eff? a . ?f?fii 4 "h L. ?\nnw a? .. . . Legend I: Water Souces Philadelphia Plaming Districts Less than 1300 1301 to 4300 4301 to 6300 - 6301 to 8300 - 8301 to 10300 - 10301 to 12300 - 12301 to 14300 - 14301 to 16300 1 111 0.75 1.5 3 4.5 - 630 8300 Miles - 18301 and Greater 208 Narrow streets that enable fire to spread easily from one building to another also pose risks. Buildings not built up to code, or those that do not follow National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) regulations, also pose a risk to residents and those homes surrounding them. Philadelphia has numerous alleys and narrow streets throughout the City, with many concentrated in the Old City neighborhood, such as the one in the image.297 Past national studies298 have categorized urban conflagration into five general types: 1. Those involving hazardous materials where there is inadequate means for confining or extinguishing fires. An example of such an event is the 1973 fire in Chelsea, Massachusetts, which burned 18 acres, including 300 buildings299. Philadelphia has numerous hazardous materials stored, processed, and moved within the City at any given time. The ongoing presence of hazardous materials at a site would increase the risk of that site for a fire, such as at refineries or chemical processing facilities. Philadelphia has several of these facilities throughout the City. Means for confining or extinguishing fires vary by event and location, but the City’s hydrant system provides access to water throughout Philadelphia. 2. Those occurring in closely built-up residential sections containing combustible houses, particularly those with wood shingle roofs and a high number of vacant dwellings. All combustible residential construction falls under this type of urban conflagration.300 Two examples of this type of conflagration are a 1983 apartment building conflagration in Dallas, Texas and a fire in 1989 in the Westwood section of Los Angeles that caused more than $25 million in damage.301 As previously shown, the City of Philadelphia has several closely built areas in the Lower South, Central, and South areas of the City. Philadelphia also has a high Image: "Philly Street Commons" by Jawny80 at English Wikipedia - Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons. Licensed under Public Domain via Commons. 298 William Michael Kramer. “Disaster Planning and Control”. Fire Engineering. Retrieved January 11, 2016. 299 Ibid. 300 William Michael Kramer. “Disaster Planning and Control”. Fire Engineering. Retrieved January 11, 2016. 301 Paul Feldman and Kristina Lindgren. “U.S. Agents Join Westwood Fire Probe”. December 27, 1989. Retrieved January 11, 2016. 297 209 number of vacant properties. As seen in the image below, clusters of large numbers of vacant dwellings exist in the central portions of Philadelphia. 302 3. Wild land, forest, or brushfires that move in to developed areas. Widespread fires resulting from wild land and brush fires are common in certain portions of the United States. However, due to the limited dead vegetation accumulation and a moister environment, Philadelphia is not prone to widespread wild land fires. Although brush fires occasionally occur, they are typically easily contained and extinguished. 4. Conflagrations due to explosions. One example of a conflagration resulting from an explosion are the widespread fires in West, Texas in 2013 that started after an ammonium nitrate explosion at a local fertilizer plant.303 Explosions have occurred in the past in Philadelphia, including the recent gas main explosion in January 2011, Data for map: U.S. Census: American Fact Finder. Vacancy, Philadelphia, 2013. Retrieved April 14, 2016. 303 Chemical Safety Board. “West Fertilizer Explosion and Fire”. Retrieved January 11, 2016. 302 210 which despite sending a 50-foot flame into the sky304, did not result in widespread destruction. 5. Fires occurring in numerous areas because of a widespread event, such as an earthquake or civil unrest. Such a case occurred in 1992 in Los Angeles following civil unrest in the city, resulting in the burning of 10,000 businesses and costing over one billion dollars.305 More often than not, civil unrest takes the form of nonviolent protests that serve to address specific issues. Only those instances that result into destructive or violent behavior are at risk for causing urban conflagration. In the past, Philadelphia has had instances of civil disorder that resulted in destruction, including the 1964 riots. All homes built in Philadelphia must comply with the Philadelphia Fire Code, decreasing the risk of fire in new construction. 4.3.10.7 Magnitude The determination of whether or not a fire is an urban conflagration depends heavily on the damage and destruction the fire causes. Urban conflagration destroys a block or more of buildings, and results in large monetary loss.306 Urban conflagrations may or may not include loss of life or injuries.307 These types of fires often require large responses from fire companies. An urban conflagration would also likely trigger multiple alarms during response. On a normal fire response, if an incident requires fire apparatus or personnel, the Fire Department can dispatch additional units or companies. If the incident escalates further, the incident commander can issue multiple alarms, dispatching additional units to the scene of the fire both to relieve units and to aid in firefighting efforts. The incident commander can add alarms until sufficient personnel and equipment are available for incident stabilization. An urban conflagration would have multiple alarms across a Maanvi Singh. “Gas explosions have plagued Philadelphia in the past” July 29, 2013. Retrieved January 11, 2016. 305 Daniel Wood. “L.A.’s Darkest Days”. April 29, 2002. Retrieved January 11, 2016. 306 William Michael Kramer. “Disaster Planning and Control”. Fire Engineering. Retrieved January 11, 2016. 307 William Michael Kramer. “Disaster Planning and Control”. Fire Engineering. Retrieved January 11, 2016. 304 211 widespread area, requiring a large number of units and personnel to be involved in suppression efforts, potentially draining resources quickly as the incident continued. 4.3.10.7.1 Worst-Case Scenario The following worst-case scenario is derived from analysis of past conflagration incidents in the United States as well as past fires and responses in Philadelphia. By late February, Philadelphia is experiencing a prolonged dry spell. Snowfall is far below average. A cold front enters the region, bringing with it high wind speeds that drop wind chills to ten below zero. Two days later, a dwelling fire in a West Philadelphia rowhome occurs, quickly spreading through roofs on either side of the structure. High winds complicate suppression activities, spreading the flames quickly across narrow alleyways. Local hydrants have frozen in the extreme cold. Icy conditions worsen on the scene as firefighting efforts continue. Filled hoses freeze when not in use, further hindering fire department activities. The one lane road the fire starts on limits staging and access for the fire department. The fire quickly escalates, reaching the fifth alarm in the first hour. By the time the Fire Department declares the fire under control, a full block of homes is destroyed, and surrounding buildings have received moderate to heavy damage. Damages displace over 50 families. Several injuries and four deaths occur, predominantly believed to be due to the lack of working smoke alarms in several of the structures. 4.3.10.7.2 Environmental Impacts Urban conflagration can affect greenspace in the City should the fire spread to one of the City’s parks. Widespread fire can destroy habitats and ecosystems, and decrease the total nutrient pool available for plants through a combination of oxidation, volatilization, ash transport, leaching, and erosion.308 After a conflagration, soil is at an increased risk for erosion because of decreased soil porosity.309 Urban conflagrations can also release numerous pollutants into the atmosphere through the burning of chemicals, household goods, plastics, and other potentially dangerous off-gassing substances. Fire also releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, increasing greenhouse gas emissions. 308 309 Fire Effect on Soil: Fire Effects on Soil Nutrients. Northern Arizona University. Ibid. 212 4.3.10.8 Past Occurrences The table below details a list of the most damaging and deadly conflagrations in Philadelphia where a fire damaged at least a block of homes or businesses and killed at least five.310 Date Extent of Damage May 13, 1985 The fire killed 11 people, destroyed 65 houses, and left 250 displaced. August 17, 1975 Hydrocarbon vapors and crude oil involvement at the Gulf Refinery, which took up over 700 acres on the east bank of the Schuylkill. The fire killed 8 people, and injured 16 others. Costs of damage unknown. February 12, 1865 Burning oil was listed as the source of the fire in a newspaper at the time. The fire killed six people, and burned 51 houses. July 9, 1850 310 Saltpeter and sulfur explosions. The fire killed 10, extent of damage unknown, but started at a warehouse on North Water Street and spread through the densely populated area surrounding in the building. Image: “Fire – 13th and Market Street, January 1897”. PhillyHistory.org. 213 4.3.10.9 Future Occurrences Vacant properties, closely built housing, the storage of flammable and hazardous materials in businesses and homes suggest that there is an ongoing risk for situations that would lead to a conflagration. However, Philadelphia’s extensive network of fire hydrants, the ongoing and extensive training of the Philadelphia Fire Department, and temperate climate do reduce this risk. 311 13th and Market Streets following the conflagration of 1897. The fire started burned down 59 buildings between 13th and Juniper Streets, Market and Filbert Streets. No casualties were reported. 4.3.10.10 Vulnerability Assessment Urban conflagration would have a greater impact on the economy more than a single dwelling fire, which typically have minimal impact to the citywide economy. Urban conflagration can affect a larger area of business or commercial districts if the fire occurs includes these structures. Average loss per structure has remained relatively unchanged since 1977, with costs on average losing $19,500 per structure in 2015 "Art Museum area" by GooseGoddessS from Philadelphia - Flickr. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 via Commons. Retrieved January 29, 2016. 311 214 dollars.312 In the event of an urban conflagration, this loss would be higher, however, since this estimate is an average and not a total loss scenario. Using the recent widespread fires in Breezy Point during Hurricane Sandy as a model, it can be assumed that 15 percent of structures in a conflagration would be damaged, and the remaining 85 percent destroyed. The 15 percent of homes damaged would correlate closer to the national averages, while the remaining 85 percent would be a total loss. To calculate total structural loss estimates in the event of an urban conflagration, estimates focused on areas where there is a higher housing density and higher prevalence of vacant properties, and therefore a higher risk of urban conflagration. Using OPA data on property market values, it can be estimated that the structural loss costs for the total loss of a single block of homes in these areas would be over $1,867,300. There is the potential for loss of life and injuries in any structural fire for both first responders and property owners. Despite this risk, an urban conflagration would cause a low level of fatalities and injuries. Fire fatalities in Philadelphia have declined over the past ten years, with 2015 declining by 63 percent since 2014. The chart below displays this decline between 2006 and 2015. While the risk for loss of life remains, and is potentially higher in a conflagration, recent local trends suggest that the number of fatalities would be minimal. ZIPCODE 19104.2 19104 19103.8 19103.6 19103.4 19103.2 19103 19102.8 19102.6 19102.4 2122 812 4053 4007 4255 3841 1034 LOCUST BROOKL CAMBRI WYALUS OGDEN CAMBRI PALLAS ST YN ST DGE ST ING AVE ST DGE ST ST ZIPCODE 19103 19104 19104 19104 19104 19104 19104 3921 4045 4039 W FAIRMO OGDEN GIRARD UNT ST AVE AVE 19104 19104 19104 Absent catastrophic events, the City possesses sufficient resources to respond to routine events. As a comparison point from another major east coast urban area, while fire departments in New York City were busy in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy, they were able to bear the load with no significant injuries or fatalities due to a lack of search and rescue resources. Haynes, Hylton. “Fire Loss in the United States”. National Fire Protection Association. September 2015. Retrieved April 22, 2016. 312 215 4.3.11 Wind Storms and Tornado Windstorm A windstorm is a wind that is strong enough to cause at least light damage to trees and buildings and may or may not be accompanied by precipitation. Typically, wind speeds in a windstorm exceed 34 miles per hour (mph). Gusts, or short bursts of high-speed winds, as well as longer periods of sustained winds can both cause damage in a windstorm. Although tornadoes also produce wind damage, this profile classifies them separately for the purposes of this plan.313 The table below provides descriptions of the different types of windstorms. Types of Windstorms Downburst A downburst is a strong downdraft of air from a cumulonimbus cloud, often associated with intense thunderstorms. Downdrafts produce damaging winds at the earth’s surface, which at times can be stronger than tornado winds. The NWS classifies downbursts according to their size, as either a microburst or a macroburst. A microburst is a convective downdraft with an affected outflow area of less than 2.5 miles wide and peak winds lasting less than five minutes. Microbursts may induce dangerous horizontal/vertical wind shears, which can adversely affect aircraft performance, and cause property damage. A macroburst is a convective downdraft with an affected outflow area of at least 2.5 miles wide with peak winds lasting between five and 20 minutes. Intense macrobursts may cause tornado-force damage of up to an EF3 intensity (explained in detail below). Straight-line Wind Generally, a straight-line wind is any wind that is not associated with rotation, used mainly to differentiate them from tornadic winds. A straight-line wind is different from a downburst in that there is a difference in damage from a downburst, which lacks significant curvature and tornado damage, which has significant curvature. 216 Derecho A derecho is a widespread and usually fast-moving windstorm associated with convection. Derechos include any family of downburst clusters produced by an extratropical system, and can produce damaging straightline winds over areas hundreds of miles long and more than 100 miles across. The NWS categorizes types of derechos by the storm they derive from. Multiple bow echoes, (radar echoes that are linear but bent outward in a bow shape) embedded in an extensive squall line (a line of active thunderstorms) produce a serial derecho. This type of derecho typically is associated with strong migratory low-pressure system and can be hundreds of miles long. A progressive derecho is associated with a relatively short line of thunderstorms that may take the shape of a single bow echo. A third type of derecho is a hybrid derecho, and has the characteristics of both serial and progressive derechos. Gustnado (or Gustinado) A gustnado is a small, whirlwind that forms as an eddy in thunderstorm outflows. Gustnadoes do not connect with any cloud-base rotation and are not tornadoes. Since their origin is associated with cumuliform clouds, the NWS classifies gustnadoes as thunderstorm wind events. Tornado According to the glossary of meteorology, a tornado is “a violently rotating column of air, in contact with the surface, pendant from a cumuliform cloud, and often (but not always) visible as a funnel cloud.”314 When tornadoes do occur without any visible funnel cloud, debris at the surface is usually the indication of the existence of an intense circulation in contact with the ground. On a local scale, the tornado is the most intense of all atmospheric circulations. Its vortex, typically a few hundred meters in diameter, usually rotates cyclonically with wind speeds as high as 300mph. 314 Glossary of Meteorology: Tornado. Retrieved 20 December 2012. 217 4.3.11.1 Location Windstorms and tornadoes can occur anywhere throughout Philadelphia. Using over forty years of data, the American Society of Civil Engineers divided the United States into four zones that geographically reflect the frequency and strength of extreme windstorms. The identification of wind speeds contributes to a basis for design and evaluation for the structural integrity of shelters and critical facilities in these zones. Philadelphia falls within Zone II, meaning design wind speeds for shelters and critical facilities should be able to withstand a three-second gust of up to 160 mph, regardless of whether the gust is the result of a tornado, hurricane, or other windstorm event. The image below depicts the Wind Zone designation for the planning area.315 4.3.11.2 Magnitude 4.3.11.2.1 Wind Differences in atmospheric pressure causes wind. Air moves from a higher-pressure area to a lower-pressure area, causing different types of wind speeds. Globally, the major causes of large-scale wind patterns are the heating of the equator and poles, and the rotation of the planet. These all cause differentials in pressure: the higher the differential, the greater the wind speed. 315 Wind Zones of the United States. FEMA 2010. Retrieved March 23, 2016. 218 The Beaufort Wind Scale classifies wind speed using speed measurements and descriptions of appearances on both bodies of land and water. The table below provides descriptions on the Beaufort Wind Scale as well as the appearance of the wind effects.316 Beaufort Wind Scale Force Wind (Knots) WMO Classification Appearance of Wind Effects On the Water On Land 0 Less than 1 Calm Sea surface smooth and mirror-like Calm, smoke rises vertically 1 1-3 Light Air Scaly ripples, no foam crests Smoke drift indicates wind direction, still wind vanes 2 4-6 Light Breeze Small wavelets, crests glassy, no breaking Wind felt on face, leaves rustle, vanes begin to move 3 7-10 Gentle Breeze Large wavelets, crests begin to break, scattered whitecaps Leaves and small twigs constantly moving, light flags extended 4 11-16 Moderate Breeze Small waves 1-4 ft. becoming longer, numerous whitecaps Dust, leaves, and loose paper lifted, small tree branches move 5 17-21 Fresh Breeze Moderate waves 4-8 ft. taking longer form, many whitecaps, some spray Small trees in leaf begin to sway 6 22-27 Strong Breeze Larger waves 8-13 ft., whitecaps common, more spray Larger tree branches moving, whistling in wires 316 Beaufort Wind Scale. NOAA. Accessed 13 October 2015. 219 7 28-33 Near Gale Sea heaps up, waves 13-19 ft., white foam streaks off breakers Whole trees moving, resistance felt walking against wind 8 34-40 Gale Moderately high (18-25 ft.) waves of greater length, edges of crests begin to break into spindrift, foam blown in streaks Twigs breaking off trees, generally impedes progress 9 41-47 Strong Gale High waves (23-32 ft.), sea begins to roll, dense streaks of foam, spray may reduce visibility Slight structural damage occurs, slate blows off roofs 10 48-55 Storm Very high waves (29-41 ft.) with overhanging crests, sea white with densely blown foam, heavy rolling, lowered visibility Seldom experienced on land, trees broken or uprooted, "considerable structural damage" 11 56-63 Violent Storm Exceptionally high (37-52 ft.) waves, foam patches cover sea, visibility more reduced 12 64+ Hurricane Air filled with foam, waves over 45 ft., sea completely white with driving spray, visibility greatly reduced 220 4.3.11.2.2 Tornado Tornadoes form where there are large differences in atmospheric pressure over short distances, as often results during a major storm, such as a supercell or a severe thunderstorm. The Fujita Scale (F-Scale) is the standard measurement for rating the strength of a tornado. The NWS bases this scale on an analysis of damage after a tornado to infer wind speeds. This scale was designed to connect the Beaufort Scale with the speed of sound atmospheric scale, or Mach speed. On February 1, 2007, the Enhanced Fujita Scale (EF-Scale) replaced the use of the F-Scale. The EF-Scale is considerably more complex and enables surveyors to assess tornado severity with greater precision.317 The Enhanced F-scale still is a set of wind estimates, not measurements, based on damage. The scale uses three-second gusts estimated at the point of damage based on a judgment of eight levels of damage to 28 indicators, summarized in the typical damages section in the table on the following page.318 Wind caused several damages to trees in a windstorm in November 2010. 317 318 Storm Prediction Center: The Enhanced Fujita Scale (EF Scale). Retrieved 13 October 2015. Fujita and Operational EF Scales, NOAA, Retrieved 13 October 2015. 221 EF Number 3 Second Gust (mph) Operational EF Scale Typical Damages 0 65-85 Light damage. Some damage to chimneys; branches broken off trees; shallow-rooted trees pushed over; signboards damaged. 1 86-110 Moderate damage: Peels surface off roofs; mobile homes pushed off foundations or overturned, moving autos blown off roads. 2 111-135 3 136-165 4 166-200 5 Over 200 Considerable damage: Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile homes demolished; boxcars overturned; large trees snapped or uprooted; lightobject missiles generated; cars lifted off ground. Severe damage: Roofs and some walls torn off well-constructed houses; trains overturned; most trees in forest uprooted; heavy cars lifted off the ground and thrown. Devastating damage: Well-constructed houses leveled; structures with weak foundations blown away some distance; cars thrown and large missiles generated. Incredible damage: Strong frame houses leveled off foundations and swept away; automobile-sized missiles fly through the air in excess of 100 meters (109 yards); trees debarked; incredible phenomena will occur. 222 When conditions warrant, the National Weather Service issues tornado-related products, as listed in the table below. NWS Tornado Products319 Product Criteria Tornado Watch The NWS issues a Tornado Watch when conditions are favorable for the development of tornadoes in and close to the watch area. Their size can vary depending on the weather situation. The NWS issues a Watch for a duration of four to eight hours. NWS issues Watches well in advance of the actual occurrence of severe weather. During the watch, people should review tornado safety rules and be prepared to move to a place of safety if threatening weather approaches. NWS issues a Warning when a radar shows a tornado or trained spotters sight imminent conditions. People in the affected area should seek safe shelter immediately. NWS can issue Warnings without a Tornado Watch being already in effect. Warnings typically last for a shorter period, around 30 minutes. Tornado Warning After NWS issues a Tornado Watch, the affected National Weather Field Office will send periodic updates through Severe Weather Statements. These statements will contain updated information on the tornado. Field Offices will also let the public know when the warning is no longer in effect. Tornado Emergency 319 An exceedingly rare tornado warning issued when there is a severe threat to human life and catastrophic damage from an imminent or ongoing tornado. The NWS reserves this designation for when a reliable source confirms a tornado, or there is clear radar evidence of the existence of a damaging tornado, such as the observation of debris. Tornado Products. NWS Glossary 2015. Retrieved December 2, 2015. 223 224 4.3.11.2.3 Worst-Case Scenario The following worst-case scenario is derived from analysis of an EF2 tornado that occurred in Philadelphia on June 1, 1998.320 A tornado touched down outside of Philadelphia is Upper Moreland Township as an F1 in the early morning of June 1, 1998. As the tornado progressed into Philadelphia, it intensified into an EF2. As the tornado moved through the area, it split and knocked down trees. Fallen trees cause extensive damage to 10 homes around Byberry Road, McNulty Road, Roosevelt Boulevard, and Southampton Road. The damage within Discontinuous damage suggested that the tornado did not remain on the ground the entire time it was in the City. Damage assessments estimated $1.8 million dollars in structural damages. Because the buildings were unoccupied, no injuries occurred. The worst damage occurred within the unoccupied Byberry Industrial Park as the tornado reached its strongest intensity. Of the 35 commercial buildings damaged, nine sustained severe damages and declared "imminently dangerous". Winds tossed five-ton air conditioning units from the buildings. Winds threw roof slabs 200 yards. Some buildings lost entire sides, had buckled steel beams, shattered windows, and crushed equipment. The tornado plucked around 20 utility poles from the ground and damaged numerous others. If the tornado occurred later in the morning with the buildings in the Park occupied, the injury count would have been higher. Damage south of the industrial park became sporadic as the tornado turned toward the southeast. It lifted just before the Bucks County border near Woodhaven Road just to the southeast of the Franklin Mills Mall. Its path length was about 5.6 miles and path width was about 200 yards. PECO Energy reported that 34,000 customers in Philadelphia lost power. Five thousand still did not have power the evening of June 1. According to PECO’s lightning detection system, there were 7,000 cloud to ground lightning strikes in their service area as this line of thunderstorms moved through. 320 Details for this narrative come from NOAA National Climatic Data Center’s Storm Events Database. 225 4.3.11.2.4 Environmental Impacts Both windstorms and tornados pose a threat to trees. Gusts and sustained winds can cause damage to trees through felling and downed limbs. Felled trees and limbs can partially block waterways, affecting turbidity if the downed tree is large enough, or the tributary small enough. High winds can also cause erosion of top soil if the soil is dry or loose enough. Additionally, high winds can spread trash and debris over a large area, complicating clean-up efforts. Windstorms and tornados can also impact local waterways. Tornados, should they damage chemical facilities or other facilities where chemicals are stored, can release hazardous materials into the ground, water, or air. The destruction of homes or businesses where asbestos or lead is present can also affect local health. 4.3.11.3 Past Occurrences Windstorm events may be the result of thunderstorms, hurricanes, tropical storms, winter storms, or nor’easters. Between 1950 and 2015, there were 2,074 wind-related events with wind speeds greater than 30 knots. These windstorms have injured individuals, damaged buildings and vehicles, downed trees and power lines, and disrupted transportation, communication and power services. The table below details the top ten wind events in Philadelphia by wind speed.321 Top Ten Wind Events in Philadelphia by Wind Speed Wind Speed Date Event Type 87 kts. 8/11/1992 Thunderstorm Wind 82 kts. 8/17/1988 Thunderstorm Wind 70 kts. 8/21/1971 Thunderstorm Wind 70 kts. 7/31/1985 Thunderstorm Wind 69 kts. 10/7/1987 Thunderstorm Wind 69 kts. 11/16/1989 Thunderstorm Wind 65 kts. MG 6/24/2010 Thunderstorm Wind 63 kts. MG 6/23/2015 Thunderstorm Wind 63 kts. 1/14/1992 Thunderstorm Wind 62 kts. MG 4/22/2015 Thunderstorm Wind National Climatic Data Center, NCDC, Storm Events, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County, Wind. Retrieved March 23, 2016. 321 226 Since reliable record keeping began in 1950, eight tornadoes have touched down in Philadelphia, all being classified an EF2 or weaker. The table below lists the tornado events that have occurred in Philadelphia between 1950 and 2015. Historic Occurrences of Tornadoes 322 Date Location ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ EF0 tornado* Property damage $50K Fatalities 0/ Injuries 2 Roof collapses ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Northeast Philadelphia ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ F0 tornado Length 0.2 miles Width 20 yards Property damage $2.5K Fatalities 0/ Injuries 18 1,000 PECO customers without power 20 AMTRAK, SEPTA and NJ Transit trains stranded F2 tornado Length 5.6 miles Width 200 yards Property damage $1.8M Fatalities 0/ Injuries 0 Moved from Montgomery County into Northwest Philadelphia ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ F1 tornado Length 2.0 miles Width 100 yards Property damage $2.5K Fatalities 0/ Injuries 0 Society Hill ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ F2 tornado Length 0.5miles Width 50 yards Property damage $25.0K Fatalities 0/ Injuries 1 Northeast Philadelphia 5/18/2011 (Intersection of Red Lion Rd and Northeast Ave) 1/18/1999 Description South Philadelphia – Macaroni Plaza ▪ 6/1/1998 8/3/1991 6/9/1989 National Climatic Data Center, NCDC, Storm Events, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County Tornadoes. Retrieved 10 December 2015. 322 227 ▪ F1 tornado ▪ Length 1.5 miles Northwest Philadelphia (West 7/31/1985 ▪ Width 20 yards Mount Airy, Chestnut Hill) ▪ Property damage $2.5K ▪ Fatalities 0/ Injuries 1 ▪ F1 tornado ▪ Length 0.5miles Southwest Philadelphia 6/7/1978 ▪ Width 100 yards (Kingessing Area) ▪ Property damage $25.0K ▪ Fatalities 0/ Injuries 0 ▪ F2 tornado ▪ Length 9.8miles 7/14/1958 Southeast Philadelphia ▪ Width 27 yards ▪ Property Damage $2.5K ▪ Fatalities 0/ Injuries 0 *NWS moved from the F-Scale to the EF-Scale in 2007 4.3.11.4 Future Occurrences Windstorms are a common occurrence in Philadelphia, making them a highly probable hazard in the future. Philadelphia experiences high-wind events at least five times a year based on documented windstorms between 1969 and 2015.323 Tornadoes are infrequent occurrences in Philadelphia. Over the past 61 years, eight tornadoes have hit Philadelphia, six of which were scaled EF/F0 or EF/F1. Based on limited data of historic frequency, an estimated 13 tornadoes will occur in Philadelphia every 100 years.324 4.3.11.5 Vulnerability Assessment Severe wind storms and tornadoes pose a significant risk to life and property in Philadelphia by creating conditions that disrupt essential systems such as public utilities, telecommunications, and transportation routes. Fallen trees and debris are common after high wind events, which can block access to roads, bring down power and utility lines, and damage building stock. Areas with tall buildings, such as Center City and University City, are at greater risk as increased wind pressure occurs at greater heights. Construction sites are also especially vulnerable to high winds. Loose tools and This was reached averaging the number of wind events on NCDC/NOAA records by numbers of years using data between 1969 and 2015. 324 Frequency determined using the data available on past instances of tornadoes in the greater Philadelphia area. 323 228 construction materials, cranes, scaffolding, and other building appurtenances may loosen from exposure to high winds and become flying debris. In the case of both windstorms and tornadoes, the greatest impact on the natural environmental is on trees and woodland. High winds can easily uproot trees, shrubs and bushes. Street trees in particular are highly susceptible to high winds. A street tree is a tree located between the sidewalk and the curb, in the public right-of-way. There are approximately between 135,000 street trees located within Philadelphia. Structural vulnerability to wind correlates with a building’s construction type. Wood structures and manufactured homes are more susceptible to wind damage, while steel and concrete buildings are more resistant. Mobile homes are the most susceptible structures to tornadoes and windstorms, though the number of mobile homes in Philadelphia is less than one percent. High-rise buildings are also susceptible to damage caused by high winds and/or tornadoes. For high rise buildings, Philadelphia adheres to the National Code requirement for Structural Wind Load Designs as spelled out in ASCE-7 and Uniform Building Code (UBC). 229 There are direct consequences to the local economy resulting from windstorms related to both physical damages and interrupted services. Industry and commerce can suffer losses from interruptions in electric service and extended road closures. In addition, they can also sustain direct losses to buildings, personnel, and other vital equipment. The table below depicts Philadelphia’s potential losses due to tornadoes and windstorms, as estimated in the 2013 Pennsylvania Hazard Mitigation Plan. Philadelphia’s Potential Losses due to Windstorms325 Critical Facilities 2017 105 2012 423 Total Number of Impacted Buildings 2017 675,707 2012 384,331 Dollar Value of Exposure, Buildings and Contents 2017 $ 176,337,295.00 2012 $ 178,799,846.00 Pennsylvania 2013 Standard State All-Hazard Mitigation Plan. “Tornado, Windstorm: Jurisdictional Loss Estimation”. Retrieved April 27, 2016. 325 230 4.3.12 Winter Storms Winter storm events consist of cold temperatures, heavy snow or ice and sometimesstrong winds. In Pennsylvania, winter storms begin as low-pressure systems that either move through the state following the jet stream or develop as extra-tropical cyclonic weather systems over the Atlantic. In North America, severe winter storms generally form in one of four places:     Eastern Colorado Central Alberta, Canada Along the coast of North Carolina or In the northern Gulf of Mexico Storms formed in Colorado or along the coast producer heavy snowfall. In contrast, fastmoving storms forming east of the Canadian Rockies in Alberta, called Alberta Clippers, are generally drier with less snow and extremely cold temperatures.326 327 A winter storm blankets Rittenhouse Square in snow. The Philadelphia Area Weather Book. Jon Nese, Glenn Schwartz, Edward G. Rendell. Pgs. 79-85. Retrieved December 11, 2015. 327 Image: Kevin Burkett. “Philly Snow Storm, Dec. 19, 2009: Rittenhouse Square in Center City Philadelphia during the snow storm of Dec. 19, 2009.” Creative Commons License. Retrieved February 5, 2016. 326 231 In winter storms, the thickness of cold air at the surface determines the type of precipitation. Snow is produced when temperatures are cold both aloft and at the ground. The snow does not melt as it falls and temperatures at or below 32 degrees near the ground allows it to accumulate. 328 Sleet is defined as pellets of ice composed of frozen or mostly frozen raindrops or refrozen partially melted snowflakes, and is formed when temperatures at or slightly above freezing aloft produce rain that freezes to ice pellets, as it falls into a cold layer of air. Sleet usually bounces when hitting a surface and does not stick to objects. However, it can produce a “sand like” accumulation like snow. 329 328Image: 329Image: Snow Profile. National Weather Service. Retrieved December 11, 2015. Sleet Profile. National Weather Service. Retrieved December 11, 2015. 232 Freezing rain forms when warm temperatures aloft, generally several degrees above freezing, produce rain that falls onto a surface with temperatures below 32 degrees, causing the liquid rain to freeze on impact forming a coating or glaze of ice. 330 330Image: Freezing Rain Profile. National Weather Service. Retrieved December 11, 2015. 233 Several winter storm hazards are possible, including heavy snow (snowstorms), blizzards, sleet, freezing rain, and ice storms. Additionally, though they can occur during any time of year, most-extra-tropical cyclones, particularly Nor’easters, generally take place during the winter months and considered as a winter storm hazard for the purposes of this Hazard Mitigation Plan. Types of winter storms include:       Heavy Snowstorm: A heavy snowstorm is a snow event generally accumulating four inches or more in depth in 12 hours or less, or snowfall accumulating 6 inches or more in depth in 24 hours or less. A ‘snow squall’ can occur during a snowstorm. A snow squall is an intense, but short, period of moderate to heavy snowfall, with gusty surface winds. Snow squalls can accompanied by lightning (also known as thundersnow). Squalls can result in significant accumulation. Blizzard: Blizzards are characterized by low temperatures, wind gust of 35 mph or more, and falling and/or blowing snow that reduces visibility to 0.25 miles or less, all prevailing for an extended period of time (three or more hours). Sleet or Freezing Rain: Heavy sleet is a relatively rare event defined as an accumulation of ice pellets covering the ground to a depth of 0.5 inches or more. Freezing rain is rain that falls as liquid but freezes into glaze upon contact with the ground. Ice Storm: An ice storm is used to describe occasions when damaging accumulation of ice are expected during freezing rain situations. Significant accumulations of ice pull down trees and utility lines resulting in loss of power and communication. Significant ice accumulations are usually accumulations of .25 inches or greater. Nor’easter: Nor’easters, named for the strong northeasterly winds blowing in ahead of the storm, are a type of extra-tropical storms (mid-latitude storms or Great Lakes storms). A nor’easter is a macro-scale (large in size) extratropical cyclone whose winds originate from the northeast, especially in coastal areas of the Northeastern United States. Wind gusts associated with these storms can exceed hurricane force in intensity. Nor’easters contain a cold core of low barometric pressure from forming over mid-latitudes. The strongest winds are close to the earth’s surface. Nor’easters can cause heavy snow, rain, gale force winds, and oversized waves (storm surge) that can cause flooding, structural damage, power outages and unsafe human conditions. Nor’easters that track offshore are more devastating than ones that track inland. Offshore Nor’easters result in heavy snow, blizzards, ice, and strong winds, whereas those that track inland produce mostly rain events. If a significant pressure drop occurs within a Nor’easter, this change can turn an extra-tropical cyclone storm. These 234 events include a pressure drop of at least 24 millibars (units of atmospheric pressure) within 24 hours. This is similar to the rapid intensification of a hurricane. 4.3.12.1 Location Historically Philadelphia is prone to winter weather, and particularly Snow accumulation in Old City during a snowstorm events due to its northern 2010 winter storm. location and proximity to the Atlantic Ocean. Winter weather has started as early as October in the past in Philadelphia. However, the frequency and intensity of winter weather events strengthens starting typically in December when winter temperatures average between 20°F and 40°F. Winter storms are generally regional events, and all neighborhoods within Philadelphia are equally subject to their impacts. Roads and bridges are especially vulnerable because of transportation accidents and disruptions related to severe winter storms.331 4.3.12.1.1 Magnitude The magnitude or severity of a winter weather storm depends on several factors including temperatures, wind speed, types of precipitation, rate of deposition (how fast the snow is falling), and the time of day and/or year the storm occurs. The extent of a winter storm can be classified by meteorological measurements and by evaluation its societal impacts. There is no widely used scale to classify snowstorms, though there are several descriptive classifications used to define the scale of a snow event. Paul Kocin of the Weather Channel and Louis Uccellini of the NWS developed The Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale (NESIS) to characterize and rank high-impact Northeast snowstorms. NESIS differs from other meteorological indices in that it uses population information in addition to meteorological measurements, thus providing an indication of a storm’s societal impact.332 Image: Kevin Burkett. “Scenes from the Old City and Society Hill sections of Philadelphia after a major snow storm on Feb. 6, 2010.” February 6, 2010. Retrieved January 15, 2016. 332 Kocin, Uccellini: A Snowfall Impact Scale Derived from Northeast Storm Snowfall Distributions. Retrieved 4 January 2012. 331 235 236 NESIS scores are a function of the area affected by the snowstorm, the amount of snow, and the number of people living in the path of the storm. This distribution of snowfall and population information are combined in an equation that calculates a NESIS score, which varies from around one for smaller storms to over 10 for extreme storms. The raw score correlates with one of the five NESIS categories. NESIS Scale Category Description NESIS Range Definition 1 Notable 1.0-2.49 2 Significant 2.5-3.9 3 Major 4-5.9 4 Crippling 6-9.9 5 Extreme 10+ Category 1 storms produce up to four inches of snow over a widespread area. A few smaller areas may experience up to 10 inches of accumulation in a Category 1 storm. Includes storms that produce significant areas of greater than 10-inch snows while some include small areas of 20-inch snowfalls. A few cases may even include relatively small areas of very heavy snowfall accumulations (greater than 30 inches) This category encompasses the typical major northeast snowstorm, with large areas of 10 inch snows (generally between 50 and 150 x 103 mi2 – with significant areas of 20 inch accumulations These storms consist of some of the most widespread, heavy snows. Effects of such a storm are crippling to the northeast, U.S, with impacts to transportation and the economy felt throughout the United States. These storms encompass huge areas of 10inch snowfalls, and each case is marked by large areas of 20 inch and greater snowfall accumulations. These storms represent those with the most extreme snowfall distributions, blanketing large areas and population with snowfalls greater than 10-inch accumulations. The storms effects exceed 200 x 103mi2 and impact more than 60 million people. 237 The Dolan-Davis Nor’easter Intensity Scale categorizes the magnitude, severity and/or intensity of a Nor’easter. This scale primarily deals with beach and coastal deterioration, which does not apply to Philadelphia. Though this scale is not commonly used, it does allow the comparison of various Nor’easters by using the duration and height of the waves produced at the coast.333 Dolan/Davis Nor’easter Intensity Scale Storm Class Average Wave Height Average Duration Impact 1 6 ft. 8 hr. Minor beach erosion 2 8 ft. 18 hr. Some beach erosion and property damage 3 11 ft. 34 hr. 4 16.5 ft. 63 hr. Extensive beach erosion, significant dune loss, many structures lost Severe beach erosion and recession, wider scale of building loss A 2010 snowstorm covers the area around City Hall. 333 Ibid 238 5 23 ft. 96 hr. Extreme beach erosion, massive over wash, extensive property damage Finally, the NWS issues the following winter weather products for Philadelphia, as conditions warrant: NWS Winter Weather Products Winter Storm Outlook Winter Storm Outlook Issued prior to a Winter Storm Watch. The Outlook is given when forecasters believe winter storm conditions are possible and are usually issued 3 to 5 days in advance of a winter storm. Winter Storm Outlooks are contained in the Hazardous Weather Outlook product available on the NWS Website at www.weather.gov/phi. NWS Watches Blizzard Watch Issued when sustained winds of 35 MPH or greater are possible (50 percent chance or higher), resulting in blowing snow that reduces visibility to ¼ mile or less. The NWS strives to issue Blizzard Watches 36 to 48 hours prior to the actual onset of blizzard conditions. Blizzards are very rare in Philadelphia. Winter Storm Watch Alerts the public to the possibility of a blizzard, heavy snow, heavy freezing rain, or heavy sleet. Winter Storm Watches are usually issued 12 to 48 hours before the beginning of a Winter Storm. Wind Chill Watch Issued when air temperatures, real or apparent, could drop to minus 25 degrees Fahrenheit or lower (50 percent chance or higher). NWS Advisories Winter Weather Advisory Issued when winter weather conditions are expected to cause significant inconvenience and may be hazardous if proper caution is not exercised. Winter Weather Advisories can be issued for any of the following weather events: two to four inches of snow, blowing snow, trace to ¼ of ice from freezing rain, and wind chill 239 for apparent temperatures between minus 10 and minus -25 degrees Fahrenheit. Wind Chill Advisory Issued when wind chill temperatures are expected to be a significant inconvenience to life with prolonged exposure, and, if caution is not exercised, could lead to hazardous exposure. NWS Warning Blizzard Warning Issued for sustained or gusty winds of 35 mph or more, and falling or blowing snow creating visibilities at or below ¼ mile; these conditions should persist for at least three hours. Heavy Snow Warning Issued when snow accumulations of 4 inches or more are expected in a 12-hour period (80 percent chance or higher), or when 6 inches or more are possible in a 24-hour period. The NWS strives to issue Heavy Snow Warnings 12 to 24 hours prior to the onset of actual heavy snow conditions. Ice Storm Warning Issued when ¼ inch or more of ice due to freezing rain is expected (80 percent chance or higher), resulting in fallen trees and powerlines, as well as very slippery road conditions. The NWS strives to issue Ice Storm Warnings 12 to 24 hours prior to the onset of actual ice conditions. Winter Storm Warning Issued when hazardous winter weather in the form of heavy snow, heavy freezing rain, or heavy sleet is imminent or occurring. NWS issues Winter Storm Warnings 12 to 24 hours before the event is expected to begin. Wind Chill Warning Issued when the NWS expects wind chill temperatures to be hazardous to life within several minutes of exposure. Note: Forecasters have discretion to issue any of the above warnings for slightly less severe conditions in order to account for extenuating circumstances. For example, if 3 inches of snow are expected on an extremely busy travel day (Wednesday before Thanksgiving, for instance), or when 2 or 3 inches of snow are expected very early or very late in the season when snow is normally NOT a major concern. 240 4.3.12.1.2 Worst case scenario The following worst-case scenario is derived from analysis of storms Philadelphia has experienced in the past, such as those in 1996, 2010, and 2016. A major mid-winter storm system tracks eastward from the upper South, drawing in Pacific moisture from a southern jet stream. At the same time, a dome of bitter cold Artic high-pressure air blankets the mid-Atlantic and a coastal low-pressure system tracks north from the Carolinas. The storms merge to form a massive winter nor’easter similar to the blizzards of 1996, 2010, and 2016, with snowfall ranging from 24 to 48 inches in the greater Philadelphia area, including all of Southeastern Pennsylvania. Highsustained winds and gusts complicate the plowing efforts, as snow covers the roads again shortly after plowing. Weather conditions disrupt air and rail service to the region for four days. Major local highways such as I-76 and I-95 are impassable for a several days, with regional roads shut down for nearly a week. Record power outages affect the region. Southeastern Pennsylvania continues to experience record cold temperatures after the storm, making recovery difficult. 4.3.12.1.3 Environmental Impacts Winter storms have the potential to cause significant damage to trees, felling both limbs and entire trees. Winter storms also kill plant life, which affects other plants and wildlife. When winter storms kill plants and flora, this affects the food supply for local animals and wildlife. Winter storms also create wet or damp conditions for an extended period, increasing the likelihood of mold and fungi. While some types of mold and fungi can be beneficial in assisting in breaking down fallen trees, other types of mold and fungi can kill plants and trees that help sustain the local ecosystem. As temperatures begin to rise following a winter storm, there is the increased risk of flooding if snow melts too quickly for the ground to absorb. For more information on the environmental impacts of flooding, see the Floods section of this document. 4.3.12.2 Past Occurrences Philadelphia averages 22.3 inches of snowfall annually based on NOAA data from 1921 to 2015. Historically, seasonal totals range from just a trace during the 1972/1973 season to 78.7 inches during the 2009/2010 season.334 The table below depicts the 10 greatest snowstorms in terms of snowfall for Philadelphia. For a full list of disaster 334 Ibid 241 declarations and recorded snow events in Philadelphia, see the Snow Declarations and Events Annex. 242 Top Ten Snow Storms in Philadelphia Total Inches recorded at PHL Date Details ▪ ▪ ▪ 30.7 inches January 7-8, 1996 ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ 28.5 inches February 5-6, 2010 ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Named the Blizzard of ‘96, even though based on the strict definition, the storm was not a blizzard Parts of nine states, from Virginia to Massachusetts, received 2 ft. or more of snow Mayor declared a State of Emergency – only essential emergency vehicles were allowed on roadways PennDOT operations took two days to clear streets and main arteries. PFD experienced access problems due to unplowed streets Philadelphia schools closed for a week Snow loads were dumped into the Schuylkill River, damming the River Schuylkill River near Manayunk froze, causing ice flows to dam river and cause flooding SEPTA shutdown PHL airport closed for 3-day period 28.5 inches recorded at PHL, 22.0 inches at Roxborough Statewide Disaster Emergency declared by Governor Snow Emergency declared by Mayor Amtrak and SEPTA suspended services PHL canceled flights in and out of Philadelphia on the February 6th Philadelphia schools were closed for one day Trash pick-ups delayed 243 ▪ ▪ 23.2 inches December 19-20, 2009 ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ 22.4 inches January 2224, 2016 ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ 21.3 inches February 1112, 1983 19.4 inches December 25-26, 1909 April 3-4, 1915 22.4 inches recorded at PHL 19.4 inches of snow that fell January 23 at Philadelphia International Airport set a record for the date, last set at 11.9 inches in 1935 Trash pick-ups delayed SEPTA bus and regional rail temporarily halted All PHL flights cancelled for January 24 Schools closed January 25-26 following the event ▪ Named the Megalopolitan Snowstorm because 20 inches or more fell on the major four cities of the Mid-Atlantic Winds of 25-35 mph were recorded with gusts over 40 mph Transportation services were delayed or suspended for PHL, Amtrak, and SEPTA Thundersnow was recorded ▪ ▪ Named the Christmas Day Snowstorm In sections of the City, snowdrifts were 4-5 feet high ▪ ▪ ▪ Occurred over Easter weekend Over 19 inches fell in under 12 hours Broke the snowfall record for April – old record was set back in 1841 No storm has come close to matching the April record ▪ ▪ 21.0 inches 23.2 inches recorded at PHL, 10.5 inches at Somerton 77% of flights canceled from PHL, those that were not experienced six hour delays – delays continued into the 21st Retail shops and malls closed early NFL – Eagles game delayed until 4pm Trash pick-ups delayed SEPTA reported suspensions and delays along bus and regional rail service ▪ 244 ▪ ▪ 18.9 inches February 1214, 1899 ▪ ▪ Named the Blizzard of ‘99 Formed in tandem with one of the greatest outbreaks of Artic air on record The 18.9 inches fell in addition to the 12 inches already on the ground from an earlier storm The snow depth exacerbated the cold, high temperatures did not exceed beyond 10°F February 11-13 18.7 inches February 1617, 2003 ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ 16.7 inches January 2224, 1935 ▪ No information available. ▪ 19.5 inches recorded at Rockledge, 17.0 inches at Pine Valley, 15.8 inches at PHL, 13.9 inches at Green Lane 37mph peak wind gusts at PHL State of Emergency declared by Governor PECO declared a snow emergency – 9th greatest power outage in PECO history; 17,000 customers lost power in Philadelphia Two fatalities occurred in Philadelphia Philadelphia schools were closed from February 1011th PHL closed on February 10th and reopened the afternoon of the 11th SEPTA regional rail and bus service suspended services from February 10-11th Trash pick-ups delayed ▪ ▪ ▪ 15.8 inches February 910, 2010 ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Snow emergency declared 2 fatalities Several roof and porch collapses PHL closed on the 17th Greyhound suspended services on the 17th SEPTA ran on weekend service Snow removal cost approximately $8 million 245 4.3.12.3 Future Occurrences Winter storms will continue to occur in Philadelphia. Based off monthly climate normals335 from 1981 to 2010 (the most recent analysis period conducted by the National Weather Service), the City potentially will experience snowfalls in the amounts and months shown in the table and graph below. Total Snowfall Normals by Month in Inches 10.0 8.8 9.0 8.0 6.5 7.0 6.0 5.0 3.4 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 4.3.12.4 Vulnerability Assessment Severe winter weather can immobilize a region, shutting down all air and rail transportation, stranding commuters, stopping the flow of supplies and disrupting medical and emergency services. Winter weather can also cause building collapses and can bring down trees, electrical wires, telephone poles, lines and communication towers. Damages to utilities can disrupt communications and power for days while utility companies work to repair the issues. In addition, severe winter weather can affect rail beds and the switch systems. Winter weather may cause extreme hazards to motorists and pedestrians. Bridges and overpasses are particularly dangerous because they freeze before other surfaces. Several secondary effects of winter storms can increase the risk to life and health in Philadelphia’s population. Snow accumulation and frozen/slippery road surfaces increase the frequency and impact of traffic accidents for the general population, resulting in personal injuries. The elderly are the most susceptible to winter storms due to their increased risk of injury and death from falls, overexertion during snow removal, 335 Normals are averages calculated from the latest three-decade averages of climatological variables. 246 and/or hypothermia. Severe winter storm events can also reduce the ability of these populations to access emergency services. In addition to effects on populations, winter storms can cause secondary environmental effects, such as riverine, surface, and flash flooding. Private residences and business located in the floodplain are therefore vulnerable during winter months. Severe winter storms can cause flooding through ice jams (in hydrologic terms, a stationary accumulation that restricts or blocks streamflow), blockage of streams or through snow melt. 336 The Flooding hazard profile of this plan identifies residential properties most atrisk for such flooding events. Winter storms can also cause structural losses. Building collapses and structural damage can occur when snow accumulates on flat rooftops, or porch awnings. As snow melts, it can collect in depressed or recessed areas, a condition commonly known as ponding. This additional weight from either snow accumulation or ponding jeopardizes a buildings structural soundness and may lead to total collapse. Vulnerability to the effects of winter storms on buildings is dependent on the age of the building, what building codes may have been implemented at the time of construction, the type of construction and condition of the structure, including how well has the structure been maintained. The Infrastructure Failure hazard profile in this document contains additional information on building collapses. Additional costs outside of structural losses occur during winter storms in the form of road maintenance and labor. The cost of snow and ice removal, salting roads, repairing roads from the freeze/thaw process, and the loss of business can have a severe economic impact on Philadelphia. There is a network of approximately 2,575 miles of city and state roads within Philadelphia. PennDOT, the Streets Department and the Philadelphia Department of Parks and Recreation share the responsibility for maintaining roadways during winter storms. Of the 360 miles of state roads, PennDOT maintains 50 miles of limited access state highways, including I-95 and I-76. The remaining 310 miles are state roads that the state contracts with the City for snow and ice removal. This amounts to a total of 2,525 miles of city and state roads that the City maintains. The Department of Parks and Recreation removes snow and ice from 35 miles of Park roads, including roadways that bisect Fairmount Park including Lincoln Drive, Kelly Drive and Martin Luther King (MLK) Drive. Snow and ice removal on the remaining 2,490 miles of city streets is the responsibility of the Philadelphia Streets Department.337 For a point of reference, the 336 337 “Ice Jam”. NOAA Glossary. Retrieved May 4, 2016. Philadelphia Streets Department Snow and Ice Operations Plan. Retrieved 21 February 2012. 247 most recent storm (Storm Jonas) in January 2016 cost the city over $6.2 million dollars by Streets Department costs alone. Using the average total costs incurred from winter storms in 2016, 1996, and 1994, the total costs for a significant winter storm event would average $12,051,161.338 By looking at the typical breakdown in costs, planners calculated the range of costs for a significant winter storm event by type of cost. Significant Winter Storm Expense Breakdown by City Agency in 2016 USD Year Managing Directors Office Revenue Department Commerce Department - Division of Aviation Fairmount Park Commission Fire Department Office of Fleet Management Department of Human Services 311 Philadelphia Housing Authority Department of Licenses and Inspections Philadelphia Parking Authority Police Department Philadelphia Prisons Department of Health Department of Public Property Department of Recreation Streets Department Philadelphia Water Department School District of Philadelphia (SDP) Total Average Cost $ 4,244.72 $ 7,566.43 $ 2,088,193.05 $ 170,802.15 $ 48,404.61 $ 477,029.72 $ 112,182.35 $ 8,483.02 $ 712,986.75 $ 29,186.51 $ 472,213.08 $ 311,221.75 $ 76,208.02 $ 31,697.59 $ 135,481.31 $ 84,516.54 $ 8,293,756.87 $ 1,299,187.49 $ 1,032,339.82 $ 12,051,161.05 Using the worst case scenario for a winter storm, in this case a combination of the winter storms occuring in 1994 and 1996, planners can estimate the impact severe winter storms have on city structures. Severe winter storm conditions could cause an average of 72.5 structures to collapse, 97 percent of which are residential.339 Using Information for costs from the submission for reimbursement costs for the winter storms in 1994, 1996, 2010, and 2016. All costs adjusted for inflation. 339 Structural collapse data retrieved from damage assessment surveys for the 1994 and 1996 winter storms used for individual assistance filings. 338 248 these same years, planners can estimate that 445.5 residents would need to evacaute from their homes during a severe winter storm, with 287.5 residents needing sheltering. 249 4.4 Risk Assessment 4.4.1 Documentation and Sources The risk assessment process used for Philadelphia’s 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan is consistent with the process and steps presented in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 386-2, State and Local Mitigation Planning How-toGuide, Understanding Your Risks – Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses, and complies with Pennsylvania’s All-Hazard Mitigation Planning Standard Operating Guide. 4.4.2 Risk Analyses for Profiled Hazards Following PEMA’s All-Hazard Mitigation Planning Standard Operating Guide, the summary of each hazard’s probability, impact, spatial extent, warning time, and duration is weighted to establish an overall degree of risk for the City of Philadelphia. Weights are as follows: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Probability: 30% Impact: 30% Spatial Extent: 20% Warning Time: 10% Duration: 10% Planners and stakeholders can use these risk factors to rank and prioritize hazards and mitigation actions. Risk factors were developed following the development of hazard profiles in order to ensure ample information was provided in shaping the degree of risk. Each degree of risk is assigned a numerical value from one to four, with one being the lowest and four the highest degree of risk. 250 4.4.2.1 Risk Factor by Hazard The table below is a summary of the probability, impact, spatial extent, warning time, and duration of those hazards included in this Hazard Mitigation Plan. For more information on each factor indexed, see the respective section below. For more information on each hazard, see each respective hazard profile included in the Hazard Profiles section of this plan. Hazard Active Shooter Infrastructure Failure Drought Earthquake Extreme Cold Extreme Heat Flooding Hazardous Material Train Derailment Improvised Explosive Device Tropical Storm/Hurricane Urban Conflagration Winter Storm Windstorm/Tornado 2 Spatial Warning Overall Duration Extent Time Risk 3.3 2 4 1 2.5 2 1.9 2 4 1 1.6 2 2 4 4 4 1.3 2.3 3.0 3.0 3.3 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 1 1 2 4 1 3 3 4 2.3 2.6 3.3 3.3 3.6 2 3.7 2 4 4 2.9 1 3.0 2 4 1 2.1 3 2.3 4 1 3 2.8 1 2.7 2 4 3 2.2 4 4 2.7 3.0 4 4 1 2 3 1 3.2 3.2 Probability Impact 4.4.2.2 Probability of Hazards The probability of occurrence is an estimate of how often a hazard event occurs. A review of historic events assists with this determination. In the 2012 Hazard Mitigation plan, planners used an alphanumeric classification system. In the past, an ‘A’ classification indicated that the hazard has a likelihood of affecting Philadelphia every 15 years; a ‘B’ classification, every 5-10 years; and a ‘C’ classification every 10 years or more. To comply with PEMA’s Risk Factor approach, planners altered these categories for the 2017 Plan in order to conduct an assessment that is both more useful to the City and complies with standardized methods across the state. There are four levels of probability for the purpose of this assessment: 1. Unlikely: Less than 1.0 percent annual probability 251 2. Possible: Between one percent and 49.9 percent annual probability 3. Likely: Between 50.0 percent and 89.9 percent annual probability 4. Highly Likely: Greater than 90 percent annual probability The table below depicts this ranking and the primary vulnerability factor(s) behind each classification. Hazard Active Shooter Probability of Occurrence for Hazards in Philadelphia Probability Vulnerability Most of the gun crime in the City is largely criminal rather than active shooter 2 There have been few instances of incidents that qualify as a potential or founded active shooter Infrastructure Failure 3 Drought 2 Earthquake 2 Extreme Cold 4 Extreme Heat 4 Flooding 4 Hazardous Materials Train Derailment 2 There have been no instances of a bridge collapse in Philadelphia in the past A large number of bridges in the area have been declared structurally deficient, increasing the risk of structural collapse There have been no instances of a dam collapse in Philadelphia in the past There have been instances of building collapses in the past One Presidential and five Gubernatorial Declarations have been issued as a result of the drought emergencies Since 1980 there have been 9 drought watches, 12 drought warnings and 6 drought emergencies Hundreds of earthquakes have occurred in or around Philadelphia; however there has only been one 4.0 magnitude earthquake since 1737 Occur annually Since, there have been 207 days where the daily average temperature was below 32 Occur annually On average, the temperature reaches 90°F between 25 and 30 days annually in Philadelphia Can result in any month of the year There have been 81 flooding events between 1996 and 2015 Between 1955 and 2011, Philadelphia experienced 15 Presidential Disaster/Emergency Declarations, and/or Gubernatorial Declarations related to flooding Philadelphia has experienced several incidents and close calls involving hazardous materials carrying train cars in the past 252 Improvised Explosive Device 1 Tropical Cyclone, Hurricane 3 Urban Conflagration 1 Winter Storm 4 Windstorm, Tornado 4 Philadelphia has not experienced a coordinated improvised handheld or vehicular based explosive device attack From 1861-2015 31 tropical cyclones have had centers of circulation past through or within 65 statute miles of Philadelphia Based on historical data between 1944 and 1999, there is approximately an 18 percent chance of experiencing a tropical storm or hurricane event between June and November of any given year340 There have been four instances of an urban conflagration since 1850 Increasing housing density and aging infrastructure contributes to an increased risk of urban conflagration Philadelphia averages 22.3 inches of snowfall annually Seasonal totals range from just a trace during the 1972/1973 season to 78.7 inches during the 2009/2010 season341 Between 1955 and 2015, Philadelphia acquired 6 Presidential Disaster / Emergency Declarations, and 6 Gubernatorial Declarations related to winter storms Windstorms are consider high probably, as they occur annually Between 1995 and 2015, there were 130 events in Philadelphia with wind speeds greater than 35 mph342 Tornadoes are less frequent Since reliable record keeping began in 1950, 8 tornadoes have touched down in Philadelphia, all being classified an F2 or weaker Chris Landsea. “What is my chance of being struck by a tropical storm or hurricane?”. AOML NOAA. Retrieved March 17, 2016. 341 Uccellini Koci. “A Snowfall Impact Scale Derived from Northeast Storm Snowfall Distributions”. 342 NCDC Storm Events Database: High Wind, Strong Wind for Philadelphia. Retrieved March 17, 2016. 340 253 4.4.2.3 Potential Impact of Hazards The impact of each hazard in Philadelphia is broken down into three categories: impact on the population, impact on the infrastructure, and the impact on the economy. Each impact ranking is based on the documented historic losses and projected losses detailed in the hazard profiles. Those hazards listed below have been determined to be of higher risk to the City of Philadelphia. The 2012 Hazard Mitigation Plan used alphanumeric categories to illustrate the level of impact for each category, with “C” being a low probability of impact, “B” being a medium probability of impact, and “A” being a high probability of impact. To comply with PEMA’s Risk Factor approach, these categories have been altered for the 2017 Plan in order to conduct a more accurate assessment. There are four levels of probability for the purpose of this assessment: 1. Minor: Very few injuries, if any. Only minor property damage and minimal disruption on quality of life. Temporary shutdown of critical facilities. 2. Limited: Minor injuries only. More than 10 percent of property in affected area damaged or destroyed. Complete shutdown of critical facilities for more than one day. 3. Critical: Multiple deaths/injuries possible. More than 25 percent of properties in affected area damaged or destroyed. Complete shutdown for critical facilities for more than one week. 4. Catastrophic: High number of deaths/injuries possible. More than 50 percent of properties in the affected area damaged or destroyed. Complete shutdown of critical facilities for 30 days or more. The table on the following pages illustrates this ranking and the main determination factor(s) behind each classification. 254 Impact to Philadelphia: Population, Infrastructure, and Economy Average Hazard of Impact Overall Vulnerability Concern Category Impact Population: Numerous fatalities/injuries, dependent on the 4 extent of the attack Infrastructure: Minimal, if any, damage to surrounding Active Shooter 3.3 1 structures Economy: Temporary loss of business in the immediate 2 area Population: Numerous fatalities/injuries both on and 4 surrounding the structure Infrastructure Infrastructure: Extensive damage to the bridge itself, as well Failure: Bridge 2.7 4 as any surrounding structures or roadways Collapse Repair costs to bridge and surrounding area Economy: 3 Loss of business Few injuries and deaths occur, mostly within Population: vehicles driving through flooded roads 1 Mold contaminates homes and buildings Infrastructure Failure: Dam Infrastructure: 1.3 Extensive damage to dam, moderate damage Collapse 4 to surrounding homes and businesses Repair costs for dam Economy: 2 Loss of business due to localized flooding Population: Several fatalities and injuries both in and 2 around the immediate vicinity of the structure Infrastructure Infrastructure: Damage or total loss of the building, with Failure: Building 1.7 2 damage to surrounding structures Collapse Economy: Temporary loss of business to the immediate 1 area Population: Health issues related to use restrictions and 1 lack of hygiene Infrastructure: Does not affect infrastructure such as Drought 1.3 1 highways, bridges and buildings Losses towards water-reliant businesses Economy: 1 Loss of crops Population: Minimal fatalities/injuries 2 Limited structural damage would be sustained, Infrastructure: Earthquake 2.3 but would be worst in older buildings of 3 Philadelphia Economy: Economic loss would be in the millions due to 2 repair costs and loss of business Fatalities caused by extreme temperatures Population: Extreme Cold 3 ranks the highest in the United States, with 140 3 deaths on average the past ten years 255 Infrastructure: 2 Economy: 2 Population: 3 Extreme Heat Infrastructure: 2 3 Economy: 2 Population: 2 Flooding Infrastructure: 2 3.3 Economy: 4 Population: 3 Hazardous Train Derailment Infrastructure: 4 3.7 Economy: 4 Population: 4 Improvised Explosive Device Infrastructure: 4 Economy: 3 3 Roads and bridges can erode or develop potholes due to freeze/thaw cycle and brining/salting operations Gas and water mains can burst due to cold Fire hazard increases Higher electric and gas bills Repairs to roads and infrastructure Fatalities caused by extreme temperatures ranks the highest in the United States, with 140 deaths on average the past ten years Brownouts and blackouts can occur during extreme heat Roads and bridges can buckle due to expansion in heat Fire hazard increases Higher electric bills Repairs to roads and infrastructure Few injuries and deaths occur, mostly within vehicles driving through flooded roads Mold contaminates homes and buildings Disruption in transportation services from closed roads and rail lines Damaged buildings and homes in floodplains Direct Economic Loss from a 100-Year Flood Event could be in the multi-millions Several fatalities/injuries, depending on the location of the derailment and chemical on board Widespread psychological effects long-term Damage to the immediate area, with secondary effects damage (such as environmental damage and fire) dependent on the location and chemical involved Infrastructure damage and cost of repair Surrounding structural and environmental damage and cost of repair Loss of business, goods, and commodities regionally, depending on the duration, location, and extent of damages Extensive fatalities/injuries, depending on the location of the attack Widespread psychological effects long-term Extensive damage to the immediate area, depending on the size and chemical used for the device Structural repair to the affected area Loss of business 256 Tropical Cyclone, Hurricane Urban Conflagration Population: 2 Infrastructure: 3 Economy: 3 Population: 2 Infrastructure: 4 Economy: 3 Population: 3 Winter Storm Infrastructure: 2 Economy: 3 Population: 2 Windstorm, Tornado Infrastructure: 4 Economy: 4 Minimal fatalities/injuries 2.3 Similar to flooding and windstorm Direct economic loss from a 100-year hurricane event would be nearly $100 million Limited fatalities, several injuries related to smoke inhalation and burns 2.7 Extensive damage to structures in the area Repair costs to structures Loss of business Accidents due to wintery conditions may occur Transportation for emergency medical services is hindered May collapse roofs 2.7 Flooding/flash flooding can occur following rapid snowmelt or resulting from ice blockage on waterways Cost accrued from snow and ice removal, salting roads, repairing roads from the freeze/thaw process, and the loss of business Minimal fatalities/injuries Damage can be sustained to building, especially high-rises Powerlines can go down, knocking out power 3 for several days Direct consequences to the local economy resulting from windstorms related to both physical damages and interrupted services could be in the multi-billions 257 4.4.2.4 Extent, Warning Time, and Duration of Hazards This section investigates three aspects of the hazards detailed in this document: ▪ Spatial Extent ▪ Warning Time ▪ Duration Spatial extent refers to the size of an area that could be affected by a hazard. This measurement examines whether affects are localized or widespread. Following PEMA’s guidance, there are four index levels used to describe spatial extent in this assessment: 1. Negligible: less than 1 percent of the city affected 2. Small: between 1 and 10.9 percent of the city affected 3. Moderate: between 11 and 25 of the city affected 4. Large: greater than 25 percent of the city affected Warning time refers to whether there is lead time prior to a hazard that would provide time for warning measures to be issued or put in place. Following PEMA’s guidance, there are four index levels used to describe warning time in this assessment: 1. More than 24 hours 2. 12 to 24 hours 3. 6 to 12 hours 4. Less than 6 hours Duration refers to how long a hazard lasts. Following PEMA’s guidance, there are four index levels used to describe duration in this assessment: 1. Less than 6 hours 2. Between 6 and 24 hours 3. Between 24 hours and one week 4. Greater than one week Probability of Occurrence for Hazards in Philadelphia Hazard Spatial Extent Warning Time Duration Active Shooter 2 4 1 Infrastructure Failure 2 4 1 Drought 4 1 4 Earthquake 4 4 1 Extreme Cold 4 1 3 Extreme Heat 4 1 3 Flooding 4 2 4 Hazardous Materials Train Derailment 2 4 4 Improvised Explosive Device 2 4 1 Tropical Cyclone, Hurricane 4 1 3 Urban Conflagration 2 4 3 Winter Storm 4 1 3 Windstorm, Tornado 4 2 1 258 4.1.1. Description of Methodology for Risk Factor Assessment The risk factor assessment took into account numerous different data sources to formulate the overall risk. Historical instances utilized as the basis for the probability of a hazard’s occurrence were taken from sources such as:            National Hurricane Center (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center (NOAA) Federal Bureau of Investigation PennDOT Bridge Information National Earthquake Data Center Global Terrorism Database USGS NOWData (NOAA) Department of Homeland Security FEMA Region III City agencies, such as the Planning Commission, The Philadelphia Water Department, and the Department of Licenses and Inspections. 4.4.1. Hazard Vulnerability Summary The hazard vulnerability summarizes the potential effects of hazards on the City of Philadelphia, represented by measures such as population at risk, percent damages, and dollar loss estimation. This information provides an additional basis for the creation and prioritization of mitigation strategies. Data used to conduct vulnerability assessments came from a variety of sources. The assessment identifies critical facilities using Pennsylvania Department of Health data, local Philadelphia Fire and Police information, and Office of Emergency Management mapping data. Planners calculated loss estimates from the most recent assessment data from the Philadelphia Office of Property Assessment (OPA). To model residential parcels, the OPA used several years of sales data and data related to the physical characteristics of the parcels to estimate value using a comparable sales approach.343 Damaged home calculations and estimated economic loss data is supplemented with county tract-level calculations created using HAZUS when available. 343 For a complete overview of the value determining process, visit www.phila.gov/assessments. 259 4.4.2. Future Land Uses and Development Trends Philadelphia has experienced both the boom of population growth and the bust of population decline. Philadelphia’s population peaked by the early 1950’s. As in many cities of the Northeast, a decades-long period of de-industrialization resulted in closed factories, population loss, vacant land, and urban decay. Following this decline, Philadelphia experienced a slow growth through reinvestment and economic diversification. This growth stabilized and reversed the declining population, and for the first time in 50 years in 2010, the City experienced a population gain of 0.6 percent, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. In 2010, the Philadelphia City Planning Commission (PCPC) developed an aspirational population forecast for 2035 taking into account historic trends, recent trends, and current conditions. The PCPC forecast for 2035 utilizes a range of forecasts based on different assumptions, including the extrapolation of long-term and short-term trends as well as the consideration of the impacts of future conditions and interventions on births, deaths, and migration. These separate forecasts were then averaged to reflect a likely future outcome within a range of possible outcomes. The combination of five different forecasts yield an average forecast of approximately 1.63 million Philadelphia residents by 2035. This suggests a population increase of 100,000 people over 25 years, a significant increase not experienced since before 1950. The table on the following page shows the maps of population trends both in the past and up to the year 2035. Philadelphia’s Population Growth Images from Philadelphia City Planning Commission 260 Population Forecast Model and Assumptions Decennial Census Trend, Composite Averages high, medium, and low interpretations of decennial Census trends, 1980-2010 DVRPC Forecast Adjusted to 2010 Base Same annual changes to 2035 as Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission "Connections" Plan City Share of Region, Composite Averages high, medium, and low interpretations of trends in city's share of 12-county region, 1970-2010 Annual Estimates Census Trend Extension to 2035 of 20002010 changes reported by Census Annual Estimates Program Summary of Five Population Forecast Models 2010 Base 2035 Forecast 2010Population Population 2035 (millions) (millions) Change Notes 1.53 1.45 -80,000 Ranges from high of 1.88m to low of 1.26m 1.53 1.53 0 Slight decrease through 2015, followed by slight increase 1.53 1.65 120,000 Ranges from high of 1.83m to low of 1.48m 1.53 1.66 130,000 Reflects annual growth rate of approximately 0.3 percent 261 High Demand/ High Capacity Substantial increase in retention and immigration of domestic and foreign residents Average 1.53 1.85 320,000 1.53 1.63 100,000 Reflects City's capacity to accommodate growth from combined effects of city-friendly trends and policies in immigration, the economy, and the environment 262 5 Capability Assessment 5.1 Philadelphia Capability Assessment The purpose of conducting a capability assessment is to examine the City’s ability to implement a comprehensive mitigation strategy, and to identify potential opportunities for establishing or enhancing specific hazard mitigation policies, programs or projects. Philadelphia’s capability assessment has two primary components: 1) an inventory of the relevant plans, ordinances or programs already in place; and 2) an analysis of the City’s capacity to implement them. Through this process, the City can pinpoint existing gaps or vulnerabilities that could hinder mitigation actions or exacerbate hazard vulnerability, as well as highlight the positive mitigation measures already underway in Philadelphia. 5.2 Conducting the Capability Assessment In order to inventory Philadelphia’s capabilities, a Capability Assessment Survey was distributed to the members of the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee. The survey requested information on a variety of capability indicators, such as information related to Philadelphia’s fiscal, administrative and technical capabilities, and access to local budgetary and personnel resources for mitigation purposes. A copy of the Assessment Capability Survey is available in the Self-Assessment Capability Survey Annex. 5.3 Capability Assessment Findings The findings of the capability assessment are summarized in this plan to provide insight into Philadelphia’s capacity to implement hazard mitigation actions. All information is based upon the responses provided by the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee and City agencies. 5.3.1 Planning and Regulatory Capability Planning and regulatory capability is based on the implementation of plans, ordinances and programs that demonstrate a local jurisdiction’s commitment to guiding and managing growth, development, and redevelopment in a responsible manner while maintaining the general welfare of the community.344 The assessment is designed to provide a general overview of the key planning and regulatory tools or programs in place or under development for Philadelphia, along with their potential effect on loss reduction. The Planning and Regulatory Capability Inventory table below provides a summary of the relevant local plans, ordinances, and programs currently in place or under development. The following sections provide more details about these tools and how they are integrated with the Hazard Mitigation Plan. 344 PCPC, Philadelphia 2035. Retrieved 5 November 2015. 263 ▪ Hazard Mitigation Plan X X 2017 Emergency Operations Plan X Hazard Based Emergency Plans X X X Varies Function-based Emergency Plans X X X Varies 2015 ▪ Inclusion of human caused threats Inclusion of a localized annex General updates ▪ General updates ▪ Notes on Current or Future Integration with the HMP Changes or additions since 2012 Year Last Updated Not Applicable Under Development In Place Planning / Regulatory Tool Updating Planning and Regulatory Capability Inventory The 2017 update builds on findings in the 2012 Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP). This plan provides foundational information for hazard mitigation planning. The HMP mitigation strategies align with future actions identified in these plans. Ongoing analysis will be conducted to identify opportunities for further integration with the plan. The HMP mitigation strategies align with future actions identified in these plans. Ongoing analysis will be conducted to identify 264 ▪ Evacuation Plan X X 2017 ▪ ▪ Continuity of Operations Plan X 2015 ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ National Flood Insurance Program National Flood Insurance Program: Community Rating System X ▪ X TBD opportunities for further integration with the plan. The Evacuation Plan will undergo revision in 2017, Neighborhood level using hazard-informed route identification methods to assess risk and Hazard-informed identify potential impacts on approach the City’s transportation infrastructure and evacuation routes. The HMP integrates COOP Site enhancement to its Orders of succession & mitigation strategies, delegation of authority including electrical systems Contact information enhancement, systems Funding information synchronizing, and the General updates installation of quick connects for generators. The City of The HMP integrates NFIP Philadelphia content with the Risk and underwent a Capabilities assessments, Community Assistance and includes data on the Visit by FEMA in 2016. number and types of More details below. repetitive loss properties. The City is assessing its future participation in the Community Rating System Opportunities for further integration include deeper analysis of NFIP repetitive loss properties, mitigation projects that address these properties, and overall 265 Floodplain Regulations X Varies Floodplain Management Plan X Varies alignment of the HMP strategies with the qualifying standards of the Cp!RS program. Future opportunities for integration of floodplain regulations with the HMP includes coordinating the revision process of the City’s floodplain regulations (as per recommendations in the City’s Community Assistance Visit report) with the assessment and strategies outlined in the HMP. A key opportunity for future integration with hazard mitigation planning is to coordinate the plan’s objectives and implementation strategies with those of the HMP. 266 ▪ ▪ Zoning Codes X 2015 ▪ ▪ Subdivision Regulations X 2016 Philadelphia Property Maintenance Code (Subcode “PM”) was repealed and replaced by Bill No. 120647, approved January 20, 2014 and effective July 1, 2015. Philadelphia Property Maintenance Code (Subcode “PM”) was further amended, and its substantive provisions replaced in their entirety, by Bill No. 140856, approved December 19, 2014 and effective July 1, 2015. Title 14: Zoning and Planning was repealed and replaced by the provisions of Bill No. 110845, approved December 22, 2011 and effective August 22, 2012. Subdivision design standards regarding visitability updated in 2013. The City will continue to review and revise these codes with respect to findings in the HMP risk assessment. The City will continue to review and revise these codes with respect to 267 ▪ Comprehensive Land Use Plan Open Space Management Plan Stormwater Management Plan X X X X Varies ▪ ▪ Open space planning completed on a planning district by planning district basis. ▪ Planned for and installed new stormwater management tools citywide. Varies 2014 Since the 2012 Hazard Mitigation Plan, the City Planning Commission has completed 13 of 18 Philadelphia2035 district plans. As of October 2016, there were an additional two more plans underway, with three more scheduled for Spring 2016, and the final three scheduled for 2017 and 2018. findings in the HMP risk assessment. An opportunity for future integration with hazard mitigation planning is to coordinate the plan’s objectives and implementation strategies with those of the HMP. A key opportunity for future integration with hazard mitigation planning is to coordinate the plan’s objectives and implementation strategies with those of the HMP. The HMP mitigation strategies reflect the priorities of the City’s Stormwater Management plan. 268 ▪ ▪ Watershed Management Plan X 2014 ▪ ▪ Capital Improvement Plan X Annual ▪ Updates the monitoring and assessment of surface waters, groundwater, rainfall, and green infrastructure performance. Updates the monitoring and assessment of surface waters, groundwater, rainfall, CSO discharges, sewer flows, and green infrastructure performance. New General Obligation, enterprise, state, federal, and private funds Structural renovations for city facilities and investments in commercial centers around the city Focus on state of good repair, return on investment, and sustainability The HMP mitigation strategies reflect the priorities of the City’s Stormwater Management plan. The City’s capital improvement plan reflects a number of the objectives in the Hazard Mitigation plan, including storm flood relief, and winter weather preparedness. The city will further integrate hazard mitigation and capital improvement planning in the future as it assesses city assets deemed at-risk of extreme heat and precipitation. 269 Economic Development Framework A regional Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy is updated annually by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission ▪ Historical site assessments conducted in early 2016 Mitigation actions developed for both the City and property owners X Historic Preservation Plan Building Codes  X X 2016 2010 ▪  City adoption of new codes An opportunity for future integration with hazard mitigation planning is to coordinate the plan’s objectives and implementation strategies with those of the HMP, particularly with urban revitalization and transportation development projects. Pending completion of a vulnerability assessment, the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office will coordinate with the City to integrate preservation mitigation strategies into the HMP. The City will continue to review and revise these codes with respect to findings in the HMP risk assessment. 270 5.3.1.1 Emergency Management Emergency management is a comprehensive, integrated program of mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery for emergencies of any kind. In Philadelphia the responsibility of ensuring the City’s preparedness and resiliency falls under the Office of Emergency Management (OEM). OEM coordinates the combined efforts of government, non-governmental organizations, and members of the community through the execution and continuous refinement of a comprehensive emergency management program. The program is supported by risk assessment, consultative mechanisms, and strategic planning processes. OEM endeavors to create a more prepared and resilient OEM’s mission is to Philadelphia through planning, operational coordination, focus people, plans, and and external engagement. OEM continuously performs programs to promote a analyses to identify potential areas for improvement, and prepared and resilient conducts multi-agency exercises and training to test, Philadelphia. validate and improve our plans. The Office of Emergency Management conducted numerous exercises and trainings since 2012, including a Mass Casualty/ Mass Decontamination Exercise series, a Public Alerting Conference, ICS trainings, and a Radiological Dispersion Device (RDD) Workshop, among others. Exercises and trainings also assist in response readiness. The Office of Emergency Management responds to both planned events and unplanned incidents to assist in coordination of resources and services. OEM averages four responses per month and 49 per year. OEM has also grown in national recognition. In November 2015, OEM received EMAP accreditation, displaying proficiency in 64 industry standards and 41 subcomponent strategies, including planning, incident management, operations and procedures, crisis communications, public education, and numerous other aspects of emergency management. OEM has also undergone several physical changes. In December 2012, OEM opened its newly renovated Emergency Operations Center to better accommodate liaisons and staff with more efficient layouts, updated electronics, and v-shaped work stations for face to face collaboration. The Office of Emergency Management also enhanced its logistics program, establishing a warehouse that houses and distributes equipment for events and incidents of various sizes and types. Equipment ranges from generators to durable medical equipment. 271 5.3.1.2 Hazard Mitigation Plan A hazard mitigation plan represents a community’s plan for how it intends to reduce the impact of hazards on people and the built environment. The essential elements of a hazard mitigation plan include a risk assessment, capability assessment and mitigation strategy. State, tribal, and local governments are required to develop a hazard mitigation plan as a condition for receiving certain types of non-emergency disaster assistance, including funding A hazard mitigation plan for mitigation projects. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster represents a community’s Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Public Law 93plan for how it intends to 288), as amended by the Disaster Mitigation Act of reduce the impact of 2000, provides the legal basis for state, local, and tribal hazards on people and the governments to undertake a risk-based approach to built environment. reducing risks from natural hazards through mitigation planning. The City of Philadelphia created its first Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan in 2012. The 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan is the newest iteration of the plan and integrates information from City plans into its mitigation goals and objectives. 5.3.1.3 Emergency Operations Plan The Pennsylvania Emergency Management Services Code, Title 35, requires all political jurisdictions in the Commonwealth to have an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), an Emergency Management Coordinator (EMC), and an Emergency Operations Center (EOC). Philadelphia’s EOP is an all-hazards plan that complies with the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and is the basis for a coordinated and effective response to any disaster that may affect lives and property in Philadelphia. Philadelphia’s EOP is reviewed biennially by the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency. 5.3.1.4 Hazard-Specific Planning Numerous City agencies have developed hazard-specific plans that focus on the natural and man-made hazards that impact the City of Philadelphia. Hazard-specific plans are routinely reviewed and revised. Hazard-specific plans are used in the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan to help identify response and recovery capabilities and gaps for future mitigation actions. In addition, these plans help to inform response techniques, hazard locations, and future risk of occurrences within the Hazard Mitigation Plan. Individual hazard-specific plans reference the Hazard Mitigation Plan for additional hazard and vulnerability information. 5.3.1.5 Function-based Planning Philadelphia MDO-OEM has developed a series of function-based plans that focus on how various hazard scenarios impact the City’s phases of operation and citizens. 272 Function-based plans are routinely reviewed and revised. Current plans include, but are not limited to, those listed in the Function-based Plans table below. Function-based plans are used in the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan to help identify response and recovery capabilities and gaps for future mitigation actions. 5.3.1.6 Evacuation Plan The City of Philadelphia has never had cause to evacuate the City, and such an event would be exceptionally rare. However, the City does maintain evacuation plans in the event that they may be required. Evacuation plans include descriptions of the area(s) being evacuated, the demographics and characteristics of people within those area(s), transportation routes to safe areas, and how the community will support individuals who do not have access to their own transportation. OEM started revising evacuation planning in 2016. The updated plan focuses on a neighborhood-level planning approach, with emphasis on localized hazards in areas with known issues, such as flooding. The update is set to be completed later in 2017. 5.3.1.7 Continuity of Operations Plan Continuity of Operations Planning is the process of developing advance arrangements and procedures that enable an organization to continue its essential functions despite events that threaten to disrupt them. The continuity discipline aims to identify emergency or unconventional means to replace or work around those deficiencies in the short term until the organization can be reconstituted on a normal basis. The most recent iteration of the plan was in 2015, and is updated regularly. 5.3.1.8 Zoning Codes Zoning seeks to protect public health, safety and welfare by regulating the use of land and controlling the type, size and height of buildings. The Philadelphia Zoning Commission is charged with enforcing a zoning code that is easy to understand, improves the City’s planning process, promotes positive development, and preserves the character of Philadelphia’s neighborhoods. 5.3.1.9 Subdivision Regulations Subdivision is defined as the division of any parcel of land into a number of lots, blocks or sites as specified in a local ordinance, law, rule or regulation, with or without streets or highways, for the purpose of sale, transfer of ownership, or development. Title 14 of the Philadelphia City Code and Home Rule Charter contains the land subdivision regulations for the city. 5.3.1.10 Comprehensive Land Use Plan A comprehensive land use plan establishes the overall vision for what a community wants to be and serves as a guide to future governmental decision making. Typically a comprehensive plan contains sections on demographics, land use, transportation 273 elements and community facilities. Given the broad nature of the plan and its regulatory standing in many communities, the integration of hazard mitigation measures into the comprehensive plan can enhance the likelihood of achieving risk reduction goals, objectives and actions. The Philadelphia2035: The Comprehensive Plan is managed by the PCPC, but dozens of other organizations and individuals assisted with the development of the plan. Philadelphia2035 is one component of a broader initiative known as the “Integrated Planning and Zoning Process.” The process is designed to align Philadelphia’s zoning code changes with comprehensive and strategic planning, all of which is informed by a formalized public education and outreach organization, the Citizens Planning Institute. Since the 2012 Hazard Mitigation Plan, Philadelphia2035 has completed 13 of 18 district plans. As of November 2016, there were an additional three more plans underway, with the final two scheduled for 2017.345 Each of these district plans produces a proposed land use plan for the district, among several other important components. These land-use plans serve as the basis for zoning map revisions, an important activity of the Zoning Code reform work. The 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan integrates existing and future land use as laid out by Philadelphia2035 district plans. 5.3.1.11 Open Space Management Plan An open space management plan is designed to preserve, protect and restore largely undeveloped lands in their natural state, and to expand or connect areas in the public domain such as parks, greenways and other outdoor recreation areas. In many instances open space management practices are consistent with the goals of reducing hazard losses such as the preservation of wetlands or other flood-prone areas in natural state in perpetuity. Under the direction of the PCPC, Philadelphia2035 provides guidelines on the expansion and maintenance of open space in the City by planning district. In addition to Philadelphia2035, the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability in partnership with PCPC, has been actively targeting the creation of park and recreation amenities within 10 minutes of 75 percent of Philadelphia residents through 500 new acres of public open space.346 Further, under Philadelphia’s Combined Sewer Overflow Long Term Control Plan titled Green City, Clean Waters, the Philadelphia Water Department has installed more than 581 greened acres, well ahead of their goal to install 450 new greened acres by the close of 2015.347 Beyond 2015, the City is exploring more options to create more open space through partnerships with the Philadelphia Land Bank. The City works on a number of fronts to improve the city’s Philadelphia2035. District Plan Schedule. Retrieved 5 November 2015. Target 9: Provide Park And Recreation Resources Within 10 Minutes Of 75 Percent Of Residents. Philadelphia Greenworks. Retrieved November 30, 2015. 347 Greenworks Progress Report 2015. Mayor’s Office of Sustainability. Retrieved December 15, 2015. 345 346 274 open space network, including the Philadelphia Water Department’s stormwater management plan and the Philadelphia School District’s Campus Park Program. 5.3.1.12 Stormwater Management Plan A stormwater management plan is designed to address flooding associated with stormwater runoff. Philadelphia Water Department actively updates the City’s Stormwater Management plan, with the latest version approved on July 1, 2015. In addition to the plan, PWD wrote a corresponding manual to help home owners, contractors, and citizens in general better understand how to efficiently comply with Stormwater regulations. Philadelphia also is taking great strides in stormwater management through green infrastructure. As of June 1, 2011 the Philadelphia Water Department’s “Green City, Clean Waters”, stormwater management plan, was approved by the EPA and PADEP. The purpose of the plan is to modify the stormwater infrastructure in Philadelphia to reduce the amount of contaminated water that enters rivers and streams. Since the plan’s introduction and enactment, Philadelphia Water Department and private developers have added over 1,100 green stormwater tools to Philadelphia’s landscape, such as planters, porous pavement, and stormwater wetlands. The Philadelphia Water Department has completed or is in the process of designing: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ 485 Stormwater Tree Trenches 73 Stormwater Planters 49 Stormwater Bumpouts 96 Rain Gardens 12 Stormwater Basins 141 Infiltration/Storage Trenches 31 Porous Paving Projects 28 Swales 2 Stormwater Wetlands 33 Downspout Planters (not shown in map) 15 Other Projects 275 The plan is expected to reduce the amount of sewer overflow entering city waterways by five to eight billion gallons per year as construction continues. This is an 80 to 90 percent reduction in flow. The plan includes several green infrastructure projects to attain water quality goals and also to mitigate climate change impacts while stimulating economic development. Future projects include incorporating porous asphalt, bioswales348, rooftop gardens, street repaving, roadside plantings, and thousands of new trees. 5.3.1.13 Watershed Management Plan The PWD has developed Integrated Watershed Management Plans (IWMPs) for each of the five major tributary streams of the Schuylkill and Delaware Rivers, including the Cobbs, Tookany/Tacony-Frankford, Wissahickon, Pennypack and Poquessing. Designed to meet the goals and objectives of numerous water resources-related regulations and programs, integrated watershed management plans recommend the use of adaptive management approaches to implement recommendations watershedwide. Philadelphia’s watershed management plan ties directly into “Green City, Clear Waters” with waterways restoration, waterways assessment, and the incorporation of green stormwater infrastructure. 5.3.1.14 Capital Improvement Plan The Capital Program is Philadelphia’s six-year plan for investing in its physical infrastructure, community facilities, and public buildings. While much of the Capital Program focuses on improvements to the City’s neighborhoods and the quality of life of its citizens, the plan supports numerous other municipal government priorities. More specifically, the Capital Program includes projects that promote economic recovery and job creation, enhance public safety, invest in youth, protect the most vulnerable, and reform city government. The plan is updated annually. Bioswales are storm water runoff conveyance systems that provide an alternative to storm sewers. They absorb low flows or carry runoff from heavy rains to storm sewer inlets or directly to surface waters. A road side ditch with vegetation can serve as a bioswale. 348 276 5.3.1.15 Economic Development Framework The Greater Philadelphia Economic Development Framework was created to The Betsy Ross House is one of satisfy provisions for a Comprehensive several historically important sites Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) for located in a flood plain in Philadelphia. the Greater Philadelphia region, encompassing portions of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. This document was developed according to provisions outlined in 13 CFR § 303.7(c) Consideration of non-EDA funded CEDS and was formally approved by the U.S. Economic Development Administration as the Greater Philadelphia region’s CEDS on September 30, 2009. This document is the product of a public-private consortium jointly managed by DVRPC (Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission), Select Greater Philadelphia, and Ben Franklin Technology Partners. 5.3.1.16 Historic Preservation Plan A historic preservation plan is intended to preserve historic structures or districts within a community and is managed by the Philadelphia Historic Commission. The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, in partnership with the Philadelphia Office of Emergency Management, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, private firms, and the Philadelphia Historic Commission is currently conducting a two-phase project that is leading to the development of recommended mitigation actions for inclusion in both the Historic Preservation Plan and Philadelphia’s Hazard Mitigation Plan.349 5.3.1.17 Building Codes Building Codes regulate construction standards. In Philadelphia, permits are issued for new construction and renovations of existing structures. L&I is responsible for reviewing plans to ensure they conform to existing code in Philadelphia, and issuing permits. Decisions regarding the adoption of building codes are made through the Department of Licenses and Inspections, City Council, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Image: "Betsy-Ross-House" by Wolle8ball - Own work. Licensed under CC BY 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved February 8, 2016. 349 277 5.3.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities Philadelphia’s ability to plan and implement mitigation programs ties directly tied to its ability to focus staff time and resources for that purpose. To assess Administrative capability this plan examines how mitigation-related activities are assigned to City departments, and how adequate the personnel resources are for carrying out those activities. Technical capability assesses the level of knowledge and technical expertise of City employees, such as personnel skilled in using GIS to analyze and assess community hazard vulnerability. The Administrative and Technical Capability table below provides a summary of the administrative and technical capability of Philadelphia. Administrative and Technical Capability Staff/Personnel Resources Planners (with land use/land development knowledge) Planners or engineers (with natural and/or human caused hazards knowledge) Engineers or professional trained in building and/or infrastructure construction practices (includes building inspectors) Emergency Manager Yes X No X X X Floodplain Manager X Land Surveyors Scientists or staff familiar with the hazards of the community X Personnel skilled in GIS and/or HAZUS X Grant writers or fiscal staff to handle large/complex grants X X Local agencies that can provide technical assistance for mitigation activities include, but are not limited to:          Office of Emergency Management Philadelphia Fire Department Philadelphia Office of Sustainability Philadelphia Land Bank Philadelphia Historic Commission Philadelphia Police Department Philadelphia Water Department Philadelphia Department of Public Health Philadelphia Gas Works 278         Philadelphia Streets Department Philadelphia Licenses and Inspections Philadelphia Parks and Recreation Philadelphia City Planning Commission Philadelphia International Airport Office of Innovation and Technology Delaware River Port Authority Veolia Energy State agencies agency that can provide technical assistance for mitigation activities include, but are not limited to:        Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry (Building Codes) Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency Southeast Pennsylvania Transportation Authority Federal agencies which can provide technical assistance for mitigation activities include, but are not limited to:         Army Corp of Engineers Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of Agriculture Department of Transportation Economic Development Administration Environmental Protection Agency Federal Emergency Management Agency Small Business Administration 279 5.3.3 Fiscal Capabilities The ability to implement mitigation-related activities relates to the resources available to fund them. Resource streams may include grant awards or locally-based revenue and financing. Local programs that may provide financial support for mitigation activities include, but are not limited, to:       Capital Improvement Programming Special Purpose Taxes Water/Sewer Fees Stormwater Utility Fees General Obligation, Revenue, and/or Special Tax Bonds Partnering Arrangements or Intergovernmental Agreements State programs that may provide financial support for mitigation activities include, but are not limited to:            Community Conservation Partnerships Program Community Revitalization Program Floodplain Land Use Assistance Program Growing Greener Program Keystone Grant Program Local Government Capital Projects Loan Program Land Use Planning and Technical Assistance Program Pennsylvania Heritage Areas Program Pennsylvania Recreational Trails Program Shared Municipal Services Technical Assistance Program Federal programs that may provide financial support for mitigation activities include, but are not limited to:         Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Disaster Housing Program Emergency Conservation Program Emergency Watershed Protection Program Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA) Non-insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM) 280     Repetitive Flood Claims Program (RFC) Section 108 Loan Guarantee Programs Severe Repetitive Loss Grant Program (SRL) Weatherization Assistance Program 5.3.4 Education and Outreach Capabilities The City of Philadelphia conducts numerous forms of education and outreach to citizens for activities that fall under mitigation projects, initiatives, or plans with mitigation components. The City of Philadelphia’s capability to conduct public education and outreach is directly correlated with the programs, organizations, and agencies that support these services. City agencies that provide mitigation-related education and outreach activities include, but are not limited to:350 Wally the Shelter in Place Turtle attends outreach events with the Office of Emergency Management and other city stakeholders yearround. Office of Emergency Management Philadelphia Police Department Philadelphia Fire Department Philadelphia Water Department Mayor’s Office of Sustainability Philadelphia City Planning Commission In addition to these efforts, Philadelphia participates in several programs and organizations that support mitigation-related education and outreach activities such as:             350 Natural disaster school programs Safety-related training and school programs Ongoing public education on: Responsible water use Watershed initiatives Green initiatives Business continuity programs Personal preparedness programs Ongoing targeted outreach to communities Image: Office of Emergency Management. Retrieved March 7, 2016. 281 5.3.5 Participation in the NFIP and Floodplain Management Plan/Floodplain Regulations The U.S. Congress established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) with the passage of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, which enabled property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance as a protection against flood losses in exchange for state and community floodplain management regulations that reduce future flood damages. Participation in the NFIP is based on an agreement between communities and the federal Government. If a community adopts and enforces a floodplain management ordinance to reduce future flood risk to new construction in floodplains, the federal Government makes flood insurance available within the community as a financial protection against flood losses. This insurance is designed to provide an insurance alternative to disaster National Flood Insurance Program assistance to reduce the escalating costs of in Philadelphia: repairing damage to buildings and their ▪ 4,216 policies in force contents caused by floods. ▪ 1,893 in high risk for flooding areas Philadelphia is an active participant in the NFIP. ▪ 590 in moderate to low risk As of May 31, 2015 there are 4,216 insurance areas policies in force within Philadelphia351, increased from 3,907 policies at the time of the 2012 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Of the 4,216 insurance polices, 1,893 are in the high-risk areas for flooding and 590 are in the moderate to low-risk areas.352 The U.S. Congress mandates that federally regulated or insured lenders require flood insurance on properties that are located in areas at high risk of flooding. In high-risk areas, home and businesses have at least a one-in-four chance of flooding during a 30year mortgage. Participating cities are regularly mapped by federal assessors to delineate areas at high, moderate, and low risk of flooding. The latest Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) update, conducted by FEMA, was finished in mid-2015. The update became effective in November 2015. Philadelphia City Planning Commission (PCPC) is the City’s lead coordinating agency for NFIP, and is responsible for updating the floodplain management ordinances for the City. PCPC reviews project permits, including those in a flood plain, for approval. Permits include construction details such as delineation of flood hazard areas, floodway boundaries and flood zones; the design flood elevation as appropriate; and the elevation of the proposed lowest occupied floor, including a basement.353 Region III Fact Sheet. FEMA. February 01, 2016. Retrieved February 8, 2016. Community Information System. FEMA. Retrieved 14 August 2015. 353 Permit Guide. City of Philadelphia. Retrieved November 23, 2015. 351 352 282 Flood maps for the City of Philadelphia were last updated in early 2014, with the map updates taking effect on November 18, 2015. During the FIRM map updating process, the City of Philadelphia partnered with FEMA to provide public outreach and meetings to review changes to the maps for those who were affected. Households were contacted with information regarding their inclusion or removal from moderate or high risk flood areas. Open houses were offered around the city to help citizens understand the impact that the new maps would have on their households, and residents were offered a chance to appeal. Ongoing support is provided through the Flood Risk Management Task Force, comprised of several city agencies in the city, including PCPC, PWD, and OEM. 5.3.5.1 Community Rating System During the writing of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan, the City of Philadelphia began the process for participation in the Community Rating System (CRS) program. In compliance with FEMA’s requirement of a Community Assistance Visit (CAV), both a five year obligatory action as well as a prerequisite for participating in the Community Rating System, Philadelphia underwent a CAV in early 2016. A Community Assistance Visit (CAV) reviews and assesses an area’s floodplain management program, including permitting and enforcement processes, mitigation actions, and floodplain management ordinances.354 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP): Guidance for Conducting Community Assistance Contacts and Community Assistance Visits. April 2011. Retrieved December 15, 2015. 354 283 6 Mitigation Strategy The Mitigation Strategy describes how Philadelphia will reduce or eliminate potential losses from natural hazards identified in Section 4: Risk Assessment. The strategy focuses on existing and potential mitigation actions aimed to mitigate the effects of a natural hazard event on Philadelphia’s population, economy, and infrastructure. 6.1 Mitigation Planning Strategy The FEMA publication: Developing the Mitigation Plan: Identifying Mitigation Actions and Implementing Strategies provided the general mitigation planning approach used to develop this plan.355 The document includes four steps used to support mitigation planning for this HMP.  Step 1: Develop mitigation goals and objectives. Mitigation goals and objectives were developed using the hazard profiles, vulnerability assessments, and risk assessment.  Step 2: Identify and prioritize mitigation actions. The risk assessment, the mitigation goals and objectives, existing policies, and input from the planning committee all helped identify mitigation actions. The potential mitigation actions were qualitatively evaluated using the PASTEEL method. Actions were then prioritized into three categories: highest priority, high priority, and moderate priority.  Step 3: Prepare an implementation strategy. Highest and high priority actions are recommended for first consideration for implementation. However, based on community-specific needs, cost estimation, and available funding, some moderate priority mitigation actions may also be addressed before some of the highest or high priority actions.  Step 4: Document the mitigation planning process. The mitigation planning process is documented throughout this plan. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Developing the Mitigation Plan: Identifying Mitigation Actions and Implementing Strategies (FEMA 386-3). Retrieved 9 February 2012. 355 284 6.1.1 FEMA Requirements Addressed in this Section The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee developed the mitigation strategy consistent with the process and steps presented in FEMA’s How-To-Guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan. This section satisfies the following requirements:  Requirement 201.6(c) (3) (i): [The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a] description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards.  Requirement 201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy shall include] a section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure. [The mitigation strategy] must also address the jurisdiction’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate.  Requirement: 201.6(c) (3) (iii): [The mitigation strategy section shall include] an action plan describing how the actions identified in section (c) (3) (ii) will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization 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. 6.2 Mitigation Goals and Objectives The first step in developing a hazard mitigation strategy is to establish goals and objectives that aim to reduce or eliminate Philadelphia’s long term vulnerability to natural hazards. Mitigation goals are general guidelines explaining what Philadelphia wants to achieve in terms of hazard prevention. Objectives are specific, measurable strategies or implementation steps used to achieve the identified goals. The goals and objectives identified in the table below provide the necessary framework to develop a mitigation strategy. Philadelphia will re-evaluate its hazard mitigation goals and objectives each plan maintenance cycle to ensure they continue to represent Philadelphia’s hazard mitigation priorities. 285 Hazard Mitigation Goals and Objectives Goal 1: Sustain and enhance public safety, health, and security capabilities. Objective 1.1 Identify communities that would benefit from warning systems. Objective 1.2 Prioritize mitigation actions that affect vulnerable populations. Objective 1.3 Provide essential training to key personnel. Ensure policies, procedures and systems are in place to anticipate, Objective 1.4 identify and share information on emerging and/or imminent high risk, preventable threats. Maintain a NIMS-typed local ordinance disposal unit, Major Incident Objective 1.5 Response Team, and tactical counter-terrorism SWAT team. Conduct health and safety hazard assessments and disseminate Objective 1.6 guidance and resources. Implement mitigation measures that reduce the loss of life as a direct Objective 1.7 result of a disaster. Goal 2: Protect property. Develop and implement mitigation programs and strategies that protect Objective 2.1 critical facilities and services. Integrate hazard and risk information into land use planning Objective 2.2 mechanisms, including evaluating a location's risk and vulnerability to known hazards when identifying new facility sites. Educate public officials and the public about hazard risk, and building Objective 2.3 requirements. Objective 2.4 Promote post-disaster mitigation as part of restoration and recovery. Reduce the impact and extent of debris to the built and natural Objective 2.5 environments. Support property protection against flooding in known flooding areas Objective 2.6 and encourage personal property mitigation strategies. Goal 3: Protect the natural environment. Support and enhance mitigation actions that protect the natural Objective 3.1 environment from natural hazards and climate change. Objective 3.2 Maintain awareness of hazardous material storage sites. Objective 3.3 Ensure the protection of waterways and drinking water sources. Objective 3.4 Promote the purchase of low-carbon and energy efficient resources. Prepare for the outcomes of climate change through climate adaptation Objective 3.5 strategies. Objective 3.6 Restore water channels to improve safety and reduce flooding. Goal 4: Promote a sustainable economy. Prioritize mitigation strategies that support the continuation of critical Objective 4.1 business operations during and following a disaster. Sustain, promote, and enhance partnerships with external public and Objective 4.2 private entities to identify and share resources. Objective 4.3 Educate businesses about contingency planning. Partner with private and non-profit sectors to promote employee Objective 4.4 education about disaster preparedness while at work and at home. Goal 5: Sustain and strengthen all hazards preparedness. 286 Objective 5.1 Enhance understanding of natural hazards and the risks they pose through enhancing and updating risk and vulnerability assessments. Objective 5.2 Increase public’s knowledge of hazards and protective measures. Ensure equal access to mitigation and preparedness information by Objective 5.3 providing information and training through numerous mediums for those with access and functional needs. Maintain and improve city owned equipment and structures which could Objective 5.4 impact mitigation and recovery efforts. Identify and fill equipment and staging location gaps which support Objective 5.5 mitigation and recovery actions. Invest in green and gray infrastructure to reduce the impacts of Objective 5.6 flooding. Goal 6: Protect historical and cultural assets. Utilize historical preservation data to identify protective measures for Objective 6.1 historical properties. Goal 7: Sustain and enhance communications and network security capabilities. Objective 7.1 Maintain and enhance communications systems for interoperability and reliability for mission critical voice and data information. Enhance mission-essential networks for public safety and private assets. Goal 8: Protect critical infrastructure. Objective 8.1 Repair, restore, and upkeep existing infrastructure. Objective 8.2 Protect against access to and theft of dangerous materials. Create redundancies for critical networks such as water, sewer, digital Objective 8.3 data, power, and communications. Identify, assess, catalog, and prioritize the risk to its critical Objective 8.4 infrastructure and key resources (CIKR) from acts of terrorism, technological hazards, and natural hazards. Objective 8.5 Restore essential services within 30 days of a major incident. Objective 7.2 287 6.3 Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Techniques Mitigation actions include programs, plans, projects, and policies that help reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property from natural hazards. FEMA organizes mitigation actions into four categories. These categories allow similar types of mitigation actions to be compared and provide a standardized method for eliminating unsuitable actions. 1. Local Plans and Regulations (LPR): These actions include government authorities, policies or codes that influence the way land and buildings are developed and built. 2. Structure and Infrastructure Projects (SIP): These actions involve modifying existing structures and infrastructure to protect them from a hazard or remove them from a hazard area. This could apply to public or private structures as well as critical facilities and infrastructure. This type of action also involves projects to construct manmade structures to reduce the impact of hazards. 3. Natural Systems Protection (NRP): These actions aim to minimize damage and losses, preserve, or restore the functions of natural systems. 4. Education and Awareness Programs (EAP): These are actions to inform and educate citizens, elected officials, and property owners about hazards and potential ways to mitigate them. In addition to these four categories, planners included two additional categories to address mitigating casualties and property losses. 5. Human-Caused Hazard Casualty Reduction (HCHCR): These actions aim to reduce injuries and loss of life resulting from human caused hazards by increasing local protection and detection capabilities. 6. Preparedness: Actions that typically are not considered mitigation techniques but reduce the impacts of a hazard event on people and property. These actions are often taken prior to, during, or in response to an emergency or disaster. 288 The following table summarizes Philadelphia’s mitigation actions by hazard, mitigation action category, and goal/objective addressed. Summary of Mitigation Actions Mitigation Actions by Hazard Category Existing Potential Total Active Shooter 19 11 30 Drought 8 13 21 Earthquake 0 1 1 Extreme Cold 2 1 3 Extreme heat 4 5 9 Flood 27 41 68 Hazardous materials train derailment 9 11 20 Improvised explosive device 0 8 8 Infrastructure failure 3 6 9 Hurricane, Tropical Storm 11 16 27 Urban conflagration 0 2 2 Windstorm, Tornado 2 0 2 Winter Storm 4 19 23 Multi-Hazard 64 88 152 Mitigation Actions by Category* Category Existing Potential Total Local planning and regulations 24 63 87 Property protection 4 8 12 Education and awareness programs 14 17 31 Natural systems protection 18 9 27 Structure and infrastructure projects 25 63 88 Human Caused Casualty Reduction 2 14 16 Mitigation Actions by Goal/Objective Addressed* Category Existing Potential Total Goal 1: Sustain and enhance public safety, health, and security capabilities. 1.1 4 1 5 1.2 19 14 33 1.3 14 17 31 1.4 6 1 7 1.5 18 5 23 1.6 6 7 13 Goal 2: Protect property. 2.1 8 34 42 2.2 4 16 20 2.3 0 5 5 2.4 5 16 21 2.5 1 12 13 289 2.6 2 2 4 Goal 3: Protect the natural environment. 3.1 4 4 8 3.2 1 0 1 3.3 9 2 11 3.4 0 3 3 3.5 3 4 7 3.6 12 0 12 Goal 4: Promote a sustainable economy. 4.1 4 10 14 4.2 4 5 9 4.3 4 6 10 4.4 4 5 9 Goal 5: Sustain and strengthen all hazards preparedness. 5.1 5 18 23 5.2 17 16 33 5.3 3 11 14 5.4 0 28 28 Goal 6: Protect historical and cultural assets. 6.1 3 1 4 Goal 7: Sustain and enhance communications and network security capabilities. 7.1 5 2 7 7.2 1 1 2 Goal 8: Protect critical infrastructure. 8.1 21 28 49 8.2 3 8 11 8.3 5 10 15 8.4 2 12 14 8.5 0 1 1 *Many mitigation actions address more than one goal and/or objective or category 290 6.4 Mitigation Action Plan This section presents mitigation actions for Philadelphia to reduce potential exposure and losses identified as concerns in Section 4: Risk Assessment in this hazard mitigation plan. The planning committee reviewed the Risk Assessment to identify and develop these mitigation actions. 6.4.1 Existing Mitigation Actions Existing mitigation actions are Philadelphia’s programs, plans, projects, and policies currently underway that mitigate natural hazards. By assessing what Philadelphia is currently doing to mitigate natural hazards, the planning committee was able to determine how Philadelphia might expand or improve upon these programs. The Existing Mitigation Actions table lists the existing mitigation acts identified by the planning committee. Actions included in both the 2012 and 2017 plan contain an updated status if there are any changes in the action’s progress or challenges. 291 No. 1 2 3 4 5 Hazard Multi-Hazard Multi-Hazard Multi-Hazard Multi-Hazard Flood Mitigation Action and Description Pre-identify emergency sheltering locations for different types of disaster. Develop a list prioritizing City buildings that require redundant power sources. Continue EOC training and exercises. Conduct outreach and coordinate personnel to keep the Philadelphia homeless population safe during extreme cold and extreme heat events. Maintain enrollment in NFIP by implementing floodplain management initiatives, reducing the City's flood risk, and allowing residents to receive discounted flood insurance Lead Agency/ Agencies OEM OEM OEM OSH PCPC Ongoing/ Completion Updating Status Cycle Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Estimated Project Cost Staff Time Currently ongoing as funding becomes available Staff Time Possible Funding Source(s) Grants Grants Staff Time Grants Staff Time Agency Operating Budget Staff Time Agency Operating Budget Specific Grant Funding Sources FEMA Category HSGP Local planning and 1.2, 4.2, 5.2 regulations OEM conducts training and exercises on an ongoing basis HSGP Local planning and 2.1, 2.4, 8.3 regulations OEM is assessing City facility power needs through June 2016. Preparedness 1.3 OEM continues to conduct trainings on an ongoing basis for staff and stakeholders. 1.2 Ongoing, now conducted under DBH and Project Home HSGP Education and awareness programs Goals and Objectives Local planning and 2.2 regulations Update Since 2012 Currently going through the Community Rating System that will possibly increase the discount of flood insurance. Working with FEMA to provide training for inspectors and City Staff. 292 No. 6 7 Hazard Flood Flood 8 Flood 9 Flood 10 Winter Storm 11 Multi-Hazard 12 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Action and Description Revise current floodplain ordinances to comply with the latest national standards Require new facilities located in flood zones to be raised above the base flood elevation by 18 inches Develop and distribute fliers for mold abatement. Prepare equipment and resources necessary to respond to flooding. Increase training of staff involved in Winter Operations. Maintain mutual aid agreements with New Jersey Emergency Management Agency and the Southeastern Pennsylvania Regional Task Force Maintain and update Mass Fatality Plan Lead Agency/ Agencies PCPC PCPC Ongoing/ Completion Updating Status Cycle Ongoing Ongoing Specific Grant Funding Sources Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) Staff Time Agency Operating Budget Local planning and 2.2 regulations Updated in 2012 and then reviewed by FEMA in 2015 to be found in compliance. Staff Time Agency Operating Budget Property Protection 2.2 Regulations were amended from 12" to 18" and now in zoning code. Education and awareness programs 5.1, 5.2 Completed. FEMA Category Goals and Objectives Update Since 2012 PDPH Complete Staff Time Agency Operating Budget STREETS Pre-event Staff Time Agency Operating Budget Preparedness 1.2, 2.1 Ongoing STREETS 5 years Staff Time Agency Operating Budget Preparedness 1.3 Ongoing OEM Complete Staff time Grants HSGP Local planning and 1.4, 1.5, 1.5, 1.5 regulations OEM Complete Staff time Grants HSGP Local planning and 1.4 regulations 293 No. 13 14 15 16 Hazard Mitigation Action and Description Multi-Hazard Maintain and update Mass Casualty Plan Multi-Hazard Hazardous Materials Train Derailment Hazardous Materials Train Derailment Maintain roam secure alert network as a government notification system Maintain and update the Hazardous Materials Response Plan. Maintain Hazmat Rail Annex Lead Agency/ Agencies Ongoing/ Completion Updating Status Cycle Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) Specific Grant Funding Sources FEMA Category Goals and Objectives OEM Complete Staff time Grants HSGP Local planning and 1.4 regulations OEM Complete Staff time Grants HSGP Preparedness 5.3 OEM, PFD Complete Staff time Grants HSGP Local planning and 1.4, 2.1, 3.2, 4.1 regulations OEM, PFD Complete Staff time Grants HSGP Local planning and 6.1, 1.3, 1.6, regulations 17 Active Shooter, IED Maintain suspicious activity reporting protocol DVIC, PPD Complete Staff time Grants HSGP 18 Active Shooter, IED Maintain city facility security criteria OEM, RISK, DPP Ongoing Staff time Grants HSGP OEM Ongoing Staff time Grants HSGP Local planning and 1.7 regulations OEM Ongoing Staff time Grants HSGP Preparedness 1.7 PPD Complete Staff time Grants HSGP Preparedness 1.7 PPD, PFDEMS Ongoing Staff time Grants HSGP Preparedness 1.3 19 Multi-Hazard 20 Active Shooter, IED 21 Active Shooter, IED 22 Active Shooter Maintain and update asset classification and assessment program. Maintain trauma kits supplies. Maintain tactical tourniquet supplies and distribution. Offer RAMS training for PFD-EMS Update Since 2012 Local planning and 6.1, 1.3, 1.6, regulations Local planning and 8.4 regulations 294 Mitigation Action and Description No. Hazard 23 Active Shooter 24 Active Shooter Mac-Tac training program for patrol officers Purchase Glock-T17 force on force pistols 25 Infrastructure Failure Conduct bridge inspections. 26 Infrastructure Failure Train bridge inspectors 27 Extreme Heat 28 Extreme Heat 29 Multi-Hazard Lead Agency/ Agencies Ongoing/ Completion Updating Status Cycle Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) Specific Grant Funding Sources FEMA Category Goals and Objectives PPD Ongoing Staff time Grants HSGP Preparedness 1.5 PPD Complete Staff time Grants HSGP Preparedness 1.5 STREETSHIGHWAY, PENNDOT STREETSHIGHWAY, PENNDOT Include information on projected changes in climate and increases in high PDPH heat days in health bulletins and outreach materials. Monitor new tree watering contracts to ensure the trees have sufficient time PPR to take root and establish themselves under warmer temperatures. Utilize City Works Trees to track realtime response and management of PPR downed trees and vegetation prior to, during, and following events. Ongoing Staff time Ongoing Staff time Ongoing Staff time Ongoing Staff time Ongoing Staff time Agency Operating Budget Agency Operating Budget Structure and infrastructure projects Structure and infrastructure projects Update Since 2012 1.6 1.3 Education and awareness programs 5.3, 5.2 Capital budget Natural systems protection 3.1, 3.5 Capital budget Natural systems protection 2.5 295 No. Hazard 30 Multi-Hazard 31 Multi-Hazard 32 Multi-Hazard 33 Multi-Hazard 34 Multi-Hazard 35 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Action and Description Host mass casualty/ decontamination workshop Host mass casualty/ table top exercise Host mass casualty/ decontamination functional exercise Formalize pre-event calls between OEM and other departments to coordinate response and support during extreme weather events Regularly mapping locations of vulnerable populations and using the information to target the location of community outreach to at-risk neighborhoods Partner with Community Groups such as local community organizations, including civic, business, town watch, faith-based, senior, special needs and tenant Lead Agency/ Agencies Ongoing/ Completion Updating Status Cycle Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) Specific Grant Funding Sources FEMA Category Goals and Objectives OEM, PFD Complete Staff time Grants HSGP Preparedness 1.3 OEM, PFD Complete Staff time Grants HSGP Preparedness 1.3 OEM, PFD Complete Staff time Grants HSGP Preparedness 1.3 OEM Completed Staff time Grants HSGP Local planning and 5.2, 7.1, 7.2 regulations Staff time Grants HSGP Local planning and 1.1, 5.1, 5.2 regulations $5,000 Grants HSGP Education and awareness programs OEM Ongoing OEM Ongoing Annually or as new data becomes available Update Since 2012 1.2, 4.3, 4.4, 5.2 296 No. Hazard 36 Multi-Hazard 37 Extreme Heat, Extreme Cold 38 Multi-Hazard 39 Multi-Hazard 40 Extreme Heat, Extreme Cold Mitigation Action and Description associations to promote emergency preparedness and mitigation efforts. Provide public outreach throughout Philadelphia with READYhome and READYbusiness by presenting and tabling at community and private sector events. Target community outreach to at-risk individuals. Execute weekly equipment testing & exercises. Develop and issue community-based bulletins, describing health risk and actions to minimize morbidity and mortality. Bulletins translated into 17 languages. Develop health bulletins for seasonally appropriate risks. Lead Agency/ Agencies OEM PDPH OEM Ongoing/ Completion Updating Status Cycle Ongoing Outreach ongoing, with an average of 5 face to face outreach activities happening a month Estimated Project Cost $5,000 Possible Funding Source(s) Grants Ongoing Annually $5,000 Grants Ongoing Equipment maintenance completed as needed $5,000 Grants Specific Grant Funding Sources Goals and Objectives Update Since 2012 1.2, 4.3, 4.4, 5.2 READYHome, READYCommunity, and READYBusiness replaced the existing personal preparedness programs in 2016. Education and awareness programs 1.2 Climate Change and Health adaptation strategy in progress. HSGP Preparedness 2.1 Ongoing 5.2, 5.3 Limited implementation due to competing priorities and lack of funding. 5.2 Completed. HSGP FEMA Category Education and awareness programs PDPH Ongoing Per seasonal issue $5,000 Grants HHS Education and awareness programs PDPH Complete Per seasonal issue $5,000 Grants HHS Education and awareness programs 297 No. 41 Hazard Multi-Hazard 42 Multi-Hazard 43 Multi-Hazard Tropical Cyclone 44 45 46 47 Multi-Hazard Multi-Hazard Multi-Hazard Mitigation Action and Description Increasing Health Alert Network Recipients. Provide redundant power in emergency operations (Portable 8K generator). Lead Agency/ Agencies PDPH Ongoing/ Completion Updating Status Cycle Ongoing OEM Ongoing Maintain mobile command vehicle. OEM Ongoing Prioritize Emergency Shelters locations by applicable factor (e.g. projected demand). OEM Completed Purchase satellite communication (Secondary Communications). OEM Enhance the capability and reach of the reverse 9-1-1 STREETS telephone notification system. Conduct community outreach for General PDPH Professional Preparedness. Completed Annually Update Equipment Inventory (5 years) Update Equipment Inventory (3 years) Update as necessary Completed Ongoing Annually Estimated Project Cost $5,000 Possible Funding Source(s) Grants Specific Grant Funding Sources FEMA Category Goals and Objectives Update Since 2012 HHS Education and awareness programs 5.2, 1.5 Ongoing 8.3 Purchases are ongoing as equipment updates are needed. 8.3 Ongoing $8,000 Grants HSGP Structure and infrastructure projects $15,000 Grants HSGP Preparedness $15,000 Grants HSGP Local planning and 1.2, 4.2, 5.2 regulations Completed. Preparedness 1.1 OEM completed the purchase of secondary communications since 2012 and updates the equipment cache as needed to maintain functionality. 1.5 Completed in 2014 with the purchase of Everbridge 5.2 Competing priorities and lack of funding delayed implementation. $20,000 Grants $25,000 Grants Education and awareness programs Grants Education and awareness programs $25,000 HSGP HHS 298 No. Hazard 48 Multi-Hazard 49 Multi-Hazard 50 Multi-Hazard 51 Multi-Hazard 52 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Action and Description Distribute and educate public on Ready Philadelphia guides for general preparedness and business continuity information. Pilot study the growth of Southern plant species with sustainable planting practices in preparation for increasing temperatures over the next century. Inspect trees within 100 ft. of walkways and roadways for signs of the emerald ash borer and treat affected trees every three years. Purchase event/site specific remote video cameras for better situational awareness. Strengthen the traffic signals beyond the national standards in reference to wind tolerance. Lead Agency/ Agencies Ongoing/ Completion Updating Status Cycle Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) Specific Grant Funding Sources FEMA Category Goals and Objectives Update Since 2012 OEM Ongoing $40,000 Grants HSGP Education and awareness programs 1.2, 4.3, 4.4, 5.2 Ongoing PPR Ongoing $50,000 Capital budget Natural systems protection 3.1, 3.5 Natural systems protection 3.1, 3.5 Preparedness 1.5, 4.2 Completed. 1.2 As intersections are upgraded, wind tolerant traffic signals are used. It is anticipated for completion in the next 20 years. PPR Ongoing $80,000 Capital budget, Grants National Park Service grants, DCNR grants OEM Completed $100,000 Grants HSGP STREETS 10 years $100,000 Grants Preparedness 299 No. Hazard 53 Multi-Hazard 54 Winter Storm 55 56 57 58 Mitigation Action and Description Development of COOP Planning for PDPH internally to keep Health Dept. running after disaster to prevent secondary infections/illness. Upgrade Snow HQ technology including and use of the City’s police/traffic camera system. Lead Agency/ Agencies Ongoing/ Completion Updating Status Cycle PDPH Ongoing STREETS Completed Multi-Hazard Maintain portable EOC in a Box. OEM Ongoing Multi-Hazard Increase subscription to the Everbridge OEM ReadyPhiladelphia system Windstorm, Tornado Install traffic signal devices which adhere to national standards for wind tolerance. Drought, Flood, Dam Failure Perform structural repairs to Valley Green Road and Spring Lane to improve safety of structure or surrounding areas, STREETS PWD Annually Update inventory every 3 years Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) $100,000 Grants $200,000 Grants Specific Grant Funding Sources FEMA Category HHS Local planning and 2.4, 4.1 regulations COOP plan in place, sustainment of operations during severe pandemic limited. Preparedness Completed in 2015. Goals and Objectives 1.5 $250,000 Grants HSGP Preparedness 1.1 Ongoing $250,000 Grants HSGP Education and awareness programs 1.2, 4.3, 4.4, 5.2 Ongoing $250,000 Agency Operating Budget Structure and infrastructure projects 2.1 Capital Budget Prevention, Structure and infrastructure projects, & Natural systems protection 3.6, 3.3, 8.1 Ongoing $400,000 Update Since 2012 OEM maintains equipment and updates stock as needed. ReadyPhiladelphia replaced the ReadyNotifyPA system in 2015. Ongoing. As intersections are upgraded, wind tolerant traffic signals are used. It is anticipated for completion in the next 20 years. 300 No. 59 Hazard Hurricane/ Tropical Storm, Floods 60 Flood 61 Multi-Hazard 62 Multi-Hazard 63 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Action and Description eliminate or reduce erosion issues, help to regulate supply for drinking water intakes, reduce swimming hazards, and reduce flooding damage to surrounding areas. Complete stream and creek restoration projects to aid in eliminating historic flooding hazards along Valley Green Road and Spring Lane. Redesign roadways and bridges to lesson occurrence/impact of flooding. Upgrade City Emergency Operations Center. Utilize ReadyNotifyPA, an advanced warning system which provides emergency text and email alerts. Purchase a communications system capable of Lead Agency/ Agencies PWD Ongoing/ Completion Updating Status Cycle Ongoing Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) $400,000 PWD Operations/ Capital Budget/ Grant Funding STREETS 10 years $500,000 Grants OEM Completed $1,000,000 Grants OEM Ongoing PHL Completed System used as needed $1,000,000 Grants $1,000,000 Grants, Capital Program Specific Grant Funding Sources FEMA Category Goals and Objectives Natural systems protection 3.6, 3.3, 8.1 Update Since 2012 Property Protection 1.2, 2.4, 2.6 Upkeep of roadways is ongoing, with bridge inspections occurring for scour and structural deficiencies. HSGP Preparedness 1.5, 1.2, 4.1 Completed in 2012 HSGP Education and awareness programs 1.1, 1.5, 1.2, 5.2 ReadyPhiladelphia replaced the ReadyNotifyPA system in 2015. Preparedness 1.5 Completed in July 2014 through the purchase of 301 No. 64 65 Hazard Drought, Flood, Dam Failure Hurricane/ Tropical Storm, Floods Mitigation Action and Description notifying and communicate critical emergency information and actions to be taken by airport employees and the surrounding communities to reduce the impacts prior to, during, or in response to an emergency or disaster. Perform Cobbs Creek Stream Rehabilitation Reaches 1 to 3 to improve safety of structure or surrounding areas, eliminate or reduce erosion issues, help to regulate supply for drinking water intakes, reduce swimming hazards, and reduce flooding damage to surrounding areas. Complete stream and creek restoration projects to aid in eliminating historic flooding hazards Lead Agency/ Agencies Ongoing/ Completion Updating Status Cycle Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) and/or Operating Budget PWD PWD Ongoing Ongoing Specific Grant Funding Sources FEMA Category Goals and Objectives Update Since 2012 Everbridge under the Operating Budget $1,000,000 Capital Budget Prevention, Structure and infrastructure projects, & Natural systems protection $1,000,000 PWD Operations/ Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Natural systems protection 3.6, 3.3, 8.1 3.6, 3.3, 8.1 302 No. Hazard Mitigation Action and Description Lead Agency/ Agencies Ongoing/ Completion Updating Status Cycle Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) along Cobbs Creek Reaches 1 to 3. 66 Multi-Hazard 67 Winter Storm 68 69 Drought, Flood, Dam Failure Hurricane/ Tropical Storm, Floods Maintain portable generators for key traffic intersections. Upgrade equipment and vehicles used in storm operations. Perform Cobbs Creek Stream Channel Rehabilitation Reaches 6 to 8 in Phase 2 of the project to improve safety of structure or surrounding areas, eliminate or reduce erosion issues, help to regulate supply for drinking water intakes, reduce swimming hazards, and reduce flooding damage to surrounding areas. Complete stream and creek restoration projects to aid in eliminating historic flooding hazards Cobbs Creek Stream Specific Grant Funding Sources FEMA Category Goals and Objectives Update Since 2012 Property Protection 2.1 Ongoing, some higher volume traffic intersections have back-up batteries installed Ongoing STREETS Ongoing $1,000,000 Agency Operating Budget STREETS 10 years $2,000,000 Grants Preparedness 1.2, 2.4 $2,300,000 Capital Budget Prevention, Structure and infrastructure projects, & Natural systems protection 3.6, 3.3, 8.1 $2,300,000 PWD Operations/ Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Natural systems protection 3.6, 3.3, 8.1 PWD PWD Ongoing Ongoing 303 No. 70 71 Hazard Multi-Hazard Multi-Hazard 72 Winter Storm 73 Hurricane/ Tropical Storm, Floods 74 Hurricane/ Tropical Storm, Floods Mitigation Action and Description Channel Reaches 6 to 8 in Phase 2. Enhance fatality management by obtaining body bag stockpile, morgue and forensic expansion and collection. Hire more doctors and nurses for health centers and outreach. Upgrade equipment and vehicles for Brine usage in storm operations. Phase V of Northern Liberties infrastructure projects, which affects Northern Liberties and surrounding neighborhoods water infrastructure capabilities. Phase VI of Northern Liberties infrastructure projects, which affects Northern Liberties and surrounding Lead Agency/ Agencies PDPH Ongoing/ Completion Updating Status Cycle Ongoing Estimated Project Cost $5,000,000 Possible Funding Source(s) Grants Specific Grant Funding Sources HHS Goals and Objectives Update Since 2012 5.5 Limited implementation due to competing priorities and lack of funding. Preparedness 5.2, 1.2 Limited implementation due to competing priorities and lack of funding. Ongoing Preparedness PDPH Ongoing $5,000,000 Grants STREETS 10 years $6,000,000 Grants Preparedness 1.2, 2.4 $8,200,000 PWD Operations/ Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Structure and infrastructure projects 5.6, 8.1 $10,500,000 PWD Operations/ Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Structure and infrastructure projects 5.6, 8.1 PWD PWD Ongoing Ongoing HHS FEMA Category 304 No. Hazard 75 Drought, Flood, Dam Failure 76 Hurricane/ Tropical Storm, Floods 77 78 Mitigation Action and Description neighborhoods water infrastructure capabilities. Perform Tacony Creek Stream Rehabilitation Reaches 4 and 5 to improve safety of structure or surrounding areas, eliminate or reduce erosion issues, help to regulate supply for drinking water intakes, reduce swimming hazards, and reduce flooding damage to surrounding areas. Complete stream and creek restoration projects to aid in eliminating historic flooding hazards along Tacony Creek. Lead Agency/ Agencies PWD PWD Ongoing/ Completion Updating Status Cycle Ongoing Ongoing Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) Specific Grant Funding Sources FEMA Category Goals and Objectives 3.6, 3.3, 8.1 3.6, 8.1 $11,500,000 Capital Budget Prevention, Structure and infrastructure projects, & Natural systems protection $11,500,000 PWD Operations/ Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Natural systems protection 1.2, 5.2, 1.2 Multi-Hazard Expand community immunizations capacity. PDPH Ongoing $20,000,000 Grants HHS Human Caused Casualty Reduction Multi-Hazard Expand scope of practice and facility capacity for City Health Centers. PDPH Ongoing $100,000,000 Grants HHS Preparedness Update Since 2012 Limited implementation due to competing priorities and lack of funding. Limited implementation due to competing priorities and lack of funding. 305 No. 79 80 Lead Agency/ Agencies Hazard Mitigation Action and Description Multi-Hazard Expand lab capacity to rapidly identify and PDPH subtype organisms. Windstorm, Tornado 81 Drought, Flood, Dam Failure 82 Hurricane/ Tropical Storm, Floods Ensure adequate material and equipment is available to repair and replace street lights and traffic poles & signs. Perform structural repairs to dams and/ or removal of fishway structure at Fairmont Dam to improve safety of structure or surrounding areas, eliminate or reduce erosion issues, help to regulate supply for drinking water intakes, reduce swimming hazards, and reduce flooding damage to surrounding areas. Complete smaller sewer and green infrastructure projects whose impact is localized to discreet areas. Over one hundred are STREETS PWD PWD Ongoing/ Completion Updating Status Cycle Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) Specific Grant Funding Sources Goals and Objectives Update Since 2012 Human Caused Casualty Reduction 5.1 Ongoing, but limited implementation due to funding restrictions. Ongoing Ongoing $10 million Grants Ongoing $10,000$100,0000 Agency Operating Budget, Grants Property Protection 1.2 $100,000 $250,000 Capital Budget Prevention, Structure and infrastructure projects, & Natural systems protection 3.6, 8.1 $100,000$4,000,000 per project PWD Operations/ Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Structure and infrastructure projects 5.6, 8.1 Ongoing Ongoing HHS FEMA Category 306 No. 83 84 85 Hazard Hurricane/ Tropical Storm, Floods Drought, Flood, Dam Failure Drought, Flood, Dam Failure Mitigation Action and Description currently in design stages. Ongoing identification of larger infrastructure projects whose impact effects large areas of the city through PWD studies. Perform structural repairs to dams and/ or removal of Flat Rock Dam to improve safety of structure or surrounding areas, eliminate or reduce erosion issues, help to regulate supply for drinking water intakes, reduce swimming hazards, and reduce flooding damage to surrounding areas. Perform structural repairs to dams and/ or removal of Mount Dam to improve safety of structure or surrounding areas, eliminate or reduce erosion issues, help to regulate supply for Lead Agency/ Agencies PWD PWD PWD Ongoing/ Completion Updating Status Cycle Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) $100,000$40,000,000 per project PWD Operations/ Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Specific Grant Funding Sources FEMA Category Goals and Objectives Structure and infrastructure projects 5.6, 8.1 $12,000,000 Capital - $20,000,000 Budget Prevention, Structure and infrastructure projects, & Natural systems protection 3.6, 8.1 $3,000,000 $5,000,000 Prevention, Structure and infrastructure projects, & Natural systems protection 3.6, 8.1 Capital Budget Update Since 2012 307 No. Hazard 86 Hurricane/ Tropical Storm, Floods 87 Multi-Hazard 88 Drought, Flood, Dam Failure Mitigation Action and Description drinking water intakes, reduce swimming hazards, and reduce flooding damage to surrounding areas. Identify additional stream and creek restoration projects to aid in eliminating historic flooding hazards through area studies. Purchase redundant alert notification system for extreme weather to notify City owned facilities (NOAA Radio). Perform structural repairs to dams and/ or removal of Fairmont Dam to improve safety of structure or surrounding areas, eliminate or reduce erosion issues, help to regulate supply for drinking water intakes, reduce swimming hazards, and reduce flooding damage to surrounding areas. Lead Agency/ Agencies Ongoing/ Completion Updating Status Cycle Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) PWD Ongoing $400,000$12,000,000 per project PWD Operations/ Capital Budget/ Grant Funding OEM Completed $5,000 (each radio) Grants PWD Ongoing $6,000,000 $10,000,000 Capital Budget Specific Grant Funding Sources HSGP FEMA Category Goals and Objectives Natural systems protection 1.6, 3.1, 3.3, 5.1 Preparedness 8.3 Prevention, Structure and infrastructure projects, & Natural systems protection 3.6, 8.1 Update Since 2012 Completed since 2012 308 No. Hazard 89 Hurricane/ Tropical Storm, Floods 90 Multi-Hazard 91 92 93 Multi-Hazard Multi-Hazard Multi-Hazard Mitigation Action and Description Moore St. drainage from Christopher Columbus to River infrastructure project to improve capabilities in the area. Implement Ready Region, a program aimed at educating the public on preparedness. Continue Emergency Rest Center Train the Trainer which includes Ready Philadelphia curriculum which promotes mitigation strategies for individuals and families. Distribute Emergency Rest Center supply kits containing emergency supplies in the event of evacuation. Mitigation Training Coordination: Regional Volunteer Management Coordinators may share resources and Lead Agency/ Agencies Ongoing/ Completion Updating Status Cycle Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) PWD Ongoing $7,000,000 $10,000,000 PWD Operations/ Capital Budget/ Grant Funding OEM Action Removed Action Removed Grants OEM Action Removed Action Removed OEM Action Removed Action Removed OEM Action Removed Action Removed Grants Grants Grants Specific Grant Funding Sources HSGP FEMA Category Goals and Objectives Structure and infrastructure projects 5.6, 8.1 Action Removed Action Removed Ready Region programs ceased. Update Since 2012 HSGP Action Removed Action Removed Action components are consolidated into READYHome, READYBusiness, and READYCommunity programs. HSGP Action Removed Action Removed Supply kits distributed by American Red Cross. Action Removed Program components are consolidated into READYHome, READYBusiness, and HSGP Action Removed 309 No. 94 95 96 Hazard Multi-Hazard Flood Multi-Hazard Mitigation Action and Description mitigation training opportunities. Pre-identify and target potential ERCs which are located along Philadelphia evacuation routes, and offer preparedness and mitigation training, and discuss business continuity. Incorporate Flood Safety Training into Community Emergency Response Team Curriculum: Adapt CERT curriculum to educate team members on strategies that will mitigate the impact of flooding on the community. Incorporate Flood Safety Training into Community Emergency Response Team Curriculum: Adapt CERT curriculum to educate team members on Lead Agency/ Agencies OEM OEM OEM Ongoing/ Completion Updating Status Cycle Action Removed Action Removed Action Removed Estimated Project Cost Action Removed Action Removed Action Removed Possible Funding Source(s) Grants Grants Grants Specific Grant Funding Sources HSGP HSGP HSGP FEMA Category Goals and Objectives Update Since 2012 READYCommunity programs. Action Removed Action Removed Action Removed Action Removed Program components are consolidated into READYHome, READYBusiness, and READYCommunity programs. Action Removed CERT program ceased. READYCommunity encompasses training opportunities based off local hazards. Action Removed CERT program ceased. READYCommunity encompasses training opportunities based off local hazards. 310 No. 97 98 99 Hazard Multi-Hazard Multi-Hazard Multi-Hazard Mitigation Action and Description strategies that will mitigate the impact of flooding on the community. Conduct mitigation training for all Regional Volunteer Management Coordinators so they may share resources and mitigation training opportunities. Partner with the CERT program once it is online in Philadelphia and continue to partner with other local community organizations, including civic, business, town watch, faith-based, senior, special needs and tenant associations to promote emergency preparedness and mitigation strategies. Incorporate Business Continuity into ERC train the trainer: Provide training and a strategy for ERC’s Lead Agency/ Agencies Ongoing/ Completion Updating Status Cycle Estimated Project Cost OEM Action Removed Action Removed OEM OEM Action Removed Action Removed Action Removed Action Removed Possible Funding Source(s) Grants Grants Grants Specific Grant Funding Sources FEMA Category Goals and Objectives Update Since 2012 HSGP Action Removed Action Removed Regional Volunteer Management Coordinator Program no longer in place. Action Removed CERT program ceased. READYCommunity coordinates with local community organizations to promote emergency preparedness and mitigation strategies. Action Removed Program ceased. READYBusiness encompasses training and education for HSGP HSGP Action Removed Action Removed 311 No. Hazard Mitigation Action and Description Lead Agency/ Agencies Ongoing/ Completion Updating Status Cycle Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) to assure continuity of services. 100 Multi-Hazard 101 Multi-Hazard 102 Multi-Hazard Partner the CERT program, ERC Program, and VOAD partner agencies with local community organizations including civic, faithbased, and tenant associations, to promote mitigation strategies. OEM Pilot Corporate CERT: CERT teams based in businesses with supplemental training focused on business continuity and workplace OEM mitigation strategies such as protecting utility services, redundant communication, and continuity of business services. CERT Community Mapping: Community teams may preidentify critical OEM infrastructure and offer mitigation strategies including Specific Grant Funding Sources FEMA Category Goals and Objectives Update Since 2012 business continuity planning. CERT program ceased. Meet quarterly with VOAD partners to maintain preparedness, ensure situational awareness, identify resource capabilities, and build stakeholder relationships predisaster. Action Removed Action Removed Grants HSGP Action Removed Action Removed Action Removed Action Removed Grants HSGP Action Removed Action Removed CERT program ceased. Action Removed Action Removed Grants HSGP Action Removed Action Removed CERT program ceased. 312 No. Hazard Mitigation Action and Description Lead Agency/ Agencies Ongoing/ Completion Updating Status Cycle Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) business continuity and Ready Philadelphia information. Specific Grant Funding Sources FEMA Category Goals and Objectives Update Since 2012 Action Removed Drainage upgrades have been found to be less helpful than anticipated in 2012. Different storm water management solutions are being explored instead. 103 Flood Upgrade drainage capacity on Streets Department maintained drains. STREETS Action Removed Action Removed Action Removed Action Removed 104 Multi-Hazard Regional MOU’s Multiple Agencies Ongoing N/A Grants Hurricane/ Tropical 105 Storm, Floods Eastwick drainage and flooding prevention infrastructure design. TBD PWD Operations/ Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Local planning and 8.3, 4.2 regulations 106 Active Shooter 107 Active Shooter 108 Active Shooter 109 Active Shooter Offer active shooter training program for patrol officer Purchase force on force face protectors Purchase force on force throat protectors Purchase force on force converting bolts for AR-15 Structure and infrastructure projects 2.6, 5.6, 8.1 HSGP Preparedness 1.3 Grants HSGP Preparedness 1.5 Complete Grants HSGP Preparedness 1.5 Complete Grants HSGP Preparedness 1.5 PWD Ongoing PPD Ongoing Grants PPD Complete PPD PPD 313 No. Hazard Active 110 Shooter Hazardous Materials 111 Train Derailment Hazardous Materials 112 Train Derailment Hazardous Materials 113 Train Derailment 114 Infrastructure Failure 115 Multi-Hazard Hazardous Materials 116 Train Derailment 117 Active Shooter Possible Funding Source(s) Specific Grant Funding Sources FEMA Category Goals and Objectives Complete Grants HSGP Preparedness 1.5 Ongoing PWD General Fund Natural systems protection 5.1, Implement and install an intake PWD contamination detection system. Ongoing PWD General Fund Structure and infrastructure projects 3.3 Maintain and utilize early warning system PWD Ongoing EPA grant, industry user funding, PWD general fund Preparedness 7.1 STREETSHIGHWAY Ongoing Special gas tax Structure and infrastructure projects 8.1 OEM Ongoing Grants HSGP Local planning and 2.1 regulations OEM, PFD Ongoing Grants HSGP Local planning and 1.6 regulations Complete General fund, Police fund, Capital Improvement Fund Mitigation Action and Description Lead Agency/ Agencies Ongoing/ Completion Updating Status Cycle Purchase 9mm force on force marking rounds PPD Conduct hydraulic modeling. PWD Maintain safe roadways and bridges through roadway milling and paving capital projects. Maintain and update electricity disruption plan Maintain Tier II Reporting and GIS program PPD Public Areas Bullet Proof Glazing. DPP, PPD Estimated Project Cost Structure and infrastructure projects Update Since 2012 8.1 314 No. Hazard Mitigation Action and Description Lead Agency/ Agencies Ongoing/ Completion Updating Status Cycle Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) General fund, Police fund, Capital Improvement Fund General fund, Police fund, Capital Improvement Fund Specific Grant Funding Sources 118 Active Shooter PPD Public Areas Wall reinforcement. DPP, PPD Complete 119 Active Shooter Install secured area keypad mag locks. DPP, PPD Ongoing OEM, PFD Ongoing Grants HSGP OEM Ongoing Grants HSGP 120 Multi-Hazard 121 Multi-Hazard Maintain and update Human Services Recovery Plan. Maintain and update Mass Care and Shelter Plan 122 Active Shooter Install CCTV cameras. DPP, PPD Ongoing 123 Active Shooter Install access control keycard system. DPP, PPD Ongoing Hazardous Materials 124 Train Derailment Hazardous Materials 125 Train Derailment General fund, Police fund, Capital Improvement Fund General fund, Police fund, Capital Improvement Fund FEMA Category Goals and Objectives Structure and infrastructure projects 8.1 Structure and infrastructure projects 8.2 Local planning and 2.1, 2.2, 4.1 regulations Local planning and 1.4 regulations Structure and infrastructure projects 8.2 Structure and infrastructure projects 8.2 Upkeep PFD Hazmat training and PFD equipment Ongoing General fund Preparedness 1.3 Upkeep PFD HMAU training and equipment Ongoing General fund Preparedness 1.3 PFD Update Since 2012 315 No. Hazard 126 Multi-Hazard 127 Multi-Hazard 128 Multi-Hazard Hazardous Materials 129 Train Derailment 130 Multi-Hazard 131 Multi-Hazard 132 Active Shooter 133 Active Shooter, IED 134 IED Mitigation Action and Description Establish and maintain SECOM Network Establish and maintain an Emergency Operations Plan Establish and maintain an Emergency Operations Center Procedures Upkeep the CSX Secure Now system Upkeep PFD Special Operations Command training and equipment Establish, maintain, and train a Homeland Security Unit Establish, maintain, and train a Philadelphia Police MIRT Establish, maintain, and train a Philadelphia Police SWAT Establish, maintain, and train a Possible Funding Source(s) Specific Grant Funding Sources FEMA Category Goals and Objectives Ongoing Grants HSGP Preparedness 7.1 OEM Ongoing Grants HSGP Local planning and 6.1, 7.1, , regulations OEM Ongoing Grants HSGP Local planning and 7.1 regulations OEM Ongoing Grants HSGP Local planning and 1.4, 8.4, 1.6, regulations PFD Ongoing General fund Preparedness 1.3 PPD Ongoing General fund Preparedness 1.3, 1.5 PPD Ongoing General fund Preparedness 1.5 PPD Ongoing General fund Preparedness 1.5 PPD Ongoing General fund Preparedness 1.5 Lead Agency/ Agencies Ongoing/ Completion Updating Status Cycle OEM Estimated Project Cost Update Since 2012 316 No. Hazard Mitigation Action and Description Philadelphia Bomb Disposal Unit Lead Agency/ Agencies Ongoing/ Completion Updating Status Cycle Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) Specific Grant Funding Sources FEMA Category Goals and Objectives Update Since 2012 317 6.4.2 Potential Mitigation Actions Potential mitigation actions are programs, plans, projects or policies Philadelphia may implement to help reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life, property and the environment from natural hazards. The HMP’s planning committee identified, analyzed and prioritized all potential actions. Prohibitive costs, scale, low benefit/cost analysis ratios, or other concerns may ultimately prevent some identified mitigation actions from implementation. The Potential Mitigation Actions table details the potential mitigation acts identified by the Planning Committee. 318 Mitigation Action and Description Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) Estimated Project Cost 1 Multi-Hazard Operationalize IPAWS for city use OEM, PEMA, FEMA Staff time Possible Funding Source(s) Agency operating budget, Grants 2 Multi-Hazard Revise city-wide evacuation planning OEM Staff time Grants HSGP 3 Multi-Hazard Conduct logistics center planning OEM Staff time Grants HSGP OEM Staff time Grants HSGP OEM Staff time Grants HSGP OEM Staff time Grants HSGP OEM Staff time Grants HSGP Category Local Planning and Regulations Local Planning and Regulations Local Planning and Regulations Local Planning and Regulations Local Planning and Regulations Local Planning and Regulations Local Planning and Regulations OEM Staff time Grants HSGP Preparedness OEM Staff time Grants HSGP Preparedness PPD Staff time Grants HSGP Preparedness 1.3 PPD, OEM Staff time Grants HSGP Preparedness 1.3 No. Hazard 5 Multi-Hazard Revise Mass Care and shelter plan Develop surge staffing for expanded shelters 6 Multi-Hazard Identify logistics staging sites 4 Multi-Hazard 7 Multi-Hazard 8 Multi-Hazard Hazardous Material Train 9 Derailment Active 10 Shooter, IED Active 11 Shooter, IED Pre-identify POD locations Conduct logistics operations functional exercises Conduct preparedness workshops within crude rail transport corridors Expand SPOT training for all PPD personnel Train key staff and security on Specific Grants HSGP Goals and Objectives Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 5.3 5.1 5.5 5.5 5.5 1.3 5.1, 2.1, 5.3 319 15 Earthquake Mitigation Action and Description recognizing suspicious vehicles Conduct outreach with CIKR assets to assess blast resistance and HVAC shutdown procedures Establish emergency contracts for 500kW/1mW generators Enhance THIRA process to identify resource gaps Evaluate various seismic building design enhancements using HAZUS-MH to identify enhancements that reduce losses generated by earthquakes. 16 Flooding Hurricane, Tropical 17 Storm Evaluate various building enhancements using HAZUS-MH to identify opportunities to reduce flooding. Hazards U.S. MultiHazard (HAZUSMH) Modeling: No. Hazard IED, Hazardous Materials Train 12 Derailment 13 Multi-Hazard 14 Multi-Hazard Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) PPD, OEM Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) Staff time Agency operating budget, Grants Specific Grants Category Goals and Objectives HSGP Education and Awareness Programs 5.1, 8.4, 2.1 OEM Staff time Grants HSGP OEM Staff time Grants HSGP OEM Staff Time Grants HSGP OEM Staff Time Grants HSGP OEM Staff Time Grants HSGP Structure and Infrastructure Programs Local Planning and Regulations Local Planning and Regulations Local Planning and Regulations Local Planning and Regulations Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 4.1, 2.4 5.1, 8.4 2.2, 2.4, 5.4 x 2.2, 2.4, 5.4 x 2.2, 2.4 x 2012 HMP stated the timeframe as 2 years. Due to lack of funding and expertise, the assessment was delayed. 2012 HMP stated the timeframe as 2 years. Due to lack of funding and expertise, the assessment was delayed. 2012 HMP stated the timeframe as 2 years. Due to lack 320 No. Hazard 18 Multi-Hazard 19 Multi-Hazard 20 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Action and Description Determine losses generated by tropical cyclones and engineering effectiveness and cost-benefit of various mitigation actions. Conduct or update natural hazard vulnerability assessments for critical facilities throughout the Philadelphia. Determine losses generated by various natural disasters and engineering effectiveness and cost-benefit of various mitigation measures using HAZUS-MH or other computer modeling software. Evaluate various building enhancements using prototypical Philadelphia building types. COOP Site enhancement, including electrical systems Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) OEM OEM OEM Estimated Project Cost Staff Time Staff Time Staff time Possible Funding Source(s) Grants Specific Grants Category HSGP Local Planning and Regulations Goals and Objectives Included in 2012 HMP 2.1 x Grants PDM, HMGP, HSGP Local Planning and Regulations 2.3, 5.1 Grants HSGP, PDM, HMGP Property Protection 2.1, 8.3, 2.2, 2.4, 4.1, x Update Since 2012 of funding and expertise, the assessment was delayed. Ongoing annual action moving forward. Due to lack of funding, expertise, data, and staff time, the action was delayed since its inclusion in the 2012 HMP. 321 No. Hazard 21 Multi-Hazard 22 Multi-Hazard 23 Multi-Hazard 24 Multi-Hazard 25 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Action and Description enhancement, systems synchronizing, and the installation of quick connects for generators. Creation of a specific asset inventory across Philadelphia City agencies which catalogues resources. Formalize the process of resource tracking, receiving, and distribution for large emergencies or events. Create a mobile feeding and commodity distribution plan. Formalize resource requesting plan for pre-event resource requests that may impact a widespread area to streamline resource distribution. Train Health and Human Service staff and partners in continuity of Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) OEM OEM OEM OEM OEM Estimated Project Cost Staff time Staff time Staff time Staff time Staff time Possible Funding Source(s) Grants Grants Grants Grants Grants Specific Grants Category HSGP Local Planning and Regulations 4.2 HSGP Local Planning and Regulations 4.2 HSGP Local Planning and Regulations 1.2 HSGP Local Planning and Regulations 4.2 HSGP Local Planning and Regulations Goals and Objectives Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 1.3, 4.3, 4.4, 5.2 322 No. Hazard 26 Flooding 27 Flooding 28 Multi-Hazard 29 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Action and Description operations plan and mitigation measures. Conduct a flood risk analysis compile/map all areas at PHL at greatest risk of flooding during 100yr and 500-yr flood events Update the Airport Flood Emergency Response Plan (AFERP) with Operations, Engineering, and Planning Meet quarterly with VOAD partners to maintain preparedness, ensure situational awareness, identify resource capabilities, and build stakeholder relationships predisaster. Partner with community leaders and stakeholders for the development of materials for READYCommunity to increase community Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) PHL PHL-DOA OEM OEM Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) Specific Grants Category Goals and Objectives Staff time Grants Local Planning and Regulations Staff time Agency operating budget Local Planning and Regulations Staff time Agency operating budget Education and Awareness Programs 5.2, 5.3 Staff time Agency operating budget Education and Awareness Programs 5.2, 5.3 2.1 2.1 Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 323 No. Hazard 30 Multi-Hazard 31 Multi-Hazard 32 Multi-Hazard 33 Multi-Hazard 34 Multi-Hazard 35 Multi-Hazard 36 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Action and Description preparedness and mitigation. Provide technical assistance to communities in the development of community emergency plans. Maintaining relationships with universities and colleges within Philadelphia to support emergency planning, training, and exercises between the City and higher educational facilities. Update City of Philadelphia Building Codes. Update City of Philadelphia zoning maps. Include public facilities in capital planning. Create a brownfield reuse and mitigation plan and procedure. Utilize district planning as a method to communicate about risks as Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) OEM Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) Staff time Category Goals and Objectives Agency operating budget Education and Awareness Programs, 5.2, 5.3 Education and Awareness Programs Local Planning and Regulations Local Planning and Regulations Local Planning and Regulations Local Planning and Regulations Property Protection, Local Planning and Regulations OEM Staff time PCPC, L&I Staff time L&I Staff time PCPC, DPP Staff time Multiple agencies Staff time Agency operating budget Agency operating budget Agency operating budget Agency operating budget Agency operating budget Staff time Agency operating budget PCPC, OEM Specific Grants Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 5.2, 5.3 2.1, 2.4, 5.4 5.1 Pending state involvement and support 2.3 3.1 5.2, 5.3 324 No. Hazard 37 Multi-Hazard 38 Multi-Hazard 39 Multi-Hazard 40 Flooding 41 Flooding 42 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Action and Description Philadelphia2035 moves forward. Create zoning and development awareness programs to inform planning processes that may be impacted by hazardous material train derailments. Coordinate with construction community for large scale emergency responses. Establish public outreach programs in L&I. Update inundation mapping. Creation of a tactical guide for flood preevent actions and response activities Develop educational and promotional video series to educate and increase public awareness of City hazards and response plans. Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) Multiple agencies Estimated Project Cost Staff time L&I, PCPC, OEM Staff time L&I Staff time L&I, PCPC, OEM Staff time OEM/ Multiple Agencies OEM Staff time Staff time Possible Funding Source(s) Agency operating budget, Grants Agency operating budget, Grants Agency operating budget Agency operating budget, Grants Grants Grants Specific Grants Category Goals and Objectives HSGP Property Protection, Local Planning and Regulations 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 4.3, 5.1, PDM, HSGP Local Planning and Regulations Education and Awareness Programs Local Planning and Regulations HSGP Local Planning and Regulations 2.3, 2.6 HSGP Education and Awareness Programs 5.2, 5.3, 5.2 HSGP Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 1.3 5.2, 5.2 5.1 325 No. Hazard 43 Flood 44 Multi-Hazard 45 Multi-Hazard 46 Multi-Hazard 47 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Action and Description Determine low-lying substation vulnerabilities and outline options for adaptation and mitigation; coordinate with DOE on their vulnerable infrastructure studies Preparing, adopting, implementing, and updating a comprehensive long-term recovery plan to direct how and where state or federal disaster recovery funds are used to rebuild resilient communities Identify dead and falling trees along pathways and roads for removal. Establish a policy based on need and funding availability for a regular pruning cycle for city trees. Establish open end contracts with construction Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) OEM Estimated Project Cost Staff time Possible Funding Source(s) Specific Grants Category Goals and Objectives Grants DOE, HSGP, USACE Local Planning and Regulations 2.1, 2.4, 4.1 OEM Staff time Grants PPR Staff time Capital budget PPR Staff time Capital budget, Grants PPR Staff time Capital budget HSGP NPS, DCNR Local Planning and Regulations Natural Systems Protection, Structure and Infrastructure Projects Local Planning and Regulations Natural Systems Protection, Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 5.2, 5.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 326 No. Hazard 48 Multi-Hazard 49 Flood 50 Multi-Hazard 51 Flood Mitigation Action and Description companies for emergency vegetation management. Support resiliency of the City’s private sector though information sharing, partnership building, training and education on preparedness, COOP, mitigation principles and Philadelphia’s HMP. Support regulations to improve resiliency of buildings in areas facing increased risk of flood with the Flood Risk Management Task Force Create a guide on steps that commercial and residential property owners can take to make their existing buildings more resilient to climate change Examine and evaluate the strategy of using rolling easements to Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) OEM, Multiple agencies PCPC OOS OOS Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) Specific Grants Category Local Planning and Regulations Goals and Objectives Education and Awareness Programs Staff time Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 4.1 Staff time Agency operating budget Local Planning and Regulations Staff time Agency operating budget Education and Awareness Programs 3.5 Staff time Agency operating budget Local Planning and Regulations 3.5 2.1, 2.2 327 No. Hazard 52 Multi-Hazard 53 Flood 54 Extreme heat Mitigation Action and Description assist in adapting to the potential consequences of sea level rise. Acknowledging and addressing climate change issues, concerns, and impacts in Philadelphia2035 district plans. Evaluate properties buyout feasibility for structures that are damaged or at high risk of damage from sea level rise or storm events both reactively over time as properties are damaged, or proactively for properties that are at a high risk for flooding. Continuously update and improve zoning maps and codes to encourage uses, buildings, and site improvements that reduce exterior and interior heat island effects. Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) PCPC Multiple Agencies PCPC Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) Staff time Agency operating budget Staff time Staff time Specific Grants Category Goals and Objectives Local Planning and Regulations 3.5 Agency operating budget, Grants National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), PDM, FMA, Local Planning and Regulations 2.6 Agency operating budget, Grants National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), PDM, FMA, Local Planning and Regulations Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 2.1, 2.2 328 No. Hazard Hazardous Material Train 55 Derailment 56 Multi-Hazard 57 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Action and Description Develop planning and zoning recommendations for hazardous material transportation throughout the City. Promote sustainable, mitigation-driven redevelopment for City-acquired properties. Create a hazard event database to capture description, severity, location, impact, and potential loss/damage estimate from an event. This data will be used to update the hazard analysis and mitigation actions for Philadelphia, as well as allow the city to be better prepared for future events. Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) Multiple agencies PCPC OEM Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) Staff time Agency operating budget Staff time Agency operating budget, Grants Staff time, $10,000 Grants Specific Grants National Association of Realtors (NAR), National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), AIA Upjohn Research Initiative HSGP Category Goals and Objectives Local Planning and Regulations Local Planning and Regulations Local Planning and Regulations Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 2.2 2.2, 3.1 5.1 x Due to lack of funding and staff time, the action was delayed since its inclusion in the 2012 HMP. 329 No. Hazard 58 Multi-Hazard 59 Multi-Hazard 60 Multi-Hazard 1 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Action and Description Promote post disaster mitigation strategies throughout SEPA region, targeting communities that are most vulnerable. VOAD partner agencies may implement mitigation strategies. Support resiliency of the City’s private sector though information sharing, partnership building, training and education on preparedness, COOP, mitigation principles and Philadelphia’s HMP. Update and expand READY programs for those with functional needs. Optimize use of HAZUS-MH software for Philadelphia’s unique urban environment. The software update will allow Philadelphia to generate more accurate loss Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) OEM Estimated Project Cost Staff Time/ $15,000 OEM Staff Time/ $20,000 OEM Staff Time/ $50,000 OEM $ 5,000.00 Possible Funding Source(s) Grants Grants Grants Grants Specific Grants Category Goals and Objectives Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 x Continuing through READYCommunity initiatives, SEPA regional work groups, HSGP Education and Awareness Programs HSGP Education and Awareness Programs 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 x HSGP Education and Awareness Programs 1.2, 4.3, 4.4, 5.2 x HMGP, PDM Local Planning and Regulations 1.2, 2.44.2. 5.15.2, 2.2, 2.4 OEM continues to hold stakeholder trainings and tabletop exercise. Expanding outreach materials and presentations to be more inclusive. Due to lack of funding, data, and expertise, the action was delayed since its inclusion in the 2012 HMP. 330 No. Hazard 62 Flood 63 Multi-Hazard 64 Multi-Hazard 65 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Action and Description estimates for various hazards. Improve/enhance flood vulnerability data. Enhance planning by using surveys to more accurately define flood vulnerability. Coordinate and provide public outreach on mitigation strategies the public can take to reduce or eliminate the impact of hazards on their services and infrastructure. Opportunities to educate the public include conferences, OEMs website, social media, and presentations. Equip drawbridges with back-up generators Purchase two VMS signs for deployment prior to and during emergencies and events to promote public safety and awareness. Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) PCPC Estimated Project Cost $ 10,000.00 Possible Funding Source(s) Specific Grants OEM Grants STREETS $ 15,000.00 Grants OEM $ 17,500.00 Grants Goals and Objectives Property Protection, Preparedness Grants $ 15,000.00 Category HSGP HSGP Education and Awareness Programs Structure and Infrastructure Projects Preparedness Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 2.2 x In CAV process with FEMA where Flood Prone areas and properties were inspected. x Since 2012, public outreach coordination through OEM's website, social media, and public presentation is ongoing. Efforts have expanded into READYCommunity outreach strategies. 1.2, 4.3, 4.4, 5.2 2.1 x 1.5 331 No. Hazard 66 Winter Storm 67 Multi-Hazard 68 Flood 69 Multi-Hazard 70 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Action and Description Install GPS on all storm operations vehicles. Implement program to track and study areas impacted by natural disasters using the RIC data and GIS technology. Establish a smart detour plan for flooding of Wissahickon Creek, Schuylkill River and Cobbs Creek. Train L&I in damage assessment policies and procedures. Develop guides for all-hazards preparedness, hazard specific information, business continuity information, as well as guides for Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) STREETS $ 20,000.00 Grants Preparedness OEM $ 25,000.00 Grants Local Planning and Regulations STREETS $ 25,000.00 Grants L&I $ 42,000.00 HSGP Preparedness Local Planning and Regulations OEM $ 50,000.00 Grants Education and Awareness Programs Specific Grants HSGP HSGP Category Goals and Objectives Included in 2012 HMP 1.2 x 1.2, 2.1, 5.15.2, x 1.2 x Update Since 2012 Still a priority, but additional costs need to be considered as part of the project, including maintenance costs, staffing needed, and upgrades required to support the GPS equipment. Ongoing since 2012. A study must be conducted prior to the smart detour is put in place. The project is still a priority, and is subject to funding. 1.3 1.2, 4.3, 4.4, 5.2 x Ongoing 332 No. Hazard 71 Multi-Hazard 72 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Action and Description specific vulnerable populations. Brochures will be offered in up to seven languages, large print, Braille and auto CDs. Establish an openend contract to purchase or rent material/equipment for unforeseen events. Install battery backup traffic signal controllers (75,000 each) 10% of signals in City. 74 Multi-Hazard Purchase portable trailer lights for each Streets Department facility or yard. Conduct additional medical countermeasure exercises 75 Multi-Hazard Enhance the EOC in a Box. 73 Multi-Hazard Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) Estimated Project Cost STREETS $ 50,000.00 Possible Funding Source(s) Category Goals and Objectives Included in 2012 HMP Grants Local Planning and Regulations 1.2, 2.1 x Grants Structure and Infrastructure Projects 2.1 x Structure and Infrastructure Projects 2.1 x Specific Grants STREETS $ 50,000.00 STREETS $ 50,000.00 Grants PDPH, OEM $ 50,000.00 Grants HSGP Preparedness 1.3 OEM $ 60,000.00 Grants HSGP Preparedness 8.3 x Update Since 2012 Battery back-up installation has started and is ongoing Portable light trailers have been purchased for three yards. Additional purchases needed to complete project. Mobile EOC and EOC in a box continues to be enhanced, updated, and replaces as needed. 333 Hazard Mitigation Action and Description Active 76 Shooter, IED Procure and install CCTV cameras for the Triplex and Tunnel Infrastructure 77 Failure Procure a hi-rail bucket truck Hazardous Material Train 78 Derailment Hurricane/ Tropical Storm, 79 Floods Infrastructure 82 Failure Procure additional unites of level B PPE for surge operators Elevate electrical and HVAC equipment at Waterworks. Buy equipment to upgrade capability to survey flood prone bridges and roads. Construct ground water interceptors to capture water seeping from rock outcrops to prevent constant ice accumulation on Lincoln and Kelly Drives. Procure traffic detour modelling software 83 Multi-Hazard Procure pedestrian modelling software No. 80 Flood 81 Flood Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) DPP $ 70,000.00 STREETS $ 80,000.00 Agency operating budget, Grants Agency operating budget PFD, PPD, OEM $ 90,000.00 Grants PWD $ 100,000.00 STREETS $ 100,000.00 Specific Grants Goals and Objectives HSGP Category HumanCaused Hazard Casualty Reduction 5.1, 8.4 HSGP Preparedness HumanCaused Hazard Casualty Reduction Included in 2012 HMP 8.4, 2.1 1.6 Grants Structure and Infrastructure Projects 8.1, 5.4 Grants Preparedness 2.4, 2.2 x 2.4, 2.2 x STREETS/ PPR $ 100,000.00 Grants STREETS, OEM $ 100,000.00 Grants USDOT, HSGP OEM $ 100,000.00 Grants HSGP Structure and Infrastructure Projects, Natural Systems Protection Local Planning and Regulations Local Planning and Regulations Update Since 2012 Lincoln Drive has a plan in place for the project in the event funding becomes available. Kelly Drive is partially funded, but requires additional funding for implementation. 5.1, 2.1 5.1, 8.4 334 No. Hazard 84 Multi-Hazard 85 Multi-Hazard Hazardous Material Train 86 Derailment 87 Flood Active 88 Shooter 89 IED Mitigation Action and Description Conduct mass casualty exercises Expand cache of body bags Integrate plume modeling into OEM/ EOC/ RIC GIS systems Construct ground water interceptors to capture water seeping from rock outcrops to prevent constant ice accumulation on Lincoln and Kelly Drives. Deploy trauma kits to all SDP schools Conduct large-scale hot zone IED operation training 91 Multi-Hazard Deploy trauma kits to all commercial CIKR assets Expand cot and DME/G caches Active 92 Shooter Implement an armed Triplex security force Active 90 Shooter, IED Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) PFD, PPD, OEM PDPH-MEO, OEM Estimated Project Cost $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 OEM $ 100,000.00 Possible Funding Source(s) Specific Grants Category Grants HSGP Preparedness 1.3 Grants HSGP Preparedness 5.5 HSGP Local Planning and Regulations Natural Systems Protection, Structure and Infrastructure Projects HumanCaused Hazard Casualty Reduction Grants STREETS/ PPR $ 100,000.00 Grants OEM $ 120,000.00 Grants HSGP PPD-BDU, PFD $ 120,000.00 Grants HSGP Grants HSGP Grants Agency operating budget, Grants HSGP OEM OEM $ 120,000.00 $ 120,000.00 $ 150,000.00 HSGP Preparedness HumanCaused Hazard Casualty Reduction Preparedness HumanCaused Hazard Goals and Objectives Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 x Lincoln Drive has a plan in place for the project in the event funding becomes available. Kelly Drive is partially funded, but requires additional funding for implementation. 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 2.1, 8.4 2.4, 2.2 8.4, 2.1 1.3 5.1, 2.1 1.2 8.4, 2.1 335 No. Hazard Hazardous Material Train 93 Derailment Hazardous Material Train 94 Derailment Active 95 Shooter Mitigation Action and Description Conduct crude by rail functional exercises and use outcomes to identify opportunities to strengthen plans and training. Conduct ongoing mass decontamination exercises Procure and issue tourniquets to all PFD members Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) Category Casualty Reduction OEM, PFD $ 150,000.00 Grants HSGP Local Planning and Regulations PFD, OEM $ 150,000.00 Grants HSGP Preparedness PPD, PFD, OEM $ 160,000.00 Grants HSGP $ 170,000.00 Agency operating budget, Grants HSGP Preparedness HumanCaused Hazard Casualty Reduction HSGP Structure and Infrastructure Projects HumanCaused Hazard Casualty Reduction HumanCaused Hazard Casualty Reduction 97 Winter Storm Procure and install Triplex magnetometers Upgrade pickup trucks for plowing and salting when purchased. PWD/ OFM $ 200,000.00 Grants Active 98 Shooter Expand MACTAC training PPD, PFD, OEM $ 200,000.00 Grants Hazardous Material Train 99 Derailment Procure additional light and air unit for hazardous material response purposes PFD $ 200,000.00 Agency operating budget, Grants Active 96 Shooter Specific Grants Goals and Objectives 1.3, 1.6 1.3, 1.6 Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 1.3 8.4, 2.1 5.5 1.3 1.6 336 Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) Agency operating budget Hazard Infrastructure 100 Failure Procure three more high reach bucket trucks STREETS $ 240,000.00 101 Multi-Hazard Purchase additional secondary communication systems (i.e. radios). OEM $ 250,000.00 Grants HSGP Preparedness 8.3 x 102 Multi-Hazard Purchase additional portable redundant power sources. OEM $ 250,000.00 Grants HSGP 8.3 x PFD $ 250,000.00 Agency operating budget, Grants HSGP Preparedness HumanCaused Hazard Casualty Reduction PDPH-MEO, PPD, FLEET $ 250,000.00 Grants HSGP Preparedness 5.5 STREETS $ 300,000.00 Capital Budget PPR $ 400,000.00 Capital budget No. Hazardous Material Train 103 Derailment 104 Multi-Hazard 105 Flood 106 Multi-Hazard Procure two additional foam tenders Procure two refrigerated semitractor trailers Enlarge culverts of the Poquessing Creek tributaries to protect roadway and residences. Purchase Cyclomedia software to assist in the identification of Specific Grants Included in 2012 HMP Mitigation Action and Description Category HumanCaused Hazard Casualty Reduction Structure and Infrastructure Projects Natural Systems Protection, Structure and Goals and Objectives 5.1, 8.4, 2.1 Update Since 2012 Additional secondary communication devices have been purchased since 2012 and continue to be replaced as needed. Redundant power sources are continuing to be purchased and replaced as needed. 1.6 1.2 x 2.5 337 No. Hazard Hazardous Material Train 107 Derailment 108 IED 109 Multi-Hazard 110 Flooding 111 Flooding Improvised Explosive 112 Device Mitigation Action and Description high priority areas for the removal of dead and falling trees. Intake booming materials Conduct a follow-on functional 3-day IED exercise G1/G2/FLV3 emergency and nonemergency generator engine rehabilitation and electrical upgrades Install electrical substation upgrades/flood control at A-East Upgrade/repair stormwater infrastructure near terminal complex. Improve and upgrade Southwest Water Pollution Control Plant security system Gate Controls and purchase additional cameras to prevent theft of chemicals, contamination of Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) Specific Grants PWD $ 500,000.00 Agency operating budget, Grants PPD-BDU, OEM $ 750,000.00 Grants PHL-DOA $ 950,000.00 Capital Budget PHL-DOA $ 1,000,000.00 Capital Budget PHL-DOA $ 1,000,000.00 Capital Budget Property Protection Structure and Infrastructure Projects Project Implementation $ 1,000,000.00 Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Structure and Infrastructure Projects PWD Category Infrastructure Projects Goals and Objectives EPA Preparedness 2.1, 1.6 HSGP Preparedness 1.3, 1.5, 1.5, 1.5 Property Protection Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 2.1 2.1 2.1 8.2 338 115 IED Mitigation Action and Description treated drinking water, and damage to critical infrastructure. Improve and upgrade Belmont Water Treatment Plant truck turn around to prevent theft of chemicals, contamination of treated drinking water, and damage to critical infrastructure. Replace the fence around the Upper Roxborough water facility to prevent theft of chemicals, contamination of treated drinking water, and damage to critical infrastructure. Procure wastewater system HME sensors 116 IED Hurricane/ Tropical 117 Storm, Wind Procure ZBV backscatter unit Install backup generators at West Oak Lane to ensure No. Hazard Improvised Explosive 113 Device Improvised Explosive 114 Device Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) PWD $ 1,000,000.00 Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Structure and Infrastructure Projects PWD $ 1,000,000.00 Capital Budget/ Grant Funding PWD, OEM $ 1,000,000.00 Grants PPD-BDU, OEM $ 1,000,000.00 PWD $ 1,500,000.00 Structure and Infrastructure Projects Structure and Infrastructure Programs HumanCaused Hazard Casualty Reduction Structure and Infrastructure Projects Grants Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Specific Grants HSGP, EPA HSGP Category Goals and Objectives Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 8.2 8.2 5.1, 1.5 1.5 4.1, 5.4, 8.1 339 No. Hazard Storms/ Tornado, Winter Storms 118 IED 119 Flooding Mitigation Action and Description operations during power outages. Increase standoff distance at City Hall Apron Flood Prevention for Electrical Substations in Terminal A-East: installing a new 15 HP, 1200 GPM to increase the storm water pumping capacity, furnishing and installing of flood prevention planks at the substation entrances, furnishing and installing the four new oil-filled switches to allow substations to be isolated electrically and replacement of existing fire alarm and fire protection system with a new pre-action sprinkler system Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) DPP, PPD, OEM $ 1,500,000.00 Grants PHL-DOA $ 1,900,000.00 Capital Budget Specific Grants Category Goals and Objectives HSGP HumanCaused Hazard Casualty Reduction 8.4, 2.1 Property Protection Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 2.1 340 No. Hazard Improvised Explosive 120 Device Active 121 Shooter, IED 122 Multi-Hazard Improvised Explosive 123 Device Hurricane/ 124 Tropical Mitigation Action and Description Improve and upgrade Northeast Water Pollution Control Plant through lighting replacement to prevent theft of chemicals, contamination of treated drinking water, and damage to critical infrastructure. Implement underground interoperational communications development Expand the EOC to accommodate 90 liaisons Improve and upgrade Northeast Water Pollution Control Plant Balfour Street Entrance to prevent theft of chemicals, contamination of treated drinking water, and damage to critical infrastructure. Elevate electrical and HVAC equipment at Queen Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) PWD $ 2,000,000.00 Capital Budget/ Grant Funding PPD-BDU, OEM $ 2,000,000.00 Grants OEM $ 2,000,000.00 Grants PWD $ 2,200,000.00 PWD $ 2,300,000.00 Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Specific Grants Category Goals and Objectives Structure and Infrastructure Projects 8.2 HSGP, USDOT Preparedness 7.1 HSGP Preparedness Update Since 2012 6.1, 7.1 Structure and Infrastructure Projects Preparedness, Structure and Included in 2012 HMP 8.2 8.1, 5.4 341 No. Hazard Storm, Floods Hurricane/ Tropical Storm, Wind Storms/ Tornado, Winter 125 Storms Hurricane/ Tropical Storm, 126 Floods Hurricane/ Tropical Storm, 127 Floods Drought, 128 Winter Storm Flood, Winter Storm, 129 Drought Mitigation Action and Description Lane Raw Water Intake switch gear and generator. Install backup generators and switchgear at Queen Lane Raw Pump Station to ensure operations during power outages. Upgrade P-796 at the Navy Yard Design to handle increased flows from wet weather events. Elevate electrical and HVAC equipment at rehabilitation of Baxter Emergency Intake Building Equipment. Rehabilitate Baxter Emergency Intake Building Equipment to ensure reliable source during droughts and winter storms. Rehabilitate Baxter Emergency Intake building equipment to make the structure more resilient in order to handle intake during Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) PWD $ 2,300,000.00 Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Structure and Infrastructure Projects 4.1, 5.4, 8.1 $ 2,500,000.00 Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Structure and Infrastructure Projects 5.4, 5.6, 8.1 PWD $ 2,800,000.00 Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Preparedness, Structure and Infrastructure Projects 8.1, 5.4 PWD $ 2,800,000.00 Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Structure and Infrastructure Projects 5.4, 8.1 PWD $ 2,800,000.00 Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Structure and Infrastructure Projects 5.4, 8.1 PWD Specific Grants Category Infrastructure Projects Goals and Objectives Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 342 No. Hazard Improvised Explosive 130 Device Hurricane/ Tropical Storm, 131 Floods 132 Multi-Hazard Improvised Explosive 133 Device Mitigation Action and Description extreme weather events. Improve and upgrade 29th Street Complex Storage Units and revised traffic flow to prevent theft of chemicals, contamination of treated drinking water, and damage to critical infrastructure. Upgrade Mingo Creek Pumping Station to handle increased flows from wet weather events. Implement an Asset Management System (under development) Improve and upgrade Baxter Water Treatment Plant security capabilities to prevent theft of chemicals, contamination of treated drinking water, and damage to critical infrastructure. Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) PWD $ 3,000,000.00 Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Structure and Infrastructure Projects PWD $ 4,000,000.00 Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Structure and Infrastructure Projects PHL-DOA $ 4,000,000.00 Capital, Operating Local Planning and Regulations 2.1 PWD $ 5,000,000.00 Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Structure and Infrastructure Projects 8.2 Specific Grants Category Goals and Objectives Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 8.2 5.4, 5.6, 8.1 343 No. Hazard Hurricane/ Tropical Storm, Wind Storms/ Tornado, Winter 134 Storms Flood, Winter Storm, 135 Drought Drought, 136 Winter Storm Improvised Explosive 137 Device Drought, 138 Winter Storm Mitigation Action and Description Install standby generator at Belmont Raw Water Pumping Station to ensure operations during power outages. Upgrade West Oak Lane to make the station more resilient in order to deliver water during extreme weather events. Replace Baxter Raw Water Basin Intake to ensure reliable source during droughts and winter storms. Improve and upgrade water security system to prevent theft of chemicals, contamination of treated drinking water, and damage to critical infrastructure. Relocate Queen Lane Raw Water Intake to ensure reliable source during droughts and winter storms. Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) PWD $ 6,000,000.00 Specific Grants Category Goals and Objectives Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Structure and Infrastructure Projects 4.1, 5.4, 8.1 PWD $ 6,500,000.00 Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Structure and Infrastructure Projects 5.4, 8.1 PWD $ 8,000,000.00 Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Structure and Infrastructure Projects 5.4, 8.1 PWD $ 15,000,000.00 Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Structure and Infrastructure Projects PWD $ 15,000,000.00 Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Structure and Infrastructure Projects Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 8.2 5.4, 8.1 344 No. Hazard Drought, 139 Winter Storm Flood, Winter Storm, 140 Drought Flood, Winter Storm, 141 Drought Drought, Extreme Heat, Urban 142 Conflagration Mitigation Action and Description Relocate Belmont Raw Water Pump Station Intake to ensure reliable source during droughts and winter storms. Rehabilitate Belmont Raw Water Pump Station and Intake to make the station more resilient in order to deliver water during extreme weather events. Rehabilitate Queen Lane Raw Water Pumping Station to make the station more resilient in order to deliver water during extreme weather events. Build additional finished water storage and rehab. Current finished water storage at East Park to ensure that water can be supplied during extreme weather events or other Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) PWD $ 15,000,000.00 PWD Specific Grants Category Goals and Objectives Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Structure and Infrastructure Projects 5.4, 8.1 $ 15,000,000.00 Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Structure and Infrastructure Projects 5.4, 8.1 PWD $ 35,000,000.00 Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Structure and Infrastructure Projects 5.4, 8.1 PWD $ 40,000,000.00 Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Structure and Infrastructure Projects 5.4, 8.3 Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 345 No. Hazard Drought, Extreme Heat, Urban 143 Conflagration Flood, Winter Storm, 144 Drought Extreme Heat, 145 Drought Hurricane/ Tropical Storm, Wind Storms/ Tornado, Winter 146 Storms Mitigation Action and Description system-disrupting events. Build additional finished water storage and rehab current finished water storage at Baxter Clearwell Basins to ensure that water can be supplied during extreme weather events or other system-disrupting events. Upgrade Lardner's Point Pumping Station to make the station more resilient in order to deliver water during extreme weather events. Construction of additional chemical dosing boosters and flushers throughout the city to maintain water quality. Install back up generators at Lardner's Point Pumping Stations to ensure operations during power outages. Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) PWD $ 40,000,000.00 Specific Grants Category Goals and Objectives Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Structure and Infrastructure Projects 5.4, 8.1 PWD $ 55,000,000.00 Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Structure and Infrastructure Projects 5.4, 8.1 PWD $1,500,000$5,300,000 Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Structure and Infrastructure Projects 3.3, 5.4 PWD Capital $1,5000,000 - Budget/ Grant $6,000,000 Funding Structure and Infrastructure Projects 4.1, 5.4, 8.1 Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 346 No. Hazard Hurricane/ Tropical Storm, 147 Floods 148 Multi-Hazard Hurricane/ Tropical Storm, 149 Floods Hazardous Material Train 150 Derailment 151 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Action and Description Elevate electrical and HVAC equipment at Lardner's Point Pumping Station. Expand the study of Southern plant species by 30 acres using sustainable planting practices in preparation for increasing temperatures over the next century. Addition of wastewater and stormwater pumps and storage in various locations throughout the system and facilities to send more water to the water pollution control plants during wet weather events. Upgrade or replace the contaminant warning system to maintain optimal function. Purchase eight (8) additional chippers to assist in limb maintenance, reducing debris, and downed vegetation Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) PWD Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) Specific Grants Capital $10,000,000 - Budget/ Grant $15,000,000 Funding NPS, DCNR Category Goals and Objectives Preparedness, Structure and Infrastructure Projects 8.1, 5.4 Natural Systems Protection 3.1, 3.5 5.4, 8.3 PPR $10,000/acre Capital budget, Grants PWD $2,000,000 $100,000,000 per project Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Structure and Infrastructure Projects PWD $20,000$50,000 Operating Funds/ Grant Funding Streets/PPR $20,000/unit Capital Budget Education and Awareness Programs Natural Systems Protection, Structure and Infrastructure Projects Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 8.4, 3.3, 7.2 2.5 347 No. Hazard Hurricane/ Tropical Storm, 152 Floods Hurricane/ Tropical Storm, 153 Floods Hurricane/ Tropical Storm, 154 Floods 155 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Action and Description prior to and following storms to reduce damages to properties, road way closures, and debris. Upgrade of various wastewater and stormwater pump stations to handle increased flows from wet weather events. Addition of effluent and outfall pumping station to a water pollution control plant to pump treated water to the river during extreme wet weather events and high tide. Addition of effluent and outfall pumping station to Northeast Water Pollution Control Plant Outfall and Effluent Pumping Station to pump treated water to the river during extreme wet weather events and high tide. Build additional water mains to provide better Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) PWD $400,000 $4,000,000 per project PWD PWD PWD Specific Grants Category Goals and Objectives Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Structure and Infrastructure Projects 5.4, 5.6, 8.1 $45,000,000 per project Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Structure and Infrastructure Projects 5.6, 8.1 $45,000,000 per project $5,000,000 $10,000,000 per project Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Capital Budget/ Grant Funding Structure and Infrastructure Projects Structure and Infrastructure Projects Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 8.3, 8.1 5.4, 8.1 348 No. Hazard Extreme Heat, 156 Extreme Cold 157 Multi-Hazard Hurricane/ Tropical Storm, 158 Floods Infrastructure 159 Failure 160 Flooding Active 161 Shooter 162 IED Infrastructure 163 Failure Mitigation Action and Description system redundancy and resiliency. Provide air quality alerts to the public. Decrease the backlog of 2,000+ tree maintenance and removal projects to reduce unpruned and dead trees falling on power lines during storm events. Acquire properties that are prone to damage from flooding. Procure additional breaching saws Develop a software platform to share flooding event information across departments in realtime as well as historically. Conduct active shooter training for city staff Conduct fire station station-based IED hot zone training Increase bridge inspection training Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) PDPH PPR PWD/ Public Property PFD-SOC Estimated Project Cost $500/ alert Possible Funding Source(s) Grants Category Goals and Objectives HHS Education and Awareness Programs 5.2, 5.3, 5.2 Natural Systems Protection, Structure and Infrastructure Projects $700 per tree removed (Market value of properties) Action Removed Specific Grants Operating Funds/ Grant Funding Preparedness Action Removed Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 2.5 8.1 Multiple Agencies N/A Agency Budget Local Planning and Regulations PPD, OEM NA Staff time Preparedness 1.3 PPD-BDU, PFD NA Staff time 1.3 STREETS NA PennDOT Preparedness HumanCaused 2.2 Not mitigation action 1.3 349 Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) Hazard Mitigation Action and Description Infrastructure 164 Failure Renew/ review emergency crane contracts STREETS, PROCUREMENT NA Agency operating budget 165 Multi-Hazard Operationalize IPAWS for city use OEM, PEMA, FEMA NA Staff time 166 Multi-Hazard Revise city-wide evacuation planning OEM NA Staff time 167 Multi-Hazard Conduct logistics center planning OEM NA Staff time OEM NA Staff time OEM NA Staff time OEM NA Staff time OEM NA Staff time Category Hazard Casualty Reduction, Structure and Infrastructure Projects Local Planning and Regulations Local Planning and Regulations Local Planning and Regulations Local Planning and Regulations Local Planning and Regulations Local Planning and Regulations Local Planning and Regulations Local Planning and Regulations OEM NA Staff time Preparedness OEM NA Staff time Preparedness No. 169 Multi-Hazard Revise Mass Care and shelter plan Develop surge staffing for expanded shelters 170 Multi-Hazard Identify logistics staging sites 168 Multi-Hazard 171 Multi-Hazard 172 Multi-Hazard Hazardous 173 Material Pre-identify POD locations Conduct logistics operations functional exercises Conduct preparedness Specific Grants Goals and Objectives Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 2.4 5.3 5.1 5.5 5.5 5.5 1.3 5.1, 2.1, 5.3 350 No. Hazard Train Derailment Active 174 Shooter, IED Active 175 Shooter, IED IED, Hazardous Materials Train 176 Derailment 177 Multi-Hazard 178 Multi-Hazard 179 Earthquake Mitigation Action and Description workshops within crude rail transport corridors Expand SPOT training for all PPD personnel Train key staff and security on recognizing suspicious vehicles Conduct outreach with CIKR assets to assess blast resistance and HVAC shutdown procedures Establish emergency contracts for 500kW/1mW generators Enhance THIRA process to identify resource gaps Evaluate various seismic building design enhancements using HAZUS-MH to identify enhancements that reduce losses generated by earthquakes. Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) PPD NA Staff time Preparedness 1.3 PPD, OEM NA Staff time Preparedness 1.3 Staff time Education and Awareness Programs PPD, OEM NA OEM NA Staff time OEM NA Staff time OEM Staff Time Grants Specific Grants Category Structure and Infrastructure Programs Local Planning and Regulations HSGP Local Planning and Regulations Goals and Objectives Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 x 2012 HMP stated the timeframe as 2 years. Due to lack of funding and expertise, the assessment was delayed. 5.1, 8.4, 2.1 4.1, 2.4 5.1, 8.4 2.2, 2.4, 5.4 351 No. Hazard 180 Flooding Hurricane, Tropical 181 Storm 182 Multi-Hazard 183 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Action and Description Evaluate various building enhancements using HAZUS-MH to identify opportunities to reduce flooding. Hazards U.S. MultiHazard (HAZUSMH) Modeling: Determine losses generated by tropical cyclones and engineering effectiveness and cost-benefit of various mitigation actions. Conduct or update natural hazard vulnerability assessments for critical facilities throughout the Philadelphia. Determine losses generated by various natural disasters and engineering effectiveness and cost-benefit of various mitigation measures using HAZUS-MH or other computer modeling Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) OEM OEM OEM OEM Estimated Project Cost Staff Time Staff Time Staff Time Staff Time Possible Funding Source(s) Grants Grants Grants Grants Specific Grants Category Goals and Objectives Included in 2012 HMP HSGP Local Planning and Regulations 2.2, 2.4, 5.4 x Update Since 2012 2012 HMP stated the timeframe as 2 years. Due to lack of funding and expertise, the assessment was delayed. x 2012 HMP stated the timeframe as 2 years. Due to lack of funding and expertise, the assessment was delayed. HSGP Local Planning and Regulations HSGP Local Planning and Regulations PDM, HMGP, HSGP Local Planning and Regulations 2.2, 2.4 2.1 x 2.3, 5.1 x Ongoing annual action moving forward. Due to lack of funding, expertise, data, and staff time, the action was delayed since its inclusion in the 2012 HMP. 352 No. Hazard 184 Multi-Hazard 185 Multi-Hazard 186 Multi-Hazard 187 Multi-Hazard 188 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Action and Description software. Evaluate various building enhancements using prototypical Philadelphia building types. COOP Site enhancement, including electrical systems enhancement, systems synchronizing, and the installation of quick connects for generators. Creation of a specific asset inventory across Philadelphia City agencies which catalogues resources. Formalize the process of resource tracking, receiving, and distribution for large emergencies or events. Create a mobile feeding and commodity distribution plan. Formalize resource requesting plan for pre-event resource Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) OEM OEM OEM Estimated Project Cost Staff time Staff time Staff time Possible Funding Source(s) Specific Grants Category Goals and Objectives Grants HSGP, PDM, HMGP Property Protection 2.1, 8.3, 2.2, 2.4, 4.1, HSGP Local Planning and Regulations 4.2 HSGP Local Planning and Regulations 4.2 Grants Grants OEM Staff time Grants HSGP OEM Staff time Grants HSGP Local Planning and Regulations Local Planning and Regulations Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 1.2 4.2 353 No. Hazard 189 Multi-Hazard 190 Flooding 191 Flooding 192 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Action and Description requests that may impact a widespread area to streamline resource distribution. Train Health and Human Service staff and partners in continuity of operations plan and mitigation measures. Conduct a flood risk analysis compile/map all areas at PHL at greatest risk of flooding during 100yr and 500-yr flood events Update the Airport Flood Emergency Response Plan (AFERP) with Operations, Engineering, and Planning Meet quarterly with VOAD partners to maintain preparedness, ensure situational awareness, identify resource capabilities, and build stakeholder Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) OEM PHL-DOA PHL-DOA OEM Estimated Project Cost Staff time Possible Funding Source(s) Grants Specific Grants Category Goals and Objectives HSGP Local Planning and Regulations 1.3, 4.3, 4.4, 5.2 Grants Local Planning and Regulations 2.1 Staff time Operating Budget Local Planning and Regulations 2.1 Staff time Agency operating budget Education and Awareness Programs Staff time Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 5.2, 5.3 354 No. Hazard 193 Multi-Hazard 194 Multi-Hazard 195 Multi-Hazard 196 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Action and Description relationships predisaster. Partner with community leaders and stakeholders for the development of materials for READYCommunity to increase community preparedness and mitigation. Provide technical assistance to communities in the development of community emergency plans. Maintaining relationships with universities and colleges within Philadelphia to support emergency planning, training, and exercises between the City and higher educational facilities. Create zoning and development awareness programs to inform planning processes that may be impacted by Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) OEM OEM OEM Multiple agencies Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) Specific Grants Category Goals and Objectives Staff time Agency operating budget Education and Awareness Programs 5.2, 5.3 Staff time Agency operating budget Education and Awareness Programs, 5.2, 5.3 Staff time Agency operating budget Education and Awareness Programs 5.2, 5.3 Agency operating budget Property Protection, Local Planning and Regulations 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 4.3, 5.1, Staff time Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 355 No. Hazard 197 Multi-Hazard 198 Multi-Hazard 199 Flooding 200 Flooding 201 Multi-Hazard 202 Flood Mitigation Action and Description hazardous material train derailments. Coordinate with construction community for large scale emergency responses. Establish public outreach programs in L&I. Update inundation mapping. Creation of a tactical guide for flood preevent actions and response activities Develop educational and promotional video series to educate and increase public awareness of City hazards and response plans. Determine low-lying substation vulnerabilities and outline options for adaptation and mitigation; coordinate with DOE on their vulnerable infrastructure studies Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) Estimated Project Cost L&I/ Multiple agencies Staff time L&I Staff time L&I, PCPC, OEM OEM/ Multiple Agencies OEM OEM Staff time Staff time Staff time Staff time Possible Funding Source(s) Agency operating budget Agency operating budget Grants, Agency Operating Budgets Specific Grants Category Local Planning and Regulations Education and Awareness Programs PDM, HSGP Goals and Objectives Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 1.3 5.2, 5.2 Local Planning and Regulations 5.1 Staff time Local Planning and Regulations 2.3, 2.6 Grants HSGP Education and Awareness Programs 5.2, 5.3, 5.2 Grants DOE, HSGP, USACE Local Planning and Regulations 2.1, 2.4, 4.1 356 No. Hazard 203 IED 204 Multi-Hazard 205 Flooding 206 Flooding 207 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Action and Description Procure urban blast modelling tool Develop individual hazard management plans for historic structures that take climate change impacts into account; if necessary, consider moving the structure to a safer location Complete outstanding followup items from the most recent Community Assistance Visit. Investigate the possibility of consolidating floodplain management licensing and inspection responsibilities into one or two positions. Assess properties that may benefit from elevation, acquisition, relocation, or retrofitting; and where feasible, implement Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) Specific Grants Category Goals and Objectives Action Removed NPS Local Planning and Regulations 6.1 FMA, PDM HMGP Local Planning and Regulations 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1 Operating budgets Local Planning and Regulations 2.1 Operating budgets, grants Local Planning and Regulations, Structure and Infrastructure Projects 2.4 Grants L&I, PCPC, PWD Staff time Operating budgets, Grants Staff time OEM, L&I, PCPC, PWD Update Since 2012 No longer feasible PHMC/ OEM, USACE L&I and PCPC Included in 2012 HMP Staff time, consultant time FMA, PDM HMGP 357 No. Hazard 208 Multi-Hazard 209 Multi-Hazard 210 Multi-Hazard 211 Multi-Hazard 212 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Action and Description recommended mitigation activities. Preparing, adopting, implementing, and updating a comprehensive long-term recovery plan to direct how and where state or federal disaster recovery funds are used to rebuild resilient communities Identify dead and falling trees along pathways and roads for removal. Establish a policy based on need and funding availability for a regular pruning cycle for city trees. Establish open end contracts with construction companies for emergency vegetation management. Support resiliency of the City’s private sector though information sharing, Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) OEM Staff time Grants PPR Staff time Capital budget Staff time Capital budget, Grants PPR PPR OEM, Multiple agencies Staff time Staff time Capital budget Specific Grants HSGP NPS, DCNR Category Local Planning and Regulations Natural Systems Protection, Structure and Infrastructure Projects Goals and Objectives Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 5.2, 5.3 2.5 Local Planning and Regulations 2.5 Natural Systems Protection, Local Planning and Regulations 2.5 Education and Awareness Programs 4.1 358 No. Hazard 213 Flood 214 Multi-Hazard 215 Flood 216 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Action and Description partnership building, training and education on preparedness, COOP, mitigation principles and Philadelphia’s HMP. Support regulations to improve resiliency of buildings in areas facing increased risk of flood with the Flood Risk Management Task Force Create a guide on steps that commercial and residential property owners can take to make their existing buildings more resilient to climate change Examine and evaluate the strategy of using rolling easements to assist in adapting to the potential consequences of sea level rise. Acknowledging and addressing climate change issues, concerns, and Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) PCPC OOS OOS PCPC Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) Specific Grants Category Goals and Objectives Staff time Agency operating budget Local Planning and Regulations 2.1, 2.2 Staff time Agency operating budget Education and Awareness Programs 3.5 Staff time Agency operating budget Local Planning and Regulations 3.5 Staff time Agency operating budget Local Planning and Regulations 3.5 Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 359 No. Hazard 217 Flood 218 Extreme heat Hazardous Material Train 219 Derailment Mitigation Action and Description impacts in Philadelphia2035 district plans. Evaluate properties buyout feasibility for structures that are damaged or at high risk of damage from sea level rise or storm events both reactively over time as properties are damaged, or proactively for properties that are at a high risk for flooding; where feasible, implement buy-out activities. Continuously update and improve zoning maps and codes to encourage uses, buildings, and site improvements that reduce exterior and interior heat island effects. Develop planning and zoning recommendations for hazardous material transportation throughout the City. Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) Multiple Agencies PCPC Multiple Agencies Estimated Project Cost Staff time Staff time Staff time Possible Funding Source(s) Specific Grants Category Agency operating budget, Grants National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), PDM, FMA, Local Planning and Regulations Agency operating budget, Grants National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), PDM, FMA, Local Planning and Regulations Agency Budget Local Planning and Regulations Goals and Objectives Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 2.6 2.1, 2.2 2.2 360 No. Hazard 220 Multi-Hazard 221 Multi-Hazard 222 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Action and Description Promote sustainable, mitigation-driven redevelopment for City-acquired properties. Create a hazard event database to capture description, severity, location, impact, and potential loss/damage estimate from an event. This data will be used to update the hazard analysis and mitigation actions for Philadelphia, as well as allow the city to be better prepared for future events. Promote post disaster mitigation strategies throughout SEPA region, targeting communities that are most vulnerable. VOAD partner Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) PCPC OEM OEM Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) Staff time Agency operating budget, Grants Staff time, $10,000 Staff Time/ $15,000 Grants Grants Specific Grants National Association of Realtors (NAR), National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), AIA Upjohn Research Initiative HSGP HSGP Category Goals and Objectives Local Planning and Regulations 2.2, 3.1 Local Planning and Regulations Education and Awareness Programs Included in 2012 HMP 5.1 x 1.2, 2.44.2. 5.15.2, x Update Since 2012 Due to lack of funding and staff time, the action was delayed since its inclusion in the 2012 HMP. Continuing through READYCommunity initiatives, SEPA regional work groups, 361 No. Hazard 223 Multi-Hazard 224 Multi-Hazard 225 Multi-Hazard 226 Multi-Hazard 227 Multi-Hazard 228 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Action and Description agencies may implement mitigation strategies. Support resiliency of the City’s private sector though information sharing, partnership building, training and education on preparedness, COOP, mitigation principles and Philadelphia’s HMP. Update and expand READY programs for those with functional needs. Purchase of an additional 300 KVA generator, as well as compatible cabling, distribution boxes, and transfers. Create a support trailer for emergency deployment with generator use. Purchase of eighteen 6.5, 7, 8 kW generators with support power strips and extension cords and cables. Replace OEM radios, and use Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) Included in 2012 HMP Specific Grants Category HSGP Education and Awareness Programs 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 x HSGP Education and Awareness Programs 1.2, 4.3, 4.4, 5.2 x HSGP Structure and Infrastructure Projects 2.1, 3.4 Grants HSGP Structure and Infrastructure Projects 8.3, 3.4 OEM Grants HSGP, PDM, HMGP Structure and Infrastructure Projects 8.3, 3.4 OEM Grants HSGP Preparedness OEM Staff Time/ $20,000 OEM Staff Time/ $50,000 OEM OEM Grants Grants Grants Goals and Objectives 1.5 Update Since 2012 OEM continues to hold stakeholder trainings and tabletop exercise. Expanding outreach materials and presentations to be more inclusive. 362 No. Hazard 229 Multi-Hazard 230 Multi-Hazard 231 Multi-Hazard 232 Multi-Hazard 233 Multi-Hazard 234 Drought Mitigation Action and Description current radios as a surge cache for emergency response and events. Create five mass care and sheltering trailers. Assessment for quick connect prioritization for city facilities. Install a 2 MW peak shaving generator for demand response events. Can also be used as backup power in emergencies. Obtain vehicles and personnel to assist in the transportation of homeless and vulnerable populations prior to or following an incident Conduct logistics staging sites assessment for City agency use during an emergency. Develop and implement a communication plan for public outreach Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) Possible Funding Source(s) Specific Grants Category Grants HSGP Preparedness 1.2 HSGP Local Planning and Regulations 8.3 Capital Budget Property Protection 2.1 OSH Agency operating budget HumanCaused Hazard Casualty Reduction 1.2 OEM Agency operating budget Local Planning and Regulations 4.1, 5.1 Grants Education and Awareness Programs 5.2, 5.3, 5.2 OEM OEM PHL-DOA PWD Estimated Project Cost Grants Goals and Objectives Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 363 No. Hazard 235 Multi-Hazard 236 Multi-Hazard 237 Multi-Hazard 238 Multi-Hazard 239 Winter Storm 240 Flooding Mitigation Action and Description for water conservation. Establish contracts with outside companies to assist with debris removal following a disaster. Establish open end contracts with construction companies for emergency bridge and road repairs. Establish open end contracts with construction companies for emergency building demolition. Establish open end contracts with construction companies for emergency vegetation management. Purchase and maintain hyper-local street-level weather stations to assist in salting, flooding, and plowing operations. Purchase and maintain drop-gates for known dangerous roads Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) Multiple Agencies Streets L&I PPR Streets Streets Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) Specific Grants Category Goals and Objectives Staff time Local Planning and Regulations 8.5, 2.5 Staff time Local Planning and Regulations 8.1 Staff time Local Planning and Regulations 8.1 Staff time Local Planning and Regulations Capital Budget Structure and Infrastructure Projects 5.5 Capital Budget Structure and Infrastructure Projects 5.5 Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 2.5, 8.1 364 No. Hazard 241 Flooding 242 Flooding 243 Flooding 244 Winter Storm 245 Winter Storm 246 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Action and Description during emergency events, particularly along Cobbs Creek, for Bells Mill Road, and on Delaware Ave Clean and maintain streams and canals of debris prior to and following weather events. Purchase additional sweepers to assist in debris removal prior to and following flooding events. Purchase additional flusher trucks for use during flooding events. Purchase additional brining trucks for brining operations prior to winter storm events. Purchase additional salting trucks for brining operations prior to and during winter storm events. Purchase additional chippers to assist in limb maintenance, reducing debris, and downed vegetation Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) PWD Streets Streets Streets Streets Streets/PPR Estimated Project Cost Possible Funding Source(s) Specific Grants Category Goals and Objectives Staff time Natural Systems Protection 2.5 Capital Budget Structure and Infrastructure Projects 2.5 Capital Budget Structure and Infrastructure Projects 5.5 Capital Budget Structure and Infrastructure Projects 5.5 Capital Budget Structure and Infrastructure Projects 5.5 Capital Budget Structure and Infrastructure Projects Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 2.5, 5.5 365 No. Hazard 247 Multi-Hazard 248 Winter Storm 249 IED 250 Multi-Hazard 251 Floods Mitigation Action and Description prior to and following storms Purchase additional fuel truck for refueling vehicles during staging and response for emergency events, as well as for refueling generators and un-moveable equipment deployed during emergency events. Develop a list of City owned property that can temporarily be used to store emergency debris & snow (by district). Implement blast and thermal hardening for high ranked CIKR assets Elevate, acquire, relocate, or retrofit properties that benefit from elevation, acquisition, relocation, or retrofitting. Annually review the City’s floodplain ordinance Lead/ Supporting Agency(s) Estimated Project Cost Streets Streets/OEM Possible Funding Source(s) Specific Grants Category Goals and Objectives Capital Budget Structure and Infrastructure Projects 5.5 Staff time Local Planning and Regulations 5.5 Included in 2012 HMP Update Since 2012 No longer feasible PPD-BDU, OEM OEM, L&I, PCPC, PWD Staff time, consultant time PCPC Staff time Staff time, Grants Agency operating budget, Grants PDM, FMA, MGP (NAHB), PDM, FMA, Structure and Infrastructure Projects Local Planning and Regulations 2.4 2.1, 2.2 366 6.4.2.1 Prioritization of Hazard Mitigation Actions The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee conducted a qualitative evaluation of potential mitigation actions using the PASTEEL (political, administrative, social, technical, economic, environmental and legal) review method. PASTEEL is an evaluation process developed by PEMA that is a systematic method to help identify the benefits and constraints of a particular mitigation action. The table below provides a summary of the PASTEEL criteria. PASTEEL Summary Table Criteria P A S T E E L Description Political criteria: Does the action have public and political support? Administrative criteria: Is there adequate staffing and funding available to implement the action in a timely manner? Social criteria: Will the action be acceptable by the community or will it cause any one segment of the population to be treated unfairly? Technical criteria: How effective will the action be in avoiding or reducing future losses? Economic criteria: What are the costs and benefits of the action and does it contribute to community economic goals? Environmental criteria: Will the action provide environmental benefits and will it comply with local, state and federal environmental regulations? Legal criteria: Does the community have the authority to implement the proposed measure? Planners used these criteria rank mitigation projects into highest, high, and moderate priorities.    Highest Priority: A project that meets at least 21 favorable PASTEEL criteria considerations High Priority: A project that meets at least 18 favorable PASTEEL criteria considerations Moderate Priority: A project that meets less than 18 favorable PASTEEL criteria considerations The agency submitting the mitigation action has the ultimate authority to determine a mitigation action’s priority. An agency can weigh one or more criteria within the PASTEEL matrix to produce the most appropriate prioritization level. 367 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Evaluate various seismic building design enhancements using HAZUS-MH to identify enhancements that reduce losses generated by earthquakes. + + + + + + + + N + + + N + + N + N + + + N 17 0 5 Moderate Priority Evaluate various building enhancements using HAZUS-MH to identify opportunities to reduce flooding. + + + + + + + + N + + + N + + N + N + + + N 17 0 5 Moderate Priority Hazards U.S. Multi-Hazard (HAZUS-MH) Modeling: Determine losses generated by tropical cyclones and engineering effectiveness and cost-benefit of various mitigation actions. + + + + + + + + N + + + N + + N + N + + + N 17 0 5 Moderate Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 368 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Coordinate and provide public outreach on mitigation strategies the public can take to reduce or eliminate the impact of hazards on their services and infrastructure. Opportunities to educate the public include conferences, OEMs website, social media, and presentations. + + + - + + + + + N + + N N N N N N N + + N 12 1 9 Moderate Priority Conduct or update natural hazard vulnerability assessments for critical facilities throughout the Philadelphia. + + + + + + + + N + + + N + + N + N + + + N 17 0 5 Moderate Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 369 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Optimize use of HAZUS-MH software for Philadelphia’s unique urban environment. The software update will allow Philadelphia to generate more accurate loss estimates for various hazards. + + + + + + + + N + + + N + + N + N + + + N 17 0 5 Moderate Priority Develop guides for all-hazards preparedness, hazard specific information, business continuity information, as well as guides for specific vulnerable populations. Brochures will be offered in up to seven languages, large print, Braille and auto CDs. + + + - + + + + + N + + N N N N N N N + + N 12 1 9 Moderate Priority Update and expand READY programs for those with functional needs. + + + - + + + + + N + + N N N N N N N + + N 12 1 9 Moderate Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 370 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Purchase additional secondary communication systems (i.e. radios). + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + N N + + N + N 18 0 4 High Priority Purchase additional portable redundant power sources. + + + + + + + + N + + + N + N N N + N N + N 14 0 8 Moderate Priority Enhance the EOC in a Box. + + + + + + + + + + + + N + N N N N N N + N 14 0 8 Moderate Priority Support resiliency of the City’s private sector though information sharing, partnership building, training and education on preparedness, COOP, mitigation principles and Philadelphia’s HMP. + + + + + + + + - + + + + - N N N N N + + N 14 2 6 Moderate Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 371 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Promote post disaster mitigation strategies throughout SEPA region, targeting communities that are most vulnerable. VOAD partner agencies may implement mitigation strategies. + + + - + + + + + + + + N N N N N N N + + N 13 1 8 Moderate Priority Determine losses generated by various natural disasters and engineering effectiveness and cost-benefit of various mitigation measures using HAZUS-MH or other computer modeling software. Evaluate various building enhancements using prototypical Philadelphia building types. + + + + + + + + N + + + N + + N + N + + + N 17 0 5 Moderate Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 372 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Create a hazard event database to capture description, severity, location, impact, and potential loss/damage estimate from an event. This data will be used to update the hazard analysis and mitigation actions for Philadelphia, as well as allow the city to be better prepared for future events. + + + - + + + + - + + + N + N N N N N + + N 13 2 7 Moderate Priority Implement program to track and study areas impacted by natural disasters using the RIC data and GIS technology. + + + + + + + + + + + + N + N N N N + + + N 16 0 6 Moderate Priority COOP Site enhancement, including electrical systems enhancement, systems syncing, and the installation of quick connects for generators + + + - + + + + + + + - N + N N N N N + + N 13 2 7 Moderate Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 373 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Purchase of an additional 300 KVA generator, as well as compatible cabling, distribution boxes, and transfers + + + - + + + + + + + - N + N N N N N + + N 13 2 7 Moderate Priority Create a support trailer for emergency deployment with generator use + + + - + + + + + + + - N + N N N N N + + N 13 2 7 Moderate Priority Purchase of eighteen 6.5, 7, 8 kW generators with support power strips and extension cords and cables + + + - + + + + + + + - N + N N N N N + + N 13 2 7 Moderate Priority Purchase two VMS signs fro deployment prior to and during emergencies and events to promote public safety and awareness. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 22 Moderate Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 374 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Replace OEM radios, and use current radios as a surge cache for emergency response and events N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 22 Moderate Priority Creation of a specific asset inventory across Philadelphia City agencies which catalogues resources. + + + - + + + + - + + + N + N N N N N + + N 13 2 7 Moderate Priority Formalize the process fo resource tracking, receiving, and distributoin for large emergencies or events. + + + - + + + + - + + + N + N N N N N + + N 13 2 7 Moderate Priority Create a mobile feeding and commodity distribution plan. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + N 21 0 1 Highest Priority Formalize resource requesting plan for preevent resource requests that may impact a widespread area to streamline resource distribution. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + N 21 0 1 Highest Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 375 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Create five mass care and sheltering trailers. N N N N + N + + N N + N N + N N N N N N N N 5 0 17 Moderate Priority Assessment for quick connect prioritization for city facilities. N N N - N N N - + N + - - - N N N N N N + N 3 5 14 Moderate Priority Train Health and Human Service staff and partners in continuity of operations plan and mitigation measures. + N - - N N + N + N + + N - N N N N N N + N 6 3 13 Moderate Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 376 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Flood Prevention for Electrical Substations in Terminal A-East:installing a new 15 HP, 1200 GPM to increase the storm water pumping capacity, furnishing and installing of flood prevention planks at the substation entrances, furnishing and installing the four new oil-filled switches to allow substations to be isolated electrically and replacement of existing fire alarm and fire protection system with a new pre-action sprinkler system N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 22 Moderate Priority Install electrical substation upgrades/flood control at A-East N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 22 Moderate Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 377 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P G1/G2/FLV3 emergency and nonemergency generator engine rehabilitation and electrical upgrades + + + - + + + + + + + - N + N N N N N + + N 13 2 7 Moderate Priority Upgrade/repair stormwater infrastructure near terminal complex. + + + - + + + + + + + - N + N N N N N + + N 0 0 1 Moderate Priority Implement an Asset Management System (under development) N N N + - N N + + + + + N + N N N N N N + N 8 1 13 Moderate Priority Conduct a flood risk analysis - compile/map all areas at PHL at greatest risk of flooding during 100-yr and 500-yr flood events N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 22 Moderate Priority Update the Airport Flood Emergency Response Plan (AFERP) with Operations, Engineering, and Planning N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 22 Moderate Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 378 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Meet quarterly with VOAD partners to maintain preparedness, ensure situational awareness, identify resource capabilities, and build stakeholder relationships predisaster. + + + + + + + N + N + + N + N N N N N N + N 12 0 10 Moderate Priority Partner with community leaders and stakeholders for the development of materials for READYCommunity to increase community preparedness and mitigation. + + + + + + + + - + + + + - N N N N N + + N 14 2 6 Moderate Priority Provide technical assistance to communities in the development of community emergency plans. + + + + + + + N + N + + N + N N N N N N + N 12 0 10 Moderate Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 379 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P + + + + + + + N + N + + N + N N N N N + N Mitigation Action and Description Maintaining relationships with universities and colleges within Philadelphia to support emergency planning, training, and exercises between the City and higher educational facilities. N Not Applicable N Obtain vehicles and personnel to assist in the transportation of homeless and vulnerable populations prior to or following an incident Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 12 0 10 Moderate Priority N 0 0 1 Moderate Priority Improve/enhance flood vulnerability data. Enhance planning by using surveys to more accurately define flood vulnerability. + + + + + + + + - + + + + - N N N N N + + N 14 2 6 Moderate Priority Update City of Philadelphia Building Codes. - - - + - + + + + + + + N N + N N + + + - N 12 5 5 Moderate Priority 380 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Update City of Philadelphia zoning maps. - - + + - - N + + + + + + + + + + + + + + N 16 4 2 Moderate Priority Include public facilities in capital planning. + + + + + N N + + + + + + + + N N N + + + N 16 0 6 Moderate Priority Create a brownfield reuse and mitigation plan and procedure. + + + - - + N + + + + + N - + + + + + + + N 16 3 3 Moderate Priority Utilize district planning as a method to communicate about risks as Philadelphia2035 moves forward. + + + + - + + + - + + + + + + + + + + + + N 19 2 1 High Priority Conduct logistics staging sites assessment for City agency use during an emergency. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + N 21 0 1 Highest Priority Create zoning and development awareness programs to inform planning processes that may be impacted by hazardous material train derailments. + + - - - + + + + + + + N - N N N + + + + N 13 4 5 Moderate Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 381 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Coordinate with construction community for large scale emergency responses. + + + + - + N + - N + + N + N N N N + + + N 12 2 8 Moderate Priority Train L&I in damage assessment policies and procedures + + + + + + N + + N + + + - N N N N + + + N 14 1 7 Moderate Priority Establish public outreach programs in L&I. + + - - - + N + + + + + N - N N N N + + + N 11 4 7 Moderate Priority Update inundation mapping. + + + + + + + + + + + + N + + + + + + + + N 20 0 2 High Priority Provide air quality alerts to the public. + + + + - + + + + + + + N + N N N N + + + N 15 1 6 Moderate Priority Upgrade or replace the contaminant warning system to maintain optimal function. N N N - - N N + + + + - N - + N N + + + + N 9 4 9 Moderate Priority Elevate electrical and HVAC equipment at Lardner's Point Pumping Station. + + N N + N N + + N + + N N N N N N N N N N 7 0 15 Moderate Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 382 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Elevate electrical and HVAC equipment at ehabilitation of Baxter Emergency Intake Building Equipment. + + N N + N N + + N + + N N N N N N N N N N 7 0 15 Moderate Priority Elevate electrical and HVAC equipment at Queen Lane Raw Water Intake switch gear and generator. + + N N + N N + + N + + N N N N N N N N N N 7 0 15 Moderate Priority Acquire properties that are prone to historic repetitive losses or damage from flooding. - - + - + - - + + + + + N - + + + + + + + N 14 6 2 Moderate Priority Elevate electrical and HVAC equipment at Waterworks. + + + - - + N + + + + + + - + N N + + + + N 15 3 4 Moderate Priority Have standard pickup trucks upgraded for plowing and salting when purchased. + + N N - + + + + N + - + N N N N N N N N N 8 2 12 Moderate Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 383 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Construction of additional chemical dosing boosters and flushers throughout the city to maintain water quality. + + + + - + + + + + + - N - + N N + + + + N 15 3 4 Moderate Priority Upgrade of various wastewater and stormwater pump stations to handle increased flows from wet weather events. + + + + - + + + + + + - N - + N N + + + + N 15 3 4 Moderate Priority Upgrade P-796 at the Navy Yard Design to handle increased flows from wet weather events. + + + + - + + + + + + - N - + N N + + + + N 15 3 4 Moderate Priority Upgrade Mingo Creek Pumping Station to handle increased flows from wet weather events. + + + + - + + + + + + - N - + N N + + + + N 15 3 4 Moderate Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 384 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Addition of effluent and outfall pumping station to a water pollution control plant to pump treated water to the river during extreme wet weather events and high tide. + + + - - + + + + + + - N - + N N + + + + N 14 4 4 Moderate Priority Addition of effluent and outfall pumping station to Northeast Water Pollution Control Plant Outfall and Effluent Pumping Station to pump treated water to the river during extreme wet weather events and high tide. + + + - - + + + + + + - N - + N N + + + + N 14 4 4 Moderate Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 385 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Addition of wastewater and stormwater pumps and storage in various locations throughout the system and facilities to send more water to the water pollution control plants during wet weather events. + + + - - + + + + + + - N - + N N + + + + N 14 4 4 Moderate Priority Relocate Queen Lane Raw Water Intake to ensure reliable source during droughts and winter storms. + + + - - + + + + + + - N - + N N + + + + N 14 4 4 Moderate Priority Relocate Belmont Raw Water Pump Station Intake to ensure reliable source during droughts and winter storms. + + + - - + + + + + + - N - + N N + + + + N 14 4 4 Moderate Priority Replace Baxter Raw Water Basin Intake to ensure reliable source during droughts and winter storms. + + + - - + + + + + + - N - + N N + + + + N 14 4 4 Moderate Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 386 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Rehabilitate Baxter Emergency Intake Building Equipment to ensure reliable source during droughts and winter storms. + + + - - + + + + + + - N - + N N + + + + N 14 4 4 Moderate Priority Build additional finished water storage and rehab. Current finished water storage at East Park to ensure that water can be supplied during extreme weather events or other system-disrupting events. + + + - - + + + + + + - N - + N N + + + + N 14 4 4 Moderate Priority Build additional finished water storage and rehab current finished water storage at Baxter Clearwell Basins to ensure that water can be supplied during extreme weather events or other system-disrupting events. + + + - - + + + + + + - N - + N N + + + + N 14 4 4 Moderate Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 387 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Rehabilitate Queen Lane Raw Water Pumping Station to make the station more resilient in order to deliver water during extreme weather events. + + + - - + + + + + + - N - + N N + + + + N 14 4 4 Moderate Priority Rehabilitate Belmont Raw Water Pump Station and Intake to make the station more resilient in order to deliver water during extreme weather events. + + + - - + + + + + + - N - + N N + + + + N 14 4 4 Moderate Priority Upgrade Lardner's Point Pumping Station to make the station more resilient in order to deliver water during extreme weather events. + + + - - + + + + + + - N - + N N + + + + N 14 4 4 Moderate Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 388 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Upgrade West Oak Lane to make the station more resilient in order to deliver water during extreme weather events. + + + - - + + + + + + - N - + N N + + + + N 14 4 4 Moderate Priority Rehabilitate Baxter Emergency Intake building equipment to make the structure more resilient in order to handle intake during extreme weather events. + + + - - + + + + + + - N - + N N + + + + N 14 4 4 Moderate Priority Install back up generators at Lardner's Point Pumping Stations to ensure operations during power outages. + + + - + + + + + + + - N + N N N N N + + N 13 2 7 Moderate Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 389 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Install back up generators and switchgear at Queen Lane Raw Pump Station to ensure operations during power outages. + + + - + + + + + + + - N + N N N N N + + N 13 2 7 Moderate Priority Install back up generators at West Oak Lane to ensure operations during power outages. + + + - + + + + + + + - N + N N N N N + + N 13 2 7 Moderate Priority Install standby generator at Belmont Raw Water Pumping Station to ensure operations during power outages. + + + - + + + + + + + - N + N N N N N + + N 13 2 7 Moderate Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 390 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Build additional water mains to provide better system redundancy and resiliency. + + + - - + + + + + + - N - + N N + + + + N 14 4 4 Moderate Priority Establish contracts with outside companies to assist with debris removal following a disaster. + + + + - + + + - + + + N + + N N + + + + N 16 2 4 Moderate Priority Establish open end contracts with construction companies for emergency bridge and road repairs. + + + + - + + + - + + + N + + N N + + + + N 16 2 4 Moderate Priority Establish open end contracts with construction companies for emergency building demolision. + + + + - + + + - + + + N + + N N + + + + N 16 2 4 Moderate Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 391 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Establish open end contracts with construction companies for emergency vegetation management. + + + + - + + + - + + + N + + N N + + + + N 16 2 4 Moderate Priority Purchase and maintain hyper-local streetlevel weather stations to assist in salting, flooding, and plowing operations. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 22 Moderate Priority Purchase and maintain drop-gates for known dangerous roads during emergency events, particularly along Cobbs Creek, for Bells Mill Road, and on Delaware Ave N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 22 Moderate Priority Clean and maintain streams and canals of debris prior to and following weather events. + + - + - + + + - + + + + + + N N + + + + N 16 3 3 Moderate Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 392 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Purchase additional sweepers to assist in debris removal prior to and following flooding events. + + + - - + N + + + + + N - N N N N + + + N 12 3 7 Moderate Priority Purchase additional flusher trucks for use during flooding events. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 22 Moderate Priority Purchase additional brining trucks for brining operations prior to winter storm events. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 22 Moderate Priority Purchase additional salting trucks for brining operations prior to and during winter storm events. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 22 Moderate Priority Purchase additional chipers to assist in limb maintenance, reducing debris, and downed vegetation prior to and following storms N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 22 Moderate Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 393 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Purchase additional fuel truck for refueling vehicles during staging and response for emergency events, as well as for refueling generators and un-moveable equipment deployed during emergency events. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 22 Moderate Priority Develop a list of City owned property that can temporarily be used to store emergency debris & snow (by district). + - N N + - + + + N + + + N + N N N N - + N 10 3 9 Moderate Priority Creation of a tactical guide for flood preevent actions and response activities + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + N 21 0 1 Highest Priority Enlarge culverts of the Poquessing Creek tributaries to protect roadway and residences. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 22 Moderate Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 394 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Buy equipment to upgrade capability to survey flood prone bridges and roads. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 22 Moderate Priority Construct ground water interceptors to capture water seeping from rock outcrops to prevent constant ice accumulation on Lincoln and Kelly Drives. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 22 Moderate Priority Establish a smart detour plan for flooding of Wissahickon Creek, Schuylkill River and Cobbs Creek. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 22 Moderate Priority Install GPS on all storm operations vehicles. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 22 Moderate Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 395 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Establish an open-end contract to purchase or rent material/equipment for unforeseen events. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 22 Moderate Priority Install battery back-up traffic signal controllers (75,000 each) 10% of signals in City. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 22 Moderate Priority Purchase portable trailer lights for each Streets Department facility or yard. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 22 Moderate Priority Equip drawbridges with back-up generators N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 22 Moderate Priority Procure a hi-rail bucket truck + + + + + + + + - + + + - + + + + + + + + N 19 2 1 High Priority Increase bridge inspection training + + + + + + + + - + + + + + + + + + + + + N 20 1 1 High Priority Procure three more high reach bucket trucks + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + N 21 0 1 Highest Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 396 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Renew/ review emergency crane contracts + + + + + + + + - + + + + + + + + + + + + N 20 1 1 High Priority Operationalize IPAWS for city use - + + + + + + - + + + + + + + + + + + - - N 17 4 1 Moderate Priority Revise city-wide evacuation planning + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + N 21 0 1 Highest Priority Procure traffic detour modelling software + + - + - + + + + + + - + + + + + + + + + N 18 3 1 High Priority Procure pedestrian modelling software + + - + - + + + + + + - + + + + + + + + + N 18 3 1 High Priority Conduct logistics center planning + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + N 21 0 1 Highest Priority Revise Mass Care and shelter plan + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + N 21 0 1 Highest Priority Develop surge staffing for expanded shelters + + - - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + N 19 2 1 Identify logistics staging sites + + - - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + N 19 2 1 Pre-identify POD locations + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + N 21 0 1 Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority High Priority High Priority Highest Priority 397 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Procure two refrigerated semi-tractor trailers + - + - + + + + - + - + + + + + + + + + + N 17 4 1 Moderate Priority Conduct logistics operations functional exercises + + + + + + + + - + + + + + + + + + + + + N 20 1 1 High Priority Conduct preparedness workshops within crude rail transport corridors + + + + + + + + - + + + - + + + + + + + + N 19 2 1 High Priority Expand SPOT training for all PPD personnel + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + N 21 0 1 Highest Priority Expand cot and DME/G caches + + + - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + N 20 1 1 High Priority Establish emergency contracts for 500kW/1mW generators + + - - - + + + - + + + + + + + + + + + + N 17 4 1 Moderate Priority Expand the EOC to accommodate 90 liaisons + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + N 21 0 1 Highest Priority Enhance THIRA process to identify resource gaps + + + - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + N 20 1 1 High Priority Conduct additional medical countermeasure exercises + + - - + + + - + + + + + + + + + + + + + N 18 3 1 High Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 398 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Conduct mass casualty exercises + + - - + + + + - + + + + - + + + + + + + N 17 4 1 Moderate Priority Develop educational and promotional video series to educate and increase public awareness of City hazards and response plans. + + + + + + + + N N + + N - N N N N + + + N 13 1 8 Moderate Priority Determine low-lying substation vulnerabilities and outline options for adaptation and mitigation; coordinate with DOE on their vulnerable infrastructure studies + + + + + + N + - + + + + - N N N N + + + N 14 2 6 Moderate Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 399 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Preparing, adopting, implementing, and updating a comprehensive long-term recovery plan to direct how and where state or federal disaster recovery funds are used to rebuild resilient communities + + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + + + + + + N 20 1 1 High Priority Develop individual hazard management plans for historic structures that take climate change impacts into account; if necessary, consider moving the structure to a safer location + + + - - + N + + + + - N - N N N N + + + N 11 4 7 Moderate Priority Identify dead and falling trees along pathways and roads for removal. + + + - - + + + - + + + + - + + + + + + + N 17 4 1 Moderate Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 400 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Purchase Cyclomedia software to assist in the identification of high priority areas for the removal of dead and falling trees. + + - - - + + + + + + - N - + + N + + + + N 14 5 3 Moderate Priority Establish a policy based on need and funding availability for a regular pruning cycle for city trees. + + + + + + + + + + + + N + + N N + + + + N 18 0 4 High Priority Decrease the backlog of 2,000+ tree maintenance and removal projects to reduce unpruned and dead trees falling on power lines during storm events. + + - - - + + + - + + + + - + + + + + + + N 16 5 1 Moderate Priority Purchase eight (8) additional chippers to assist in limb maintenance, reducing debris, and downed vegetation prior to and following storms + + + - - + + + + + + + N - + N N + + + + N 15 3 4 Moderate Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 401 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Construct ground water interceptors to capture water seeping from rock outcrops to prevent constant ice accumulation on Lincoln and Kelly Drives. + + + - - + + + - + + + N - + N N + + + + N 14 4 4 Moderate Priority Expand the study of Southern plant species by 30 acres using sustainable planting practices in preparation for increasing temperatures over the next century. + + + - - + + + + + + + + - + + N + + + + N 17 3 2 Moderate Priority Establish open end contracts with construction companies for emergency vegetation management. + + - - + + + + + + + + + + N N + + + + + N 17 2 3 Moderate Priority Complete outstanding follow-up items from the most recent Community Assistance Visit. + - + + + - - + + + + - N - + N N N + + + N 12 5 5 Moderate Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 402 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P Investigate the possibility of consolidating floodplain management licensing and inspection responsibilities into one or two positions. + + - + + + N N + N + + N N N N N N + + + N 11 1 10 Moderate Priority Assess properties which may benefit from elevation, acquisition, relocation, or retrofitting. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 22 Moderate Priority Elevate, acquire, relocate, or retrofit those repetitive loss properties that benefit from such actions. + + + - - - N + + + + - + - + N N N + + + N 12 5 5 Moderate Priority Mitigation Action and Description Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 403 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P + + + + + + + + - + + + + N N N N N N + + N 14 1 7 Moderate Priority + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + N + + + + + + 21 0 1 Highest Priority + + + + + + + + - + + + + + N N + + + + + + 19 1 2 High Priority + + - - + + + + - + + - N - + N + + + + + + 15 5 2 Moderate Priority + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 22 0 0 Highest Priority Mitigation Action and Description Support resiliency of the City’s private sector though information sharing, partnership building, training and education on preparedness, COOP, mitigation principles and Philadelphia’s HMP. Support regulations to improve resiliency of buildings in areas facing increased risk of flood with the Flood Risk Management Task Force Create a guide on steps that commercial and residential property owners can take to make their existing buildings more resilient to climate change Examine and evaluate the strategy of using rolling easements to assist in adapting to the potential consequences of sea level rise. Acknowledging and addressing climate change issues, concerns, and impacts in Philadelphia2035 district plans. N Not Applicable Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 404 PA STEEL Criteria Considerations + Favorable - Less favorable N Not Applicable Technically Feasible Long-Term Solution Secondary Impacts Benefit of Action Cost of Action Contributes to Economic Goals Outside Funding Required Effect on Land / Water Effect on Endangered Species Effect on HAZMAT / Waste Site Consistent w/ Community Environmental Goals Consistent w/ Federal Laws State Authority Existing Local Authority Potential Legal Challenge Legal Effect on Segment of Population L Environmental Community Acceptance E Economic Maintenance/ Operations E Technical Funding Allocation T Social Staffing S Administrative Public Support A Political Political Support P - + - - + + - + + + + - + - + N N + + + + - 13 7 2 Moderate Priority + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + N + + + + + 21 0 1 Highest Priority Develop planning and zoning recommendations for hazardous material transportation throughout the City. + + + - + + + + - + + + + - + N + + + + + - 17 4 1 Moderate Priority Develop a software platform to share flooding event information across departments in real-time as well as historically. + + + - + + + - + + + - + - + N N + + + + + 16 4 2 Moderate Priority Promote sustainable, mitigation-driven redevelopment for City-acquired properties. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 22 0 0 Highest Priority Mitigation Action and Description Evaluate properties buyout feasibility for structures that are damaged or at high risk of damage from sea level rise or storm events both reactively over time as properties are damaged, or proactively for properties that are at a high risk for flooding. Continuously update and improve zoning maps and codes to encourage uses, buildings, and site improvements that reduce exterior and interior heat island effects. Total Favorable Total Less Favorable Total Not Applicable Priority 405 7 Plan Maintenance 7.1 Update Process Summary In accordance with state and federal guidelines, the HMP includes a plan maintenance process to ensure that the plan remains an active and relevant document. The maintenance process outlines a method and schedule for monitoring, evaluating and updating the plan, and describes how, when and by whom the work will be done. This section also includes an explanation on how the City will incorporate mitigation actions into existing planning mechanisms, such as comprehensive plans and ordinances, and a description on the public’s continued involvement. 7.2 Monitoring, Evaluation and Updating the Plan The Office of Emergency Management (OEM) will review the plan on an annual basis, as well as following a major hazardous incident or disaster, or relevant training and exercise events. The planning committee intends to remain intact as the organization responsible for monitoring, evaluating and updating Philadelphia’s HMP. OEM will continue to act as the coordinating agency for the planning committee.The next hazard for inclusion is utility interruption. This human-caused hazard’s full analysis will be completed in the year following approval of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan and amended onto the Plan following drafting and approval by the City of Philadelphia, PEMA, and FEMA. Additionally, the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission is conducting historical mitigation assessments for Philadelphia as part of a larger mitigation assessment project. The mitigation action recommendations and historical mitigation information will be appended to the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan following the conclusion of the project and pending City, PEMA, and FEMA approval. Each participating planning committee member will monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of their agency’s projects, programs and policies. The Planning Committee will also look at any changes in City resources that may influence the plan implementation or mitigation action feasibility. The Planning Committee will evaluate the content of the 2017 HMP using the following criteria:      Are the mitigation actions effective? Are those actions listed under future mitigation actions still feasible? Are projects changing priority based on the shifting physical, economic, or political landscape of the City? Are there any changes in land development that affect mitigation priorities? Are the goals, objectives, and mitigation actions relevant given changes in Philadelphia? 406 Are the goals, objectives and mitigation actions relevant given any changes to state or federal regulations or policy?  Is there new data that affects the Risk Assessment portion of the plan?  Is there new data that affects the Capability Assessment portion of the plan?  Is there new data that affects the prioritization of mitigation actions? In addition to ongoing high-level review, OEM will continue to update the Philadelphia HMP plan every five years, as required by FEMA.  7.3 Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms With OEM oversight, each planning committee member’s department or office is responsible for implementing its specific mitigation actions identified in this plan. This includes incorporating these actions into other planning documents, such as comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances, as necessary. Agencies are responsible for obtaining funds from outside sources to implement the mitigation actions. OEM will continue to monitor potential funding sources to support projects listed in the mitigation plan, but City departments/offices are ultimately responsible for applications and reporting procedures for grants. 7.4 Continued Public Involvement Philadelphia is committed to the continued involvement of the public in the hazard mitigation process. During all phases of plan maintenance, the public will have the opportunity to view and provide feedback on the HMP via OEM’s website, an online survey, and OEM email. A hard copy of the plan may be viewed in-person by request. OEM will compile all comments and present them to the Planning Committee during meetings or during targeted outreach, depending on the nature and subject of the comments. The planning committee will consider these comments for incorporation in future plan amendments and updates. OEM will continue to attend public meetings with partner agencies to promote awareness and solicit useful feedback on the mitigation plan. 407 8 Plan Adoption Adoption by the local governing bodies demonstrates the commitment of Philadelphia to fulfill the mitigation goals and objectives outlined in the HMP. Adoption legitimizes the HMP and authorizes responsible agencies to execute their responsibilities. The HMP was submitted to the Pennsylvania State Hazard Mitigation Officer for submission to FEMA on [DATE] Philadelphia will proceed with formal adoption proceedings when FEMA provides conditional approval of this HMP. Following adoption of the HMP, Philadelphia will submit a copy of the resolution showing formal adoption of the HMP to PEMA, who will then forward the acceptance to FEMA. 408 9 Annex: Hazard Mitigation Plan Kick-off Meeting Hazard Mitigation Plan Kick-Off Meeting Thursday, November 12, 2015 1:00 PM, Emergency Operations Center, Fire Administration Building Note/Actions Agenda Item Time Allotted 1. Introductions 2 minutes  20 minutes  3. PEMA and FEMA Hazard Mitigation Discussion 10 minutes  4. Working Group Discussions (see reverse for group assignment) 10 minutes  5. Questions and discussion 5 minutes  6. Action items/next steps 3 minutes  2. Hazard Mitigation Kick-Off Presentation  Hazard Mitigation in the Office of Emergency Management  Introduction to Hazard Mitigation Planning  Updating Process and Timeline  Plan Components, Inclusions, and Expansions 409 Hazard Ml?gatlon Kick-Of! Meeting November 12.2o1s.1:9o PM Nam Agency Phone E-ueu Dam ?Elk Qua Managgmf (my 16% My; .1511? C3 214. GQIH 'Pawx E?srt?v (olo- 352- 5903 gov. M?zczoee ?g W. 4/92 am {7 7g Wieageegpmw MW MW 02M m. 6222144 mum/liva/?h/kzgo/ Map? ?w aways - Row .g?wfm.w H1500 Mu?k?n FWD 207 563 {359 alma-wmwc?phziav 0V MN MCIQKW DUO (as? gaw Much yo? am (00% (We @Xm ?mm? 4&4 160 am. @v QM ?aw? 7? ??73 w.mca@m.w ?aw/y ?(to/j PHM 518'? 0??l Jae/70.2511 @pejpv 410 gm Hazard Mitigation Kick-Oi! Meeting November 12, 2015. 1:00 PM Name Agency Phone E-Ilall pg I Wk 7?19-6253 ck?ts?fad'aan palm 2:47 Cm (Cams:? MC, QKGUR ke?? be .C'pq 45w 7% ??10 a 405 gqco ?Maw Nae/H m? 73m, mm elm/mm Q/iuqn . mam famwl A103 FDPH QWW WA uS- 93? Rwy a 0.1L 1545/1/41 6587 253?" am?. Gamma W4 mm 1405/76 :l/M Low-v2- 14-5554? 79?? 5724 gt yam/W?? 34$ 94?} dwa- '7 Ff 21$- bee-sto . Diving? Go/ 411 10 Annex: Past Drought Declarations The following table captures those instances of drought between 1980 and 2015. Summary of Declared Drought Status from 1980-2015 Drought Phase Drought Watch Date August 2011 – September 2011 October 2007 – January 2008 April 2006 – June 2006 November 2001 – December 2001 September 1999 – February 2000 March 1999 – June 1999 December 1998 September 1992 – January 1993 July 1988 – December 1988 412 September 2010 – November 2010 November 2002 – December 2002 December 2001 – February 2002 June 1999 – July 1999 October 1997 – January 1998 November 1995 – December 1995 September 1995 September 1991 – September 1992 Drought Warning March 1989 – May 1989 January 1985 – April 1985 November 1982 – March 1983 September 2002 – November 2002 February 2002 – June 2002 July 1999 – September 1999 September 1995 – November 1995 April 1985 – December 1985 November 1980 – April 1982 Drought Emergency Totals Total Drought Watches 9 Total Drought Warnings 12 Total Drought Emergencies 6 413 11 Annex: Past Occurrences of Earthquakes in or around Southeast Pennsylvania The table on the following pages uses the USGS data to identify those earthquakes with epicenters in or around Southeast Pennsylvania. Catalog of Earthquakes with Epicenters in or around Southeast Pennsylvania [1] 356 (Philadelphia epicenters indicated in bold) Date Location Magnitude Intensity 5/27/2011 Philadelphia, PA 1.7 I 7/27/1999 Warwick, PA N/A N/A 5/31/1999 Columbus, NJ 2.3 N/A 10/27/1998 Centerville, DE 1.5 II 3/25/1998 Salem, NJ 1.9 N/A 3/19/1998 Wilmington, DE 1.7 I-II 3/15/1998 Wilmington, DE 1.8 III 4/16/1997 Talleyville, DE 1.6 III-IV 3/11/1997 Pineville, PA 1.6 N/A 1/29/1997 Wilmington, DE 1.4 II 10/17/1996 Nottingham, PA 2.2 N/A 7/5/1996 Glen Mills, PA 2.6 N/A 6/23/1996 Wilmington, DE 1.7 I-II 6/14/1996 Wilmington, DE 2.1 II-III 12/20/1995 Wilmington, DE 1.4 I-II 10/17/1995 Wilmington, DE 2 II 4/23/1994 Wilmington, DE 2 I-II 2/11/1994 Wilmington, DE 1.9 I 11/8/1993 Wilmington, DE 1.7 I-II 2/26/1993 Haddonfield, NJ 2.5 IV 5/15/1992 Milford, PA 1.6 N/A 9/29/1991 Magnolia, NJ 2.2 N/A 10/23/1990 Salem, NJ 2.9 V 3/30/1990 Downingtown, PA 1.8 N/A 2/2/1989 Perkasie, PA N/A N/A 12/6/1987 Columbus, NJ 2.1 N/A 9/15/1986 Roebling, NJ 1.9 N/A Earthquake: Custom Region (North: 41.215, South: 39.065, West: -76.245, East: 73.564). USGS. Retrieved December 7, 2015. 356 414 5/2/1986 10/20/1985 10/11/1985 10/20/1984 5/10/1984 2/15/1984 1/20/1984 1/19/1984 12/12/1983 11/17/1983 5/12/1982 4/12/1982 8/30/1980 5/2/1980 3/11/1980 3/5/1980 3/2/1980 2/10/1977 3/11/1975 4/28/1974 7/10/1973 2/28/1973 11/29/1972 11/27/1972 11/26/1972 8/14/1972 2/11/1972 1/23/1972 1/22/1972 1/7/1972 1/3/1972 1/2/1972 12/29/1971 7/14/1971 12/10/1968 12/27/1961 1/8/1944 11/15/1939 12/3/1937 Wilmington, DE Wilmington, DE Wilmington, DE Wilmington, DE Hatfield, PA Wilmington, DE Wilmington, DE Wilmington, DE Wilmington, DE Wilmington, DE Penndel, PA Burlington, NJ Medford, NJ Abington, PA Abington, PA Abington, PA Abington, PA Wilmington, DE Wilmington, DE Centerville, DE Newark, DE Penns Grove, NJ Wilmington, DE Wilmington, DE Wilmington, DE Wilmington, DE Wilmington, DE Wilmington, DE Wilmington, DE Wilmington, DE Wilmington, DE Wilmington, DE Wilmington, DE Wilmington, DE Medford, NJ Croyden Heights, PA Bellefonte, DE Folsom, NJ Deepwater, NJ 2.5 1.7 1.9 1.7 2.2 1.5 1.8 2.5 2.4 2.9 2.4 2.8 3 2.8 2.8 3.5 2.8 2.6 2 3.3 3.3 3.8 N/A 2.4 2.4 3.3 3.2 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 3.3 3.3 3 3.3 3.2 3.8 2.8 N/A III-IV III-IV III-IV N/A I-II I-II IV IV V II V N/A N/A N/A IV N/A VI VI IV IV V-VI III-IV III-IV III-IV IV V IV IV IV IV IV IV IV V V V V IV-V 415 1/26/1926 1/26/1921 4/29/1900 11/20/1895 9/10/1877 10/10/1871 10/9/1871 2/10/1857 <1840 11/23/1777 3/22/1763 12/17/1752 12/8/1737 Cinnaminson, NJ Cinnaminson, NJ Gloucester City, NJ Centerville, DE Roebling, NJ Deepwater, NJ Deepwater, NJ Columbus, NJ Philadelphia, PA Darby, PA Darby, PA Sadsburyville, PA Media, PA 3.5 3.3 N/A N/A 3.2 N/A 4.1 3.1 N/A N/A N/A 3.6 N/A N/A V IV IV IV IV VII N/A I III III IV IV 416 12 Annex: Flooding Past Occurrences Flooding: Declared Disaster History 1955-2015 357 358 Date October 2012 Type Hurricane Sandy Emergency Measures Declaration for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation August 2011 Gubernatorial and Presidential – Major Disaster for Individual Assistance, Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation June 2006 358 Gubernatorial and Presidential – Major Disaster for Individual Assistance, Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation September Tropical Storm 2011 Lee Hurricane Irene Tropical September Depression 2006 Ernesto 357 Action Proclamation of Emergency Flooding Gubernatorial Gubernatorial and Presidential – Major Disaster for Individual Assistance, Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation Proclamation of September Emergency 2005 Katrina Gubernatorial September Tropical 2004 Depression Ivan Major Disaster for Individual Assistance August 2004 Major Disaster for Individual Assistance and Hazard Mitigation Severe Storm & Flooding September Hurricane 2003 Isabel/Henri Gubernatorial and Presidential Declaration – Major Disaster September Hurricane Floyd 1999 Gubernatorial and Presidential Declaration – Major Disaster Currently Declared Disasters. PEMA. Retrieved December 3, 2015. Presidential Disaster Declarations for Pennsylvania. FEMA. Retrieved December 3, 2015. 417 Severe Storms/ Tornadoes Gubernatorial January 1996 Flooding Gubernatorial and Presidential – Major Disaster for Individual Assistance, Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation July 1994 Flooding SBA – Physical Disaster and Economic Injury Disaster Loans June 1972 Flood (Agnes) President’s Declaration of Major Disaster – Governor’s Proclamation June 1998 September Flood 1971 Governor’s Proclamation & President’s Declaration of Major Disaster September Flood Diane 1955 President’s Declaration of Major Disaster 418 13 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Survey MUNICIPALITY: PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 1. FLOODPLAIN IDENTIFICATION AND MAPPING Requirement Recommended Action Yes/No Comments a. Does the municipality maintain accessible copies of an effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)/Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM)? Does the municipality maintain accessible copies of the most recent Flood Insurance Study (FIS)? Place these documents in the local libraries or make available publicly. Yes Available over the counter with assistance from the Planning Commission staff. They are also available at the Main Branch of the Free Library, 1901 Vine Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103. Open from 9 am – 9 pm weekly, 9 am – 5 pm on weekends. b. Has the municipality adopted the most current DFIRM/FIRM and FIS? State the date of adoption, if approved. Yes November 18, 2015 Yes Guidance is provided by the Planning Commission for individual floodplain amendment applications. Flood Risk Management Task Force will review any larger potential map updates for scope, viability, and available resources. Yes As needed. To date all map revisions have been FEMA modeling driven, but additional modeling results and data could be supplied in the future. Information would be conveyed to FEMA via the Flood Risk Management Task Force membership. c. Does the municipality support request for map updates? d. Does the municipality share with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) any new technical or scientific data that could result in map revisions within 6 months of creation or identification of new data? If yes, state how. If yes, specify how. e. Does the municipality provide assistance with local floodplain determinations? If yes, specify how. Yes Philadelphia Water Department Riverine Modeling staff reviewed the 2015 FEMA map update modeling study for accuracy and concurrence with other modeling efforts. f. Does the municipality maintain a record of approved Letters of Map Change? If yes, specify the responsible office. Yes The Planning Commission currently maintains the record of approved Letters of Map Change. 419 2. FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT Requirement a. Has the municipality adopted a compliant floodplain management ordinance that, at a minimum, regulates the following: Recommended Action If yes, answer questions (1) through (4) below. Yes/No Comments Yes (1) Does the municipality issue permits for all proposed development in the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs)? If yes, specify the office responsible. Yes The Department of License and Inspection issues permits for all proposed development in the SFHA, after an initial review by the Planning Commission to determine location and base flood elevation. (2) Does the municipality obtain, review, and utilize any Base Flood Elevation (BFE) and floodway data, and/or require BFE data for subdivision proposals and other development proposals larger than 50 lots or 5 acres? If yes, specify the office responsible. Yes The Planning Commission maintains & utilizes BFE data in the review of any proposed development in the SFHA. (3) Does the municipality identify measures to keep all new and substantially improved construction reasonably safe from flooding to or above the BFE, including anchoring, using flood-resistant materials, and designing or locating utilities and service facilities to prevent water damage? If yes, specify the office responsible. Yes The Department of License and Inspection identifies building code and flood ordinance compliance issues, and best practice recommendations, during the permitting process. (4) Does the municipality document and maintain records of elevation data that document lowest floor elevation for new or substantially improved structures? If yes, specify the office responsible. Yes The Department of License and Inspection document and maintain records of elevation data for new or substantially improved structures in the SFHA. Yes The Department of License and Inspection has the authority to monitor compliance and take remedial action to correct violations. b. If a compliant floodplain ordinance was adopted, does the municipality enforce the ordinance by monitoring compliance and taking remedial action to correct violations? If yes, specify how. 420 2. FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT Requirement Recommended Action Yes/No Comments c. Has the municipality considered adopting activities that extend beyond the minimum requirements? Examples include:  Participation in the Community Rating System  Prohibition of production or storage of chemicals in SFHA  Prohibition of certain types of structures, such as hospitals, nursing homes, and jails in SFHA  Prohibition of certain types of residential housing (manufactured homes) in SFHA  Floodplain ordinances that prohibit any new residential or nonresidential structures in SFHA If yes, specify activities. Yes Recommended Action Yes/No Production and storage of chemicals in SFHA is prohibited, as are hospitals, nursing homes, and jails. Manufactured homes are not permitted anywhere in Philadelphia, not just in the SFHA. Participation in the Community Rating System will be under consideration by the Flood Risk Management Task Force once our CAV review process is complete. 3. FLOOD INSURANCE Requirement Comments a. Does the municipality educate community members about the availability and value of flood insurance? If yes, specify how. Yes A letter was sent out to all properties in the SFHA for the 2015 map update that included links to NFIP information. The need for flood insurance has been communicated in person at multiple community meetings by both the Office of Emergency Management and Water Department. Links to the NFIP are included on the website of the Office of Emergency Management. A citizens Flood Guide is currently in design for distribution at future community meetings and events. b. Does the municipality inform community property owners about changes to the DFIRM/FIRM that would impact their insurance rates? If yes, specify how. Yes See comment for (a). A public meeting was also held prior to the map update to provide individual guidance to property owners that might be impacted. 421 c. Does the municipality provide general assistance to community members regarding insurance issues? If yes, specify how. Yes Informally, at community meetings, and in the permit review process by the Planning Commission and Department of License and Inspection. The Planning Commission will provide a letter for free stating if your property is in or out, zone, and elevation. This is usually used with mortgage refinancing. 422 14 Annex: Capability Assessment Survey Capability Assessment Survey Point of Contact Name: Agency: Point of Contact Title: Phone: E-mail: Please provide an approximate measure of your agency’s capability to effectively implement hazard mitigation strategies to reduce hazard vulnerabilities. Using the following table, please place an “X” in the box marking the most appropriate degree of capability based on the best available information. Only one response from each participating agency is required. Area and Description Degree of Capability Limited Moderate High Planning and Regulatory Based off of planning and regulatory tools and programs currently implemented, what is your agency’s estimated or anticipated capability in reducing hazard loss? (Example: Continuity of Operations Plan.) Administrative and Technical Based off the staffing of: Planners (with land use/ land development knowledge) Engineers or planners (with natural and/or human caused hazards knowledge)  Engineers or professionals trained in building and/or infrastructure construction  Flood plain manager  Land surveyor  Staff familiar with the hazards of the community  Personnel skilled in Geographic Information Systems  Grant writers Financial   Based off of your agency’s access or eligibility to use local financial resources for hazard mitigation purposes including the use of state and federal mitigation grant funds. This includes: 423 Capital Improvement Planning Community Development Block Grants Special purpose taxes Utility fees Water/sewer fees Storm water fees Development impact fees General obligation, revenue, and/or special tax bonds Partnering arrangements or intergovernmental agreements Education and Outreach          Based off of the education and outreach programs and methods currently in place that could be used to implement mitigation activities and communicate hazard-related information. Results Agency Philadelphia Department of Health Philadelphia Planning Commission Philadelphia Licensing and Inspections Philadelphia Parks and Recreation Philadelphia Streets Philadelphia Office of Fleet Management Philadelphia Water Department Philadelphia Office of Sustainability Planning and Regulatory Low (1) to High (3) Administrative and Technical Low (1) to High (3) Financial Low (1) to High (3) Education and Outreach Low (1) to High (3) Moderate 2 Moderate 2 Moderate 2 Moderate 2 High 3 High 3 High 3 High 3 Limited 1 Moderate 2 Limited 1 Limited 1 Limited 1 Limited 1 Limited 1 Limited 1 Limited 1 Limited 1 Limited 1 Limited 1 Moderate 2 Limited 1 Limited 1 Limited 1 High 3 High 3 High 3 High 3 Moderate 2 Moderate 2 2 Moderate 2 2 High 2 3 2 424 15 Annex: Snow Disaster Declarations Between 1955 and 2015, Philadelphia acquired 6 Presidential Disaster / Emergency Declarations, and 6 Gubernatorial Declarations related to winter storms, classified as one or a combination of the following disaster types: severe storms, blizzard, snowstorm, heavy snow and flooding. Disaster Declarations for Winter Weather Date Event Actions Severe Winter Storms & Snowstorms Major Disaster for Public Assistance February, 2007 Severe Winter Storm Governor's Proclamation of Disaster Emergency – to utilize all available resources and personnel as is deemed necessary to cope with the magnitude and severity of this emergency situation February, 2003 Severe Winter Storm Governor's Proclamation of Disaster Emergency January, 1996 Flooding Governor's Proclamation; President's Declaration of Major Disaster January, 1996 Severe Winter Storms Major Disaster for Individual Assistance and Public Assistance January, 1994 Winter Storm/Severe Storm Governor's Proclamation; President's Declaration of Major Disaster Blizzard Governor's Proclamation; President's Declaration of Major Disaster Heavy Snow Governor’s Proclamation Heavy Snow Governor’s Proclamation Heavy Snow Governor’s Proclamation April, 2010 March, 1993 January, 1978 January, 1966 February, 1958 425 16 Appendix: HAZUS Earthquake Report Hazus-MH: Earthquake Event Report Region Name: Philadelphia Earthquake Scenario: Arbitrary M 5 Depth 10 Print Date: May 04, 2016 Disclaimer: This version of Hazus utilizes 2010 Census Data. Totals only reflect data for those census tracts/blocks included in the user’s study region. The estimates of social and economic impacts contained in this report were produced using Hazus loss estimation methodology software which is based on current scientific and engineering knowledge. There are uncertainties inherent in any loss estimation technique. Therefore, there may be significant differences between the modeled results contained in this report and the actual social and economic losses following a specific earthquake. These results can be improved by using enhanced inventory, geotechnical, and observed ground motion data. 426 Table of Contents Section Page # General Description of the Region 3 Building and Lifeline Inventory 4 Building Inventory Critical Facility Inventory Transportation and Utility Lifeline Inventory Earthquake Scenario Parameters 6 Direct Earthquake Damage 7 Buildings Damage Critical Facilities Damage Transportation and Utility Lifeline Damage Induced Earthquake Damage 11 Debris Generation Social Impact 12 Shelter Requirements Casualties Economic Loss 13 Building Losses Transportation and Utility Lifeline Losses Long-term Indirect Economic Impacts Appendix A: County Listing for the Region Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data 427 General Description of the Region Hazus is a regional earthquake loss estimation model that was developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute of Building Sciences. The primary purpose of Hazus is to provide a methodology and software application to develop earthquake losses at a regional scale. These loss estimates would be used primarily by local, state and regional officials to plan and stimulate efforts to reduce risks from earthquakes and to prepare for emergency response and recovery. The earthquake loss estimates provided in this report was based on a region that includes 1 county(ies) from the following state(s): Pennsylvania Note: Appendix A contains a complete listing of the counties contained in the region. The geographical size of the region is 142.67 square miles and contains 384 census tracts. There are over 599 thousand households in the region which has a total population of 1,526,006 people (2010 Census Bureau data). The distribution of population by State and County is provided in Appendix B. There are an estimated 534 thousand buildings in the region with a total building replacement value (excluding contents) of 165,970 (millions of dollars). Approximately 93.00 % of the buildings (and 70.00% of the building value) are associated with residential housing. The replacement value of the transportation and utility lifeline systems is estimated to be 7,754 and 1,134 dollars) , respectively. (millions of 428 Building and Lifeline Inventory Building Inventory Hazus estimates that there are 534 thousand buildings in the region which have an aggregate total replacement value of 165,970 (millions of dollars) . Appendix B provides a general distribution of the building value by State and County. In terms of building construction types found in the region, wood frame construction makes up 62% of the building inventory. The remaining percentage is distributed between the other general building types. Critical Facility Inventory Hazus breaks critical facilities into two (2) groups: essential facilities and high potential loss facilities (HPL). Essential facilities include hospitals, medical clinics, schools, fire stations, police stations and emergency operations facilities. High potential loss facilities include dams, levees, military installations, nuclear power plants and hazardous material sites. For essential facilities, there are 36 hospitals in the region with a total bed capacity of 9,447 beds. There are 570 schools, 3 fire stations, 28 police stations and 0 emergency operation facilities. With respect to high potential loss facilities (HPL), there are 0 dams identified within the region. Of these, 0 of the dams are classified as ‘high hazard’. The inventory also includes 222 hazardous material sites, 0 military installations and 0 nuclear power plants. Transportation and Utility Lifeline Inventory Within Hazus, the lifeline inventory is divided between transportation and utility lifeline systems. There are seven (7) transportation systems that include highways, railways, light rail, bus, ports, ferry and airports. There are six (6) utility systems that include potable water, wastewater, natural gas, crude & refined oil, electric power and communications. The lifeline inventory data are provided in Tables 1 and 2. The total value of the lifeline inventory is over 8,888.00 (millions of dollars). This inventory includes over 469 kilometers of highways, 546 bridges, 124,947 kilometers of pipes. 429 Table 1: Transportation System Lifeline Inventory # Locations/ # Segments Replacement value Bridges 546 2,846.20 Segments 650 3,481.20 System Component Highway Tunnels 0 Bridges 0 0.00 Facilities 19 50.60 616 406.40 Segments Tunnels 0 Bridges 0 0.00 Facilities 146 388.80 Segments 211 257.30 Tunnels 0 Facilities 14 Facilities 1 Facilities 72 143.80 143.80 Subtotal Airport 1.30 1.30 Subtotal Port 16.60 16.60 Subtotal Ferry 0.00 646.10 Subtotal Bus 0.00 457.00 Subtotal Light Rail 0.00 6,327.40 Subtotal Railways (millions of dollars) Facilities 1 10.70 Runways 4 151.90 Subtotal Total 162.50 7,754.80 430 Table 2: Utility System Lifeline Inventory System Component Potable Water Distribution Lines # Locations / Segments Facilities Pipelines Distribution Lines Facilities Pipelines 1,249.50 0 0.00 0 0.00 1,249.50 NA 749.70 4 290.40 0 0.00 Subtotal Natural Gas Distribution Lines Facilities Pipelines 1,040.10 NA 499.80 0 0.00 0 Subtotal Oil Systems Facilities 5 0.50 Pipelines 0 0.00 7 839.30 Facilities 0.50 Subtotal Communication 0.00 499.80 Subtotal Electrical Power (millions of dollars) NA Subtotal Waste Water Replacement value Facilities 839.30 35 Subtotal Total 3.80 3.80 3,633.00 431 Earthquake Scenario Hazus uses the following set of information to define the earthquake parameters used for the earthquake loss estimate provided in this report. Scenario Name Arbitrary M 5 Depth 10 Type of Earthquake Arbitrary Fault Name NA Historical Epicenter ID # NA Probabilistic Return Period NA Longitude of Epicenter -75.11 Latitude of Epicenter 39.99 Earthquake Magnitude 5.00 Depth (Km) 10.00 Rupture Length (Km) NA Rupture Orientation (degrees) NA Attenuation Function Central & East US (CEUS 2008) 432 Building Damage Building Damage Hazus estimates that about 130,054 buildings will be at least moderately damaged. This is over 24.00 % of the buildings in the region. There are an estimated 9,908 buildings that will be damaged beyond repair. The definition of the ‘damage states’ is provided in Volume 1: Chapter 5 of the Hazus technical manual. Table 3 below summarizes the expected damage by general occupancy for the buildings in the region. Table 4 below summarizes the expected damage by general building type. Table 3: Expected Building Damage by Occupancy None Agriculture Slight Moderate Count (%) Count (%) 104 0.04 88 Complete Extensive Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) 0.06 105 0.12 44 0.14 13 0.13 7,632 2.87 5,738 4.15 8,067 9.11 4,115 13.02 1,264 12.76 Education 342 0.13 243 0.18 361 0.41 184 0.58 56 0.56 Government 183 0.07 126 0.09 201 0.23 109 0.34 34 0.34 1,365 Commercial Industrial Other Residential Religion Single Family Total 0.51 946 0.68 1,503 1.70 836 2.65 258 2.61 24,323 9.15 12,077 8.73 8,624 9.74 3,438 10.87 880 8.89 1,231 0.46 695 0.50 658 0.74 321 1.02 93 0.94 230,510 86.76 118,422 85.61 69,012 77.95 22,567 71.38 7,310 73.77 265,689 138,334 88,531 31,616 9,908 Table 4: Expected Building Damage by Building Type (All Design Levels) None Wood Moderate Slight Extensive Complete Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) 198,751 74.81 92456 66.84 35,578 40.19 4,526 14.32 319 3.22 Steel 4,281 1.61 3010 2.18 5,732 6.47 3,322 10.51 1,081 10.91 Concrete 1,025 0.39 744 0.54 1,531 1.73 896 2.83 247 2.49 316 0.12 177 0.13 384 0.43 327 1.03 78 0.78 3,012 1.13 1095 0.79 1,911 2.16 1,262 3.99 160 1.62 58,084 21.86 40610 29.36 42,943 48.51 21,003 66.43 7,958 80.32 0.08 242 0.18 450 0.51 280 0.88 66 0.66 Precast RM URM MH Total *Note: RM URM MH 220 265,689 138,334 88,531 31,616 9,908 Reinforced Masonry Unreinforced Masonry Manufactured Housing 433 Essential Facility Damage Before the earthquake, the region had 9,447 hospital beds available for use. On the day of the earthquake, the model estimates that only 2,104 hospital beds (22.00%) are available for use by patients already in the hospital and those injured by the earthquake. After one week, 40.00% of the beds will be back in service. By 30 days, 76.00% will be operational. Table 5: Expected Damage to Essential Facilities # Facilities Classification Total At Least Moderate Damage > 50% Hospitals Schools EOCs PoliceStations FireStations Complete Damage > 50% With Functionality > 50% on day 1 36 34 0 0 570 204 0 22 0 0 0 0 28 14 0 0 3 2 0 0 434 Transportation and Utility Lifeline Damage Table 6 provides damage estimates for the transportation system. Table 6: Expected Damage to the Transportation Systems System Component Number of Locations Locations/ Segments With at Least Mod. Damage With Complete Damage With Functionality > 50 % After Day 1 After Day 7 Segments 650 0 0 650 650 Bridges 546 15 1 533 545 Tunnels 0 0 0 0 0 616 0 0 616 616 Bridges 0 0 0 0 0 Tunnels 0 0 0 0 0 Facilities 19 17 0 19 19 211 0 0 211 211 Bridges 0 0 0 0 0 Tunnels 0 0 0 0 0 Facilities 146 107 0 146 146 Bus Facilities 14 11 0 14 14 Ferry Facilities 1 1 0 1 1 Port Facilities 72 54 0 72 72 Airport Facilities 1 0 0 1 1 Runways 4 0 0 4 4 Highway Railways Light Rail Segments Segments Note: Roadway segments, railroad tracks and light rail tracks are assumed to be damaged by ground failure only. If ground failure maps are not provided, damage estimates to these components will not be computed. Tables 7-9 provide information on the damage to the utility lifeline systems. Table 7 provides damage to the utility system facilities. Table 8 provides estimates on the number of leaks and breaks by the pipelines of the utility systems. For electric power and potable water, Hazus performs a simplified system performance analysis. Table 9 provides a summary of the system performance information. 435 Table 7 : Expected Utility System Facility Damage # of Locations System Total # With at Least With Complete Moderate Damage Damage with Functionality > 50 % After Day 1 After Day 7 Potable Water 0 0 0 0 0 Waste Water 4 3 0 0 4 Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0 Oil Systems 5 5 0 0 5 Electrical Power 7 7 0 0 7 Communication 35 33 0 35 35 Table 8 : Expected Utility System Pipeline Damage (Site Specific) Total Pipelines System Length (kms) Number of Number of Leaks Breaks Potable Water 62,474 7106 1776 Waste Water 37,484 5092 1273 Natural Gas 24,989 1461 365 0 0 0 Oil Table 9: Expected Potable Water and Electric Power System Performance Total # of Households Potable Water Electric Power 599,736 Number of Households without Service At Day 1 At Day 3 At Day 7 At Day 30 At Day 90 40,416 37,822 32,818 10,134 0 0 0 0 0 0 436 Induced Earthquake Damage Debris Generation Hazus estimates the amount of debris that will be generated by the earthquake. The model breaks the debris into two general categories: a) Brick/Wood and b) Reinforced Concrete/Steel. This distinction is made because of the different types of material handling equipment required to handle the debris. The model estimates that a total of 6.35 million tons of debris will be generated. Of the total amount, Brick/Wood comprises 49.00% of the total, with the remainder being Reinforced Concrete/Steel. If the debris tonnage is converted to an estimated number of truckloads, it will require 253,920 truckloads (@25 tons/truck) to remove the debris generated by the earthquake. 437 Social Impact Shelter Requirement Hazus estimates the number of households that are expected to be displaced from their homes due to the earthquake and the number of displaced people that will require accommodations in temporary public shelters. The model estimates 24,758 households to be displaced due to the earthquake. Of these, 18,860 people (out of a total population of 1,526,006) will seek temporary shelter in public shelters. Casualties Hazus estimates the number of people that will be injured and killed by the earthquake. The casualties are broken down into four (4) severity levels that describe the extent of the injuries. The levels are described as follows; · Severity Level 1: · Severity Level 2: · Severity Level 3: · Severity Level 4: Injuries will require medical attention but hospitalization is not needed. Injuries will require hospitalization but are not considered life-threatening Injuries will require hospitalization and can become life threatening if not promptly treated. Victims are killed by the earthquake. The casualty estimates are provided for three (3) times of day: 2:00 AM, 2:00 PM and 5:00 PM. These times represent the periods of the day that different sectors of the community are at their peak occupancy loads. The 2:00 AM estimate considers that the residential occupancy load is maximum, the 2:00 PM estimate considers that the educational, commercial and industrial sector loads are maximum and 5:00 PM represents peak commute time. Table 10 provides a summary of the casualties estimated for this earthquake 438 Table 10: Casualty Estimates Level 1 2 AM 60 14 2 4 Commuting 0 0 0 0 Educational 0 0 0 0 Hotels 0 0 0 0 54 13 2 3 Other-Residential 1,734 412 59 116 Single Family 3,934 919 127 248 Total 5,782 1,359 189 372 Commercial 3,587 854 115 224 Commuting 1 1 2 0 Educational 1,600 395 58 112 0 0 0 0 Industrial 401 97 13 26 Other-Residential 423 102 15 28 Single Family 1,008 243 35 66 Total 7,020 1,692 238 455 Commercial 2,494 596 81 156 Commuting 13 17 29 6 Educational 263 65 10 19 0 0 0 0 Industrial 251 61 8 16 Other-Residential 686 165 24 46 Single Family 1,584 382 55 103 Total 5,291 1,285 207 345 Hotels 5 PM Level 4 Level 3 Commercial Industrial 2 PM Level 2 Hotels 439 Economic Loss The total economic loss estimated for the earthquake is 24,088.19 (millions of dollars), which includes building and lifeline related losses based on the region's available inventory. The following three sections provide more detailed information about these losses. Building-Related Losses The building losses are broken into two categories: direct building losses and business interruption losses. The direct building losses are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage caused to the building and its contents. The business interruption losses are the losses associated with inability to operate a business because of the damage sustained during the earthquake. Business interruption losses also include the temporary living expenses for those people displaced from their homes because of the earthquake. The total building-related losses were 23,377.88 (millions of dollars); 19 % of the estimated losses were related to the business interruption of the region. By far, the largest loss was sustained by the residential occupancies which made up over 51 % of the total loss. Table 11 below provides a summary of the losses associated with the building damage. Table 11: Building-Related Economic Loss Estimates (Millions of dollars) Category Area Single Family Other Residential Commercial Industrial Others Total Income Losses Wage 0.00 85.97 801.03 20.74 62.83 970.57 Capital-Related 0.00 36.65 668.33 12.46 18.12 735.55 Rental 211.83 285.03 330.85 8.06 30.64 866.40 Relocation 736.59 168.76 577.31 40.78 261.35 1,784.78 Subtotal 948.41 576.41 2,377.51 82.04 372.94 4,357.31 Capital Stock Losses Structural 1,039.79 561.97 1,050.17 166.86 238.93 3,057.72 Non_Structural 3,669.16 2,879.73 3,024.67 551.89 882.31 11,007.77 Content 1,423.80 865.25 1,666.93 396.62 517.01 4,869.62 0.00 0.00 26.02 58.87 0.57 85.47 Subtotal 6,132.75 4,306.96 5,767.79 1,174.24 1,638.83 19,020.57 Total 7,081.16 4,883.37 8,145.30 1,256.28 2,011.77 23,377.88 Inventory 440 Transportation and Utility Lifeline Losses For the transportation and utility lifeline systems, Hazus computes the direct repair cost for each component only. There are no losses computed by Hazus for business interruption due to lifeline outages. Tables 12 & 13 provide a detailed breakdown in the expected lifeline losses. Hazus estimates the long-term economic impacts to the region for 15 years after the earthquake. The model quantifies this information in terms of income and employment changes within the region. Table 14 presents the results of the region for the given earthquake. Table 12: Transportation System Economic Losses (Millions of dollars) System Component Inventory Value Economic Loss Loss Ratio (%) Highway Segments 3,481.23 $0.00 0.00 Bridges 2,846.20 $103.08 3.62 Tunnels 0.00 $0.00 0.00 6327.40 103.10 406.37 $0.00 0.00 Bridges 0.00 $0.00 0.00 Tunnels 0.00 $0.00 0.00 Facilities 50.60 $19.20 37.96 457.00 19.20 257.35 $0.00 0.00 Bridges 0.00 $0.00 0.00 Tunnels 0.00 $0.00 0.00 388.80 $139.64 35.92 646.10 139.60 16.63 $6.32 16.60 6.30 1.33 $0.54 1.30 0.50 143.78 $53.20 143.80 53.20 Facilities 10.65 $2.46 23.11 Runways 151.86 $0.00 0.00 162.50 2.50 7754.80 324.50 Subtotal Railways Segments Subtotal Light Rail Segments Facilities Subtotal Bus Facilities Subtotal Ferry Facilities Subtotal Port Facilities Subtotal Airport Subtotal Total 38.02 40.89 37.00 441 Table 13: Utility System Economic Losses (Millions of dollars) System Component Potable Water Waste Water Inventory Value Economic Loss Pipelines 0.00 $0.00 0.00 Facilities 0.00 $0.00 0.00 Distribution Lines 1,249.50 $31.97 2.56 Subtotal 1,249.47 $31.97 Pipelines 0.00 $0.00 0.00 Facilities 290.40 $77.17 26.57 Distribution Lines 749.70 $22.92 3.06 1,040.06 $100.08 Pipelines 0.00 $0.00 0.00 Facilities 0.00 $0.00 0.00 Distribution Lines 499.80 $6.57 1.32 Subtotal 499.79 $6.57 Pipelines 0.00 $0.00 0.00 Facilities 0.50 $0.13 22.95 Subtotal 0.55 $0.13 Facilities 839.30 $246.35 Subtotal 839.30 $246.35 Facilities 3.80 $0.74 Subtotal 3.82 $0.74 3,632.98 $385.85 Subtotal Natural Gas Oil Systems Electrical Power Communication Total Loss Ratio (%) 29.35 19.45 Table 14. Indirect Economic Impact with outside aid (Employment as # of people and Income in millions of $) LOSS Total % 442 Appendix A: County Listing for the Region Philadelphia, PA Appendix B: Regional Population and Building Value Data State County Name Population Building Value (millions of dollars) Residential Non-Residential Total 1,526,006 115,983 49,986 165,970 Total State 1,526,006 115,983 49,986 165,970 Total Region 1,526,006 115,983 49,986 165,970 Pennsylvania Philadelphia 17 Appendix: HAZUS Flooding Report 444 Bullding Dam-go Gaunt by Gl?ll'll Occupancy May :12, 2015' Gaunt of by Hugo cl Dun-ac {93] Hm 1-1c 11-3: 21-30 31-411 11-111: Tu: chm-Inc: Gnu-am I: Hid-denial 29 131' can 511 ?12 125 2,113 Scrum-mill 1 as 2 1 4a 2 Autumn foul II) 11': In? an 138 1H 1.17! Tau an 1H cu 1H acorn-Hum an 115 can Inc 12c 11" 2.111 WM mm mum-um Pagans? We: nun-um: 445 School Damageand Functionality May 02. 20M Dottar vetoes are tn thousands. Count of Total Buildino Total Content Non-Functional Average Schools DamagetS} Damage Schools Restoration Time Philadelphia Grade Schools Primary and High Schools} 4 7,454.92 43955.11 3 450 Total 4 7454.92 43,950.11 3 430 Total 4 7.45-4.92 43.950. 11 3 480 Scenario Total 4 "(454.92 43.96911 3 430 "his report displays allzeros. two possibilities can explainlhis. None ofyourfacil'rtiesweretioodee. Thiscan be checked byma ppingthe inventoryciala onthedepth grid. The analysiswas not run. This can be tested by checkingthe run hoxontheAnalyeis Menu and seeing lfa message he): asksyou to replacethe existingresu?s. totats onty rettect data for those census tractsr'otoctts r'rtctuded tn the users stud}r region and Witt re?ect the entire onty rt att of the census blocks tor that were setected at the time of study region creation. Study Region: PhiIaFloodGn?d Scenario: FloodGn?dSoen1 Return Period: lot] Pagez1ot1 446 Highway Bridge Damage and Functionality May 02, 2016 Doiiarvaiues are in ?'rousands. a of Bridges Average Damage Total Less Couri-Non-Funclianal Philadelphia 7? [1.16 7 CI Total 1" [1.1 6 0 Scenario Total 1? [1.16 [1 lfll'lis repurtdisplays allzeros: two possibilities can explainlhis. Mane ofyourfacili?eewere ?ooded. This can be checked by mappingthe i'l?d'Bl'ltO?' dala on lhedeplh grid. The analysiswas notrun. Thiecan iJeleleed bychenkingthe runbax onlheAnalyeis Menu and seeing 'rFa message bexasks youio replaeethe existing results. Era-la only re?ect data forthoae census tract blocks included in me user/3 sfudy region and m'llre?ecf the en tire onlyi'rail ofme census Mocks format cairn ryfaiafe were seiecfedaime?meofsfudyregion creation. Study PhilaFIeedGrid Page:1ef1 Re gion: FloedGridScem Scenario: 100 447 Waste Water Facility Damage Dotlar values are In thousands. May 02. 203? 6 it of Facilities Average Damage Total Loss Non-Functional Faculties Philadelphia '1 40.0 29.038 1 Total '1 40.0 29 033 1 Soenan'o Total 1 40.0 29.033 1 flhis report displays all zeros. two possibilities can explai?lthis. None ofyourfacilities we re ?ooded. This can bechecked by mapping the Iwe nlorydataon the depth grid. The analysis was not run. This can belested by checkingthe run box onthe An alysis Menu and seeing its message box asks youto Ieplacethe existing results. Totats 0th re?ect data for those census tnctucted In the users stun].r tegton and re?ect the ehttre county-state om}r h? att of the census htoctrs for mat countjustate were setected at the ttme region ereatton. Study Reg?on: PhilaFIoodGn?d Scenario: FhodGn?dSceM Return Period: 100 Page:1of1 448 Direct Economic Losses ForVehioles (Night) May 03 201(3 AH vaiues are in dotiars. Car Light Truck HeavyTrucl-c Total Loses PhiladE?IPhia 65533179 41 3153.372 ?,4?5,290 115,129,341 Total 7:475:290 115,129,341 Scenario Total 65.533179 41,063,810 7:4?6290 115.129,341 Totais only re?ect data for those census tractsibteoks inciuded In the user's study region and Witt re?ect the entire only if ati of the census blocks for that countp?staie were selected at the time of study region creation. Study Region: Scenario: Return Period: PhllaFIoodGlid FloodGridSceni 100 Page:1of1 449 Direct Economic Losses For Vehicles (Day) All values are to dollars. Mayogmm Car Truck Heavy Total Loses PHI {1 h' '3 9'3 '3 T139173: 43,1?3373 7,109,453 121,550,153 Total 11 391.732 43 113 9713 711151.453 121580 163 Scenario Total r1391732 411713.973 7,109,453 121,530,153 Tater's only reflect data for those census tracts 3: blocks included in the user's study region and will re?ect the entire muntyfetete only if all of the census blocks for that Page:1of1 were selected at the time of study region creetr'on. PhilaFlcodGn?d Study Reg?on: Scenario: FhodGIidSceM Return Period: 100 450 Direct Economic Losses For (Day) AH values are in dottars. May 02: 2015 Cal Light Truck Heavy Truck Total L033 I Philadelphia 71391 .132 1109.453 121,sso:153 Total 43,118,973 1109.453 Scenarlo Total 71.381562 ?,109,453 121.530:163 Totals anty re?ect date for those census J'nctered in the user's stunt],r region and Mt! re?ect the entire ant}; 1'sz of the census blocks for that were selected at the time of study region creation. Study Region: Sceuan'o: Return Period: PhilaFluodGrid FluodGridScem 100 Pam-3:10? 451 Direct Economic Lossesfor Utilities Air vain-es are in thousands of doiiers. May 02 2016 Potable Water Waste Water Systems Natural Gas Eledric Power Commurlzatlon Total Phlladelphla Eaeiljlie $$2900320 Pipelines $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total $0.00 $29,037.60 $43.60 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $29,06120 Total $0.00 $23,037.60 $43.60 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $290312 Scena?o Total $0.00 $29 037.60 $43.60 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $20 0612 Toreis oniy re?ect data for those census frectsr'biooirs included in the user?s study region and re?ecf the entire oniy if of the census for that were seiecfeo? at the time of study region creation. Study Region: PhllaFIoodGrid Sceuan'o: Return Period: 100 Page: 1of 1 452 Direct Economic Lcsses for Buildings CR version: 11.5.12 May 02: 2016 Al! vetoes am in thousands ofo?olrars I mu I Building Loss Cements hvenlory Loss I Buudinq Reloca?on Capital Wages Rental Loss Loss Less Related Losses hcume 1-0131 LOSS Ratio "23 L033 Loss Philadelphia II ?125,512 5215791 1335411 5.00 11 1-331 1515] 1532 1 421.1 1 968,356 Scenario 425,512 524,679 13864 5.00 1?33 1,515 1,632 521 agagg only re?ect data 11'3me CENSUS in The users 1991017 and int-W re?ect the entire 0171)" 11?6?? ?rm-E CENSUS for mat COUHIWEEBE a: ME time ofsruo?y region creation. Study Region: PhilaFloodGrid Page 3 1 .311 Scenario: FloodGn'dSceM Return Period: 100 453 Debris Summary Report May 02; 2016 vaiues are in tons. Finish 83 Structures Foundations Total Philadelphia 26,958 7:120 4.964 39.052 Total 25.968 72120 4:964 39,052 Scenario Total 26,953 1120 4,964 39,052 FEHECI data EIPPDSE census inciua'ed If] the user?s study 1'9ng.? and the entire CINE Jifa? CIT the census for rharcounm'sfare WHIP ET the time ofsrudy region creation. Study Regan: Scenario: Return Period: PhiIaFloodG-nd FloodGridScem mu Page:1ui1 454 Debris Summary Report May 02; 2016 vaiues are in tons. Finish 83 Structures Foundations Total Philadelphia 26,958 7:120 4.964 39.052 Total 25.968 72120 4:964 39,052 Scenario Total 26,953 1120 4,964 39,052 FEHECI data EIPPDSE census inciua'ed If] the user?s study 1'9ng.? and the entire CINE Jifa? CIT the census for rharcounm'sfare WHIP ET the time ofsrudy region creation. Study Regan: Scenario: Return Period: PhiIaFloodG-nd FloodGridScem mu Page:1ui1 455 18 Appendix: HAZUS Hurricane Reports 456 Hazus-MH: Hurricane Event Report Region Name: F?hil?Hurr Hurricane Scenario: Probabilistic 50-year Return Period Print Date: Wednesday, May 04. 2015 Diactaimer: This version oI'Hazus E?tl?' Sensus Data. Totets cntj.?r rett'ect data forthose census tracts-mom in?uded in the user's stuc'j.r reg-hm. The estimates and economic impacts contained in this report were modem ush'rg Horus toss estimation methoc'ctogly software which is hssec' on current scl'entJ'tic and engh'reen'ng knc's-tedge. There are uncertaintieo inherent in an].r toss eohtnetion technique. Theretiore. there may be significant c'rti'erewses between the mode-Jed resutts contained in this report and the actuai moist and economic losses nation-ring a speci?c Hum'cane. Theoe resutts can be by using enhanced Inventory data 457 Table of Contents Section Page General Description of the Region 3 Building Inventory 4 General Building Stock Eeaential Facility Inventory Hurricane Scenario Parameters 5 Building Damage [5 General Building Stock Eeaential Facilities Damage Induced Hurricane Damage 8 Debris Generation Social Impact Shelter Requirements Economic Lose 9 Building Appendix A: County Listing for the Region 1t} Appendix B: Hegio nal Population and Building 1lr'alue Data '11 Hurricane Event Summary Report Page 2 of 1'1 458 Hazus is a regional multi-hazard loss estimation model that Ieras deyeloped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute of Building Sciences. The primary purpose of Hazus is to provide a methodology and software application to develop multi-hazard losses at a regional scale. These loss estimates would be used primarily by local, state and regional of?cials to plan and stimulate efforts to reduce risks from multi- hazards and to prepare for emergency response and recovery. The hurricane loss estimates provided in this report are based on a region that includes 1 countyties} from the following statets}: Note: Appendix A contains a complete listing of the counties contained in the region. The geographical size of the region is 142.11 square miles and contains 384 census tracts. There are over 599 thousand households in the region and has a total population of 1.525.005 people {2010 Census Bureau data}. The distribution of population by State and County is proyided in Appendix B. There are an estimated 534 thousand buildings in the region with a total building replacement value {excluding contents} of million dollars (21110 dollars}. Approximately 93% of the buildings {and of the building 1.ralue} are associated I.yith residential housing. Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page 3 of1'1 459 General Building Stock. Hazus estimates that there are buildings in the region which have an aggregate total replacement value of 155,5?1 million {2555 dollars]. Table 1 presents the relative distribution of the value wilh respect to the general oocupancies. Appendix provides a general distribution of the building value by Slate and Count-r. Table 1: Building Exposure by Occupancy Type Dccu pancy Exposure {$155 5} Percent of Tot Residential 115,553,555 55.5% Commercial 33, 395,345 25.4% In dustrial 5,145,552 Agricultural 115,433 5.1 Evil Religion 5 4, 255,525 2.5% Govemment 1,555,553 5.5% Ed uca?on 4,555,542 23% Total 155, 5T51513 155.5% I I For essential facilities, there are 35 hospitals in the region with a total bed capacity of 9,44? beds. There are 5T5 schools, 3 ?re stations. 25 police stations and no emergency operation facilities. Hurricane Event Summary Report Page 4 of 1'1 460 Hazus used the following set of information te de?ne the hun'ieane parameters for the hurricane less estimate presided in this reperl. Scenario Name: Probabilistic Type: Probabilistic Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page 5 cf 1'1 461 5 IE 5 I I: Hazus estimates that about 12 buildings Irrill be at least moderately damaged. This is over 9% of the total number of buildings in the region. There are an estimated 9 buildings that will be completely destroyed. The de?nition of the 'damage states' is provided in 1ulolume 1: Chapter 9 of the Hazus Hurricane technical manual. Table 2 belov.I summarizes the expected damage by general occupancy tor the buildings in the region. Table 3 summarizes the expected damage by general building type. Table 2: Expected Building Damage by Occupancy 59 year Event ll one Minor Moot erate Severe Destruction Bccupancy Count Count Count Count Count Agriculture 953 99. 91 1 9.19 9. 99 9 9.99 9 9.99 Commercial 29.?49 99.74 ?9 9.29 9.99 9 9.99 9 9.99 Education 1,191 99.9.99 9 Government 951 99.99 2 9.3-1 9.99 9 9.99 9 Industrial 4.994 99.T1 14 9.29 9.99 9 9.99 9 9.99 Religion 2.999 99.T9 9.21 9.99 9 9.99 9 9.99 Residential 499.?99 99.93- 352 9.9? 12 9.99 9 9.99 9 9.99 Total 599.919 4-1-9 12 t] 9 Table 3: Expected Building Damage by Building Type 59 - year Event uildi ng Hone Minor Moderate Severe Bestru ction Count {to} Count {99} Count [99] Count {99] Count {99} Concrete 5.9?9 99.91 22 9.39 9 9.99 9 9.99 9 9.99 Masonry 99.91 331 9.19 19 9.91 1 9.99 9 9.99 MH 1.259 199.99 9 9.99 9 9.99 9 9.99 9 9.99 Steel 1?.29? 99.99 55 9.32 9 9.99 9 9.99 9 9.9: Wood 3-31.59? 99.99 9.91 9 9.99 9 9.99 9 9.99 Hurricane Event Summary Report Page 5 of 11 462 Before the hurricane. the region had 9,44? hospital beds available for use. 0n the da1.r of the hunicane, the model estimates that 944? hospital beds (onlyr are available for use. After one tveelt. moons. of the beds will be in service. Ev 30 days: moons-t: will be operational. Table 4: Expected Damage to Essential Facilities Facilities Probabilityr of at Pro babilitv of Expected Least Moderate Complete Loss of Use Classi?cation Total Damage ?uivn Damage sneq, 4: 1 day Fire Stations 3 [t t] 3 Has pilals 35- El 36 Police Stations 23 28 Schools El Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page i" of 1'1 463 Hazus estimates the amount of debris that will be generated by the hurricane. The model breatcs the debris into four general categories: a] EtncloWood. b] Reinforced Concreter'Sleel, c} Eligible Tree Debris. and Other Tree Debris. This distinction is made because of the different types of material handling equipment required to handle thedebris. The model estimates that a total of 949 tons of debris will be generated. Of the total amount. {r tons is Other Tree Debris. Of the remaining 949 tons, ElrictoWood comprises 101.1% of the total, Reinforced ConcreteiSteel comprises of 11% of the total, with the remainder being Eligible Tree Debris. It the building debris tonnage is converted to an estimated number of truckloads, it will require 33 truckloads (@225 to remove the building debris generated by the hurricane. The number of Eligible Tree Debris truckloads will depend on how the El tons of Eligible Tree Debris are collected and processed. The volume of tree debris generally ranges from about 4 cubic yards per ton tor chipped or compacted tree debris to about 10 cubic yards per ton for bulkier, uncompacted debris. Hazus estimates the number of households that are expected to be displaced from their homes due to the hunicane and the number of displaced people that will require acoommodations in temporary public shelters. The model estimates households to be displaced due to the hurricane. Di these, El people [out of a total population of will seek temporary shelter in public shelters. Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page 8 bf 1'1 464 The total economic loss estimated for the hurricane is 13.4 million dollars. which represents [1.01 as of the total replacement 1.ralue of the region's buildings. The building related losses are broken into two categories: direct property damage losses and business interruption losses. The direct property damage losses are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage caused to the building and its contents. The business interruption losses are the losses associated with inability to operate abusiness because of the damage sustained during the hurricane. Business interruption losses also include the temporaryr living expenses for those people displaced from their homes because of the hum'cane. The total propert',r damage losses were 18 million dollars. 1% of the estimated losses were related to the business interruption of the region. By far. the largest loss was sustained by the residential occupancies which made up over 96% of the total loss. Table 4 below provides a summary of the losses associated with the building damage. Table 5: Building-Related Economic Loss Estimates {Thousands of dollars} Category Area Residential Commercial lnclu atrial {Ithere Tortal Pro Elama Building lid-42.32 133.51 18,332.32. Content 33.30 EI.EIEI EI.EIEI 33th] Inventor].- EI.EIEI EI.EIEI CLUE- Sulalaotal S-l'iil'ilr 183.81 18,405.93 Business Interruption Loss Income C-JZIEI ace EI.EIEI Relocation 211.13 EI.-3IEI {1.120 EI.EIEI 24.13 Rental EI.-3IEI EI.EIEI Wage EI.-3IEI {103' EI.EIEI Subtotal 24.16 1100 ELM 21.16 Total Told 11300.03 1179.13 183.31 18330.15 Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page 9 of 11 465 F'e nn sylvania - Philadelphia Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page 10 0f1'1 466 Building 1lr'alue {mouaanda of dollars: Population Heaiden?al on Residential Total F'enn sylvania Philadelphia 1.52EIJZIIZIB 115.953.3353 1-35.9TC-.513 Total 1.52am 115.933.1358 43,936,351" 165.9??jl?. Study Region Tolal 1.525.006 115.383.1355 13,536,551" Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page 11 of 11 467 Hazus-MH: Hurricane Event Report Region Na me: F?hil?Hurr Hurricane Scena rig: Probabilistic mil-year Retum Period Print Date: Wednesday, May 04. 2015 Disctaimer: This version oft-terns E?tl?' Senses Data. Totats ontj.?r rett'ect data forthose census tracts-blow in?uded in the user's stun? reg-hm. The estimates cfsociat and economic impacts contained in this report were modem ush'ig Hazus toss estimation methoc'otogly software which is hsseo' on current scientific and engiineen'ng kno's-tedgie. There are uncertainties inherent in an].r toss estimation technique. Thesetiore. there may be significant o'lti'erewces between the mode-Jed resuits contained in this report and the actuai sociat and economic losses nation-ring a speci?c Hum'cane. resutts can be improved by using enhanced Inventory data 468 Table of Contents Section Paoe General Description of the Region 3 Building Inventory 4 General Building Stock Essential Facility Inventory Hurricane Scenario Parameters 5 Building Damage General Building Stock Essential Facilities Damage Induced Hurricane Damage 8 Debris Generation Social Impact Shelter Requirements Economic Loss 9 Building Losses Appendix A: County Listing for the Region Appendix B: Hegio rial Population and Building 1lr'alue Data '11 Hurricane Event Summary Report Page 2 of 1'1 469 Hazus is a regional multi-hazard loss estimation model that Ieras deyeloped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute of Building Sciences. The primary purpose of Hazus is to provide a methodology and software application to develop multi-hazard losses at a regional scale. These loss estimates would be used primarily by local, state and regional of?cials to plan and stimulate efforts to reduce risks from multi- hazards and to prepare for emergency response and recovery. The hurricane loss estimates provided in this report are based on a region that includes 1 countyties} from the following statets}: Note: Appendix A contains a complete listing of the counties contained in the region. The geographical size of the region is 142.11 square miles and contains 384 census tracts. There are over 599 thousand households in the region and has a total population of 1.525.005 people {2010 Census Bureau data}. The distribution of population by State and County is proyided in Appendix B. There are an estimated 534 thousand buildings in the region with a total building replacement value {excluding contents} of million dollars (21110 dollars}. Approximately 93% of the buildings {and of the building 1.ralue} are associated I.yith residential housing. Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page 3 of1'1 470 General Building Stock. Hazus estimates that there are buildings in the region which have an aggregate total replacement value of 155,5?1 million {2555 dollars]. Table 1 presents the relative distribution of the value wilh respect to the general oocupancies. Appendix provides a general distribution of the building value by Slate and Count-r. Table 1: Building Exposure by Occupancy Type Dccu pancy Exposure {$155 5} Percent of Tot Residential 115,553,555 55.5% Commercial 33, 395,345 25.4% In dustrial 5,145,552 Agricultural 115,433 5.1 Evil Religion 5 4, 255,525 2.5% Govemment 1,555,553 5.5% Ed uca?on 4,555,542 23% Total 155, 5T51513 155.5% I I For essential facilities, there are 35 hospitals in the region with a total bed capacity of 9,44? beds. There are 5T5 schools, 3 ?re stations. 25 police stations and no emergency operation facilities. Hurricane Event Summary Report Page 4 of 1'1 471 Hazus used the following set of information te de?ne the hun'ieane parameters for the hurricane less estimate presided in this reperl. Scenario Name: Probabilistic Type: Probabilistic Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page 5 cf 1'1 472 5 IE I. 5 I I: Hazus estimates that about 9? buildings I.yill be at least moderately damaged. This is over 9% of the total number of buildings in the region. There are an estimated 9 buildings that will be completely destroyed. The de?nition of the 'damage states' is provided in 1ulolume 1: Chapter 9 of the Hazus Hurricane technical manual. Table 2 belotr.I region. Table 3 summarizes the summarizes the expected damage by general occupancy tor the buildings in the expected damage by general building type. Table 2: Expected Building Damage by Occupancy 199 - year Eyent Hone Minor Moderate Eeyore Destruction Occupancy Count Count Count :99] Count Count Agriculture 959 99.59 1 9.41 9 9.91 9 9.99 9 9.99 Commercial 29.991 999.99 9 9.99 Education 1.1?9 99. 4? 9- 9.59 9 9. 99 9 9.99 9 Government 949 99.42 4 9.59 9 9.99 9 9.99 9 Industrial 4.999 99.44 29 9.59 9 9.99 9 9.99 9 9.99 Religion 2.999 99.9.99 9 9.99 Residential 495. 599 99.99 1.499 9. 2-9 94 9. 91 9 9.99 9 9.99 Total 592.929 1.992. 9 9 Table 3: Expected Building Damage hy Building Type 199 year Event Building Hone Minor Moderate Soy-ere Destruction Count Count {99} Count [99] Count {99] Count {99} Concrete 5.959 99.29 42 9.?4 9 9.99 9 9.93 9 9.99 Masonry 1T9.9T2 99.1111 92? 9.52 99 9.95 2 9.99 9 9.99 MH 1.259 199.99 9 9.99 9 9.99 9 9.99 9 9.99 E-teel 1?.219 99.49 192 9.59 1 9.91 9 9.99 9 9.9: Wood 991.994 99.99 549 2 9.99 9 9.99 9 9.99 Hurricane Event Summary Report Page 9 of 1'1 473 Before the hurricane. the region had 9,44? hospital beds available for use. 0n the da1.r of the hunicane, the model estimates that 944? hospital beds (onlyr are available for use. After one tveelt. moons. of the beds will be in service. Ev 30 days: moons-t: will be operational. Table 4: Expected Damage to Essential Facilities Facilities Probabilityr of at Pro babilitv of Expected Least Moderate Complete Loss of Use Classi?cation Total Damage ?uivn Damage sneq, 4: 1 day Fire Stations 3 [t t] 3 Has pilals 35- 23 El 36 Police Stations 23 28 Schools El Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page i" of 1'1 474 Hazus estimates the amount of debris that will be generated by the hurricane. The model breatcs the debris into four general categories: a] EtncloWood. b] Reinforced Concreter'Steel, c} Eligible Tree Debris. and Other Tree Debris. This distinction is made because of the different types of material handling equipment required to handle thedebris. The model estimates that a total of 3,510 tons of debris will be generated. 01? the total amount. 250 tons is Other Tree Debris. [if the remaining 3251] tons, DridoWood comprises 99% of the total. Reinforced ConcretetSteel comprises of 11% of the total, I.yith the remainder being Eligible Tree Debris. It the building debris tonnage is converted to an estimated number of truckloads, it will require 32? truckloads [@25 to remove the building debris generated by the hurricane. The number of Eligible Tree Debris tructdoads will depend on horn.r the 34 tons of Eligible Tree Debris are collected and processed. The 1.rolume of tree debris generally ranges from about 4 cubic yards per ton for chipped or compacted tree debris to about 10 cubic yards per ton for bulkier, uncompacted debris. Hazus estimates the number of households that are expected to be displaced from their homes due to the hunicane and the number of displaced people that will require acoommodations in temporary public shelters. The model estimates households to be displaced due to the hurricane. Di these, El people [out of a total population of seek temporary shelter in public shelters. Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page 8 bf 1'1 475 The total economic loss estimated for the hurricane is 35.2 million dollars. which represents [1.05 as of the total replacement 1.ralue of the region's buildings. The building related losses are broken into two categories: direct property damage losses and business interruption losses. The direct property damage losses are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage caused to the building and its contents. The business interruption losses are the losses associated with inability to operate abusiness because of the damage sustained during the hurricane. Business interruption losses also include the temporaryr living expenses for those people displaced from their homes because of the hum'cane. The total propert',r damage losses were 35 million dollars. 1% of the estimated losses were related to the business interruption of the region. By far. the largest loss was sustained by the residential occupancies which made up over 94% of the total loss. Table 4 below provides a summary of the losses associated with the building damage. Table 5: Building-Related Economic Loss Estimates {Thousands of dollars} Category Area Residential Commercial lnclu atrial Utl?l?rs Tortal Pro Dama Building T351306 3.433 552.43 1.31355 34, 5T2.43 Content 322.53 ISL-JD 3.03 322.53 Inventor].- CIJIIC- 3:35 5.03 CLUE- Sublaotal 33.23353 3,333.3? seam 35.11-15.31 Business Interruption Loss Income ISL-SID {1:0 3.33 Relocation 345. 5? 23.11 {1.120 Ill]? 333.?5 Rental 352.12 3.03 352.12 Wage Ill-Jill] {103' Subtotal emu 23.11 [tilt] ill]? Total Told 30.33623 3.505.43- 1.111013 36.15533 Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page 9 of 1'1 476 F'e nn sylvania - Philadelphia Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page 10 0f1'1 477 Building 1lr'alue {mouaanda of dollars: Population Heaiden?al on Residential Total F'enn sylvania Philadelphia 1.52EIJZIIZIB 115.953.3353 1-35.9TC-.513 Total 1.52am 115.933.1358 43,936,351" 165.9??jl?. Study Region Tolal 1.525.006 115.383.1355 13,536,551" Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page 11 of 11 478 Hazus-MH: Hurricane Event Report Region Na me: F?hil?Hurr Hurricane Scena rig: Probabilistic EDD-year Retum Period Print Date: Wednesday, May 04. 2015 Disctaimer: This version oft-terns E?tl?' Senses Data. Totats ontj.?r rett'ect data forthose census tracts-blow in?uded in the user's stun? reg-hm. The estimates cfsociat and economic impacts contained in this report were modem ush'ig Hazus toss estimation methoc'otogly software which is hsseo' on current scientific and engiineen'ng kno's-tedgie. There are uncertainties inherent in an].r toss estimation technique. Thesetiore. there may be significant o'lti'erewces between the mode-Jed resuits contained in this report and the actuai sociat and economic losses nation-ring a speci?c Hum'cane. resutts can be improved by using enhanced Inventory data 479 Table of Contents Section Page General Description of the Region 3 Building Inventory 4 General Building Stock Eeaential Facility Inventory Hurricane Scenario Parameters 5 Building Damage [5 General Building Stock Eeaential Facilities Damage Induced Hurricane Damage 8 Debris Generation Social Impact Shelter Requirements Economic Lose 9 Building Appendix A: County Listing for the Region 1t} Appendix B: Hegio nal Population and Building 1lr'alue Data '11 Hurricane Event Summary Report Page 2 of 1'1 480 Hazus is a regional multi-hazard loss estimation model that Ieras deyeloped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute of Building Sciences. The primary purpose of Hazus is to provide a methodology and software application to develop multi-hazard losses at a regional scale. These loss estimates would be used primarily by local, state and regional of?cials to plan and stimulate efforts to reduce risks from multi- hazards and to prepare for emergency response and recovery. The hurricane loss estimates provided in this report are based on a region that includes 1 countyties} from the following statets}: Note: Appendix A contains a complete listing of the counties contained in the region. The geographical size of the region is 142.11 square miles and contains 384 census tracts. There are over 599 thousand households in the region and has a total population of 1.525.005 people {2010 Census Bureau data}. The distribution of population by State and County is proyided in Appendix B. There are an estimated 534 thousand buildings in the region with a total building replacement value {excluding contents} of million dollars (21110 dollars}. Approximately 93% of the buildings {and of the building 1.ralue} are associated I.yith residential housing. Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page 3 of1'1 481 General Building Stock. Hazus estimates that there are buildings in the region which have an aggregate total replacement value of 155,5?1 million {2555 dollars]. Table 1 presents the relative distribution of the value wilh respect to the general oocupancies. Appendix provides a general distribution of the building value by Slate and Count-r. Table 1: Building Exposure by Occupancy Type Dccu pancy Exposure {$155 5} Percent of Tot Residential 115,553,555 55.5% Commercial 33, 395,345 25.4% In dustrial 5,145,552 Agricultural 115,433 5.1 Evil Religion 5 4, 255,525 2.5% Govemment 1,555,553 5.5% Ed uca?on 4,555,542 23% Total 155, 5T51513 155.5% I I For essential facilities, there are 35 hospitals in the region with a total bed capacity of 9,44? beds. There are 5T5 schools, 3 ?re stations. 25 police stations and no emergency operation facilities. Hurricane Event Summary Report Page 4 of 1'1 482 . . Hazus estimates that about 333 buildings I.rrill number bf buildings in the region. There are an estimated 3 buildings lhat I.vill de?nition of the ?damage states? is provided in 1y'olume 1: Table 2 below summarizes lhe expected damage by general occupancy for the buildings in the summarizes the expected damage by general building type. be at least moderately damaged. This Table 2: Expected Building Damage by Occupancy is over 3% of the total be completely destroyed. The 233 - year Event Chapter 3 of the Hazus Hurricane technical manual. region. Table 3 llone liIlinor Moderate Severe Destruction Occupancy Count Count [531 Count Count Count Agriculture 353 33.32 4 1.33 3 3.3? 3 3.32 3 3.33 Commercial 23.531 33.34 273 1.31 15 3.35 3 3.33 3 3.33 Education 1.1?3 33. 35 12 1.34 3 3.31 3 3.33 3 Government 343 33. 3? 1.12 3 3.31 3 3.33 3 Industrial 4.352 33. 35 55 1.12 1 3.33 3 3.33 3 3.33 Religion 2.3?4 33.15 25 3.34 3 3.31 3 3.33 3 3.33 Residemial 433. 333 33.T4 3.323 1.13 343 3.3? 3 3.33 3 3.33 Total 52?.414 3.23? 353 13 3 Table 3: Expected Building Damage by Building Type 233 year Event Building Hone Minor Moderate Severe Destruction Count Count {33} Count Count {35] Count {33} Concrete 5.315 33.54 32 1.45 1 3.32 3 3.33 3 3.33 Masonry 1T4.E-T4 33.32 2.333 1.52 234 3.13- 3 3.33 3 3.33 MH 1.253 33.33 3 3.33 3 3.33 3 3.33 3 3.33 E-teel 1?.115 33.31 133 1.13 13 3.33 3 3.33 3 3.3: Wood 323.434 33.35 3.132 3.34 43 3.31 3 3.33 3 3.33 Hurricane Event Summary Report Page 3 of 11 483 Hazus used the following set of information te de?ne the hun'ieane parameters for the hurricane less estimate presided in this reperl. Scenario Name: Probabilistic Type: Probabilistic Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page 5 cf 1'1 484 . . Hazus estimates that about 333 buildings I.rrill number bf buildings in the region. There are an estimated 3 buildings lhat I.vill de?nition of the ?damage states? is provided in 1y'olume 1: Table 2 below summarizes lhe expected damage by general occupancy for the buildings in the summarizes the expected damage by general building type. be at least moderately damaged. This Table 2: Expected Building Damage by Occupancy is over 3% of the total be completely destroyed. The 233 - year Event Chapter 3 of the Hazus Hurricane technical manual. region. Table 3 llone liIlinor Moderate Severe Destruction Occupancy Count Count [531 Count Count Count Agriculture 353 33.32 4 1.33 3 3.3? 3 3.32 3 3.33 Commercial 23.531 33.34 273 1.31 15 3.35 3 3.33 3 3.33 Education 1.1?3 33. 35 12 1.34 3 3.31 3 3.33 3 Government 343 33. 3? 1.12 3 3.31 3 3.33 3 Industrial 4.352 33. 35 55 1.12 1 3.33 3 3.33 3 3.33 Religion 2.3?4 33.15 25 3.34 3 3.31 3 3.33 3 3.33 Residemial 433. 333 33.T4 3.323 1.13 343 3.3? 3 3.33 3 3.33 Total 52?.414 3.23? 353 13 3 Table 3: Expected Building Damage by Building Type 233 year Event Building Hone Minor Moderate Severe Destruction Count Count {33} Count Count {35] Count {33} Concrete 5.315 33.54 32 1.45 1 3.32 3 3.33 3 3.33 Masonry 1T4.E-T4 33.32 2.333 1.52 234 3.13- 3 3.33 3 3.33 MH 1.253 33.33 3 3.33 3 3.33 3 3.33 3 3.33 E-teel 1?.115 33.31 133 1.13 13 3.33 3 3.33 3 3.3: Wood 323.434 33.35 3.132 3.34 43 3.31 3 3.33 3 3.33 Hurricane Event Summary Report Page 3 of 11 485 Before the hurricane. the region had 9,44? hospital beds available for use. 0n the da1.r of the hunicane, the model estimates that 944? hospital beds (onlyr are available for use. After one tveelt. moons. of the beds will be in service. Ev 30 days: moons-t: will be operational. Table 4: Expected Damage to Essential Facilities Facilities Probabilityr of at Pro babilitv of Expected Least Moderate Complete Loss of Use Classi?cation Total Damage ?uivn Damage sneq, 4: 1 day Fire Stations 3 [t t] 3 Has pilals 35- 23 El 36 Police Stations 23 28 Schools El Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page i" of 1'1 486 Hazus estimates the amount of debris that will be generated by the hurricane. The model breatcs the debris into four general categories: a] EtncloWood. b] Reinforced Concreter'Steel, c} Eligible Tree Debris. and Other Tree Debris. This distinction is made because of the different types of material handling equipment required to handle thedebris. The model estimates that a total of 2?,418 tons of debris will be generated. Di the total amount, 'r'EI-i" tons is Dlher Tree Debris. Df the remaining 25,531 tons, Etriclc?r?rl'ood comprises Wilt. of the total, Reinforced ConcretetSteel comprises of 11% of the total, I.yith the remainder being Eligible Tree Debris. It the building debris tonnage is converted to an estimated number of truckloads, it will require 992 truckloads [@25 to remove the building debris generated by the hurricane. The number of Eligible Tree Debris tructdoads will depend on how the 3T5 tons of Eligible Tree Debris are collected and processed. The volume of tree debris generally ranges from about 4 cubic yards per ton for chipped or compacted tree debris to about 10 cubic yards per ton for bulkier, uncompacted debris. Hazus estimates the number of households that are expected to be displaced from their homes due to the hunicane and the number of displaced people that will require acoommodations in temporary public shelters. The model estimates households to be displaced due to the hurricane. Di these, El people [out of a total population of seek temporary shelter in public shelters. Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page 8 bf 1'1 487 The total economic loss estimated for the hurricane is 2311.? million dollars. which represents 11.14 '14 of the total replacement 1.ralue of the region's buildings. The building related losses are broken into two categories: direct property damage losses and business interruption losses. The direct property damage losses are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage caused to the building and its contents. The business interruption losses are the losses associated with inability to operate abusiness because of the damage sustained during the humcane. Business interruption losses also include the temperary liying expenses for those people displaced from their homes because of the humcane. The total property damage losses were 231 million dollars. 1% of the estimated losses were related to the business interruption of the region. By far. the largest loss was sustained by the residential occupancies which made up over 95% of the total loss. Table 4 below provides a summary of the losses associated with the building damage. Table 5: Building-Related Economic Loss Estimates {Thousands of dollars} Category Area Residential Commercial lnclu atrial Total Pro Dama Building 2C-3.TEB.3E 1.2.39.1'4 .13 214911.211 Content 41140.99 ISL-11B 1311.132 5.119 4.22390 Inventory CIJJC- 0.1111 211.35 I150 29.811 Subtotal 20?.13935 7.2673? 1.611155 2.1111131 219.115.1111 Business Interruption Loss Income C-JZIIZI ISL-SID {11:0 ooc- Relocation B.BT5.53 131.1?1 3.93 4.96 ?.113.12 Rental 4.311111 4 ISL-211 {1.110 IZIJZIIZI 4. BED. 14 Wage Iii-Jill] ISL-1111 11.110 IZIJZIIZI ooc- Subtotal 11.3516? 131.11 ?1.55 11.43112? Total Told 215.155.112 7.399.114]- 2.01223 230.6125 Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page 9 of 11 488 F'e nn sylvania - Philadelphia Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page 10 0f1'1 489 Building 1lr'alue {mouaanda of dollars: Population Heaiden?al on Residential Total F'enn sylvania Philadelphia 1.52EIJZIIZIB 115.953.3353 1-35.9TC-.513 Total 1.52am 115.933.1358 43,936,351" 165.9??jl?. Study Region Tolal 1.525.006 115.383.1355 13,536,551" Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page 11 of 11 490 Building 1lr'alue {mouaanda of dollars: Population Heaiden?al on Residential Total F'enn sylvania Philadelphia 1.52EIJZIIZIB 115.953.3353 1-35.9TC-.513 Total 1.52am 115.933.1358 43,936,351" 165.9??jl?. Study Region Tolal 1.525.006 115.383.1355 13,536,551" Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page 11 of 11 491 Table of Contents Section Page General Description of the Region 3 Building Inventory 4 General Building Stock Eeaential Facility Inventory Hurricane Scenario Parameters 5 Building Damage [5 General Building Stock Eeaential Facilities Damage Induced Hurricane Damage 8 Debris Generation Social Impact Shelter Requirements Economic Lose 9 Building Appendix A: County Listing for the Region 1t} Appendix B: Hegio nal Population and Building 1lr'alue Data '11 Hurricane Event Summary Report Page 2 of 1'1 492 Hazus is a regional multi-hazard loss estimation model that Ieras deyeloped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute of Building Sciences. The primary purpose of Hazus is to provide a methodology and software application to develop multi-hazard losses at a regional scale. These loss estimates would be used primarily by local, state and regional of?cials to plan and stimulate efforts to reduce risks from multi- hazards and to prepare for emergency response and recovery. The hurricane loss estimates provided in this report are based on a region that includes 1 countyties} from the following statets}: Note: Appendix A contains a complete listing of the counties contained in the region. The geographical size of the region is 142.11 square miles and contains 384 census tracts. There are over 599 thousand households in the region and has a total population of 1.525.005 people {2010 Census Bureau data}. The distribution of population by State and County is proyided in Appendix B. There are an estimated 534 thousand buildings in the region with a total building replacement value {excluding contents} of million dollars (21110 dollars}. Approximately 93% of the buildings {and of the building 1.ralue} are associated I.yith residential housing. Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page 3 of1'1 493 General Building Stock. Hazus estimates that there are buildings in the region which have an aggregate total replacement value of 155,5?1 million {2555 dollars]. Table 1 presents the relative distribution of the value wilh respect to the general oocupancies. Appendix provides a general distribution of the building value by Slate and Count-r. Table 1: Building Exposure by Occupancy Type Dccu pancy Exposure {$155 5} Percent of Tot Residential 115,553,555 55.5% Commercial 33, 395,345 25.4% In dustrial 5,145,552 Agricultural 115,433 5.1 Evil Religion 5 4, 255,525 2.5% Govemment 1,555,553 5.5% Ed uca?on 4,555,542 23% Total 155, 5T51513 155.5% I I For essential facilities, there are 35 hospitals in the region with a total bed capacity of 9,44? beds. There are 5T5 schools, 3 ?re stations. 25 police stations and no emergency operation facilities. Hurricane Event Summary Report Page 4 of 1'1 494 Hazus used the following set of information te de?ne the hun'ieane parameters for the hurricane less estimate presided in this reperl. Scenario Name: Probabilistic Type: Probabilistic Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page 5 cf 1'1 495 5 IE 5 I I: Hazus estimates that about 2,153 buildings will be at least moderatet}.r damaged. This is over 3% of the total number of buildings in the region. There are an estimated 13 buildings that will be completely destroyed. The detinition of the ?damage states? is provided in 1I.I'olume 1: Chapter 3 of the Hazus Hurricane technical manual. Table 2 below summarizes the expected damage by general occupancy for the buildings in the region. Table 3 summarizes the expected damage by general building type. Table 2: Expected Building Damage by Occupancy 533 - year Event it one him or Mod erate Severe Destruction Occupancy Count Count Count {311] Count Count Agriculture 333 353.13 3 3.31 Commercial 25.341 3324 3'33 2. 31 3. 33 3- 3.33 3 3.33 Education 1,151 3?.13 33 2. T3 1 3.11 3 3.33 3 3.33 Government 332 33.74 23 3.11 1 3.14 3 3.33 3 3.33 Ind ustrial 33. 52 154 3.14 13 3.2? 3 3.33 3 3.33 Religion 2.313 3?.3.33 3 3.33 Residemial 4?1.315 34.33 23.315 4. T3 1.333 3. 43 23 3.33 13 3.33 Total 53?.331 24.333 2.133 31 13 Table 3: Expected Building Damage by Building Type 533 rear Event uildi ng Hone Minor Moderate Severe Destru ction Corr nt Cou nt {33} Con nt [33] Cou nt {33] I: ou nt {33} Concrete 5 .4?5 33.33 211 3.?3 12 3.21 3 3.33 3 3.33 Masonry 15?.5?3 34.21 3.333 5.33 1.354 35 3.32 2 3.33 MH 1.253 33.33 1 3.33 3 3.32 3 3.33 3 3.33 Steel 13.?43 33.33 533 2.33 34 3.33" 3.34 3 3.33 Wood 313.432 35.111 14.3413- 4.42 553 3.13r 3 3.33 3 3.33 Hurricane Event 3n mmaryr Report Page 5 of 11 496 Before the hurricane. the region had 9,44? hospital beds available for use. 0n the da1.r of the hunicane, the model estimates that 944? hospital beds (onlyr are available for use. After one tveelt. moons. of the beds will be in service. Ev 30 days: moons-t: will be operational. Table 4: Expected Damage to Essential Facilities Facilities Probabilityr of at Pro babilitv of Expected Least Moderate Complete Loss of Use Classi?cation Total Damage ?uivn Damage sneq, 4: 1 day Fire Stations 3 [t t] 3 Has pilals 35- 23 El 36 Police Stations 23 28 Schools El Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page i" of 1'1 497 Hazus estimates the amount of debris that will be generated by the hurricane. The model breatcs the debris into four general categories: a] EtncloWood. b] Reinforced Concreter'Sleel, c} Eligible Tree Debris. and Other Tree Debris. This distinction is made because of the different types of material handling equipment required to handle thedebris. The model estimates that a total of T1490 tons bf debris will be generated. Df the total amount. 1.941 tons is Dther Tree Debris. Df the remaining T5549 tons, Bricl-oty'u'ood comprises of the total. Reinforced ConcretetSteel comprises of 11% of the total, I.yith the remainder being Eligible Tree Debris. It the building debris tonnage is conyerted to an estimated number of truckloads, it will require 2935 truckloads [@25 to remove the building debris generated by the hurricane. The number of Eligible Tree Debris tructdoads will depend on how the 2,154 tons of Eligible Tree Debris are collected and processed. The volume of tree debris generally ranges from about 4 cubic yards per ton tor chipped or compacted tree debris to about 10 cubic yards per ton for bulkier, uncompacted debris. Hazus estimates the number of households that are expected to be displaced from their homes due to the hunicane and the number of displaced people that will require acoommodations in temporary public shelters. The model estimates 149 households to be displaced due to the hurricane. Df these, 20 people {out of a total population of Will seek temporary shelter in public shelters. Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page 8 ?t 1'1 498 The total economic loss estimated for the hurn'cane is 503.5 million dollars, which represents 0.35 33 of the total replacement 1.ralue of the region's buildings. The building related losses are broken into two categories: direct property damage losses and business interruption losses. The direct property damage losses are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage caused to the building and its contents. The business interruption losses are the losses associated with inability to operate abusiness because of the damage sustained during the humcane. Business interruption losses also include the temperary liying expenses for those people displaced from their homes because of the humcane. The total property damage losses were 603 million dollars. 1% of the estimated losses were related to the business interruption of the region. By far. the largest loss was sustained by the residential occupancies which made up over 033-1: of the total loss. Table 4 below provides a summary of the losses associated with the building damage. Table 5: Building-Related Economic Loss Estimates {Thousands of dollars} Category Area Residential Commercial lnclu atrial ?there Tortal Pro Dama Building 505330.15 25.11?.33 5.35-1.43 5.34T.35 542300.42 Content 13,1?235 2.003.33 2.133.32 145.2]r 22.511.33 Inventory ?1.00 43.52 322.01 4.53 320.12 Subtotal 521,509.10 22,104.74 3,000.31 505,242.01 Business Interruption Loss Income 0.00 421.0? 13.2? 0.?4 440 .53 Relocation 21.030.03- 1.02? .54 10?.10 53.03 23.1333: Rental 14235.13 123.33 15.25 0.?2 14.425.53- 0.00 152.43 31.02 15.34 133.30 Subtotal 30.15125 LIT-4.37 173.13 91M 38.20125 T0131 Told 555.524.35 23,933.11 3.543.415 5,131.25 60ml? Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page at 1'1 499 F'e nn sylvania - Philadelphia Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page 10 0f1'1 500 Building 1lr'alue {mouaanda of dollars: Population Heaiden?al on Residential Total F'enn sylvania Philadelphia 1.52EIJZIIZIB 115.953.3353 1-35.9TC-.513 Total 1.52am 115.933.1358 43,936,351" 165.9??jl?. Study Region Tolal 1.525.006 115.383.1355 13,536,551" Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page 11 of 11 501 Hazus-MH: Hurricane Event Report Region Name: F?hil?Hurr Hurricane Scenario: Probabilistic 1DUu-3rearRetum Pen?od Print Date: Wednesday, May 04. 2015 Disctaimer: This version oft-terns E?tl?' Senses Data. Totats ontj.?r rett'ect data forthose census tracts-blow in?uded in the user's stun? reg-hm. The estimates cfsociat and economic impacts contained in this report were modem ush'ig Hazus toss estimation methoc'otogly software which is hsseo' on current scientific and engiineen'ng kno's-tedgie. There are uncertainties inherent in an].r toss estimation technique. Thesetiore. there may be significant o'lti'erewces between the mode-Jed resuits contained in this report and the actuai sociat and economic losses nation-ring a speci?c Hum'cane. resutts can be improved by using enhanced Inventory data 502 Table of Contents Section Page General Description of the Region 3 Building Inventory 4 General Building Stock Eeaential Facility Inventory Hurricane Scenario Parameters 5 Building Damage [5 General Building Stock Eeaential Facilities Damage Induced Hurricane Damage 8 Debris Generation Social Impact Shelter Requirements Economic Lose 9 Building Appendix A: County Listing for the Region 1t} Appendix B: Hegio nal Population and Building 1lr'alue Data '11 Hurricane Event Summary Report Page 2 of 1'1 503 Hazus is a regional multi-hazard loss estimation model that Ieras deyeloped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute of Building Sciences. The primary purpose of Hazus is to provide a methodology and software application to develop multi-hazard losses at a regional scale. These loss estimates would be used primarily by local, state and regional of?cials to plan and stimulate efforts to reduce risks from multi- hazards and to prepare for emergency response and recovery. The hurricane loss estimates provided in this report are based on a region that includes 1 countyties} from the following statets}: Note: Appendix A contains a complete listing of the counties contained in the region. The geographical size of the region is 142.11 square miles and contains 384 census tracts. There are over 599 thousand households in the region and has a total population of 1.525.005 people {2010 Census Bureau data}. The distribution of population by State and County is proyided in Appendix B. There are an estimated 534 thousand buildings in the region with a total building replacement value {excluding contents} of million dollars (21110 dollars}. Approximately 93% of the buildings {and of the building 1.ralue} are associated I.yith residential housing. Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page 3 of1'1 504 General Building Stock. Hazus estimates that there are buildings in the region which have an aggregate total replacement value of 155,5?1 million {2555 dollars]. Table 1 presents the relative distribution of the value wilh respect to the general oocupancies. Appendix provides a general distribution of the building value by Slate and Count-r. Table 1: Building Exposure by Occupancy Type Dccu pancy Exposure {$155 5} Percent of Tot Residential 115,553,555 55.5% Commercial 33, 395,345 25.4% In dustrial 5,145,552 Agricultural 115,433 5.1 Evil Religion 5 4, 255,525 2.5% Govemment 1,555,553 5.5% Ed uca?on 4,555,542 23% Total 155, 5T51513 155.5% I I For essential facilities, there are 35 hospitals in the region with a total bed capacity of 9,44? beds. There are 5T5 schools, 3 ?re stations. 25 police stations and no emergency operation facilities. Hurricane Event Summary Report Page 4 of 1'1 505 Hazus used the following set of information te de?ne the hun'ieane parameters for the hurricane less estimate presided in this reperl. Scenario Name: Probabilistic Type: Probabilistic Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page 5 cf 1'1 506 5 IE 5 I I: Hazus estimates that about 5.249 buildings will be at least moderatet}.r damaged. This is over 13-1: of the total number at buildings in the region. There are an estimated 49 buildings that will be completely destroyed. The detinition of the ?damage states? is provided in 1volume 1: Chapter 5 of the Hazus Hurricane technical manual. Table 2 below summarizes the expected damage by general occupancy for the buildings in the region. Table 3 summarizes 1he expected damage by general building type. Table 2: Expected Building Damage by Occupancy 1555 - year Event ll one I'Illin or Mod erate Severe Destruction Occupancy Count Count Count :59] Count Count Agriculture 325 51.95 23 5. 33 4 1.14 2 5.43 5 5.53 Commercial 25.54? 53. 45 1.511 5.53 234 5. 3? 25 5.55 5 5.55 Education 1.111 53.?3 5? 5.5? 5 5. 54 5 5.51 5 5.55 Government 512 53.5.51 5 5.55 Ind ustrial 4.599 53.?5.15 5 5.51 Religion 2.359 53.5.55 5 5.55 Residemial 443.231 55.1? 43.954 3. 34 4.355 5. 9? 55 5.51 43 5.51 Total 432.?34 45.544 5.53? 153 43 Table 3: Expected Building Damage by Building Type 1555 - year Event uildi ng Hone Minor Moderate Severe Destru ction Corr nt Con nt {39} Con nt Con nt {34] I: ou nt {39} Concrete 5 .25? 92.43 333 5.?2 43 5.34 5 5.51 5 5.55 Masonry 159.214 59.52 3.?5 2.9?5 1.5? 33 5.55 13 5.51 MH 1.255 59.55 4 5.23 1 5.55- 5 5.55 5 5.51 E-teel 15.153 53.51 535 5.3-1r 1?2 5.55 22 5.13 5 5.55 Wood 351.719 55.93 23.215 3.51 1.529 5.45 15 5.55 32 5.51 Hurricane Event 3n mmary Report Page 5 of 11 507 Before the hurricane. the region had 9,44? hospital beds available for use. 0n the da1.r of the hunicane, the model estimates that EDTQ hospital beds (onlyr 54.00%} are available for use. After one week, of the beds will be in service. Ev 30 days: moons-t: will be operational. Table 4: Expected Damage to Essential Facilities Facilities Probabilityr of at Pro babilitv of Expected Least Moderate Complete Loss of Use Classi?cation Total Damage ?uivn Damage sneq, 4: 1 day Fire Stations 3 [i t] 3 Has pilals 35- 23 El 23 Police Stations 23 28 Schools El Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page i" of 1'1 508 Hazus estimates the amount of debris that will be generated by the hurricane. The model breaks the debris into four general categories: a] b] Reinforced Concreter'Sleel, c} Eligible Tree Debris. and Other Tree Debris. This distinction is made because of the different types of material handling equipment required to handle thedebris. The model estimates that a total of 13?,204 tons of debris Will be generated. Of the total amount, 2.51? tons is Dther Tree Debris. Di the remaining 134,58? tons, BrictoWood comprises 98% of the total, Reinforced ConcretetSteel comprises of 11% of the total, I.yith the remainder being Eligible Tree Debris. It the building debris tonnage is conyerted to an estimated number of truckloads, it will require 523? truckloads [@25 to remove the building debris generated by the hurricane. The number of Eligible Tree Debris truckloads will depend on how the 2,520 tons of Eligible Tree Debris are collected and processed. The volume of tree debris generally ranges from about 4 cubic yards per ton tor chipped or compacted tree debris to about 10 cubic yards per ton for bulkier, uncompacted debris. Hazus estimates the number of households that are expected to be displaced from their homes due to the hunicane and the number of displaced people that will require acoommodations in temporary public shelters. The model estimates households to be displaced due to the hurricane. Df these. people {out of a total population of 1.rrill seek temporary shelter in public shelters. Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page 8 ?t 1'1 509 The total economic loss estimated fer the hurricane is 1064.1 million dollars, which represents 0.54 '11: ot the total replacement value of the region?s buildings. The building related losses are broken into two categories: direct property damage losses and business interruption losses. The direct property damage losses are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage caused to the building and its contents. The business interruption losses are the losses associated with inability to operate abusiness because of the damage sustained during the humcane. Business interruption losses also include the temporaryr living expenses for those people displaced from their homes because of the humcane. The total property damage losses were 1,054 million dollars. 3% of the estimated losses were related to the business interruption of the region. By far. the largest loss was sustained by the residential occupancies which made up over of the total loss. Table 4 below provides a summary of the losses associated with the building damage. Table 5: Building-Related Economic Loss Estimates {Thousands of dollars} Category Area Residential Commercial lndu etrial ?there Tortal Pro Dama Building 322251133 55.25am 11 .rzeri 1:3 .eeose 933.243.1311 Content 16.411.1s sees .54 5.41112? 1 $94.4? oz. 5 1 2.13 Inventory oco 1.3.5.53 reoos eases subtotal Foams; scene?e 17.911110: 15311111 someones Business Interruption Loss Income ouc- s'roc- more sees-12 Relocation 3T.IZIEQ.11 121.313.1151 4on4 1 asses teasers Rental ease-1.134 3,232.94 roe: were seseies wage ouc- e.o5o.oe 113.95 r.o1e.ee 12.211195 Subtotal 53.1153}: 22.031117 main 11.231311 97,127.33 Total Tatar 932.1213: assures 111505.611 Emu Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page 9 of 1'1 510 F'e nn sylvania - Philadelphia Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page 10 0f1'1 511 Building 1lr'alue {mouaanda of dollars: Population Heaiden?al on Residential Total F'enn sylvania Philadelphia 1.52EIJZIIZIB 115.953.3353 1-35.9TC-.513 Total 1.52am 115.933.1358 43,936,351" 165.9??jl?. Study Region Tolal 1.525.006 115.383.1355 13,536,551" Hurricane Event Summaryr Report Page 11 of 11 512 19 Appendix: Public Outreach Hazard Mitigation Public Survey Results Question 1: Are you over 18? Respondents had to be 18 to complete the survey Question 2: What is your zipcode? 99% of zipcodes responded - fill in the blank dataset too large to display Question 3: 513 Question 4: 4. Please tell us how concerned you are about the following disasters affecting your neighborhood. - Not at all concerned - A little concerned - Concerned - Very concerned 300 200 100 0 . . . . Dam Failure Widespread fire that Tornadoes Extreme Heat Flooding affects a city block or more Drought Earthquake Winter Storms Active shooter Bridge Collapse Hazardous Materials Bombing Extreme Cold Train Derailment 514 Question 5: Is there a hazard not listed you are concerned about? Majority of responses were no – fill in the blank dataset too large to display Question 6: Question 7: 515 Question 8: 8. Do you have an emergency plan in place for you and your family? (441responses) 1. Yes 1. No 41896 Question 9: 9. Do you have an emergency kit with water, medications, and food for you and your family for three days? (441responses) ?IYes 516 Question 10: All government emergency services, including medical assistance, evacuation plans, and access to emergency shelters, are designed to be accessible to all. What specific concerns, if any, do you have about your ability to access emergency services in a disaster? Fill in the blank dataset too large to display Question 11: Question 12: Is there anything else you’d like us to know? Majority of responses were no – fill in the blank dataset too large to display 517 Thank you for joining us today for the Philadelphia Of?ce of Emergency Management Hazard Mitigation Plan Public Meeting. We appreciate yourjoining us and learning about the hazards that affect Philadelphia and sharing your concerns with us. Your email if you would like us to contact you for lain/3, Your Name Your Zip Code upcoming events. ?a?asz7? 604 471 9} (Jo/re. [87%)8637 cng/rzaf ?3 3'1 WSRV OEM Hazard Mitigation Plan Public Meeting Eastwick Branch, Philadelphia Free Library June 8, 2016 6200?7200pm 518 Media Sign In Sheet Name Af?liation Contact Information/Email kgOWICj?a l?ry (u TJWM TWA {9511 ?an/mi OEM Hazard Mitigation Plan Public Meeting Eastwick Branch, Philadelphia Free Library June 8, 2016 6:00-7:00pm (.W 519 For Immediate Release: June 2, 2016 Media Advisory Office of Emergency Management to Hold Community Meeting Regarding Hazards in the City of Philadelphia. Who: Philadelphia Office of Emergency Management What: Meeting to inform and solicit feedback from the public regarding the City’s planned revision of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requires Hazard Mitigation Plan updates every 5 years. The plan was last finalized in 2012, and addresses a list of hazards that may impact the City. The purpose of the hazard mitigation program is to identify projects, plans, and actions that can reduce or eliminate risks to people and property. The Office of Emergency Management will give a presentation on the development of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. The presentation will also include OEM’s READYHome workshop including personal and family preparedness tips. Attendees will have time to provide feedback on how natural and human caused hazards affect them and their community. A list of hazards of concern in the plan can be found in our Hazard Mitigation Public Survey available at www.phila.gov/ready. We encourage residents of the city to take the survey. 520 When: June 8th, 6:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Where: Eastwick Neighborhood Library. 2851 Island Ave, Philadelphia, PA 19153 Why: The Office of Emergency Management will hold a series of meetings from June until mid-October throughout Philadelphia during the plan writing process. The public is encouraged to visit www.phila.gov/ready to:    Find out more information on hazards that can affect Philadelphia, and what individuals and businesses can do to become better prepared Fill out the Hazard Mitigation Public Survey Access a complete list of upcoming meetings, meeting notes, and plan drafts ### 521 For Immdlate Release: June 2. 2016 Media Advisory Office of Emergency Management to Hold Community Meeting Regarding Hazards in the City of Philadelphia. Who: Philadelphia Office of Emergency Management What: Meeting to infomi and solicit feedback from the public regarding the City?s planned revision of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requires Hazard Mitigation Plan updates every 5 years. The plan was last finalized in 2012. and addresses a list of hazards that may impact the City. The purpose of the hazard mitigation program is to identify projects. plans. and actions that can reduce or eliminate risks to people and property. The Office of Emergency Management will give a presentation on the development of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. The presentation will also include workshop including personal and family preparedness tips. Attendees will have time to provide feedback on how natural and human caused hazards affect them and their community. A list of hazards of concern in the plan can be found in our Hazard Mitigation Public Survey available at 33;; n. re .1. i We encourage residents of the city to take the survey. When: June 6:00 pm. - 7:00 pm. Where: Eastwiek Neighborhood Library. 285I Island Ave. Philadelphia. PA 19153 Why: The Office of Emergency Management will hold a series of meetings from June until mid-October throughout Philadelphia during the plan writing process. The public is encouraged to visit mamphilagovx'ready to: 0 Find out more information on hazards that can affect Philadelphia. and what individuals and businesses can do to become better prepared - Fill out the Hazard Mitigation Public Survey 0 Access a complete list of upcoming meetings. meeting notes. and plan drafts 522 For Immediate Release: September 21, 2016 Media Advisory Of?ce of Emergency Management to Hold Community Meeting Regarding Hazards in the City of Philadelphia. Who: Philadelphia Of?ce of Emergency Management What: Meeting to inform and solicit feedback from the public regarding the City?s planned revision ofthe Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requires Hazard Mitigation Plan updates every 5 years. The plan was last finalized in 20l2, and addresses a list of hazards that may impact the City. The purpose of the hazard mitigation program is to identify projects. plans. and actions that can reduce or eliminate risks to people and property. The Of?ce of Emergency Management will give a presentation on the development of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. The presentation will also include workshop including personal and family preparedness tips. Attendees will have time to provide feedback on how natural and human caused hazards affect them and their community. A list of hazards of concern in the plan can be found in our Hazard Mitigation Public Survey available at v. [mgm remix, We encourage residents ofthe city to take the survey. When: September 26th, 6:00 7:00 pm. Where: Free Library. ishtown Branch Why: The Of?ce of Emergency Management will hold a series of meetings from June until mid- October throughout Philadelphia during the plan writing process. The public is encouraged to visit to: 0 Find out more information on hazards that can affect Philadelphia. and what individuals and businesses can do to become better prepared 0 Fill out the Hazard Mitigation Public Survey 0 Access a complete list of upcoming meetings. meeting notes. and plan drafts ill?? 523 For Immediate Release: June 21, 20l6 Of?ce of Emergency Management to Hold Community Meeting in Roxborough Regarding Hazards in the City of Philadelphia. Who: Philadelphia Office of Emergency Management What: Meeting to infomi and solicit feedback from the public regarding the City?s planned revision of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requires Hazard Mitigation Plan updates every 5 years. The plan was last ?nalized in 2012. and addresses a list of hazards that may impact the City. The purpose of the hazard mitigation program is to identify projects. plans. and actions that can reduce or eliminate risks to people and property. The Office of Emergency Management will give a presentation on the development of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. The presentation will also include OEM's workshop including personal and family preparedness tips. Attendees will have time to provide feedback on how natural and human caused hazards affect them and their community. A list of hazards of concern in the plan can be found in our Hazard Mitigation Public Survey available at ELEM: 34px We encourage residents of the city to take the survey. When: June 29", 6:30 pm. - 7:30 pm. Where: Roxborough Branch Library. 6245 Ridge Avenue. Philadelphia. PA l9l28 Why: The Office of Emergency Management will hold a series of meetings from June until mid-October throughout Philadelphia during the plan writing process. The public is encouraged to visit to: 0 Find out more information on hazards that can affect Philadelphia. and what individuals and businesses can do to become better prepared - Fill out the Hazard Mitigation Public Survey 0 Access a complete list of upcoming meetings. meeting notes. and plan drafts 524 City of Philadelphia <9 @PhiladelphiaGov Tonight at @FreeLibrary's Fishtown branch, @PhilaOEM holds a community meeting needs your feedback about planning! bitly/2d6nY9T PM Philadelphia OEM Community meeting tonight in @fishtown open to all #Philly residents. Discussing Hazard Mitigation @starnewsphilly 9/26/16,10133 AM ill VIEW TWEET ACTIVITY a Philadelphia OEM 5 Philadelphia OEM - 6/28/16 . Come see us at Free Library, We're visiting our neighbors in Fishtown this Monday to talk get feedback on our Hazard Mitigation Plan. Join us! ow. y/ 57tJ304sGaU 9/22/16, 10:41 AM Ill VIEW TWEET ACTIVITY Philadelphia OEM a - 6/29/16 a Philly neighbors: Come to our community talk in Roxborough tonight, learn how to be prepared 8 I I I dull t. l0" . ll (I Roxborough Branch tomorrow to talk hazard concerns mitigation I) are 0 I I 3131- u-yo Philadelphia OEM - 6/29/16 a Looking forward to talking residents in Roxborough tonight. help spread the word! Philadelphia OEM C3 @PhilaOEM Looking for great turnout in Fishtown Mon for our Hazard Mitigation meeting. All Philly residents welcome @fishtown owly/57tJ304sGaU 9/23/16, 8:49 AM VIEW TWEET ACTIVITY 00000 Verizon LTE 11:29 AM I 100%- Tweet Philadelphia OEM <3 @PhilaOFM We are set up for the Hazard Mitigation Community Meeting @FreeLibrary Rox Branch in 15 minutes 525 .i . . -.-.--. - 1' Detapivlago. of -. x. nu? raw-1? . Philadelphia Nihi?z? nu ow.- oltrrumrc, L-v OEM Speaking to Residents Regarding Updates to Hazard Mitigation Plan 0' Management unuemh ' iv :31whammy! mm dzuw mun' 526 20 Appendix: Hazard Mitigation Public Presentation 10/31/2016 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 43.5!? Laura Duff, Hazard Mitigation Planning Coordinator \0 WI Fisher, Community Preparedness Program Manager About us Cl Works with residents, El Writes city?wide hazard businesses and communities to mitigation plan achieve a more ready and Cl Risk assessments for hazards prepared Philadelphia :1 Mitigation project a Workshops, education, and identi?cation outreach 10/31/2016 Office of Emergency Management Our Mission: OEM focuses people, plans, and programs to promote a prepared and resilient Philadelphia. Quiz Time What percentage of What percentage of Philadelphians are Philadelphians have prepared with 3 days an emergency plan in of disaster supplies? place? a Food I: Water :1 Emergency Supplies Only 34.% Only 48.7% 3' ?Data from 2017 Hazard Mitigation Survey conducted by Philadelphia Office of Emergency Management, 2016 528 10/31/2016 Family Emergency Plan Emergency Contact Form Hal?d?lnevv-y?C?I-I Bedroom Bedroom bathroom 0 a 1 0 kitchen l] llvingmo?n 1 1 3- 65?? What IS In a Go Bag? :1 Easy to carry: Backpack or small suitcase on wheels. :1 Make copies of important documents: Health insurance cards, Medicare/Medicaid cards, photo id, proof of address, homeowners/rental insurance, deed for your home, and title for your car. I: Store information: Waterproof portable container; cloud or flash drive. 2? 529 10/31/2016 Where will you go? mam I: First choice Family or Friends (You may be the most comfortable). a Second choice - City Emergency Evacuation Shelters, designated public schools. a Shelters are assessed based on incident type, power supply, and flooding hazards. I: All shelters are ADA accessible and assistive technology is available. Communication Kits Mobility Technology Special Medical Needs Portable Generators Prioritized for Assistive Devices Portable Ramps What mitigation means to us i: As residents: a As planners: Go Bag In Prepare and protect I: Family Plan a Plan and recover I: Know where to go a Mitigate risks a Sign up for alerts 530 10/31/2016 What is Hazard Mitigation? A danger or risk either natural or human caused. Hazard Mitigation Plan! :1 Geographic information c1 Demographicinformation :1 Risk and vulnerability assessment :1 Mitigation strategies ?1 va (verb): The effort to reduce the impact of disasters. Every $1 spent on mitigation saves an average of $4 in recovery. 03'; What hazards are included in the Plan? I: Drought El Active Shooter Earthquake El Extreme Cold Extreme Heat El :1 Infrastructure Failure (Bridges, Dams, and Buildings) Floods [1 Hazardous Materials Train El Hurricane/TropicalStorm Derailment '3 Windstorms/Tornadoes :1 Improvised Explosive Device Winter Storms Urban Conflagration es 531 10/31/2016 Active Shooter An individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area Location Categories "sum (mum: hummus?! Scrum (mm. 1.5% [12) 0pm hmrc?t 1.3.1 M. nnlu) 31?" wan-am [-0156 Barnum. Marx m) om anaemia mu, mums) 2 Wm IISIDINHS, "mm (ME mums, (4) OE 2 Improvised Explosive Device The use of a ?homemade? bomb and/or destructive device to destroy, incapacitate, harass, or distract :1 Effects depend on construction and location 532 10/31/2016 Philadelphia Mitigation Efforts Cl Philadelphia Police Department: I: Suspicious activity and object monitoring :1 Philadelphia Fire Department a RAMS training :1 Office of Emergency Management a Activate the Family Assistance Plan Open Family Assistance Center Coordinate patient tracking with EMS and local hospitals Facilitate family reunification and notifications Active Shooter/IED What you can do If you see something, say something a Call 911 To prevent terrorist activity or an attack: a PPD is seeking information regarding suspicious activity in your area. a They need your help and support. :1 Forward any information to them, no matter how insignificant it may appear. To report a tip; dial poucsi Active Shooter/IED 533 10/31/2016 Extreme Cold NWS Windchill Chart Temperature :1 Days where the mean daily temperature falls below 35 3? ?5 207 days since 2012 with average temperature below 32 a How cold was the coldest day? :1 1934 HOW Ong was the longest . freezing streak? 15 days in 1979 and 1961 Winter Storms :1 Can include heavy snow, ice, strong winds, and freezing Total swan Normals by Mom Inches temperatures so 13 Average 22.3 inches of snow annually so When was the largest snowfall? I: 1996, 30.7 3? El Most recent snowfall: 2016, 22.4 2 I 00 I :1 Typically occur between 9? 3, December and March ?ff 8? offer; 534 10/3 1/2016 Philadelphia Mitigation Efforts El Office of Homeless Services (OHS) Declares Code Blue homeless outreach and support El Streets Activates Snow Headquarters I: Pre-deploys equipment, tows along snow emergency routes, and pre-salts Plows snow priority routes Office of Emergency Management I: Activates emergency operations center Extreme Cold/Winter Storms What you can do :1 Try to stay indoors a Cover exposed skin when outside, limit time outside :1 Do not heat house with oven - financial assistance for energy bills El Check on your elderly neighbors :1 Make sure your emergency supplies are up to date 56 Propers ?V?mg ec n'que Extreme Cold/Winter Storms 535 10/31/2016 Extreme Heat 1:1 When the temperature is 10 j; degrees or more than average ?33 Philadelphia has 25-30 days above El How hot was the hottest day? I: in 1918 732 30 AFTERNOON YEMPERATURE 't .- I Runul futumn Downtown Ulbari Park Suburban Ruml Ressdenvial Resmanhol Farmland (a Drought a Dry weather that lasts long enough to cause problems :1 Crop damage a Water shortages Philadelphia is subject to periodic droughts I: How many droughts has Philadelphia had since 1980? I: 27 droughts . . El Last drought: 2012 met. lcuSlicng Junke- z'ms n?mevm?nm?ole El Worst drought: 1931 P) 10 536 10/31/2016 Philadelphia Mitigation Efforts I: Office of Homeless Support (OHS) Homeless outreach and water distribution OHS and OEM Cooling centers at public libraries and rec centers Philadelphia Water Department a Reduce erosion along riverbanks Regulate drinking water Extreme Heat/Drought What you can do Stay hydrated Use window fans or air conditioning Limit activity outside Check on elderly neighbors El Plant trees :1 Limit recreational water use when recommended Extreme Heat/Drought 11 537 10/31/2016 Infrastructure Failure: Bridges El Occur because of: Widespread rusting Deterioration Stress fractures a Heavy traffic loads . ,1 1- El Strong winds 1 3 dw?r 'Vf :1 Bridge inspectors identify structurally deficient bridges Infrastructure Failure: Dams a How many dams are there in Philadelphia? :1 17 dams total (includes reservoirs) Army Corps of Engineers identifies high hazard dams I: Dam failure results in flooding and damaged roads and bridges 12 538 10/31/2016 Infrastructure Failure: Buildings CI Occur because of: I: Poor construction or maintenance Accidents a Heavy snowfall a Strong winds :1 Earthquakes Philadelphia Mitigation Efforts PWD: I: Inspects city owned or licensed dams :1 Maintain dam upkeep Streets: I: City owned bridge inspection and repair El Licenses Inspections Identifies imminently dangerous structures through inspections Infrastructure Failure 13 539 10/31/2016 What you can do a If you own your property, maintain it :1 Contact 3-1-1 to report infrastructure concerns in Have a family emergency plan 1: Follow emergency public messaging a Go Bag Infrastructure Failure Urban Conflagration El Extensive, widespread fi res Ph'a'de'pm that damage property and potentially endanger lives I: A block or more :1 Housing density can encourage fire spread 14 540 10/31/2016 Hazardous Materials Train Derailment a Can occur because of; Hazardous Materials Train Derailment; Issues with the track Communications issues Human error Mechanical or electrical failures Weather I Withcm a release 37' rratenal: \?Jlth a rel-335.: 3' Philadelphia Mitigation Efforts El Philadelphia Fire Department (PFD): Maintain hydrants Fire code inspections 1: Education El OEM, PPD, PFD: a Participate in mutual training and exercises Urban Conflagration/ Hazardous Materials Train Derailment 15 541 10/31/2016 What you can do :1 Install and test smoke alarms in Have a family emergency plan Follow emergency public messaging Go Bag Urban Conflagration/Hazardous Materials Train Derailment Floods :1 One of the most common natural hazards in the United States :1 How many floods has Philadelphia had since 1996? 81 flooding events 1996-2015 Most recent: Torresdale in 2015 1-percent Annual Chance Area gm 16 542 10/31/2016 Wind Storms and Tornadoes Wind Storm EF Scale El Wind speeds over 34 Second Gust (mph) :1 How many windstorms between 1950 and 2015? I: 2,074 wind storms Tornado 111435 a EF-Scale: 0 to 5 El How many tornadoes between 1950 and 2015? 166-200 a 8 tornadoes '1 65-85 86-110 136-165 Over 200 Hurricane and Tropical Storm El Hurricane season: June 1 to November 30 Category Winds Damage :1 Past occurrences: 1 74-95 Moderate 32 coastal storms In or near Philadelphia 2 96-110 Moderate - Severe a What was the most intense 3 111-130 Extensive hurricane to ever hit Philadelphia? 4 131-155 Extreme category 1 Storm 5 >155 Catastrophic elm 17 543 10/31/2016 Philadelphia Mitigation Efforts :1 Philadelphia Parks and Rec El OEM a Tree trimming Coordinate with partner agencies Open the Emergency Operations a Green and gray infrastructure Center If needed projects I: Prioritize road clearing during and . followin storms a Storm drain clean-outs :1 OEM PEMA '3 3'1'1 a Run risk analyses for earthquakes I: Track downed trees and wires To be included in 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan Hurricane/ Tropical Storm, Flooding, and Windstorm/ Tornado What you can do :1 Make sure your emergency supplies are up to date Secure outdoor furniture and play equipment :1 Be prepared for power outages and downed trees El Get flood insurance Install a backflow valve Know your risk I: Turn around, don?t drown Hurricane/ Tropical Storm, Flooding, and Windstorm/ Tornado 18 544 10/31/2016 Earthquakes The shaking, rolling, or sudden shock of the Earth?s surface a Past earthquakes: :1 Since 1737: 81 epicenters What was the largest (magnitude) earthquake Philadelphia ever expe?enced? I: Largest: 4.1 in 1871 Generally not felt, but swag Often felt, but rarely causes yamase . A At most, slight damage to well-designed buildings; damage to poorly constructed buildings Moderate damage Major earthquake; serious- . damage over large areas Great earthquake; serious damage. a Most recent: 2.2 in 2012 3' pi's?? Philadelphia Mitigation Efforts OEM PEMA a Run risk analyses for earthquakes To be included in 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan update Earthquake 19 545 10/31/2016 What you can do 1: Fix heavy furniture to wall Earthquake How to Stay Informed: I: Stay tuned to KYW AM and other local I: If you have cable, tune into Channel TV and radio media outlets: 64, the government access channel. I: Emergency Alert System I: Get updates from the OEM website at: TELEMUNDO .40 "mm?m lune WW :1 Follow on social media a Call 311 for updates on the emergency. unm? phiny? 1" 40 20 546 10/31/2016 Sign Up Police FlaSh Alerts Floods SEPTA Seek Delays Shelter sh-lter P-ace Severe Storm Warning mm Ev I an 5 In the future. Streets alerts PWD alerts Sign up for text and email alerts! a" 41 ready gem Get Involved What keeps you up at night? Whether it be freezing temperatures, flooding, orthunderstorms, we want to know what hazards make you worry. Let us know at or scan the QR code for a direct link. 21 547 10/31/2016 Check our website for the most recent updates of the Hazard Mitigation Plan! Fisher Laura Duff Community Preparedness Hazard Mitigation Planning Program Manager Coordinator 22 548 549 21 Community Annexes 550 21.1.1 Central Northeast Planning District 21.1.1.1 Geography and Hydrology The Central Northeast Planning District contains addresses in the zip codes 19136, 19149, 19152, 19111, and 19115. Zip codes in the Central Northeast Planning District 551 The Central Northeast planning district falls partially in the Delaware Direct, Pennypack Creek, and Tookany/TaconyFrankford Watersheds. Watersheds in the Central Northeast Planning District 552 The Central Northeast Planning District resides within the 10th, 9th, and 6th Council Districts of Philadelphia. Council Districts in Central Northeast Planning District 10 553 The Central Northeast Planning District falls mostly within the 7th and 2nd Police Districts, and also crosses into the 8th and 15th Police Districts. Police Districts in the Central Northeast Planning District 554 21.1.1.2 Current and Future Land Use The PCPC forecasts that the Central Northeast will see modest population and employment growth over the next ten years359. Most residential places in the Central Northeast are stable and PCPC suggests that commercial corridors and centers accommodates any future growth.360 361 359 360 City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia 2035. Central Northeast District Plan. Retrieved November 20, 2015. Ibid. 555 All graphics, charts, and recommendations come from the City of Philadelphia: Philadelphia 2035 Central Northeast District Plan. Retrieved November 20, 2015. 361 556 21.1.1.3 Social Characteristics Data used for social characteristics is from the most recent American Community Survey provided from the U.S. Census. The ACS produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates over a five-year period between censuses. The data used for these statistics is from 2014. Population, Gender and Age Characteristics of the Central Northeast Planning District Population 164,978 - Male population 76,657 - Female population 85,321 Median Age 42.44 - Age dependency ratio (the percentage of the population under 15 and over 64) 64.52 - Population under 15 32.54% - Population over 64 31.96% 557 21.1.1.4 Housing, Mobility, and Poverty For emergency management, whether a home is owned or rented division implies a difference in insurance coverage which affects long-term recovery. Renters insurance covers exists mainly to cover the occupants’ belongings, not the housing itself. This can present challenges in housing unit repair and re-occupancy. Those households living in poverty may have a more difficult time preparing for and recovering from disasters, and the district’s population living below the federal line of poverty. Housing, Mobility, and Poverty Characteristics of the Central Northeast Planning District Number of households - Households owned - Households rented No vehicle access Population below the federal line of poverty Households Owned vs Rented by Planning District 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Percentage of Households Owned Percentage of Households Rented 63,744 41,099 22,645 7,876 11.28% Poverty in the Central Northeast Planning District Population Living Above the Line of Poverty Population Living Below the Line of Poverty 558 21.1.1.5 Disability Of those individuals residing within the Central Northeast Planning District, 15.24 percent reported having a disability. Disabilities reported by individuals in the Central Northeast Planning District are listed in the table below by the percentage of the total population of the District. Disabilities are not exclusive. Disability Reported Hearing difficulty Vision difficulty Cognitive difficulty Ambulatory Difficulty Self-care Difficulty Independent Living Difficulty Percentage of Population 5.7% 6.1% 6.6% 6.6% 6.5% 6.4% 559 21.1.1.6 Central Northeast Hazards Many hazards affect the City of Philadelphia on a wide scale, such as windstorms or hurricanes, while others can have varying levels of risk across the city. These hazards include: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Infrastructure Failure Extreme Heat Flooding Hazardous Material Train Derailment Urban conflagration Each of these hazards are detailed below on the risk factors present in the Central Northeast Planning District. For a complete list of hazards in the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan and a description of the city-wide risk level for each, please see the Risk Assessment section in the main body of the plan. 560 Infrastructure Failure Bridge Failure A bridge collapse consists of a failure of decking, superstructure, or foundation leading to a progressive or immediate collapse of the entire assembly.362 Bridges can span waterways, railways, or roadways and provide overpasses for surface transportation or passenger/freight rail lines. For more information on bridge failures and its impacts, please see Bridge Failure under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Structurally deficient bridges are those have major deterioration, cracks, or other flaws that reduce its ability to support vehicles. A “structurally deficient bridge” typically requires maintenance and repairs to remain in service, or rehabilitation or replacement to address the underlying issue.363 364 Depending on the type and extent of deterioration, the Philadelphia Streets Department or PennDOT may impose weight restrictions. If the deterioration is severe, regulating agencies may shut down the bridge to traffic until maintenance crews can repair the damage. The table below shows those bridges found to be structurally deficient. The map to the below shows those bridges deemed structurally deficient in the Central Northeast Planning District.365 City of Philadelphia Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 2010 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance - System Conditions: Highways and Bridges. Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved March 23, 2016. 364 Ibid. 365 Map Information: MPMS IQ. PennDOT. Retrieved March 2, 2016. 362 363 561 Structurally Deficient Bridges in the Central Northeast Planning District Name Location Pennypack Creek SEPTA (Newtown Branch) Roosevelt Blvd Roosevelt Blvd Pennypack Creek Krewstown Rd Pine Rd Pennypack Circle Cottman Ave and Roosevelt Blvd Rhawn St and Roosevelt Blvd Year Built 1907 1964 1964 1967 1930 562 Dam Failure A dam is a barrier across flowing water that obstructs, directs, or slows down water flow. Dams provide benefits such as flood protection, power generation, drinking water, irrigation, and recreation. Failure of these structures results in an uncontrolled release of impounded water. Failures are relatively rare, but structural damages and injuries are possible in downstream communities when such events occur. For more information on dam failures and its impacts, please see Dam Failure under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. The table below shows the dam name, the waterway on which the dam is located, whether the dam is a high hazard dam, and who currently holds the permit for the structure. Dam Name Waterway High Hazard? Permitted Owner Verre Road Pennypack Creek No City of Philadelphia Roosevelt Boulevard Pennypack Creek No City of Philadelphia Building Collapse Buildings may collapse for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Overall structural integrity; Poor construction or maintenance Accidents; Environmental forces, such as wind or heavy snowfall; or Earthquakes. Building age increases the risk of collapse. The map to the right shows the number of properties built in the Central Northeast Planning District built before 1939. 564 Vacant properties also increase the risk of a building collapse, as these properties fall into disrepair and neglect. The map to the right shows the number of vacant properties in the Central Northeast. 565 Philadelphia Licenses and Inspections (L&I) records imminently dangerous structures found each year through inspections. Some of these structures have partially collapsed, while others are found and acted upon before they collapse. Property owners can repair or demolish these structures. The map below shows the location of imminently dangerous structures in the Central Northeast. 566 Extreme Heat Extreme heat can be described as temperatures that hover 10°F or more above the average high temperature for a region during the summer months. Extreme heat is responsible for more deaths in Pennsylvania than all other natural disasters combined.366 For more information on extreme heat and its impacts, please see Extreme Heat under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Philadelphia is subject to heat island effects. The heat island effect describes the phenomenon that built up areas are hotter than nearby rural areas. The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F warmer than its surroundings.367 Heat islands can affect communities by increasing energy demand, air conditioning costs, air pollution, and heat-related illness and deaths. Impervious surfaces contribute to the heat island effect. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right displays impervious surfaces in the Central Northeast. Impervious Surfaces Most Impervious Least Impervious Philadelphia Planning Districts 366 367 2013 York County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Retrieved February 16, 2016. “Heat Island Effect”. US EPA. Retrieved March 3, 2016. 567 Philadelphia, like other metropolitan areas, heats unevenly because of variations in vegetation, impervious surface coverage, and proximity to bodies of water. The map below shows this heating pattern. 368 As the map shows, the Lower Far Northeast is not located in the areas which experience the highest heat island effects, but the Lower Far Northeast still feels some of the effects of such an event more than the surrounding counties. 368 “Downscaling Air Temperature and LST Using MODIS and Landsat Data: Philadelphia 2002”. URSA. Retrieved March 7, 2016. 568 Flooding Flooding is the temporary condition of partial or complete inundation on normally dry land and it is the most frequent and costly of all hazards in Pennsylvania. Flooding events are generally the result of excessive precipitation. General flooding typically occurs when precipitation occurs over a given river basin for an extended period of time. Flash flooding is usually a result of heavy localized precipitation falling in a short time period over a given location, often along mountain streams and in urban areas where much of the ground cover is primarily impervious surfaces. The severity of a flood event is dependent upon a combination of: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ stream and river basin topography and physiography, hydrology, precipitation and weather patterns, present soil moisture conditions, the degree of vegetative clearing, and the presence of impervious surfaces in and around flood-prone areas.369 Winter flooding includes ice jams which occur when warm temperatures and heavy rain cause snow to melt rapidly. Snow melt combined with heavy rains can cause frozen rivers to swell, which breaks the ice layer on top of a river. The ice layer often breaks into large chunks, which float downstream, piling up in narrow passages and near other obstructions such as bridges and dams. All forms of flooding can damage 369 “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 569 infrastructure.370 For more information on flooding and its impacts, please see Flooding under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. A small portion of the Central Northeast falls within either the one percent or 0.2 percent annual risk areas for a flood event. The map above shows the one and 0.2 percent annual percent flood hazard areas. Data available does not capture surface flooding from overwhelmed water management infrastructure. Those homes with a federally backed mortgage in the 1% annual chance flood event area are required to carry flood insurance. Flood insurance is not part of an average homeowner’s insurance policy and must be purchased separately. Within the Central Northeast there are 41 of policies in force. For more information on the National Flood Insurance Program, see the National Flood Insurance Program section of the Capability Assessment. Impervious Surfaces Most Impervious Least Impervious Philadelphia Planning Districts Flash flooding is a concern for some areas of the Central Northeast, but less so than other parts of Philadelphia given the greater amount of permeable surfaces in the district. A flash flood is rapidly rising water that occurs during an intense rain storm, such as those that accompany hurricanes. A flash flood may also occur as a result of rapidly melting snow. The presence of impervious surfaces contributes to an increased risk of flash flooding. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right displays impervious surfaces in the Central Northeast. Those areas with greater concentrations of impervious surfaces that are already in flood prone areas are at a greater risk for flash flooding. 370 “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 570 Hazardous Material Train Derailment Derailments can happen for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ Issues with the track, roadbed, and structures the train travels on; ▪ Signal and communications issues; ▪ Human error in train operations; ▪ Mechanical and/or electrical failures; or ▪ Other causes such as environmental conditions or loading procedures.371 In many cases, derailments do not result in the compromise of tank cars carrying hazardous materials or the release of dangerous chemicals. In rare cases, a derailment can result in the release of hazardous materials. Depending on the characteristics of the material released, these events can pose explosive and/or contaminant threats to the community. For more information on hazardous material train derailment and its impacts, please see Hazardous Material Train Derailment under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Rail lines throughout the city often are multi-use lines. The same freight lines can carry a variety of different materials, both non-hazardous and select hazardous products. The map to the right illustrates those freight lines that run through Philadelphia and carry many different kinds of materials and equipment. 371 Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis. Train Accident Cause Codes. Retrieved April 13, 2016. 571 Urban Conflagration Conflagrations are extensive, widespread fires that damage property and potentially endanger lives. Urban conflagrations spread beyond artificial and natural barriers to destroy whole sections of a city.372 While conflagrations are rare in modern, developed cities, there is the risk that they could occur after a large storm, earthquake, or during civil unrest. Simultaneous ignitions can overwhelm emergency responders. For more information on urban conflagrations and its impacts, please see Urban Conflagration under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Unoccupied or vacant homes pose a greater risk for both fires and collapse than occupied homes.373 Vacant properties that are also uninsured or under-insured greatly increase the likelihood of a longer recovery time. The Central Northeast has comparatively fewer vacant properties than many other parts of Philadelphia, and therefore has a slightly lower risk for urban conflagration. William Michael Kramer. “Disaster Planning and Control”. Fire Engineering. Retrieved January 11, 2016. Income, Housing, and Fire Injuries: A Census Tract Analysis. Donna Shai, PhD. Public Health Reports, Vol. 121, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 2006), pp. 149-154. Retrieved March 7, 2016. 372 373 572 Densely built urban environments pose an additional risk for conflagration. Closely built environments allow fire to spread more easily than less dense environments if not placed under control. Density mapping assists in the identification of densely built environments. The map to the right depicts the Central Northeast’s housing density. Data was unavailable for those portions of the map left uncolored. 573 21.1.2 Central Planning District 21.1.2.1 Geography and Hydrology The Central planning district contains addresses in the zip codes 19130, 19103, 19102, 19109, 19123, 19106, 19146, 19147, and 19106. Zip codes in the Central Planning District The Central planning district falls partially in the Schuylkill River and Delaware Direct Watersheds. Watersheds in the Central Planning District The Central planning district resides within the 5th, 1st, and 2nd Council Districts of Philadelphia. Council Districts in Central Planning District The Central planning district falls mostly within the 9th and 6th Police Districts, and also crosses into the 17th, 26th, and 3rd Police Districts. Police Districts in the Central Planning District 21.1.2.2 Current and Future Land Use The Central District will most likely see moderate growth over the next 10 years. Future land use recommendations take into account stable residential neighborhoods and commercial areas, as well as where growth can be accommodated, existing plans, and community feedback.374 375 City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia 2035. Central District Plan. Retrieved November 20, 2015. All graphics, charts, and recommendations come from the City of Philadelphia: Philadelphia 2035 Central District Plan. Retrieved November 20, 2015. 374 375 9.0.34 It JV. . Jn??u. ?M?nmnruu 0233.: mNIaIu-IW-mmnuniI-WIS annual-IIJE . -- - g! 21.1.2.3 Social Characteristics Data used for social characteristics is from the most recent American Community Survey provided from the U.S. Census. The ACS produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates over a five-year period between censuses. The data used for these statistics is from 2014. Population, Gender and Age Characteristics of the Upper Far Northeast Planning District Population 293,966 - Male population 142,307 - Female population 151,659 Median Age 31.0 - Age dependency ratio (the percentage of the population under 15 and over 64) 31.7% - Population under 15 16.8% - Population over 64 14.9% 21.1.2.4 Housing, Mobility, and Poverty For emergency management, whether a home is owned or rented division implies a difference in insurance coverage which affects long-term recovery. Renters insurance covers exists mainly to cover the occupants’ belongings, not the housing itself. This can present challenges in housing unit repair and re-occupancy. Those households living in poverty may have a more difficult time preparing for and recovering from disasters, and the district’s population living below the federal line of poverty. Housing, Mobility, and Poverty Characteristics of the Central Planning District Number of households - Households owned - Households rented No vehicle access Population below the federal line of poverty Households Owned vs Rented by Planning District 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 123,472 48,278 75,194 12,801 28.2% Poverty in the Central Planning District Poverty in the Central Planning District Population Living Above the the LineLine of Poverty Population Living Above of Poverty Percentage of Households Owned Percentage of Households Rented Population Living Below the the LineLine of Poverty Population Living Below of Poverty 21.1.2.5 Disability Of those individuals residing within the Central Planning District, 10.7 percent reported having a disability. Disabilities reported by individuals in the Central Planning District are listed in the table below by the percentage of the total population of the District. Disabilities are not exclusive. Disability Reported Hearing difficulty Vision difficulty Cognitive difficulty Ambulatory Difficulty Self-care Difficulty Independent Living Difficulty Percentage of Population 5.8% 6.1% 6.4% 6.4% 6.5% 6.5% 21.1.2.6 Central Hazards Many hazards affect the City of Philadelphia on a wide scale, such as windstorms or hurricanes, while others can have varying levels of risk across the city. These hazards include: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Infrastructure Failure Extreme Heat Flooding Hazardous Material Train Derailment Urban conflagration Each of these hazards are detailed below on the risk factors present in the Upper Far Northeast Planning District. For a complete list of hazards in the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan and a description of the city-wide risk level for each, please see the Risk Assessment section in the main body of the plan. Infrastructure Failure Bridge Failure A bridge collapse consists of a failure of decking, superstructure, or foundation leading to a progressive or immediate collapse of the entire assembly.376 Bridges can span waterways, railways, or roadways and provide overpasses for surface transportation or passenger/freight rail lines. For more information on bridge failures and its impacts, please see Bridge Failure under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Structurally deficient bridges are those have major deterioration, cracks, or other flaws that reduce its ability to support vehicles. A “structurally deficient bridge” typically requires maintenance and repairs to remain in service, or rehabilitation or replacement to address the underlying issue.377 378 Depending on the type and extent of deterioration, the Philadelphia Streets Department or PennDOT may impose weight restrictions. If the deterioration is severe, regulating agencies may shut down the bridge to traffic until maintenance crews can repair the damage. The table below shows those bridges found to be structurally deficient. The map to the below shows those bridges deemed structurally deficient in the Central Planning District.379 City of Philadelphia Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 2010 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance - System Conditions: Highways and Bridges. Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved March 23, 2016. 378 Ibid. 379 Map Information: MPMS IQ. PennDOT. Retrieved March 2, 2016. 376 377 Structurally Deficient Bridges in the Central Planning District Name Location 24th St at Chestnut St Abolished Conrail Vine St Expressway Vine St Expressway Vine St Expressway Vine St Expressway Chestnut St Market St CSX Railroad 21st St and JFK Blvd 22nd St and JFK Blvd 23rd St and JFK Blvd Reading Railroad 24th St at Chestnut St 15th St, north of Callowhill 18th St 19th St 20th St 21st St Schuylkill River, west of City Hall Schuylkill River Market St 21st St and JFK Blvd 22nd St and JFK Blvd 23rd St and JFK Blvd Broad St Year Built 1864 1898 1958 1957 1959 1958 1912 1932 1932 1957 1958 1957 1895 Dam Failure A dam is a barrier across flowing water that obstructs, directs, or slows down water flow. Dams provide benefits such as flood protection, power generation, drinking water, irrigation, and recreation. Failure of these structures results in an uncontrolled release of impounded water. Failures are relatively rare, but structural damages and injuries are possible in downstream communities when such events occur. For more information on dam failures and its impacts, please see Dam Failure under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. The table below shows the dam name, the waterway on which the dam is located, whether the dam is a high hazard dam, and who currently holds the permit for the structure. Dam Name Waterway High Hazard? Permitted Owner Fairmount Schuylkill River No Philadelphia Water Department Building Collapse Buildings may collapse for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Overall structural integrity; Poor construction or maintenance Accidents; Environmental forces, such as wind or heavy snowfall; or Earthquakes. Building age increases the risk of collapse. The map to the right shows the number of properties built in the Central Planning District built before 1939. Vacant properties also increase the risk of a building collapse, as these properties fall into disrepair and neglect. The map to the right shows the number of vacant properties in the Central Planning District. The Central Planning District has comparatively fewer vacant properties than many other parts of Philadelphia. Philadelphia Licenses and Inspections (L&I) records imminently dangerous structures found each year through inspections. Some of these structures have partially collapsed, while others are found and acted upon before they collapse. Property owners can repair or demolish these structures. The map below shows the location of imminently dangerous structures in the Central Planning District. Extreme Heat Extreme heat can be described as temperatures that hover 10°F or more above the average high temperature for a region during the summer months. Extreme heat is responsible for more deaths in Pennsylvania than all other natural disasters combined.380 For more information on extreme heat and its impacts, please see Extreme Heat under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Philadelphia is subject to heat island effects. The heat island effect describes the phenomenon that built up areas are hotter than nearby rural areas. The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F warmer than its surroundings.381 Heat islands can affect communities by increasing energy demand, air conditioning costs, air pollution, and heat-related illness and deaths. Impervious surfaces contribute to the heat island effect. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right displays impervious surfaces in the Central Planning District. Impervious Surfaces Most Impervious Least Impervious Philadelphia Planning Districts 380 381 2013 York County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Retrieved February 16, 2016. “Heat Island Effect”. US EPA. Retrieved March 3, 2016. Philadelphia, like other metropolitan areas, heats unevenly because of variations in vegetation, impervious surface coverage, and proximity to bodies of water. The map below shows this heating pattern. 382 As the map shows, the Central is located in an area which experiences higher heat island effects along with the surrounding districts. 382 “Downscaling Air Temperature and LST Using MODIS and Landsat Data: Philadelphia 2002”. URSA. Retrieved March 7, 2016. Flooding Flooding is the temporary condition of partial or complete inundation on normally dry land and it is the most frequent and costly of all hazards in Pennsylvania. Flooding events are generally the result of excessive precipitation. General flooding typically occurs when precipitation occurs over a given river basin for an extended period of time. Flash flooding is usually a result of heavy localized precipitation falling in a short time period over a given location, often along mountain streams and in urban areas where much of the ground cover is primarily impervious surfaces. The severity of a flood event is dependent upon a combination of: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ stream and river basin topography and physiography, hydrology, precipitation and weather patterns, present soil moisture conditions, the degree of vegetative clearing, and the presence of impervious surfaces in and around floodprone areas.383 Winter flooding includes ice jams which occur when warm temperatures and heavy rain cause snow to melt rapidly. Snow melt combined with heavy rains can cause frozen rivers to swell, which breaks the ice layer on top of a river. The ice layer often breaks into large chunks, which float downstream, piling up in narrow passages and near other obstructions such as bridges and dams. All forms of flooding can damage 383 “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. infrastructure.384 For more information on flooding and its impacts, please see Flooding under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. A small portion of the Central Planning District falls within either the one percent or 0.2 percent annual risk areas for a flood event. The map above shows the one and 0.2 percent annual percent flood hazard areas. Data available does not capture surface flooding from overwhelmed water management infrastructure. Those homes with a federally backed mortgage in the 1% annual chance flood event area are required to carry flood insurance. Flood insurance is not part of an average homeowner’s insurance policy and must be purchased separately. Within the Central Planning District there are 2,015 of policies in force. For more information on the National Flood Insurance Program, see the National Flood Insurance Program section of the Capability Assessment. 384 “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. Flash flooding is a concern for some areas of the Central Planning District, but less so than other parts of Philadelphia given the greater amount of permeable surfaces in the district. A flash flood is rapidly rising water that occurs during an intense rain storm, such as those that accompany hurricanes. A flash flood may also occur as a result of rapidly melting snow. The presence of impervious surfaces contributes to an increased risk of flash flooding. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right displays impervious surfaces in the Central Planning District. Those areas with greater concentrations of impervious surfaces that are already in flood prone areas are at a greater risk for flash flooding. Impervious Surfaces Most Impervious Least Impervious Philadelphia Planning Districts Hazardous Material Train Derailment Derailments can happen for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ Issues with the track, roadbed, and structures the train travels on; ▪ Signal and communications issues; ▪ Human error in train operations; ▪ Mechanical and/or electrical failures; or ▪ Other causes such as environmental conditions or loading procedures.385 In many cases, derailments do not result in the compromise of tank cars carrying hazardous materials or the release of dangerous chemicals. In rare cases, a derailment can result in the release of hazardous materials. Depending on the characteristics of the material released, these events can pose explosive and/or contaminant threats to the community. For more information on hazardous material train derailment and its impacts, please see Hazardous Material Train Derailment under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Rail lines throughout the city often are multi-use lines. The same freight lines can carry a variety of different materials, both nonhazardous and select hazardous products. The map to the right illustrates those freight lines that run through Philadelphia and carry many different kinds of materials and equipment. 385 Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis. Train Accident Cause Codes. Retrieved April 13, 2016. Urban Conflagration Conflagrations are extensive, widespread fires that damage property and potentially endanger lives. Urban conflagrations spread beyond artificial and natural barriers to destroy whole sections of a city.386 While conflagrations are rare in modern, developed cities, there is the risk that they could occur after a large storm, earthquake, or during civil unrest. Simultaneous ignitions can overwhelm emergency responders. For more information on urban conflagrations and its impacts, please see Urban Conflagration under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Unoccupied or vacant homes pose a greater risk for both fires and collapse than occupied homes.387 Vacant properties that are also uninsured or under-insured greatly increase the likelihood of a longer recovery time. The Central Planning District has comparatively fewer vacant properties than many other parts of Philadelphia. William Michael Kramer. “Disaster Planning and Control”. Fire Engineering. Retrieved January 11, 2016. Income, Housing, and Fire Injuries: A Census Tract Analysis. Donna Shai, PhD. Public Health Reports, Vol. 121, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 2006), pp. 149-154. Retrieved March 7, 2016. 386 387 Densely built urban environments pose an additional risk for conflagration. Closely built environments allow fire to spread more easily than less dense environments if not placed under control. Density mapping assists in the identification of densely built environments. The map to the right depicts the Central Planning District’s housing density. Data was unavailable for those portions of the map left uncolored. As the map shows, the Central Planning District has pockets of densely built homes throughout the district. These areas increase the risk of fire spread. 21.1.3 Lower Far Northeast 21.1.3.1 Geography and Hydrology The Lower Far Northeast Planning District contains addresses in the zip codes 19154, 19114, 19136, and 19152. Zip codes in the Lower Far Northeast Planning District The Lower Far Northeast planning district falls partially in the Delaware Direct, Pennypack Creek, and Poquessing Creek Watersheds. Watersheds in the Lower Far Northeast Planning District The Lower Far Northeast Planning District resides within the 10th and 6th Council Districts of Philadelphia. Council Districts in Lower Far Northeast Planning District The Lower Far Northeast Planning District falls with the 8th Police District. Police Districts in the Lower Far Northeast Planning District 21.1.3.2 Social Characteristics Data used for social characteristics is from the most recent American Community Survey provided from the U.S. Census. The ACS produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates over a five-year period between censuses. The data used for these statistics is from 2014. Population, Gender and Age Characteristics of the Lower Far Northeast Planning District Population 134,127 - Male population 66,575 - Female population 67,552 Median Age 39.6 - Age dependency ratio (the percentage of the population under 15 and over 64) 60.3% - Population under 15 33.5% - Population over 64 26.9% 21.1.3.3 Housing, Mobility, and Poverty For emergency management, whether a home is owned or rented division implies a difference in insurance coverage which affects long-term recovery. Renters insurance covers exists mainly to cover the occupants’ belongings, not the housing itself. This can present challenges in housing unit repair and re-occupancy. Those households living in poverty may have a more difficult time preparing for and recovering from disasters, and the district’s population living below the federal line of poverty. Housing, Mobility, and Poverty Characteristics of the Lower Far Northeast Planning District Number of households - Households owned - Households rented No vehicle access Population below the federal line of poverty Households Owned vs Rented by Planning District 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 49,694 33,270 16,424 6,254 12.6% Poverty in the Lower Far Northeast Planning District Population Living Above the Line of Poverty Percentage of Households Owned Percentage of Households Rented Population Living Below the Line of Poverty 21.1.3.4 Disability Of those individuals residing within the Lower Far Northeast Planning District, 15.2 percent reported having a disability. Disabilities reported by individuals in the Lower Far Northeast Planning District are listed in the table below by the percentage of the total population of the District. Disabilities are not exclusive. Disability Reported Hearing difficulty Vision difficulty Cognitive difficulty Ambulatory Difficulty Self-care Difficulty Independent Living Difficulty Percentage of Population 4.9% 5.2% 6.0% 5.8% 5.8% 5.7% 21.1.3.5 Lower Far Northeast Hazards Many hazards affect the City of Philadelphia on a wide scale, such as windstorms or hurricanes, while others can have varying levels of risk across the city. These hazards include: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Infrastructure Failure Extreme Heat Flooding Hazardous Material Train Derailment Urban conflagration Each of these hazards are detailed below on the risk factors present in the Lower Far Northeast Planning District. For a complete list of hazards in the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan and a description of the city-wide risk level for each, please see the Risk Assessment section in the main body of the plan. Infrastructure Failure Bridge Failure A bridge collapse consists of a failure of decking, superstructure, or foundation leading to a progressive or immediate collapse of the entire assembly.388 Bridges can span waterways, railways, or roadways and provide overpasses for surface transportation or passenger/freight rail lines. For more information on bridge failures and its impacts, please see Bridge Failure under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Structurally deficient bridges are those have major deterioration, cracks, or other flaws that reduce its ability to support vehicles. A “structurally deficient bridge” typically requires maintenance and repairs to remain in service, or rehabilitation or replacement to address the underlying issue.389 390 Depending on the type and extent of deterioration, the Philadelphia Streets Department or PennDOT may impose weight restrictions. If the deterioration is severe, regulating agencies may shut down the bridge to traffic until maintenance crews can repair the damage. The table below shows those bridges found to be structurally deficient. The map to the right shows those bridges deemed structurally deficient in the Lower Far Northeast Planning District.391 City of Philadelphia Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 2010 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance - System Conditions: Highways and Bridges. Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved March 23, 2016. 390 Ibid. 391 Map Information: MPMS IQ. PennDOT. Retrieved March 2, 2016. 388 389 Structurally Deficient Bridges in the Lower Far Northeast Planning District Name Location Poquessing Creek Poquessing Creek Woodhaven Rd Wooden Bridge Run Wooden Bridge Run Red Lion Rd and PA 13 Century Lane and State Rd 132 Millbrook Rd Holme Avenue near Longford Rd Willits Rd near Ashton Rd Year Built 1845 1853 1964 1921 1953 Dam Failure A dam is a barrier across flowing water that obstructs, directs, or slows down water flow. Dams provide benefits such as flood protection, power generation, drinking water, irrigation, and recreation. Failure of these structures results in an uncontrolled release of impounded water. Failures are relatively rare, but structural damages and injuries are possible in downstream communities when such events occur. For more information on dam failures and its impacts, please see Dam Failure under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. The table below shows the dam name, the waterway on which the dam is located, whether the dam is a high hazard dam, and who currently holds the permit for the structure. Dam Name Waterway High Hazard? Permitted Owner Franklin Mills Detention Basin Poquessing Creek Yes Franklin Mills Associates Limited Partnership Building Collapse Buildings may collapse for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Overall structural integrity; Poor construction or maintenance Accidents; Environmental forces, such as wind or heavy snowfall; or Earthquakes. Building age increases the risk of collapse. The map to the right shows the number of properties built in the Lower Far Northeast Planning District built before 1939. Vacant properties also increase the risk of a building collapse, as these properties fall into disrepair and neglect. The map to the right shows the number of vacant properties in the Lower Far Northeast Planning District. Philadelphia Licenses and Inspections (L&I) records imminently dangerous structures found each year through inspections. Some of these structures have partially collapsed, while others are found and acted upon before they collapse. Property owners can repair or demolish these structures. The map below shows the location of imminently dangerous structures in the Lower Far Northeast Planning District. Extreme Heat Extreme heat can be described as temperatures that hover 10°F or more above the average high temperature for a region during the summer months. Extreme heat is responsible for more deaths in Pennsylvania than all other natural disasters combined.392 For more information on extreme heat and its impacts, please see Extreme Heat under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Philadelphia is subject to heat island effects. The heat island effect describes the phenomenon that built up areas are hotter than nearby rural areas. The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F warmer than its surroundings.393 Heat islands can affect communities by increasing energy demand, air conditioning costs, air pollution, and heat-related illness and deaths. Impervious surfaces contribute to the heat island effect. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right Impervious Surfaces Most Impervious Least Impervious Philadelphia Planning Districts 392 393 2013 York County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Retrieved February 16, 2016. “Heat Island Effect”. US EPA. Retrieved March 3, 2016. displays impervious surfaces in the Lower Far Northeast Planning District. Philadelphia, like other metropolitan areas, heats unevenly because of variations in vegetation, impervious surface coverage, and proximity to bodies of water. The map below shows this heating pattern.394 As the map shows, the Lower Far Northeast is not located in the areas which experience the highest heat island effects, but the Lower Far Northeast still feels some of the effects of such an event more than the surrounding counties. 394 “Downscaling Air Temperature and LST Using MODIS and Landsat Data: Philadelphia 2002”. URSA. Retrieved March 7, 2016. Flooding Flooding is the temporary condition of partial or complete inundation on normally dry land and it is the most frequent and costly of all hazards in Pennsylvania. Flooding events are generally the result of excessive precipitation. General flooding typically occurs when precipitation occurs over a given river basin for an extended period of time. Flash flooding is usually a result of heavy localized precipitation falling in a short time period over a given location, often along mountain streams and in urban areas where much of the ground cover is primarily impervious surfaces. The severity of a flood event is dependent upon a combination of: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ stream and river basin topography and physiography, hydrology, precipitation and weather patterns, present soil moisture conditions, the degree of vegetative clearing, and the presence of impervious surfaces in and around flood-prone areas.395 Winter flooding includes ice jams which occur when warm temperatures and heavy rain cause snow to melt rapidly. Snow melt combined with heavy rains can cause frozen rivers to swell, which breaks the ice layer on top of a river. The ice layer often breaks into large chunks, which float downstream, piling up in narrow passages and near other obstructions such as bridges and dams. All forms of flooding can damage infrastructure.396 For more information on flooding and its impacts, please see Flooding under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. 395 396 “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. A small portion of the Lower Far Northeast Planning District falls within either the one percent or 0.2 percent annual risk areas for a flood event. The map above shows the one and 0.2 percent annual percent flood hazard areas. Data available does not capture surface flooding from overwhelmed water management infrastructure. Those homes with a federally backed mortgage in the 1% annual chance flood event area are required to carry flood insurance. Flood insurance is not part of an average homeowner’s insurance policy and must be purchased separately. Within the Lower Far Northeast Planning District there are 50 NFIP policies in force. For more information on the National Flood Insurance Program, see the National Flood Insurance Program section of the Capability Assessment. Flash flooding is a concern for some areas of the Lower Far Northeast Planning District, but less so than other parts of Philadelphia given the greater amount of permeable surfaces in the district. A flash flood is rapidly rising water that occurs during an intense rain storm, such as those that accompany hurricanes. A flash flood may also occur as a result of rapidly melting snow. The presence of impervious surfaces contributes to an increased risk of flash flooding. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right displays impervious surfaces in the Lower Far Northeast Planning District. Those areas with greater concentrations of impervious surfaces that are already in flood prone areas are at a greater risk for flash flooding. Impervious Surfaces Most Impervious Least Impervious Philadelphia Planning Districts Hazardous Material Train Derailment Derailments can happen for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ Issues with the track, roadbed, and structures the train travels on; ▪ Signal and communications issues; ▪ Human error in train operations; ▪ Mechanical and/or electrical failures; or ▪ Other causes such as environmental conditions or loading procedures.397 In many cases, derailments do not result in the compromise of tank cars carrying hazardous materials or the release of dangerous chemicals. In rare cases, a derailment can result in the release of hazardous materials. Depending on the characteristics of the material released, these events can pose explosive and/or contaminant threats to the community. For more information on hazardous material train derailment and its impacts, please see Hazardous Material Train Derailment under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Rail lines throughout the city often are multi-use lines. The same freight lines can carry a variety of different materials, both non-hazardous and select hazardous products. The map to the right illustrates those freight lines that run through Philadelphia and carry many different kinds of materials and equipment. 397 Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis. Train Accident Cause Codes. Retrieved April 13, 2016. Urban Conflagration Conflagrations are extensive, widespread fires that damage property and potentially endanger lives. Urban conflagrations spread beyond artificial and natural barriers to destroy whole sections of a city. 398 While conflagrations are rare in modern, developed cities, there is the risk that they could occur after a large storm, earthquake, or during civil unrest. Simultaneous ignitions can overwhelm emergency responders. For more information on urban conflagrations and its impacts, please see Urban Conflagration under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Unoccupied or vacant homes pose a greater risk for both fires and collapse than occupied homes.399 Vacant properties that are also uninsured or underinsured greatly increase the likelihood of a longer recovery time. The Lower Far Northeast Planning District has comparatively fewer vacant properties than many other parts of Philadelphia, and therefore has a slightly lower risk for urban conflagration. William Michael Kramer. “Disaster Planning and Control”. Fire Engineering. Retrieved January 11, 2016. Income, Housing, and Fire Injuries: A Census Tract Analysis. Donna Shai, PhD. Public Health Reports, Vol. 121, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 2006), pp. 149-154. Retrieved March 7, 2016. 398 399 Densely built urban environments pose an additional risk for conflagration. Closely built environments allow fire to spread more easily than less dense environments if not placed under control. Density mapping assists in the identification of densely built environments. The map to the right depicts the Lower Far Northeast Planning District’s housing density. Data was unavailable for those portions of the map left uncolored. 21.1.4 Lower North Planning District 21.1.4.1 Geography and Hydrology The Lower North Planning District contains addresses in the zip codes 19121, 19122, 19133, 19132, 19125, 19134, and 19130. Zip codes in the Lower North Planning District The Lower North planning district falls partially in the Delaware Direct and Schuylkill Watersheds. Watersheds in the Lower North Planning District The Lower North Planning District resides within the 4th, 5th, and 7th Council Districts of Philadelphia. Council Districts in Lower North Planning District The Lower North Planning District falls within the 22nd and 26th Police Districts. Police Districts in the Lower North Planning District 21.1.4.2 Current and Future Land Use The Lower North Planning District has low growth forecasts.400 The current residential neighborhoods and commercial corridors function well and land uses in this area should continue as is. 401 The future growth map takes into consideration recreation centers, shopping centers, and historic districts, as well as the weak demand for market-rate housing in large sections of the district.402 403 City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia 2035. Lower North District Plan. Retrieved November 20, 2015. Ibid. 402 Ibid. 403 All graphics, charts, and recommendations come from the City of Philadelphia: Philadelphia 2035 Lower North District Plan. Retrieved November 20, 2015. 400 401 Philadelphia Lower North Planning District Existing Land Use [:I?osidomiallowoomity .. . ..I-OI I .. Dmuamomn Imuammomm .Commordaloonsm 3'25? I managing/macaw: I Commadal Mind manual I Indusuial mun: ingt? I Civic/Imitutim Tiansmnalion Cultua/Ammt '2 Eli] '*Imvill I Acme Mutation l! . Path/Omsm .Comm [3 Watet . ml? ?In, 2- I ?32 I 1 55:5 3? sails-h: I I l?I . I Vacant ii ?i I-E I- -hnl . II.- 5.- 5 .. -3. :43; . .. van-a unnu- IE. ?55% "r IIEE II I I?m 2.54mi l'3 11:: lg: aging-?25. :1"le 2.. *4 il I mitt-:2: tut?b- mm": .2221?. .I 31,13?: llillii': i ID OI no um 21.1.4.3 Social Characteristics Data used for social characteristics is from the most recent American Community Survey provided from the U.S. Census. The ACS produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates over a five-year period between censuses. The data used for these statistics is from 2014. Population, Gender and Age Characteristics of the Upper Far Northeast Planning District Population  Male population  Female population Median Age Age dependency ratio (the percentage of the population under 15 and over 64) Population under 15 Population over 64 142,066 65,897 76,169 29.8 48.5% 33.8% 14.7% 21.1.4.4 Housing, Mobility, and Poverty For emergency management, whether a home is owned or rented division implies a difference in insurance coverage which affects long-term recovery. Renters insurance covers exists mainly to cover the occupants’ belongings, not the housing itself. This can present challenges in housing unit repair and re-occupancy. Those households living in poverty may have a more difficult time preparing for and recovering from disasters, and the district’s population living below the federal line of poverty. Housing, Mobility, and Poverty Characteristics of the Upper Far Northeast Planning District Number of households  Households owned  Households rented No vehicle access Population below the federal line of poverty 52,529 22,253 30,276 25,205 40.8% Households Households Owned Owned vs vs Rented Rented by by Planning Planning District District 80% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% Percentage of Households Owned Percentage of Households Owned 21.1.4.5 Percentage of Households Rented Percentage of Households Rented Poverty Povertyininthe theLower LowerNorth North Planning PlanningDistrict District Population PopulationLiving LivingAbove Abovethe theLine LineofofPoverty Poverty Population PopulationLiving LivingBelow Belowthe theLine LineofofPoverty Poverty Disability Of those individuals residing within the Lower North Planning District, 17.4 percent reported having a disability. Disabilities reported by individuals in the Lower North Planning District are listed in the table below by the percentage of the total population of the District. Disabilities are not exclusive. Disability Reported Vision difficulty Cognitive difficulty Ambulatory Difficulty Self-care Difficulty Independent Living Difficulty Percentage of Population 8.6% 9.4% 9.4% 9.2% 9.8% 21.1.4.6 Lower North Hazards Many hazards affect the City of Philadelphia on a wide scale, such as windstorms or hurricanes, while others can have varying levels of risk across the city. These hazards include: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Infrastructure Failure Extreme Heat Flooding Hazardous Material Train Derailment Urban conflagration Each of these hazards are detailed below on the risk factors present in the Upper Far Northeast Planning District. For a complete list of hazards in the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan and a description of the city-wide risk level for each, please see the Risk Assessment section in the main body of the plan. Infrastructure Failure Bridge Failure A bridge collapse consists of a failure of decking, superstructure, or foundation leading to a progressive or immediate collapse of the entire assembly.404 Bridges can span waterways, railways, or roadways and provide overpasses for surface transportation or passenger/freight rail lines. For more information on bridge failures and its impacts, please see Bridge Failure under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Structurally deficient bridges are those have major deterioration, cracks, or other flaws that reduce its ability to support vehicles. A “structurally deficient bridge” typically requires maintenance and repairs to remain in service, or rehabilitation or replacement to address the underlying issue.405 406 Depending on the type and extent of deterioration, the Philadelphia Streets Department or PennDOT may impose weight restrictions. If the deterioration is severe, regulating agencies may shut down the bridge to traffic until maintenance crews can repair the damage. The table below shows those bridges found to be structurally deficient. The map to the below shows those bridges deemed structurally deficient in the Lower North Planning District.407 City of Philadelphia Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 2010 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance - System Conditions: Highways and Bridges. Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved March 23, 2016. 406 Ibid. 407 Map Information: MPMS IQ. PennDOT. Retrieved March 2, 2016. 404 405 Structurally Deficient Bridges in the Lower North Planning District Name Location Year Built Amtrak and Conrail Amtrak Amtrak Main Line Amtrak Montgomery Ave Margie St at 19th St Ridge Ave, .1 mile southeast of 29th St Cecil B. Moore Ave near 31st St 1913 1919 1918 1909 Dam Failure A dam is a barrier across flowing water that obstructs, directs, or slows down water flow. Dams provide benefits such as flood protection, power generation, drinking water, irrigation, and recreation. Failure of these structures results in an uncontrolled release of impounded water. Failures are relatively rare, but structural damages and injuries are possible in downstream communities when such events occur. For more information on dam failures and its impacts, please see Dam Failure under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. The table below shows the dam name, the waterway on which the dam is located, whether the dam is a high hazard dam, and who currently holds the permit for the structure. Dam Name Waterway High Hazard? Permitted Owner East Park Reservoir Watershed: Schuylkill River Yes Philadelphia Water Department Building Collapse Buildings may collapse for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Overall structural integrity; Poor construction or maintenance Accidents; Environmental forces, such as wind or heavy snowfall; or Earthquakes. Building age increases the risk of collapse. The map to the right shows the number of properties built in the Lower North Planning District built before 1939. Vacant properties also increase the risk of a building collapse, as these properties fall into disrepair and neglect. The map to the right shows the number of vacant properties in the Lower North Planning District. The Lower North Planning District has a high concentration of vacant properties across the western portion of the district. Philadelphia Licenses and Inspections (L&I) records imminently dangerous structures found each year through inspections. Some of these structures have partially collapsed, while others are found and acted upon before they collapse. Property owners can repair or demolish these structures. The map to the right shows the location of imminently dangerous structures in the Lower North Planning District. The highest concentration of imminently dangerous structures in the Lower North Planning District exists in the western portion of the district. Extreme Heat Extreme heat can be described as temperatures that hover 10°F or more above the average high temperature for a region during the summer months. Extreme heat is responsible for more deaths in Pennsylvania than all other natural disasters combined.408 For more information on extreme heat and its impacts, please see Extreme Heat under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Philadelphia is subject to heat island effects. The heat island effect describes the phenomenon that built up areas are hotter than nearby rural areas. The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F warmer than its surroundings.409 Heat islands can affect communities by increasing energy demand, air conditioning costs, air pollution, and heat-related illness and deaths. Impervious surfaces contribute to the heat island effect. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right displays impervious surfaces in the Lower North Planning District. Impervious Surfaces Most Impervious Least Impervious Philadelphia Planning Districts 408 409 2013 York County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Retrieved February 16, 2016. “Heat Island Effect”. US EPA. Retrieved March 3, 2016. Philadelphia, like other metropolitan areas, heats unevenly because of variations in vegetation, impervious surface coverage, and proximity to bodies of water. The map below shows this heating pattern. 410 As the map shows, the Lower North is located in an area which experience higher heat island effects, and feels some of the effects of such an event more than the bordering counties. 410 “Downscaling Air Temperature and LST Using MODIS and Landsat Data: Philadelphia 2002”. URSA. Retrieved March 7, 2016. Flooding Flooding is the temporary condition of partial or complete inundation on normally dry land and it is the most frequent and costly of all hazards in Pennsylvania. Flooding events are generally the result of excessive precipitation. General flooding typically occurs when precipitation occurs over a given river basin for an extended period of time. Flash flooding is usually a result of heavy localized precipitation falling in a short time period over a given location, often along mountain streams and in urban areas where much of the ground cover is primarily impervious surfaces. The severity of a flood event is dependent upon a combination of: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ stream and river basin topography and physiography, hydrology, precipitation and weather patterns, present soil moisture conditions, the degree of vegetative clearing, and the presence of impervious surfaces in and around floodprone areas.411 Winter flooding includes ice jams which occur when warm temperatures and heavy rain cause snow to melt rapidly. Snow melt combined with heavy rains can cause frozen rivers to swell, which breaks the ice layer on top of a river. The ice layer often breaks into large chunks, which float downstream, piling up in narrow passages and near other obstructions such as bridges and dams. All forms of 411 “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. flooding can damage infrastructure.412 For more information on flooding and its impacts, please see Flooding under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. A small portion of the Lower North Planning District falls within either the one percent or 0.2 percent annual risk areas for a flood event. The map above shows the one and 0.2 percent annual percent flood hazard areas. Data available does not capture surface flooding from overwhelmed water management infrastructure. Those homes with a federally backed mortgage in the 1% annual chance flood event area are required to carry flood insurance. Flood insurance is not part of an average homeowner’s insurance policy and must be purchased separately. Within the Lower North Planning District there are 12 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policies in force. For more information on the National Flood Insurance Program, see the National Flood Insurance Program section of the Capability Assessment. 412 “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. Flash flooding is a concern for some areas of the Lower North Planning District, but less so than other parts of Philadelphia given the greater amount of permeable surfaces in the district. A flash flood is rapidly rising water that occurs during an intense rain storm, such as those that accompany hurricanes. A flash flood may also occur as a result of rapidly melting snow. The presence of impervious surfaces contributes to an increased risk of flash flooding. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right displays impervious surfaces in the Lower North Planning District. Those areas with greater concentrations of impervious surfaces that are already in flood prone areas are at a greater risk for flash flooding. Impervious Surfaces Most Impervious Least Impervious Philadelphia Planning Districts Hazardous Material Train Derailment Derailments can happen for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ Issues with the track, roadbed, and structures the train travels on; ▪ Signal and communications issues; ▪ Human error in train operations; ▪ Mechanical and/or electrical failures; or ▪ Other causes such as environmental conditions or loading procedures.413 In many cases, derailments do not result in the compromise of tank cars carrying hazardous materials or the release of dangerous chemicals. In rare cases, a derailment can result in the release of hazardous materials. Depending on the characteristics of the material released, these events can pose explosive and/or contaminant threats to the community. For more information on hazardous material train derailment and its impacts, please see Hazardous Material Train Derailment under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Rail lines throughout the city often are multi-use lines. The same freight lines can carry a variety of different materials, both nonhazardous and select hazardous products. The map to the right illustrates those freight lines that run through Philadelphia and carry many different kinds of materials and equipment. 413 Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis. Train Accident Cause Codes. Retrieved April 13, 2016. Urban Conflagration Conflagrations are extensive, widespread fires that damage property and potentially endanger lives. Urban conflagrations spread beyond artificial and natural barriers to destroy whole sections of a city.414 While conflagrations are rare in modern, developed cities, there is the risk that they could occur after a large storm, earthquake, or during civil unrest. Simultaneous ignitions can overwhelm emergency responders. For more information on urban conflagrations and its impacts, please see Urban Conflagration under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Unoccupied or vacant homes pose a greater risk for both fires and collapse than occupied homes.415 Vacant properties that are also uninsured or under-insured greatly increase the likelihood of a longer recovery time. The Lower North Planning District has a high concentration of vacant properties across the western portion of the district. William Michael Kramer. “Disaster Planning and Control”. Fire Engineering. Retrieved January 11, 2016. Income, Housing, and Fire Injuries: A Census Tract Analysis. Donna Shai, PhD. Public Health Reports, Vol. 121, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 2006), pp. 149-154. Retrieved March 7, 2016. 414 415 Densely built urban environments pose an additional risk for conflagration. Closely built environments allow fire to spread more easily than less dense environments if not placed under control. Density mapping assists in the identification of densely built environments. The map to the right depicts the Lower North Planning District’s housing density. Data was unavailable for those portions of the map left uncolored. 21.1.5 Lower Northeast Planning District 21.1.5.1 Geography and Hydrology The Lower Northeast Planning District contains addresses in the zip codes 19111, 19124, 19120, and 19149. Zip codes in the Lower Northeast Planning District The Lower Northeast planning district falls partially in the Delaware Direct, and Tookany/Tacony-Frankford Watersheds. Watersheds in the Lower Northeast Planning District The Lower Northeast Planning District resides within the 7th, 9th, and 6th Council Districts of Philadelphia. Council Districts in Lower Northeast Planning District The Lower Northeast Planning District falls mostly within the 15th and 2nd Police Districts. Police Districts in the Lower Northeast Planning District 21.1.5.2 Current and Future Land Use The Lower Northeast is the third fastest growing district in the city. Its stable and affordable housing stock has made the district attractive to young families and immigrant populations.416 Housing options range from detached houses to apartments above stores on walkable commercial corridors. 417 418 City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia 2035. Lower Northeast District Plan. Retrieved November 20, 2015. Ibid. 418 All graphics, charts, and recommendations come from the City of Philadelphia: Philadelphia 2035 Lower Northeast District Plan. Retrieved November 20, 2015. 416 417 Philadelphia Lower Northeast Planning District Future Land Use AWAMI. Co-erciolCor?dor Re?ect proposed mixed-use development aid Rmmlo Avenue Re?ectproposedindustrial development. amend: the land adjacent to the Frankford Creel: is shown as part/open space. it could also include residential reuse of existing industrial buildings. 0. Frankfort! Avenue Corn-crow Corridor ?lhe future land uses along the corridor illustrate the omsolidation of commercial uses into three nodes watered around the El stations. land uses aound the Frankford Transportation Center focus area. E. Vacant land in East Frankfort! East is illustrated by increased residential uses on the following streets: Church. Margaret. Orthodox. and Pratt Revised land uses show pocket parts at the intersection of (3mm. Iackawanna. and Waln Streets. Residential Low Dens?v Residential Median Density I Res-dential High Density - Commercial Cortsuner - Commercial - Commercial Mixed Residential I - Tlmlalm - Culture/Armament - Active Recreation - Park/Open Space - Cemetery Water I Vacant Land [3 Land Use Chmge 21.1.5.3 Social Characteristics Data used for social characteristics is from the most recent American Community Survey provided from the U.S. Census. The ACS produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates over a five-year period between censuses. The data used for these statistics is from 2014. Population, Gender and Age Characteristics of the Upper Far Northeast Planning District Population  Male population  Female population Median Age Age dependency ratio (the percentage of the population under 15 and over 64) Population under 15 Population over 64 266,472 125,899 140,573 31.5 59.2% 45.1% 14.2% 21.1.5.4 Housing, Mobility, and Poverty For emergency management, whether a home is owned or rented division implies a difference in insurance coverage which affects long-term recovery. Renters insurance covers exists mainly to cover the occupants’ belongings, not the housing itself. This can present challenges in housing unit repair and re-occupancy. Those households living in poverty may have a more difficult time preparing for and recovering from disasters, and the district’s population living below the federal line of poverty. Housing, Mobility, and Poverty Characteristics of the Upper Far Northeast Planning District Number of households  Households owned  Households rented No vehicle access Population below the federal line of poverty 87,211 49,565 37,646 21,210 25.8% Households Owned vs Rented by Planning District 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Poverty in the Lower Northeast Planning District Population Living Above the Line of Poverty Percentage of Households Owned Percentage of Households Rented Population Living Below the Line of Poverty 21.1.5.5 Disability Of those individuals residing within the Lower Northeast Planning District, 16.4 percent reported having a disability. Disabilities reported by individuals in the Lower Northeast Planning District are listed in the table below by the percentage of the total population of the District. Disabilities are not exclusive. Disability Reported Hearing difficulty Vision difficulty Cognitive difficulty Ambulatory Difficulty Self-care Difficulty Independent Living Difficulty Percentage of Population 8.5% 8.7% 9.8% 9.5 % 9.5% 9.8% 21.1.5.6 Lower Northeast Hazards Many hazards affect the City of Philadelphia on a wide scale, such as windstorms or hurricanes, while others can have varying levels of risk across the city. These hazards include: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Infrastructure Failure Extreme Heat Flooding Hazardous Material Train Derailment Urban conflagration Each of these hazards are detailed below on the risk factors present in the Upper Far Northeast Planning District. For a complete list of hazards in the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan and a description of the city-wide risk level for each, please see the Risk Assessment section in the main body of the plan. Infrastructure Failure Bridge Failure A bridge collapse consists of a failure of decking, superstructure, or foundation leading to a progressive or immediate collapse of the entire assembly.419 Bridges can span waterways, railways, or roadways and provide overpasses for surface transportation or passenger/freight rail lines. For more information on bridge failures and its impacts, please see Bridge Failure under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Structurally deficient bridges are those have major deterioration, cracks, or other flaws that reduce its ability to support vehicles. A “structurally deficient bridge” typically requires maintenance and repairs to remain in service, or rehabilitation or replacement to address the underlying issue.420 421 Depending on the type and extent of deterioration, the Philadelphia Streets Department or PennDOT may impose weight restrictions. If the deterioration is severe, regulating agencies may shut down the bridge to traffic until maintenance crews can repair the damage. The table below shows those bridges found to be structurally deficient. The map to the below shows those bridges deemed structurally deficient in the Lower Northeast Planning District.422 City of Philadelphia Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 2010 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance - System Conditions: Highways and Bridges. Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved March 23, 2016. 421 Ibid. 422 Map Information: MPMS IQ. PennDOT. Retrieved March 2, 2016. 419 420 Structurally Deficient Bridges in the Lower Northeast Planning District Name Location Year Built Tacony Creek Tacony Creek Tacony Creek Frankford Creek Tacony Creek and Fisher’s Lane Tacony Creek and Tabor Road Tacony Creek and Adam’s Avenue Frankford Avenue near Hunting Park Avenue 1801 1957 1901 1903 Dam Failure A dam is a barrier across flowing water that obstructs, directs, or slows down water flow. Dams provide benefits such as flood protection, power generation, drinking water, irrigation, and recreation. Failure of these structures results in an uncontrolled release of impounded water. Failures are relatively rare, but structural damages and injuries are possible in downstream communities when such events occur. For more information on dam failures and its impacts, please see Dam Failure under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. The table below shows the dam name, the waterway on which the dam is located, whether the dam is a high hazard dam, and who currently holds the permit for the structure. Dam Name Waterway High Hazard? Permitted Owner Tacony Creek Park Tacony Creek No City of Philadelphia Debris Dam Tacony Creek No City of Philadelphia Building Collapse Buildings may collapse for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Overall structural integrity; Poor construction or maintenance Accidents; Environmental forces, such as wind or heavy snowfall; or Earthquakes. Building age increases the risk of collapse. The map to the right shows the number of properties built in the Lower Northeast Planning District built before 1939. Vacant properties also increase the risk of a building collapse, as these properties fall into disrepair and neglect. The map to the right shows the number of vacant properties in the Lower Northeast Planning District. Philadelphia Licenses and Inspections (L&I) records imminently dangerous structures found each year through inspections. Some of these structures have partially collapsed, while others are found and acted upon before they collapse. Property owners can repair or demolish these structures. The map below shows the location of imminently dangerous structures in the Lower Northeast Planning District. Extreme Heat Extreme heat can be described as temperatures that hover 10°F or more above the average high temperature for a region during the summer months. Extreme heat is responsible for more deaths in Pennsylvania than all other natural disasters combined.423 For more information on extreme heat and its impacts, please see Extreme Heat under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Philadelphia is subject to heat island effects. The heat island effect describes the phenomenon that built up areas are hotter than nearby rural areas. The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F warmer than its surroundings.424 Heat islands can affect communities by increasing energy demand, air conditioning costs, air pollution, and heat-related illness and deaths. Impervious surfaces contribute to the heat island effect. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right displays impervious surfaces in the Lower Northeast Planning District. Impervious Surfaces Most Impervious Least Impervious Philadelphia Planning Districts 423 424 2013 York County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Retrieved February 16, 2016. “Heat Island Effect”. US EPA. Retrieved March 3, 2016. Philadelphia, like other metropolitan areas, heats unevenly because of variations in vegetation, impervious surface coverage, and proximity to bodies of water. The map below shows this heating pattern. 425 As the map shows, the Lower Northeast is located in an area which experience higher heat island effects, and feels some of the effects of such an event more than the bordering counties. 425 “Downscaling Air Temperature and LST Using MODIS and Landsat Data: Philadelphia 2002”. URSA. Retrieved March 7, 2016. Flooding Flooding is the temporary condition of partial or complete inundation on normally dry land and it is the most frequent and costly of all hazards in Pennsylvania. Flooding events are generally the result of excessive precipitation. General flooding typically occurs when precipitation occurs over a given river basin for an extended period of time. Flash flooding is usually a result of heavy localized precipitation falling in a short time period over a given location, often along mountain streams and in urban areas where much of the ground cover is primarily impervious surfaces. The severity of a flood event is dependent upon a combination of: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ stream and river basin topography and physiography, hydrology, precipitation and weather patterns, present soil moisture conditions, the degree of vegetative clearing, and the presence of impervious surfaces in and around floodprone areas.426 Winter flooding includes ice jams which occur when warm temperatures and heavy rain cause snow to melt rapidly. Snow melt combined with heavy rains can cause frozen rivers to swell, which breaks the ice layer on top of a river. The ice layer often breaks into large chunks, which float downstream, piling up in narrow passages and near other obstructions such as bridges and dams. All forms of flooding can damage 426 “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. infrastructure.427 For more information on flooding and its impacts, please see Flooding under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. A small portion of the Lower Northeast Planning District falls within either the one percent or 0.2 percent annual risk areas for a flood event. The map above shows the one and 0.2 percent annual percent flood hazard areas. Data available does not capture surface flooding from overwhelmed water management infrastructure. Those homes with a federally backed mortgage in the 1% annual chance flood event area are required to carry flood insurance. Flood insurance is not part of an average homeowner’s insurance policy and must be purchased separately. Within the Lower Northeast Planning District there are 58 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policies in force. For more information on the National Flood Insurance Program, see the National Flood Insurance Program section of the Capability Assessment. 427 “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. Flash flooding is a concern for some areas of the Lower Northeast Planning District, but less so than other parts of Philadelphia given the greater amount of permeable surfaces in the district. A flash flood is rapidly rising water that occurs during an intense rain storm, such as those that accompany hurricanes. A flash flood may also occur as a result of rapidly melting snow. The presence of impervious surfaces contributes to an increased risk of flash flooding. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right displays impervious surfaces in the Lower Northeast Planning District. Those areas with greater concentrations of impervious surfaces that are already in flood prone areas are at a greater risk for flash flooding. Impervious Surfaces Most Impervious Least Impervious Philadelphia Planning Districts Hazardous Material Train Derailment Derailments can happen for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ Issues with the track, roadbed, and structures the train travels on; ▪ Signal and communications issues; ▪ Human error in train operations; ▪ Mechanical and/or electrical failures; or ▪ Other causes such as environmental conditions or loading procedures.428 In many cases, derailments do not result in the compromise of tank cars carrying hazardous materials or the release of dangerous chemicals. In rare cases, a derailment can result in the release of hazardous materials. Depending on the characteristics of the material released, these events can pose explosive and/or contaminant threats to the community. For more information on hazardous material train derailment and its impacts, please see Hazardous Material Train Derailment under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Rail lines throughout the city often are multi-use lines. The same freight lines can carry a variety of different materials, both nonhazardous and select hazardous products. The map to the right illustrates those freight lines that run through Philadelphia and carry many different kinds of materials and equipment. 428 Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis. Train Accident Cause Codes. Retrieved April 13, 2016. Urban Conflagration Conflagrations are extensive, widespread fires that damage property and potentially endanger lives. Urban conflagrations spread beyond artificial and natural barriers to destroy whole sections of a city.429 While conflagrations are rare in modern, developed cities, there is the risk that they could occur after a large storm, earthquake, or during civil unrest. Simultaneous ignitions can overwhelm emergency responders. For more information on urban conflagrations and its impacts, please see Urban Conflagration under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Unoccupied or vacant homes pose a greater risk for both fires and collapse than occupied homes.430 Vacant properties that are also uninsured or under-insured greatly increase the likelihood of a longer recovery time. The Lower Northeast Planning District has comparatively fewer vacant properties than many other parts of Philadelphia, and therefore has a slightly lower risk for urban conflagration. William Michael Kramer. “Disaster Planning and Control”. Fire Engineering. Retrieved January 11, 2016. Income, Housing, and Fire Injuries: A Census Tract Analysis. Donna Shai, PhD. Public Health Reports, Vol. 121, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 2006), pp. 149-154. Retrieved March 7, 2016. 429 430 Densely built urban environments pose an additional risk for conflagration. Closely built environments allow fire to spread more easily than less dense environments if not placed under control. Density mapping assists in the identification of densely built environments. The map to the right depicts the Lower Northeast Planning District’s housing density. Data was unavailable for those portions of the map left uncolored. 21.1.6 Lower Northwest Planning District 21.1.6.1 Geography and Hydrology The Lower Northwest Planning District contains addresses in the zip codes 19118, 19127, 19128, 19129, and 19144. Zip codes in the Lower Northwest Planning District The Lower Northwest planning district falls partially in the Wissahickon Creek and Schuylkill River Watersheds. Watersheds in the Lower Northwest Planning District The Lower Northwest Planning District resides within the 4th Council District of Philadelphia. Council Districts in Lower Northwest Planning District The Lower Northwest Planning District falls mostly within the 5th Police District, and also crosses into 39th Police District. Police Districts in the Lower Northwest Planning District 21.1.6.2 Current and Future Land Use The Lower Northwest District will see continued residential growth over the next ten years.431 The proposed land use map identifies areas for new residential and commercial growth and development. Future land use is based on the premise of directing residential development away from “car-centric, single-family neighborhoods and toward transit nodes and commercial corridors”.432 433 City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia 2035. Lower South District Plan. Retrieved November 20, 2015. Ibid. 433 All graphics, charts, and recommendations come from the City of Philadelphia: Philadelphia 2035 Lower South District Plan. Retrieved November 20, 2015. 431 432 Philadelphia Lower Northwest Planning District Existing Land Use Legend Residential Low Density may Medium Density . may High Density - (Jamaal Conm - Comtwcial Mm?! Protessnonal - Commetcial Mixed Residential I hmial I Mum Tranpmatm - Cultun [Amusement - Active Moation - Part/Open Space I Cancun Water . Vacmt Philadelphia Lower Northwest Planning District Future Land Use Legend max Low Density Cl Residantial Medium 0mm I was High Density - Commotcial (2mm I Carma WI onlessaonal I Mm manual I Indumial I mum . Amman! I mm Recreation I Part/Oven Space - 6mm Wale: . Vacant 21.1.6.3 Social Characteristics Data used for social characteristics is from the most recent American Community Survey provided from the U.S. Census. The ACS produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates over a five-year period between censuses. The data used for these statistics is from 2014. Population, Gender and Age Characteristics of the Upper Far Northeast Planning District Population  Male population  Female population Median Age Age dependency ratio (the percentage of the population under 15 and over 64) Population under 15 Population over 64 178,618 82,891 95,727 35.4 47.0% 25.5% 21.5% 21.1.6.4 Housing, Mobility, and Poverty For emergency management, whether a home is owned or rented division implies a difference in insurance coverage which affects long-term recovery. Renters insurance covers exists mainly to cover the occupants’ belongings, not the housing itself. This can present challenges in housing unit repair and re-occupancy. Those households living in poverty may have a more difficult time preparing for and recovering from disasters, and the district’s population living below the federal line of poverty. Housing, Mobility, and Poverty Characteristics of the Upper Far Northeast Planning District Number of households  Households owned  Households rented No vehicle access Population below the federal line of poverty 39,273 19,118 20,155 10,160 21.6% Households Owned vs Rented by Planning District 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% Povertyininthe theLower Lower Poverty NorthwestPlanning PlanningDistrict District Northwest PopulationLiving LivingAbove Abovethe theLine LineofofPoverty Poverty Population Percentage of of Households Households Owned Owned Percentage Percentage of of Households Households Rented Rented Percentage PopulationLiving LivingBelow Belowthe theLine LineofofPoverty Poverty Population 21.1.6.5 Disability Of those individuals residing within the Lower Northwest Planning District, 11.3 percent reported having a disability. Disabilities reported by individuals in the Lower Northwest Planning District are listed in the table below by the percentage of the total population of the District. Disabilities are not exclusive. Disability Reported Percentage of Population Hearing difficulty Vision difficulty Cognitive difficulty Ambulatory Difficulty Self-care Difficulty Independent Living Difficulty 11.6% 11.6% 11.8% 11.8% 11.9% 12.2% 21.1.6.6 Lower Northwest Hazards Many hazards affect the City of Philadelphia on a wide scale, such as windstorms or hurricanes, while others can have varying levels of risk across the city. These hazards include: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Infrastructure Failure Extreme Heat Flooding Hazardous Material Train Derailment Urban conflagration Each of these hazards are detailed below on the risk factors present in the Upper Far Northeast Planning District. For a complete list of hazards in the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan and a description of the city-wide risk level for each, please see the Risk Assessment section in the main body of the plan. Infrastructure Failure Bridge Failure A bridge collapse consists of a failure of decking, superstructure, or foundation leading to a progressive or immediate collapse of the entire assembly.434 Bridges can span waterways, railways, or roadways and provide overpasses for surface transportation or passenger/freight rail lines. For more information on bridge failures and its impacts, please see Bridge Failure under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Structurally deficient bridges are those have major deterioration, cracks, or other flaws that reduce its ability to support vehicles. A “structurally deficient bridge” typically requires maintenance and repairs to remain in service, or rehabilitation or replacement to address the underlying issue.435 436 Depending on the type and extent of deterioration, the Philadelphia Streets Department or PennDOT may impose weight restrictions. If the deterioration is severe, regulating agencies may shut down the bridge to traffic until maintenance crews can repair the damage. The table below shows those bridges found to be structurally deficient. The map to the below shows those bridges deemed structurally deficient in the Lower Northwest Planning District.437 City of Philadelphia Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 2010 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance - System Conditions: Highways and Bridges. Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved March 23, 2016. 436 Ibid. 437 Map Information: MPMS IQ. PennDOT. Retrieved March 2, 2016. 434 435 Structurally Deficient Bridges in the Lower Northwest Planning District Name Location Year Built Belmont Ave Wissahickon Creek SEPTA (Norristown Bridge) Falls Bridge Valley Green Rd Ridge Ave Schuylkill River Bell’s Mill Rd Calumet St, west of Cresson St Schuylkill River Wissahickon Creek Wissahickon Creek at Gustine Lake 1928 1820 1993 1986 1915 1888 Dam Failure A dam is a barrier across flowing water that obstructs, directs, or slows down water flow. Dams provide benefits such as flood protection, power generation, drinking water, irrigation, and recreation. Failure of these structures results in an uncontrolled release of impounded water. Failures are relatively rare, but structural damages and injuries are possible in downstream communities when such events occur. For more information on dam failures and its impacts, please see Dam Failure under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. The table on the following page shows the dam name, the waterway on which the dam is located, whether the dam is a high hazard dam, and who currently holds the permit for the structure. Dam Name Waterway High Hazard? Permitted Owner Flat Rock Schuylkill River Yes Margaree Wissahickon Creek No U.S. Department of Environmental Protection City of Philadelphia Queen Lane Raw Water Basin Robeson-Vandaren Mill Upper Grant Street Watershed: Schuylkill River Wissahickon Creek Yes Philadelphia Water Department No City of Philadelphia Wissahickon Creek No City of Philadelphia Thomas Mill Road Wissahickon Creek No City of Philadelphia Livezey Wissahickon Creek No City of Philadelphia Building Collapse Buildings may collapse for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Overall structural integrity; Poor construction or maintenance Accidents; Environmental forces, such as wind or heavy snowfall; or Earthquakes. Building age increases the risk of collapse. The map to the right shows the number of properties built in the Lower Northwest Planning District built before 1939. Vacant properties also increase the risk of a building collapse, as these properties fall into disrepair and neglect. The map to the right shows the number of vacant properties in the Lower Northwest Planning District. The Lower Northwest Planning District has a lower portion of vacant properties throughout the majority of the planning district, with a small concentration of vacant properties in the southeastern portion of the district. Philadelphia Licenses and Inspections (L&I) records imminently dangerous structures found each year through inspections. Some of these structures have partially collapsed, while others are found and acted upon before they collapse. Property owners can repair or demolish these structures. The map to the right shows the location of imminently dangerous structures in the Lower Northwest Planning District. Extreme Heat Extreme heat can be described as temperatures that hover 10°F or more above the average high temperature for a region during the summer months. Extreme heat is responsible for more deaths in Pennsylvania than all other natural disasters combined.438 For more information on extreme heat and its impacts, please see Extreme Heat under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Philadelphia is subject to heat island effects. The heat island effect describes the phenomenon that built up areas are hotter than nearby rural areas. The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F warmer than its surroundings.439 Heat islands can affect communities by increasing energy demand, air conditioning costs, air pollution, and heat-related illness and deaths. Impervious surfaces contribute to the heat island effect. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right displays impervious surfaces in the Lower Northwest Planning District. Impervious Surfaces Most Impervious Least Impervious Philadelphia Planning Districts 438 439 2013 York County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Retrieved February 16, 2016. “Heat Island Effect”. US EPA. Retrieved March 3, 2016. Philadelphia, like other metropolitan areas, heats unevenly because of variations in vegetation, impervious surface coverage, and proximity to bodies of water. The map below shows this heating pattern. 440 As the map shows, the Lower Northwest is located in an area which experience higher heat island effects, and feels some of the effects of such an event more than the bordering counties. 440 “Downscaling Air Temperature and LST Using MODIS and Landsat Data: Philadelphia 2002”. URSA. Retrieved March 7, 2016. Flooding Flooding is the temporary condition of partial or complete inundation on normally dry land and it is the most frequent and costly of all hazards in Pennsylvania. Flooding events are generally the result of excessive precipitation. General flooding typically occurs when precipitation occurs over a given river basin for an extended period of time. Flash flooding is usually a result of heavy localized precipitation falling in a short time period over a given location, often along mountain streams and in urban areas where much of the ground cover is primarily impervious surfaces. The severity of a flood event is dependent upon a combination of: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ stream and river basin topography and physiography, hydrology, precipitation and weather patterns, present soil moisture conditions, the degree of vegetative clearing, and the presence of impervious surfaces in and around flood-prone areas.441 Winter flooding includes ice jams which occur when warm temperatures and heavy rain cause snow to melt rapidly. Snow melt combined with heavy rains can cause frozen rivers to swell, which breaks the ice layer on top of a river. The ice layer often breaks into large chunks, which float downstream, piling up in narrow passages and near other obstructions such as bridges and dams. 441 “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. All forms of flooding can damage infrastructure.442 For more information on flooding and its impacts, please see Flooding under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. A small portion of the Lower Northwest Planning District falls within either the one percent or 0.2 percent annual risk areas for a flood event. The map above shows the one and 0.2 percent annual percent flood hazard areas. Data available does not capture surface flooding from overwhelmed water management infrastructure. Those homes with a federally backed mortgage in the 1% annual chance flood event area are required to carry flood insurance. Flood insurance is not part of an average homeowner’s insurance policy and must be purchased separately. Within the Lower Northwest Planning District there are 243 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policies in force. For more information on the National Flood Insurance Program, see the National Flood Insurance Program section of the Capability Assessment. 442 “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. Flash flooding is a concern for some areas of the Lower Northwest Planning District, but less so than other parts of Philadelphia given the greater amount of permeable surfaces in the district. A flash flood is rapidly rising water that occurs during an intense rain storm, such as those that accompany hurricanes. A flash flood may also occur as a result of rapidly melting snow. The presence of impervious surfaces contributes to an increased risk of flash flooding. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right displays impervious surfaces in the Lower Northwest Planning District. Those areas with greater concentrations of impervious surfaces that are already in flood prone areas are at a greater risk for flash flooding. Impervious Surfaces Most Impervious Least Impervious Philadelphia Planning Districts Hazardous Material Train Derailment Derailments can happen for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ Issues with the track, roadbed, and structures the train travels on; ▪ Signal and communications issues; ▪ Human error in train operations; ▪ Mechanical and/or electrical failures; or ▪ Other causes such as environmental conditions or loading procedures.443 In many cases, derailments do not result in the compromise of tank cars carrying hazardous materials or the release of dangerous chemicals. In rare cases, a derailment can result in the release of hazardous materials. Depending on the characteristics of the material released, these events can pose explosive and/or contaminant threats to the community. For more information on hazardous material train derailment and its impacts, please see Hazardous Material Train Derailment under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Rail lines throughout the city often are multi-use lines. The same freight lines can carry a variety of different materials, both nonhazardous and select hazardous products. The map to the right illustrates those freight lines that run through Philadelphia and carry many different kinds of materials and equipment. 443 Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis. Train Accident Cause Codes. Retrieved April 13, 2016. Urban Conflagration Conflagrations are extensive, widespread fires that damage property and potentially endanger lives. Urban conflagrations spread beyond artificial and natural barriers to destroy whole sections of a city.444 While conflagrations are rare in modern, developed cities, there is the risk that they could occur after a large storm, earthquake, or during civil unrest. Simultaneous ignitions can overwhelm emergency responders. For more information on urban conflagrations and its impacts, please see Urban Conflagration under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Unoccupied or vacant homes pose a greater risk for both fires and collapse than occupied homes.445 Vacant properties that are also uninsured or under-insured greatly increase the likelihood of a longer recovery time. The Lower Northwest Planning District has comparatively fewer vacant properties than many other parts of Philadelphia, with a small concentration of vacant properties in the far south eastern portion of the planning district. William Michael Kramer. “Disaster Planning and Control”. Fire Engineering. Retrieved January 11, 2016. Income, Housing, and Fire Injuries: A Census Tract Analysis. Donna Shai, PhD. Public Health Reports, Vol. 121, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 2006), pp. 149-154. Retrieved March 7, 2016. 444 445 Densely built urban environments pose an additional risk for conflagration. Closely built environments allow fire to spread more easily than less dense environments if not placed under control. Density mapping assists in the identification of densely built environments. The map to the right depicts the Lower Northwest Planning District’s housing density. Data was unavailable for those portions of the map left uncolored. 21.1.7 Lower Southwest 21.1.7.1 Geography and Hydrology The Lower Southwest Planning District contains addresses in the zip codes 19142, 19153, and 19143. Zip codes in the Lower Southwest Planning District The Lower Southwest planning district falls partially in the Delaware Direct, Darby Creek, Cobbs Creek, and Schuylkill Watersheds in the Lower Southwest Planning District River Watersheds. The Lower Southwest Planning District resides within the 2nd and 3rd Council Districts of Philadelphia. Council Districts in Lower Southwest Planning District The Lower Southwest Planning District falls mostly within the 12th and 77th Police Districts. Police Districts in the Lower Southwest Planning District 21.1.7.2 Current and Future Land Use Zoning in the Lower Southwest District is varied, but is predominantly heavy industrial (I-3), medium industrial (I-2), and special airport zoning (SP-AIR), which collectively account for 61 percent of all zoning categories in the district. Multifamily residential and open space are the next most prevalent zoning classifications, followed by single family residential. Other commercial, light industrial and institutional classifications make up less than three percent each of total district zoning. Floodplain and airport hazard control areas complicate zoning, as both flooding and airport noise are considerations as development occurs.446 The maps on the following page show the existing and proposed land use for the Lower Southwest Planning District. 446 Philadelphia 2035: Lower Southwest District Plan 2016 (Draft). Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Retrieved May 13, 2016. Lower Southwest Existing Land Use Lower Southwest 2035 Proposed Land Use UNIVERSITY SOUTHWEST SOUTH UNIVERSITY SOUTHWEST sount DISTRICT DISTRICT SOUTH 3' SOUTH DELAWARE DISTRICT DELAWARE n? DISTRICT COUNTY COUNTY 0 PHILADELPHIA COUNTY DELAWARE COUNTY Residential Single-Family Detached [Hen-Isl I cemeteteiar Entertainment Industrial Residential Mixed-Use IIHMHI El Residential Single-FamilyI Attached Airport ISF-AIHI El lndustnal Eemmereaal El Residential Twe-Familv Attached?IT?t-I] I Institutional Development 13:: I . . Residential l?elulti-Familtr attached [th-t-d] TE I stadtdm [SP-ere] I Idedtum lndustrral I Residential tdiaed?Ltaelerds-t-s] I seen-e I Heard? Industrial ?-31 El huts Oriented Cemmenziai - lndustnal - Neighborhsed Eemmereial Mixed-Use E. 2-5] - Cemmuniw Commercial Mixed-Use - Center City Bore Mixed-Use CUM MI H?l?tl. 21.1.7.3 Social Characteristics Data used for social characteristics is from the most recent American Community Survey provided from the U.S. Census. The ACS produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates over a five-year period between censuses. The data used for these statistics is from 2014. Population, Gender and Age Characteristics of the Lower Southwest Planning District Population  Male population  Female population Median Age Age dependency ratio (the percentage of the population under 15 and over 64) Population under 15 Population over 64 152,101 69,601 82,500 38 62.4% 34.6% 27.8% 21.1.7.4 Housing, Mobility, and Poverty For emergency management, whether a home is owned or rented division implies a difference in insurance coverage which affects long-term recovery. Renters insurance covers exists mainly to cover the occupants’ belongings, not the housing itself. This can present challenges in housing unit repair and re-occupancy. Those households living in poverty may have a more difficult time preparing for and recovering from disasters, and the district’s population living below the federal line of poverty. Housing, Mobility, and Poverty Characteristics of the Lower Southwest Planning District Number of households  Households owned  Households rented No vehicle access Population below the federal line of poverty 123,472 48,278 75,194 12,801 28.2% 21.1.7.5 Disability Of those individuals residing within the Lower Southwest Planning District, 10.7 percent reported having a disability. The table below lists disabilities reported by individuals in the Lower Southwest Planning District by the percentage of the total population of the District. Disabilities are not exclusive, as some individuals may report having more than one disability type. Disability Reported Hearing difficulty Vision difficulty Cognitive difficulty Ambulatory Difficulty Self-care Difficulty Independent Living Difficulty Percentage of Population 5.8% 6.1% 6.4% 6.4% 6.5% 6.5% 21.1.7.6 Lower Southwest Hazards Many hazards affect the City of Philadelphia on a wide scale, such as windstorms or hurricanes, while others can have varying levels of risk across the city. These hazards include: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Infrastructure Failure Extreme Heat Flooding Hazardous Material Train Derailment Urban conflagration Each of these hazards are detailed below on the risk factors present in the Lower Southwest Planning District. For a complete list of hazards in the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan and a description of the city-wide risk level for each, please see the Risk Assessment section in the main body of the plan. Infrastructure Failure Bridge Failure A bridge collapse consists of a failure of decking, superstructure, or foundation leading to a progressive or immediate collapse of the entire assembly.447 Bridges can span waterways, railways, or roadways and provide overpasses for surface transportation or passenger/freight rail lines. For more information on bridge failures and its impacts, please see Bridge Failure under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Structurally deficient bridges are those have major deterioration, cracks, or other flaws that reduce its ability to support vehicles. A “structurally deficient bridge” typically requires maintenance and repairs to remain in service, or rehabilitation or replacement to address the underlying issue.448 449 Depending on the type and extent of deterioration, the Philadelphia Streets Department or PennDOT may impose weight restrictions. If the deterioration is severe, regulating agencies may shut down the bridge to traffic until maintenance crews can repair the damage. The table below shows those bridges found to be structurally deficient. The map to the below shows those bridges deemed structurally deficient in the Lower Southwest Planning District.450 Structurally Deficient Bridges in the Lower Southwest Planning District Name Location COBBS CREEK Church Lane 0.5 miles south of US-13 SEPTA (AHSL) 70th St at Lindbergh Blvd CSX TRANSPORTATION Cemetery Ave SEPTA (AHSL) 61st St and Eastwick Ave AMTRAK (NE Corridor) 62nd St and South Paschall Ave AMTRAK (NE Corridor) 72nd St and South Paschall Ave CSX 68th St at Kingsessing St Year Built 1949 1980 1886 1928 1910 1913 1926 City of Philadelphia Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 2010 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance - System Conditions: Highways and Bridges. Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved March 23, 2016. 449 Ibid. 450 Map Information: MPMS IQ. PennDOT. Retrieved March 2, 2016. 447 448 Structurally De?cient Bridges in the Lower District mammal? wzm?wsg? Legend 9 so State Badges . so Local Bridges SDLocaandgeUnes $33721? 5? [?33739 Dam Failure A dam is a barrier across flowing water that obstructs, directs, or slows down water flow. Dams provide benefits such as flood protection, power generation, drinking water, irrigation, and recreation. Failure of these structures results in an uncontrolled release of impounded water. Failures are relatively rare, but structural damages and injuries are possible in downstream communities when such events occur. For more information on dam failures and its impacts, please see Dam Failure under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. There are no dams in the Lower Southwest Planning District. Building Collapse Buildings may collapse for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Overall structural integrity; Poor construction or maintenance Accidents; Environmental forces, such as wind or heavy snowfall; or Earthquakes. Building age increases the risk of collapse. The map to the right shows the number of properties built in the Lower Southwest Planning District built before 1939. Vacant properties also increase the risk of a building collapse, as these properties fall into disrepair and neglect. The map below shows the number of vacant properties in the Lower Southwest Planning District. Philadelphia Licenses and Inspections (L&I) records imminently dangerous structures found each year through inspections. Some of these structures have partially collapsed, while others are found and acted upon before they collapse. Property owners can repair or demolish these structures. The map below shows the location of imminently dangerous structures in the Lower Southwest Planning District. Extreme Heat Extreme heat can be described as temperatures that hover 10°F or more above the average high temperature for a region during the summer months. Extreme heat is responsible for more deaths in Pennsylvania than all other natural disasters combined.451 For more information on extreme heat and its impacts, please see Extreme Heat under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Philadelphia is subject to heat island effects. The heat island effect describes the phenomenon that built up areas are hotter than nearby rural areas. The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F warmer than its surroundings.452 Heat islands can affect communities by increasing energy demand, air conditioning costs, air pollution, and heat-related illness and deaths. Impervious surfaces contribute to the heat island effect. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right displays impervious surfaces in the Lower Southwest Planning District. Philadelphia, like other metropolitan areas, heats unevenly because of variations in vegetation, impervious surface coverage, and proximity to bodies of water. The map below shows this heating pattern.453 As the map shows, the Lower Southwest is not located in the areas which experience 2013 York County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Retrieved February 16, 2016. “Heat Island Effect”. US EPA. Retrieved March 3, 2016. 453 “Downscaling Air Temperature and LST Using MODIS and Landsat Data: Philadelphia 2002”. URSA. Retrieved March 7, 2016. 451 452 the highest heat island effects, but the Lower Southwest still feels some of the effects of such an event more than the surrounding counties. Flooding Flooding is the temporary condition of partial or complete inundation on normally dry land and it is the most frequent and costly of all hazards in Pennsylvania. Flooding events are generally the result of excessive precipitation. General flooding typically occurs when precipitation occurs over a given river basin for an extended period of time. Flash flooding is usually a result of heavy localized precipitation falling in a short time period over a given location, often along mountain streams and in urban areas where much of the ground cover is primarily impervious surfaces. The severity of a flood event is dependent upon a combination of: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ stream and river basin topography and physiography, hydrology, precipitation and weather patterns, present soil moisture conditions, the degree of vegetative clearing, and the presence of impervious surfaces in and around flood-prone areas.454 Winter flooding includes ice jams which occur when warm temperatures and heavy rain cause snow to melt rapidly. Snow melt combined with heavy rains can cause frozen rivers to swell, which breaks the ice layer on top of a river. The ice layer often breaks into large chunks, which float downstream, piling up in narrow passages and near other obstructions such as bridges and dams. All forms of flooding can damage infrastructure.455 For more 454 455 “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. information on flooding and its impacts, please see Flooding under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. The majority of the Lower Southwest Planning District falls within either the one percent or 0.2 percent annual risk areas for a flood event, with the majority of flooding caused by riverine flooding rather than surface flooding. The map above shows the one and 0.2 percent annual percent flood hazard areas. Those homes with a federally backed mortgage in the 1% annual chance flood event area are required to carry flood insurance. Flood insurance is not part of an average homeowner’s insurance policy and must be purchased separately. Within the Lower Southwest Planning District there are 874 of policies in force. For more information on the National Flood Insurance Program, see the National Flood Insurance Program section of the Capability Assessment. Flash flooding is also a concern for some areas of the Lower Southwest Planning District. A flash flood is rapidly rising water that occurs during an intense rain storm, such as those that accompany hurricanes. A flash flood may also occur as a result of rapidly melting snow. The presence of impervious surfaces contributes to an increased risk of flash flooding. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right displays impervious surfaces in the Lower Southwest Planning District. Those areas with greater concentrations of impervious surfaces that are already in flood prone areas are at a greater risk for flash flooding. Hazardous Material Train Derailment Derailments can happen for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Issues with the track, roadbed, and structures the train travels on; Signal and communications issues; Human error in train operations; Mechanical and/or electrical failures; or Other causes such as environmental conditions or loading procedures.456 In many cases, derailments do not result in the compromise of tank cars carrying hazardous materials or the release of dangerous chemicals. In rare cases, a derailment can result in the release of hazardous materials. Depending on the characteristics of the material released, these events can pose explosive and/or contaminant threats to the community. For more information on hazardous material train derailment and its impacts, please see Hazardous Material Train Derailment under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Rail lines throughout the city often are multi-use lines. The same freight lines can carry a variety of different materials, both non-hazardous and select hazardous products. The map to the right illustrates those freight lines that run through Philadelphia and carry many different kinds of materials and equipment. 456 Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis. Train Accident Cause Codes. Retrieved April 13, 2016. Urban Conflagration Conflagrations are extensive, widespread fires that damage property and potentially endanger lives. Urban conflagrations spread beyond artificial and natural barriers to destroy whole sections of a city. 457 While conflagrations are rare in modern, developed cities, there is the risk that they could occur after a large storm, earthquake, or during civil unrest. Simultaneous ignitions can overwhelm emergency responders. For more information on urban conflagrations and its impacts, please see Urban Conflagration under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Unoccupied or vacant homes pose a greater risk for both fires and collapse than occupied homes.458 Vacant properties that are also uninsured or underinsured greatly increase the likelihood of a longer recovery time. The Lower Southwest Planning District has comparatively fewer vacant properties than many other parts of Philadelphia, and therefore has a slightly lower risk for urban conflagration. William Michael Kramer. “Disaster Planning and Control”. Fire Engineering. Retrieved January 11, 2016. Income, Housing, and Fire Injuries: A Census Tract Analysis. Donna Shai, PhD. Public Health Reports, Vol. 121, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 2006), pp. 149-154. Retrieved March 7, 2016. 457 458 Densely built urban environments pose several risks for conflagration. Closely built environments allow fire to spread more easily than less dense environments if not placed under control. This increases the risk of urban conflagration. Density mapping assists in the identification of densely built environments. The map to the right depicts the Lower Southwest Planning District’s housing density. The Lower Southwest has pockets of higher housing density in the northwest portion of the district. 21.1.8 North Delaware 21.1.8.1 Geography and Hydrology The North Delaware Planning District contains addresses in the zip codes 19136, 19149, 19152, 19111, and 19115. Zip codes in the North Delaware Planning District The North Delaware planning district falls partially in the Delaware Direct, Pennypack Creek, and Tookany/TaconyFrankford Watersheds. Watersheds in the North Delaware Planning District The North Delaware Planning District resides largely within the 6th Council District of Philadelphia. Council Districts in North Delaware Planning District The North Delaware Planning District falls mostly within the 8th and 15th Police Districts. Police Districts in the North Delaware Planning District 21.1.8.2 Social Characteristics Data used for social characteristics is from the most recent American Community Survey provided from the U.S. Census. The ACS produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates over a five-year period between censuses. The data used for these statistics is from 2014. Population, Gender and Age Characteristics of the North Delaware Planning District Population 195,791 - Male population 95,334 - Female population 100,457 Median Age 37.6 - Age dependency ratio (the percentage of the population under 15 and over 64) 57.6% - Population under 15 35.5% - Population over 64 22.1% 21.1.8.3 Housing, Mobility, and Poverty For emergency management, whether a home is owned or rented division implies a difference in insurance coverage which affects long-term recovery. Renters insurance covers exists mainly to cover the occupants’ belongings, not the housing itself. This can present challenges in housing unit repair and re-occupancy. Those households living in poverty may have a more difficult time preparing for and recovering from disasters, and the district’s population living below the federal line of poverty. Housing, Mobility, and Poverty Characteristics of the North Delaware Planning District Number of households - Households owned - Households rented No vehicle access Population below the federal line of poverty Households Owned vs Rented by Planning District 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Percentage of Households Owned Percentage of Households Rented 70,801 44,231 26,570 11,432 16.8% Poverty in the North Delaware Planning District Population Living Above the Line of Poverty Population Living Below the Line of Poverty 21.1.8.4 Disability Of those individuals residing within the North Delaware Planning District, 15.4 percent reported having a disability. Disabilities reported by individuals in the North Delaware Planning District are listed in the table below by the percentage of the total population of the District. Disabilities are not exclusive. Disability Reported Hearing difficulty Vision difficulty Cognitive difficulty Ambulatory Difficulty Self-care Difficulty Independent Living Difficulty Percentage of Population 6.5% 6.8 % 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 21.1.8.5 North Delaware Northeast Hazards Many hazards affect the City of Philadelphia on a wide scale, such as windstorms or hurricanes, while others can have varying levels of risk across the city. These hazards include: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Infrastructure Failure Extreme Heat Flooding Hazardous Material Train Derailment Urban conflagration Each of these hazards are detailed below on the risk factors present in the North Delaware Planning District. For a complete list of hazards in the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan and a description of the city-wide risk level for each, please see the Risk Assessment section in the main body of the plan. Infrastructure Failure Bridge Failure A bridge collapse consists of a failure of decking, superstructure, or foundation leading to a progressive or immediate collapse of the entire assembly.459 Bridges can span waterways, railways, or roadways and provide overpasses for surface transportation or passenger/freight rail lines. For more information on bridge failures and its impacts, please see Bridge Failure under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Structurally deficient bridges are those have major deterioration, cracks, or other flaws that reduce its ability to support vehicles. A “structurally deficient bridge” typically requires maintenance and repairs to remain in service, or rehabilitation or replacement to address the underlying issue.460 461 Depending on the type and extent of deterioration, the Philadelphia Streets Department or PennDOT may impose weight restrictions. If the deterioration is severe, regulating agencies may shut down the bridge to traffic until maintenance crews can repair the damage. The table below shows those bridges found to be structurally deficient. The map to the below shows those bridges deemed structurally deficient in the North Delaware Planning District.462 City of Philadelphia Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 2010 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance - System Conditions: Highways and Bridges. Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved March 23, 2016. 461 Ibid. 462 Map Information: MPMS IQ. PennDOT. Retrieved March 2, 2016. 459 460 Structurally Deficient Bridges in the North Delaware Planning District Name Location Delaware Expressway (I-95) Delaware Expressway (I-95) Delaware Expressway (I-95) Delaware Expressway (I-95) Delaware Expressway (I-95) On-Ramp Roosevelt Blvd Ramp C Academy Road Delaware Expressway (I-95) Delaware Expressway (I-95) Delaware Expressway (I-95) Ramp B (Cottman Ave) Delaware Expressway (I-95) Ramp C Delaware Expressway (I-95) at Ashburner St Delaware Expressway (I-95) near Bridge St Delaware Expressway (I-95) near Van Kirk St Delaware Expressway (I-95) near Magee Ave Delaware Expressway (I-95) at Princeton Ave Roosevelt Blvd at Cottman Ave Delaware Expressway (I-95) near Cottman Ave Academy Rd and Torresdale Ave Delaware Expressway (I-95) near Magee Ave Delaware Expressway (I-95) and Unruh Ave Delaware Expressway (I-95) near Bleigh Ave Delaware Expressway (I-95) and Cottman Ave Year Built 1964 1967 1967 1966 1966 1967 1966 1964 1966 1966 1966 1966 Dam Failure A dam is a barrier across flowing water that obstructs, directs, or slows down water flow. Dams provide benefits such as flood protection, power generation, drinking water, irrigation, and recreation. Failure of these structures results in an uncontrolled release of impounded water. Failures are relatively rare, but structural damages and injuries are possible in downstream communities when such events occur. For more information on dam failures and its impacts, please see Dam Failure under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. The table below shows the dam name, the waterway on which the dam is located, whether the dam is a high hazard dam, and who currently holds the permit for the structure. Dam Name Waterway Baxter Raw Water Basin Delaware River Watershed High Hazard? No Permitted Owner Philadelphia Water Department Building Collapse Buildings may collapse for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Overall structural integrity; Poor construction or maintenance Accidents; Environmental forces, such as wind or heavy snowfall; or Earthquakes. Building age increases the risk of collapse. The map to the right shows the number of properties built in the North Delaware Planning District built before 1939. Vacant properties also increase the risk of a building collapse, as these properties fall into disrepair and neglect. The map to the right shows the number of vacant properties in the North Delaware Planning District. Philadelphia Licenses and Inspections (L&I) records imminently dangerous structures found each year through inspections. Some of these structures have partially collapsed, while others are found and acted upon before they collapse. Property owners can repair or demolish these structures. The map below shows the location of imminently dangerous structures in the North Delaware Planning District. Extreme Heat Extreme heat can be described as temperatures that hover 10°F or more above the average high temperature for a region during the summer months. Extreme heat is responsible for more deaths in Pennsylvania than all other natural disasters combined.463 For more information on extreme heat and its impacts, please see Extreme Heat under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Philadelphia is subject to heat island effects. The heat island effect describes the phenomenon that built up areas are hotter than nearby rural areas. The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F warmer than its surroundings.464 Heat islands can affect communities by increasing energy demand, air conditioning costs, air pollution, and heat-related illness and deaths. Impervious surfaces contribute to the heat island effect. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right displays impervious surfaces in the North Delaware Planning District. Impervious Surfaces Most Impervious Least Impervious Philadelphia Planning Districts 463 464 2013 York County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Retrieved February 16, 2016. “Heat Island Effect”. US EPA. Retrieved March 3, 2016. Philadelphia, like other metropolitan areas, heats unevenly because of variations in vegetation, impervious surface coverage, and proximity to bodies of water. The map below shows this heating pattern. 465 As the map shows, the North Delaware is not located in the areas which experience the highest heat island effects, but the North Delaware still feels some of the effects of such an event more than the surrounding counties. 465 “Downscaling Air Temperature and LST Using MODIS and Landsat Data: Philadelphia 2002”. URSA. Retrieved March 7, 2016. Flooding Flooding is the temporary condition of partial or complete inundation on normally dry land and it is the most frequent and costly of all hazards in Pennsylvania. Flooding events are generally the result of excessive precipitation. General flooding typically occurs when precipitation occurs over a given river basin for an extended period of time. Flash flooding is usually a result of heavy localized precipitation falling in a short time period over a given location, often along mountain streams and in urban areas where much of the ground cover is primarily impervious surfaces. The severity of a flood event is dependent upon a combination of: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ 466 stream and river basin topography and physiography, hydrology, precipitation and weather patterns, present soil moisture conditions, the degree of vegetative clearing, and the presence of impervious surfaces in and around flood-prone areas.466 “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. Winter flooding includes ice jams which occur when warm temperatures and heavy rain cause snow to melt rapidly. Snow melt combined with heavy rains can cause frozen rivers to swell, which breaks the ice layer on top of a river. The ice layer often breaks into large chunks, which float downstream, piling up in narrow passages and near other obstructions such as bridges and dams. All forms of flooding can damage infrastructure.467 For more information on flooding and its impacts, please see Flooding under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. A small portion of the North Delaware Planning District falls within either the one percent or 0.2 percent annual risk areas for a flood event. The map above shows the one and 0.2 percent annual percent flood hazard areas. Data available does not capture surface flooding from overwhelmed water management infrastructure. Those homes with a federally backed mortgage in the 1% annual chance flood event area are required to carry flood insurance. Flood insurance is not part of an average homeowner’s insurance policy and must be purchased separately. Within the North Delaware Planning District there are 14 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policies in force. For more information on the National Flood Insurance Program, see the National Flood Insurance Program section of the Capability Assessment. 467 “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. Flash flooding is a concern for some areas of the North Delaware Planning District, but less so than other parts of Philadelphia given the greater amount of permeable surfaces in the district. A flash flood is rapidly rising water that occurs during an intense rain storm, such as those that accompany hurricanes. A flash flood may also occur as a result of rapidly melting snow. The presence of impervious surfaces contributes to an increased risk of flash flooding. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right displays impervious surfaces in the North Delaware Planning District. Those areas with greater concentrations of impervious surfaces that are already in flood prone areas are at a greater risk for flash flooding. Impervious Surfaces Most Impervious Least Impervious Philadelphia Planning Districts Hazardous Material Train Derailment Derailments can happen for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ Issues with the track, roadbed, and structures the train travels on; ▪ Signal and communications issues; ▪ Human error in train operations; ▪ Mechanical and/or electrical failures; or ▪ Other causes such as environmental conditions or loading procedures.468 In many cases, derailments do not result in the compromise of tank cars carrying hazardous materials or the release of dangerous chemicals. In rare cases, a derailment can result in the release of hazardous materials. Depending on the characteristics of the material released, these events can pose explosive and/or contaminant threats to the community. For more information on hazardous material train derailment and its impacts, please see Hazardous Material Train Derailment under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Rail lines throughout the city often are multi-use lines. The same freight lines can carry a variety of different materials, both non-hazardous and select hazardous products. The map to the right illustrates those freight lines that run through Philadelphia and carry many different kinds of materials and equipment. 468 Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis. Train Accident Cause Codes. Retrieved April 13, 2016. Urban Conflagration Conflagrations are extensive, widespread fires that damage property and potentially endanger lives. Urban conflagrations spread beyond artificial and natural barriers to destroy whole sections of a city.469 While conflagrations are rare in modern, developed cities, there is the risk that they could occur after a large storm, earthquake, or during civil unrest. Simultaneous ignitions can overwhelm emergency responders. For more information on urban conflagrations and its impacts, please see Urban Conflagration under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Unoccupied or vacant homes pose a greater risk for both fires and collapse than occupied homes.470 Vacant properties that are also uninsured or underinsured greatly increase the likelihood of a longer recovery time. The North Delaware Planning District has comparatively fewer vacant properties than many other parts of Philadelphia, and therefore has a slightly lower risk for urban conflagration. William Michael Kramer. “Disaster Planning and Control”. Fire Engineering. Retrieved January 11, 2016. Income, Housing, and Fire Injuries: A Census Tract Analysis. Donna Shai, PhD. Public Health Reports, Vol. 121, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 2006), pp. 149-154. Retrieved March 7, 2016. 469 470 Densely built urban environments pose an additional risk for conflagration. Closely built environments allow fire to spread more easily than less dense environments if not placed under control. Density mapping assists in the identification of densely built environments. The map to the right depicts the North Delaware Planning District’s housing density. Data was unavailable for those portions of the map left uncolored. 21.1.9 North 21.1.9.1 Geography and Hydrology The North Planning District contains addresses in the zip codes 19129, 19132, 19140, 19133, 19134, 19120, and 19124. Zip codes in the North Planning District The North planning district falls partially in the Delaware Direct, Schuylkill River, and Tookany/Tacony-Frankford Watersheds. Watersheds in the North Planning District The North Planning District resides within the 4th, 8th, 5th, and 7th Council Districts of Philadelphia. Council Districts in North Planning District The North Planning District falls within the 39th, 25th, and 24th Police Districts, and also crosses into the 8th and 15th Police Districts. Police Districts in the North Planning District 21.1.9.2 Social Characteristics Data used for social characteristics is from the most recent American Community Survey provided from the U.S. Census. The ACS produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates over a five-year period between censuses. The data used for these statistics is from 2014. Population, Gender and Age Characteristics of the Upper Far Northeast Planning District Population 365,954 Male population 172,171 Female population 193,783 Median Age 31.5 Age dependency ratio (the percentage of the population under 15 and over 64) 57.9% Population under 15 43.2% Population over 64 14.8% 21.1.9.3 Housing, Mobility, and Poverty For emergency management, whether a home is owned or rented division implies a difference in insurance coverage which affects long-term recovery. Renters insurance covers exists mainly to cover the occupants’ belongings, not the housing itself. This can present challenges in housing unit repair and re-occupancy. Those households living in poverty may have a more difficult time preparing for and recovering from disasters, and the district’s population living below the federal line of poverty. Housing, Mobility, and Poverty Characteristics of the Upper Far Northeast Planning District Number of households Households owned Households rented No vehicle access Population below the federal line of poverty 110,078 56,734 53,344 45,214 38.6% Households HouseholdsOwned Ownedvs vsRented Rentedby byPlanning PlanningDistrict District 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% Povertyininthe theNorth NorthPlanning Planning Poverty District District Population Living Above Line Poverty Population Living Above thethe Line of of Poverty Percentageof ofHouseholds HouseholdsOwned Owned Percentage Percentageof ofHouseholds HouseholdsRented Rented Percentage Population Living Below Line Poverty Population Living Below thethe Line of of Poverty 21.1.9.4 Disability Of those individuals residing within the North Planning District, 19.5 percent reported having a disability. Disabilities reported by individuals in the North Planning District are listed in the table below by the percentage of the total population of the District. Disabilities are not exclusive. Disability Reported Hearing difficulty Vision difficulty Cognitive difficulty Ambulatory Difficulty Self-care Difficulty Independent Living Difficulty Percentage of Population 8.8% 9.0% 10.0% 9.9% 9.9% 10.3% 21.1.9.5 North Hazards Many hazards affect the City of Philadelphia on a wide scale, such as windstorms or hurricanes, while others can have varying levels of risk across the city. These hazards include: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Infrastructure Failure Extreme Heat Flooding Hazardous Material Train Derailment Urban conflagration Each of these hazards are detailed below on the risk factors present in the Upper Far Northeast Planning District. For a complete list of hazards in the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan and a description of the city-wide risk level for each, please see the Risk Assessment section in the main body of the plan. Infrastructure Failure Bridge Failure A bridge collapse consists of a failure of decking, superstructure, or foundation leading to a progressive or immediate collapse of the entire assembly.471 Bridges can span waterways, railways, or roadways and provide overpasses for surface transportation or passenger/freight rail lines. For more information on bridge failures and its impacts, please see Bridge Failure under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Structurally deficient bridges are those have major deterioration, cracks, or other flaws that reduce its ability to support vehicles. A “structurally deficient bridge” typically requires maintenance and repairs to remain in service, or rehabilitation or replacement to address the underlying issue.472 473 Depending on the type and extent of deterioration, the Philadelphia Streets Department or PennDOT may impose weight restrictions. If the deterioration is severe, regulating agencies may shut down the bridge to traffic until maintenance crews can repair the damage. The table below shows those bridges found to be structurally deficient. The map to the below shows those bridges deemed structurally deficient in the North Planning District.474 City of Philadelphia Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 2010 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance - System Conditions: Highways and Bridges. Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved March 23, 2016. 473 Ibid. 474 Map Information: MPMS IQ. PennDOT. Retrieved March 2, 2016. 471 472 Structurally Deficient Bridges in the North Planning District Name Location Conrail: Richmond Bridge Amtrak, Northeast Corridor Conrail Conrail (Abandoned) Conrail Conrail and SEPTA Conrail, Fairhill Bridge Tacony Creek Amtrak, Northeast Corridor SEPTA Conrail Conrail, Richmond Bridge Roosevelt Blvd Extension Conrail (tracks removed) Conrail (tracks removed) Conrail, Richmond Branch Mascher St, north of Indiana Ave 2nd St, north of Venango St Cambria and “A” Sts Cayuga St, west of 5th St Old York Rd, .5 mile south of US-13 Abbottsford Ave Hunting Park Ave Fisher’s Lane G St, north of Venango Glenwood Ave at 15th St Sedgley Ave, west of 7th St Lycoming St, west of Broad St Southbound off ramp, .5 north of Broad St Erie Ave, between 3rd and 5th Sts 5th St 5th St near Allegheny Ave Year Built 1931 1926 1916 1930 1913 1929 1930 1801 1914 1912 1907 1929 1961 1896 1917 1918 Dam Failure A dam is a barrier across flowing water that obstructs, directs, or slows down water flow. Dams provide benefits such as flood protection, power generation, drinking water, irrigation, and recreation. Failure of these structures results in an uncontrolled release of impounded water. Failures are relatively rare, but structural damages and injuries are possible in downstream communities when such events occur. For more information on dam failures and its impacts, please see Dam Failure under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. The table below shows the dam name, the waterway on which the dam is located, whether the dam is a high hazard dam, and who currently holds the permit for the structure. Dam Name Waterway High Hazard? Permitted Owner Debris Dam Tacony Creek No City of Philadelphia Building Collapse Buildings may collapse for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Overall structural integrity; Poor construction or maintenance Accidents; Environmental forces, such as wind or heavy snowfall; or Earthquakes. Building age increases the risk of collapse. The map to the right shows the number of properties built in the North Planning District built before 1939. Vacant properties also increase the risk of a building collapse, as these properties fall into disrepair and neglect. The map to the right shows the number of vacant properties in the North Planning District. The North Planning District has a moderately high level of vacancy compared to the rest of the City of Philadelphia. Philadelphia Licenses and Inspections (L&I) records imminently dangerous structures found each year through inspections. Some of these structures have partially collapsed, while others are found and acted upon before they collapse. Property owners can repair or demolish these structures. The map below shows the location of imminently dangerous structures in the North Planning District. Extreme Heat Extreme heat can be described as temperatures that hover 10°F or more above the average high temperature for a region during the summer months. Extreme heat is responsible for more deaths in Pennsylvania than all other natural disasters combined.475 For more information on extreme heat and its impacts, please see Extreme Heat under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Philadelphia is subject to heat island effects. The heat island effect describes the phenomenon that built up areas are hotter than nearby rural areas. The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F warmer than its surroundings.476 Heat islands can affect communities by increasing energy demand, air conditioning costs, air pollution, and heat-related illness and deaths. Impervious surfaces contribute to the heat island effect. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right displays impervious surfaces in the North Planning District. Impervious Surfaces Most Impervious Least Impervious Philadelphia Planning Districts 475 476 2013 York County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Retrieved February 16, 2016. “Heat Island Effect”. US EPA. Retrieved March 3, 2016. Philadelphia, like other metropolitan areas, heats unevenly because of variations in vegetation, impervious surface coverage, and proximity to bodies of water. The map below shows this heating pattern. 477 As the map shows, the North is located in an area which experiences higher heat island effects than other parts of the city. 477 “Downscaling Air Temperature and LST Using MODIS and Landsat Data: Philadelphia 2002”. URSA. Retrieved March 7, 2016. Flooding Flooding is the temporary condition of partial or complete inundation on normally dry land and it is the most frequent and costly of all hazards in Pennsylvania. Flooding events are generally the result of excessive precipitation. General flooding typically occurs when precipitation occurs over a given river basin for an extended period of time. Flash flooding is usually a result of heavy localized precipitation falling in a short time period over a given location, often along mountain streams and in urban areas where much of the ground cover is primarily impervious surfaces. The severity of a flood event is dependent upon a combination of: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ stream and river basin topography and physiography, hydrology, precipitation and weather patterns, present soil moisture conditions, the degree of vegetative clearing, and the presence of impervious surfaces in and around floodprone areas.478 Winter flooding includes ice jams which occur when warm temperatures and heavy rain cause snow to melt rapidly. Snow melt combined with heavy rains can cause frozen rivers to swell, which breaks the ice layer on top of a river. The ice layer often breaks into large chunks, which float downstream, piling up in narrow passages and near other obstructions such as bridges and dams. All forms of flooding can damage 478 “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. infrastructure.479 For more information on flooding and its impacts, please see Flooding under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. A small portion of the North Planning District falls within either the one percent or 0.2 percent annual risk areas for a flood event. The map above shows the one and 0.2 percent annual percent flood hazard areas. Data available does not capture surface flooding from overwhelmed water management infrastructure. Those homes with a federally backed mortgage in the 1% annual chance flood event area are required to carry flood insurance. Flood insurance is not part of an average homeowner’s insurance policy and must be purchased separately. Within the North Planning District there are 35 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policies in force. For more information on the National Flood Insurance Program, see the National Flood Insurance Program section of the Capability Assessment. 479 “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. Flash flooding is a concern for some areas of the North Planning District, but less so than other parts of Philadelphia given the greater amount of permeable surfaces in the district. A flash flood is rapidly rising water that occurs during an intense rain storm, such as those that accompany hurricanes. A flash flood may also occur as a result of rapidly melting snow. The presence of impervious surfaces contributes to an increased risk of flash flooding. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right displays impervious surfaces in the North Planning District. Those areas with greater concentrations of impervious surfaces that are already in flood prone areas are at a greater risk for flash flooding. Impervious Surfaces Most Impervious Least Impervious Philadelphia Planning Districts Hazardous Material Train Derailment Derailments can happen for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ Issues with the track, roadbed, and structures the train travels on; ▪ Signal and communications issues; ▪ Human error in train operations; ▪ Mechanical and/or electrical failures; or ▪ Other causes such as environmental conditions or loading procedures.480 In many cases, derailments do not result in the compromise of tank cars carrying hazardous materials or the release of dangerous chemicals. In rare cases, a derailment can result in the release of hazardous materials. Depending on the characteristics of the material released, these events can pose explosive and/or contaminant threats to the community. For more information on hazardous material train derailment and its impacts, please see Hazardous Material Train Derailment under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Rail lines throughout the city often are multi-use lines. The same freight lines can carry a variety of different materials, both nonhazardous and select hazardous products. The map to the right illustrates those freight lines that run through Philadelphia and carry many different kinds of materials and equipment. 480 Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis. Train Accident Cause Codes. Retrieved April 13, 2016. Urban Conflagration Conflagrations are extensive, widespread fires that damage property and potentially endanger lives. Urban conflagrations spread beyond artificial and natural barriers to destroy whole sections of a city.481 While conflagrations are rare in modern, developed cities, there is the risk that they could occur after a large storm, earthquake, or during civil unrest. Simultaneous ignitions can overwhelm emergency responders. For more information on urban conflagrations and its impacts, please see Urban Conflagration under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Unoccupied or vacant homes pose a greater risk for both fires and collapse than occupied homes.482 Vacant properties that are also uninsured or under-insured greatly increase the likelihood of a longer recovery time. The North Planning District has a moderately high level of vacancy compared to the rest of the City of Philadelphia. William Michael Kramer. “Disaster Planning and Control”. Fire Engineering. Retrieved January 11, 2016. Income, Housing, and Fire Injuries: A Census Tract Analysis. Donna Shai, PhD. Public Health Reports, Vol. 121, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 2006), pp. 149-154. Retrieved March 7, 2016. 481 482 Densely built urban environments pose an additional risk for conflagration. Closely built environments allow fire to spread more easily than less dense environments if not placed under control. Density mapping assists in the identification of densely built environments. The map to the right depicts the North Planning District’s housing density. Data was unavailable for those portions of the map left uncolored. 21.1.10 River Wards Planning District 21.1.10.1 Geography and Hydrology The River Wards Planning District contains addresses in the zip codes 19125, 19124, 19134, and 19137. Zip codes in the River Wards Planning District The River Wards planning district falls partially in the Delaware Direct and Tookany/Tacony-Frankford Watersheds. Watersheds in the River Wards Planning District The River Wards Planning District resides within the 7th, 1st, and 6th Council Districts of Philadelphia. Council Districts in River Wards Planning District The River Wards Planning District falls within the 26th, 24th, and 15th Police Districts. Police Districts in the River Wards Planning District 21.1.10.2 Current and Future Land Use The River Wards District future land use moves to capitalize on the district’s long-established residential neighborhoods and strong industrial core.483 The proposed land use map provides a generalized road map for the appropriate distribution of residential densities, industrial uses, and intensity, and where commercial activity should be concentrated. 484 485 City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia 2035. River Wards District Plan. Retrieved November 20, 2015. Ibid. 485 All graphics, charts, and recommendations come from the City of Philadelphia: Philadelphia 2035 River Wards District Plan. Retrieved November 20, 2015. 483 484 Philadelphia River Wards Planning District Existing Land Use Resnde'mal low Densny Remedial Medium Densuty 5 Resadenual High Densny Kr Tiansporlalm' - Cofn'ne'CIal Cmsumev 3' Culiu'e/Amusemem - Com'ne'cwl Saunas/Professional Guam - Acme - Corn'ne'oal Mined Resuemial ME I Pam/008" $9669 - Insusznai I came? - [3 - Vacant land Philadelphia River Wards Planning District Future Land Use Revsnze'mal low Censrs, [j Resumtsal Medium Dumb, Resuitr?tial Hugh Densny Transw'mtm' - Co'mw'cnal - Corme'ual - Adm: Recwauon ?ll-e: Resuenual 9/14 y' - - Injustnal - Cmetwv - I \lee' - u?acam Lani 21.1.10.3 Social Characteristics Data used for social characteristics is from the most recent American Community Survey provided from the U.S. Census. The ACS produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates over a five-year period between censuses. The data used for these statistics is from 2014. Population, Gender and Age Characteristics of the Upper Far Northeast Planning District Population 158,157 Male population 76,917 Female population 81,240 Median Age 33.8 Age dependency ratio (the percentage of the population under 15 and over 64) 52.4% Population under 15 38.2% Population over 64 14.3% 21.1.10.4 Housing, Mobility, and Poverty For emergency management, whether a home is owned or rented division implies a difference in insurance coverage which affects long-term recovery. Renters insurance covers exists mainly to cover the occupants’ belongings, not the housing itself. This can present challenges in housing unit repair and re-occupancy. Those households living in poverty may have a more difficult time preparing for and recovering from disasters, and the district’s population living below the federal line of poverty. Housing, Mobility, and Poverty Characteristics of the Upper Far Northeast Planning District Number of households Households owned Households rented No vehicle access Population below the federal line of poverty Households Owned vs Rented by Planning District 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Percentage of Households Owned Percentage of Households Rented 62,524 26,796 35,728 19,388 31.0% Poverty in the River Wards Planning District Population Living Above the Line of Poverty Population Living Below the Line of Poverty 21.1.10.5 Disability Of those individuals residing within the River Wards Planning District, 20.7 percent reported having a disability. Disabilities reported by individuals in the River Wards Planning District are listed in the table below by the percentage of the total population of the District. Disabilities are not exclusive. Disability Reported Hearing difficulty Vision difficulty Cognitive difficulty Ambulatory Difficulty Self-care Difficulty Independent Living Difficulty Percentage of Population 11.6% 11.8% 12.5% 12.5% 12.4% 13.0% 21.1.10.6 River Wards Hazards Many hazards affect the City of Philadelphia on a wide scale, such as windstorms or hurricanes, while others can have varying levels of risk across the city. These hazards include: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Infrastructure Failure Extreme Heat Flooding Hazardous Material Train Derailment Urban conflagration Each of these hazards are detailed below on the risk factors present in the Upper Far Northeast Planning District. For a complete list of hazards in the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan and a description of the city-wide risk level for each, please see the Risk Assessment section in the main body of the plan. Infrastructure Failure Bridge Failure A bridge collapse consists of a failure of decking, superstructure, or foundation leading to a progressive or immediate collapse of the entire assembly.486 Bridges can span waterways, railways, or roadways and provide overpasses for surface transportation or passenger/freight rail lines. For more information on bridge failures and its impacts, please see Bridge Failure under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Structurally deficient bridges are those have major deterioration, cracks, or other flaws that reduce its ability to support vehicles. A “structurally deficient bridge” typically requires maintenance and repairs to remain in service, or rehabilitation or replacement to address the underlying issue.487 488 Depending on the type and extent of deterioration, the Philadelphia Streets Department or PennDOT may impose weight restrictions. If the deterioration is severe, regulating agencies may shut down the bridge to traffic until maintenance crews can repair the damage. The table below shows those bridges found to be structurally deficient. The map to the below shows those bridges deemed structurally deficient in the River Wards Planning District.489 City of Philadelphia Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 2010 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance - System Conditions: Highways and Bridges. Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved March 23, 2016. 488 Ibid. 489 Map Information: MPMS IQ. PennDOT. Retrieved March 2, 2016. 486 487 Structurally Deficient Bridges in the River Wards Planning District Name Location Frankford Creek On-Ramp A Northbound on Delaware Expressway Delaware Expressway Off- Ramp A Northbound on Delaware Expressway Delaware Expressway Delaware Expressway Frankford Ave Margaret and Lefevre Sts Girard Ave Intersection Near Tioga St Betsy Ross Interchange Near Frankford Ave Near Richmond St Near Hunting Park Ave Year Built 1941 1971 1965 1974 1970 1965 1903 Dam Failure A dam is a barrier across flowing water that obstructs, directs, or slows down water flow. Dams provide benefits such as flood protection, power generation, drinking water, irrigation, and recreation. Failure of these structures results in an uncontrolled release of impounded water. Failures are relatively rare, but structural damages and injuries are possible in downstream communities when such events occur. For more information on dam failures and its impacts, please see Dam Failure under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. There are no dams in the River Wards Planning District. Building Collapse Buildings may collapse for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Overall structural integrity; Poor construction or maintenance Accidents; Environmental forces, such as wind or heavy snowfall; or Earthquakes. Building age increases the risk of collapse. The map to the right shows the number of properties built in the River Wards Planning District built before 1939. Vacant properties also increase the risk of a building collapse, as these properties fall into disrepair and neglect. The map to the right shows the number of vacant properties in the River Wards Planning District. The River Wards Planning District has moderate levels of vacant properties compared to other districts in the city. Philadelphia Licenses and Inspections (L&I) records imminently dangerous structures found each year through inspections. Some of these structures have partially collapsed, while others are found and acted upon before they collapse. Property owners can repair or demolish these structures. The map to the right shows the location of imminently dangerous structures in the River Wards Planning District. Extreme Heat Extreme heat can be described as temperatures that hover 10°F or more above the average high temperature for a region during the summer months. Extreme heat is responsible for more deaths in Pennsylvania than all other natural disasters combined.490 For more information on extreme heat and its impacts, please see Extreme Heat under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Philadelphia is subject to heat island effects. The heat island effect describes the phenomenon that built up areas are hotter than nearby rural areas. The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F warmer than its surroundings.491 Heat islands can affect communities by increasing energy demand, air conditioning costs, air pollution, and heat-related illness and deaths. Impervious surfaces contribute to the heat island effect. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right displays impervious surfaces in the River Wards Planning District. Impervious Surfaces Most Impervious Least Impervious Philadelphia Planning Districts 490 491 2013 York County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Retrieved February 16, 2016. “Heat Island Effect”. US EPA. Retrieved March 3, 2016. Philadelphia, like other metropolitan areas, heats unevenly because of variations in vegetation, impervious surface coverage, and proximity to bodies of water. The map below shows this heating pattern.492 As the map shows, the River Wards is located in an area which experience higher heat island effects, and feels some of the effects of such an event more than the bordering counties. 492 “Downscaling Air Temperature and LST Using MODIS and Landsat Data: Philadelphia 2002”. URSA. Retrieved March 7, 2016. Flooding Flooding is the temporary condition of partial or complete inundation on normally dry land and it is the most frequent and costly of all hazards in Pennsylvania. Flooding events are generally the result of excessive precipitation. General flooding typically occurs when precipitation occurs over a given river basin for an extended period of time. Flash flooding is usually a result of heavy localized precipitation falling in a short time period over a given location, often along mountain streams and in urban areas where much of the ground cover is primarily impervious surfaces. The severity of a flood event is dependent upon a combination of: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ stream and river basin topography and physiography, hydrology, precipitation and weather patterns, present soil moisture conditions, the degree of vegetative clearing, and the presence of impervious surfaces in and around floodprone areas.493 Winter flooding includes ice jams which occur when warm temperatures and heavy rain cause snow to melt rapidly. Snow melt combined with heavy rains can cause frozen rivers to swell, which breaks the ice layer on top of a river. The ice layer often breaks into large chunks, which float downstream, piling up in narrow passages and near other obstructions such as bridges and 493 “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. dams. All forms of flooding can damage infrastructure.494 For more information on flooding and its impacts, please see Flooding under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. A small portion of the River Wards Planning District falls within either the one percent or 0.2 percent annual risk areas for a flood event. The map above shows the one and 0.2 percent annual percent flood hazard areas. Data available does not capture surface flooding from overwhelmed water management infrastructure. Those homes with a federally backed mortgage in the 1% annual chance flood event area are required to carry flood insurance. Flood insurance is not part of an average homeowner’s insurance policy and must be purchased separately. Within the River Wards Planning District there are 21 of policies in force. For more information on the National Flood Insurance Program, see the National Flood Insurance Program section of the Capability Assessment. 494 “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. Flash flooding is a concern for some areas of the River Wards Planning District, but less so than other parts of Philadelphia given the greater amount of permeable surfaces in the district. A flash flood is rapidly rising water that occurs during an intense rain storm, such as those that accompany hurricanes. A flash flood may also occur as a result of rapidly melting snow. The presence of impervious surfaces contributes to an increased risk of flash flooding. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right displays impervious surfaces in the River Wards Planning District. Those areas with greater concentrations of impervious surfaces that are already in flood prone areas are at a greater risk for flash flooding. Impervious Surfaces Most Impervious Least Impervious Philadelphia Planning Districts Hazardous Material Train Derailment Derailments can happen for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ Issues with the track, roadbed, and structures the train travels on; ▪ Signal and communications issues; ▪ Human error in train operations; ▪ Mechanical and/or electrical failures; or ▪ Other causes such as environmental conditions or loading procedures.495 In many cases, derailments do not result in the compromise of tank cars carrying hazardous materials or the release of dangerous chemicals. In rare cases, a derailment can result in the release of hazardous materials. Depending on the characteristics of the material released, these events can pose explosive and/or contaminant threats to the community. For more information on hazardous material train derailment and its impacts, please see Hazardous Material Train Derailment under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Rail lines throughout the city often are multi-use lines. The same freight lines can carry a variety of different materials, both non-hazardous and select hazardous products. The map to the right illustrates those freight lines that run through Philadelphia and carry many different kinds of materials and equipment. 495 Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis. Train Accident Cause Codes. Retrieved April 13, 2016. Urban Conflagration Conflagrations are extensive, widespread fires that damage property and potentially endanger lives. Urban conflagrations spread beyond artificial and natural barriers to destroy whole sections of a city.496 While conflagrations are rare in modern, developed cities, there is the risk that they could occur after a large storm, earthquake, or during civil unrest. Simultaneous ignitions can overwhelm emergency responders. For more information on urban conflagrations and its impacts, please see Urban Conflagration under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Unoccupied or vacant homes pose a greater risk for both fires and collapse than occupied homes.497 Vacant properties that are also uninsured or under-insured greatly increase the likelihood of a longer recovery time. The River Wards Planning District has moderate levels of vacant properties compared to other districts in the city. William Michael Kramer. “Disaster Planning and Control”. Fire Engineering. Retrieved January 11, 2016. Income, Housing, and Fire Injuries: A Census Tract Analysis. Donna Shai, PhD. Public Health Reports, Vol. 121, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 2006), pp. 149-154. Retrieved March 7, 2016. 496 497 Densely built urban environments pose an additional risk for conflagration. Closely built environments allow fire to spread more easily than less dense environments if not placed under control. Density mapping assists in the identification of densely built environments. The map to the right depicts the River Wards Planning District’s housing density. Data was unavailable for those portions of the map left uncolored. 21.1.11 South Planning District 21.1.11.1 Geography and Hydrology The South Planning District contains addresses in the zip codes 19146, 19147, 19145, and 19148. Zip codes in the South Planning District The South planning district falls partially in the Delaware Direct and Schuylkill River Watersheds. Watersheds in the South Planning District The South Planning District resides within the 2nd and 1st Council Districts of Philadelphia. Council Districts in South Planning District The South Planning District falls mostly within the 17th, 1st, and 3rd Police Districts. Police Districts in the South Planning District 21.1.11.2 Current and Future Land Use PCPC forecasts that the South District will see continued residential growth over the next ten years.498 The proposed land use map provides a generalized road map for the appropriate densities of existing residential neighborhoods and boundaries/typologies for commercial and industrial areas.499 500 City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia 2035. South District Plan. Retrieved November 20, 2015. Ibid. 500 All graphics, charts, and recommendations come from the City of Philadelphia: Philadelphia 2035 South District Plan. Retrieved November 20, 2015. 498 499 Philadelphia South Planning District Future Land Use - 'Hillv?dhl-umsuumnos133111911550. l-I- In. Impy?nsnv SOUTHWEST DISTRICT I \l 3. L) 4 21.1.11.3 Social Characteristics Data used for social characteristics is from the most recent American Community Survey provided from the U.S. Census. The ACS produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates over a five-year period between censuses. The data used for these statistics is from 2014. Population, Gender and Age Characteristics of the Upper Far Northeast Planning District Population 173,303 Male population 82,732 Female population 90,571 Median Age 34.6 Age dependency ratio (the percentage of the population under 15 and over 64) 45.3% Population under 15 27.4% Population over 64 17.9% 21.1.11.4 Housing, Mobility, and Poverty For emergency management, whether a home is owned or rented division implies a difference in insurance coverage which affects long-term recovery. Renters insurance covers exists mainly to cover the occupants’ belongings, not the housing itself. This can present challenges in housing unit repair and re-occupancy. Those households living in poverty may have a more difficult time preparing for and recovering from disasters, and the district’s population living below the federal line of poverty. Housing, Mobility, and Poverty Characteristics of the Upper Far Northeast Planning District Number of households Households owned Households rented No vehicle access Population below the federal line of poverty Households Owned vs Rented by Planning District 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Percentage of Households Owned Percentage of Households Rented 69,299 39,855 29,444 24,509 20.0% Poverty in the South Planning District Population Living Above the Line of Poverty Population Living Below the Line of Poverty 21.1.11.5 Disability Of those individuals residing within the South Planning District, 13.9 percent reported having a disability. Disabilities reported by individuals in the South Planning District are listed in the table below by the percentage of the total population of the District. Disabilities are not exclusive. Disability Reported Hearing difficulty Vision difficulty Cognitive difficulty Ambulatory Difficulty Self-care Difficulty Independent Living Difficulty Percentage of Population 5.7% 6.1% 6.3% 6.0% 6.4% 6.0% 21.1.11.6 South Hazards Many hazards affect the City of Philadelphia on a wide scale, such as windstorms or hurricanes, while others can have varying levels of risk across the city. These hazards include: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Infrastructure Failure Extreme Heat Flooding Hazardous Material Train Derailment Urban conflagration Each of these hazards are detailed below on the risk factors present in the Upper Far Northeast Planning District. For a complete list of hazards in the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan and a description of the city-wide risk level for each, please see the Risk Assessment section in the main body of the plan. Infrastructure Failure Bridge Failure A bridge collapse consists of a failure of decking, superstructure, or foundation leading to a progressive or immediate collapse of the entire assembly.501 Bridges can span waterways, railways, or roadways and provide overpasses for surface transportation or passenger/freight rail lines. For more information on bridge failures and its impacts, please see Bridge Failure under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Structurally deficient bridges are those have major deterioration, cracks, or other flaws that reduce its ability to support vehicles. A “structurally deficient bridge” typically requires maintenance and repairs to remain in service, or rehabilitation or replacement to address the underlying issue.502 503 Depending on the type and extent of deterioration, the Philadelphia Streets Department or PennDOT may impose weight restrictions. If the deterioration is severe, regulating agencies may shut down the bridge to traffic until maintenance crews can repair the damage. The table below shows those bridges found to be structurally deficient. The map to the below shows those bridges deemed structurally deficient in the South Planning District.504 City of Philadelphia Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 2010 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance - System Conditions: Highways and Bridges. Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved March 23, 2016. 503 Ibid. 504 Map Information: MPMS IQ. PennDOT. Retrieved March 2, 2016. 501 502 Structurally Deficient Bridges in the South Planning District Name Location Walt Whitman Bridge CSX Transportation CSX Railroad CSX Tunnels Delaware River Wharton St, west of 34th St Grays Ferry Ave at 34th St Grays Ferry Ave at 34th St Year Built 1957 1918 1930 1896 Dam Failure A dam is a barrier across flowing water that obstructs, directs, or slows down water flow. Dams provide benefits such as flood protection, power generation, drinking water, irrigation, and recreation. Failure of these structures results in an uncontrolled release of impounded water. Failures are relatively rare, but structural damages and injuries are possible in downstream communities when such events occur. For more information on dam failures and its impacts, please see Dam Failure under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. There are no dams in the South Planning District. Building Collapse Buildings may collapse for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Overall structural integrity; Poor construction or maintenance; Accidents; Environmental forces, such as wind or heavy snowfall; or Earthquakes. Building age increases the risk of collapse. The map to the right shows the number of properties built in the South Planning District built before 1939. Vacant properties also increase the risk of a building collapse, as these properties fall into disrepair and neglect. The map to the right shows the number of vacant properties in the South Planning District. The South Planning District has several vacant properties throughout the district, with a slightly larger amount of vacant properties in the northwest. Philadelphia Licenses and Inspections (L&I) records imminently dangerous structures found each year through inspections. Some of these structures have partially collapsed, while others are found and acted upon before they collapse. Property owners can repair or demolish these structures. The map to the right shows the location of imminently dangerous structures in the South Planning District. Extreme Heat Extreme heat can be described as temperatures that hover 10°F or more above the average high temperature for a region during the summer months. Extreme heat is responsible for more deaths in Pennsylvania than all other natural disasters combined.505 For more information on extreme heat and its impacts, please see Extreme Heat under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Philadelphia is subject to heat island effects. The heat island effect describes the phenomenon that built up areas are hotter than nearby rural areas. The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F warmer than its surroundings.506 Heat islands can affect communities by increasing energy demand, air conditioning costs, air pollution, and heatrelated illness and deaths. Impervious surfaces contribute to the heat island effect. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right displays impervious surfaces in the South Planning District. Impervious Surfaces Most Impervious Least Impervious Philadelphia Planning Districts 505 506 2013 York County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Retrieved February 16, 2016. “Heat Island Effect”. US EPA. Retrieved March 3, 2016. Philadelphia, like other metropolitan areas, heats unevenly because of variations in vegetation, impervious surface coverage, and proximity to bodies of water. The map below shows this heating pattern. 507 As the map shows, the South is located in an area which experiences higher heat island effects than other protions of the city. Impervious surfaces and housing density contribute to this effect. 507 “Downscaling Air Temperature and LST Using MODIS and Landsat Data: Philadelphia 2002”. URSA. Retrieved March 7, 2016. Flooding Flooding is the temporary condition of partial or complete inundation on normally dry land and it is the most frequent and costly of all hazards in Pennsylvania. Flooding events are generally the result of excessive precipitation. General flooding typically occurs when precipitation occurs over a given river basin for an extended period of time. Flash flooding is usually a result of heavy localized precipitation falling in a short time period over a given location, often along mountain streams and in urban areas where much of the ground cover is primarily impervious surfaces. The severity of a flood event is dependent upon a combination of: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ stream and river basin topography and physiography, hydrology, precipitation and weather patterns, present soil moisture conditions, the degree of vegetative clearing, and the presence of impervious surfaces in and around floodprone areas.508 Winter flooding includes ice jams which occur when warm temperatures and heavy rain cause snow to melt rapidly. Snow melt combined with heavy rains can cause frozen rivers to swell, which breaks the ice layer on top of a river. The ice layer often breaks into large chunks, which float downstream, piling up in narrow passages and near other obstructions such as bridges and dams. All forms of flooding can damage 508 “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. infrastructure.509 For more information on flooding and its impacts, please see Flooding under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. A small portion of the South Planning District falls within either the one percent or 0.2 percent annual risk areas for a flood event. The map above shows the one and 0.2 percent annual percent flood hazard areas. Data available does not capture surface flooding from overwhelmed water management infrastructure. Those homes with a federally backed mortgage in the 1% annual chance flood event area are required to carry flood insurance. Flood insurance is not part of an average homeowner’s insurance policy and must be purchased separately. Within the South Planning District there are 269 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policies in force. For more information on the National Flood Insurance Program, see the National Flood Insurance Program section of the Capability Assessment. 509 “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. Flash flooding is a concern for some areas of the South Planning District, but less so than other parts of Philadelphia given the greater amount of permeable surfaces in the district. A flash flood is rapidly rising water that occurs during an intense rain storm, such as those that accompany hurricanes. A flash flood may also occur as a result of rapidly melting snow. The presence of impervious surfaces contributes to an increased risk of flash flooding. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right displays impervious surfaces in the South Planning District. Those areas with greater concentrations of impervious surfaces that are already in flood prone areas are at a greater risk for flash flooding. Impervious Surfaces Most Impervious Least Impervious Philadelphia Planning Districts Hazardous Material Train Derailment Derailments can happen for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ Issues with the track, roadbed, and structures the train travels on; ▪ Signal and communications issues; ▪ Human error in train operations; ▪ Mechanical and/or electrical failures; or ▪ Other causes such as environmental conditions or loading procedures.510 In many cases, derailments do not result in the compromise of tank cars carrying hazardous materials or the release of dangerous chemicals. In rare cases, a derailment can result in the release of hazardous materials. Depending on the characteristics of the material released, these events can pose explosive and/or contaminant threats to the community. For more information on hazardous material train derailment and its impacts, please see Hazardous Material Train Derailment under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Rail lines throughout the city often are multi-use lines. The same freight lines can carry a variety of different materials, both nonhazardous and select hazardous products. The map to the right illustrates those freight lines that run through Philadelphia and carry many different kinds of materials and equipment. 510 Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis. Train Accident Cause Codes. Retrieved April 13, 2016. Urban Conflagration Conflagrations are extensive, widespread fires that damage property and potentially endanger lives. Urban conflagrations spread beyond artificial and natural barriers to destroy whole sections of a city.511 While conflagrations are rare in modern, developed cities, there is the risk that they could occur after a large storm, earthquake, or during civil unrest. Simultaneous ignitions can overwhelm emergency responders. For more information on urban conflagrations and its impacts, please see Urban Conflagration under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Unoccupied or vacant homes pose a greater risk for both fires and collapse than occupied homes.512 Vacant properties that are also uninsured or under-insured greatly increase the likelihood of a longer recovery time. The South Planning District has several vacant properties throughout the district, with a slightly larger amount of vacant properties in the northwest. William Michael Kramer. “Disaster Planning and Control”. Fire Engineering. Retrieved January 11, 2016. Income, Housing, and Fire Injuries: A Census Tract Analysis. Donna Shai, PhD. Public Health Reports, Vol. 121, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 2006), pp. 149-154. Retrieved March 7, 2016. 511 512 Densely built urban environments pose an additional risk for conflagration. Closely built environments allow fire to spread more easily than less dense environments if not placed under control. Density mapping assists in the identification of densely built environments. The map to the right depicts the South Planning District’s housing density. Data was unavailable for those portions of the map left uncolored. The available data shows housing density is greater in the western portion of the planning district. 21.1.12 University Southwest Planning District 21.1.12.1 Geography and Hydrology The University Southwest Planning District contains addresses in the zip codes 19104, 19143, and 19142. Zip codes in the University Southwest Planning District The University Southwest planning district falls partially in the Cobbs Creek and Schuylkill River Watersheds. Watersheds in the University Southwest Planning District The University Southwest Planning District resides within the 3rd and 2nd Council Districts of Philadelphia. Council Districts in University Southwest Planning District The University Southwest Planning District falls within 12th, 18th, and 16th Police Districts. Police Districts in the University Southwest Planning District 21.1.12.2 Current and Future Land Use PCPC forecasts that the University Southwest District will see moderate growth over the next ten years, as well as continued job growth.513 Future land use of the district takes into account those areas that are stable, such as the residential neighborhoods and some commercial areas, as well as where growth can and should be accommodated. 514 515 513 514 City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia 2035. University South District Plan. Retrieved November 20, 2015. Ibid. All graphics, charts, and recommendations come from the City of Philadelphia: Philadelphia 2035 University South District Plan. Retrieved November 20, 2015. 515 21.1.12.3 Social Characteristics Data used for social characteristics is from the most recent American Community Survey provided from the U.S. Census. The ACS produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates over a five-year period between censuses. The data used for these statistics is from 2014. Population, Gender and Age Characteristics of the Upper Far Northeast Planning District Population 188,654 Male population 88,547 Female population 100,107 Median Age 29.7 Age dependency ratio (the percentage of the population under 15 and over 64) 50.3% Population under 15 35.8% Population over 64 14.5% 21.1.12.4 Housing, Mobility, and Poverty For emergency management, whether a home is owned or rented division implies a difference in insurance coverage which affects long-term recovery. Renters insurance covers exists mainly to cover the occupants’ belongings, not the housing itself. This can present challenges in housing unit repair and re-occupancy. Those households living in poverty may have a more difficult time preparing for and recovering from disasters, and the district’s population living below the federal line of poverty. Housing, Mobility, and Poverty Characteristics of the Upper Far Northeast Planning District Number of households - Households owned - Households rented No vehicle access Population below the federal line of poverty Households Owned vs Rented by Planning District 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Percentage of Households Owned Percentage of Households Rented 66,136 28,001 38,135 32,108 38.2% Poverty in the University Southwest Planning District Population Living Above the Line of Poverty Population Living Below the Line of Poverty 21.1.12.5 Disability Of those individuals residing within the University Southwest Planning District, 14.0 percent reported having a disability. Disabilities reported by individuals in the University Southwest Planning District are listed in the table below by the percentage of the total population of the District. Disabilities are not exclusive. Disability Reported Hearing difficulty Vision difficulty Cognitive difficulty Ambulatory Difficulty Self-care Difficulty Independent Living Difficulty Percentage of Population 6.3% 6.5% 7.3% 7.8% 7.2% 6.5% 21.1.12.6 University Southwest Hazards Many hazards affect the City of Philadelphia on a wide scale, such as windstorms or hurricanes, while others can have varying levels of risk across the city. These hazards include: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Infrastructure Failure Extreme Heat Flooding Hazardous Material Train Derailment Urban conflagration Each of these hazards are detailed below on the risk factors present in the Upper Far Northeast Planning District. For a complete list of hazards in the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan and a description of the city-wide risk level for each, please see the Risk Assessment section in the main body of the plan. Infrastructure Failure Bridge Failure A bridge collapse consists of a failure of decking, superstructure, or foundation leading to a progressive or immediate collapse of the entire assembly.516 Bridges can span waterways, railways, or roadways and provide overpasses for surface transportation or passenger/freight rail lines. For more information on bridge failures and its impacts, please see Bridge Failure under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Structurally deficient bridges are those have major deterioration, cracks, or other flaws that reduce its ability to support vehicles. A “structurally deficient bridge” typically requires maintenance and repairs to remain in service, or rehabilitation or replacement to address the underlying issue.517 518 Depending on the type and extent of deterioration, the Philadelphia Streets Department or PennDOT may impose weight restrictions. If the deterioration is severe, regulating agencies may shut down the bridge to traffic until maintenance crews can repair the damage. The table below shows those bridges found to be structurally deficient. The map to the below shows those bridges deemed structurally deficient in the University Southwest Planning District.519 City of Philadelphia Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 2010 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance - System Conditions: Highways and Bridges. Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved March 23, 2016. 518 Ibid. 519 Map Information: MPMS IQ. PennDOT. Retrieved March 2, 2016. 516 517 Structurally Deficient Bridges in the University Southwest Planning District Name Location Year Built Amtrak & SEPTA, 32nd Amtrak Northeast Corridor SEPTA SEPTA CSX Railroad Market St Cobbs Creek Parkway SEPTA West Chester Bridge Amtrak, New York to Washington Branch SEPTA, West Branch Schuylkill Expressway West River Dr 1964 1964 1920 1942 1901 1932 1924 1917 1923 1903 1959 1966 Spring Garden St at 30th St Station Spring Garden St at 31st St Woodland Ave and W. 47th St 49th St, south of Chester Ave Chestnut St Market St and Schuylkill River Cobbs Creek Whitby Ave and South Baltimore Ave 49th St Kennedy Blvd, west of 30th St Station Between Walnut and Chestnut Spring Garden St Dam Failure A dam is a barrier across flowing water that obstructs, directs, or slows down water flow. Dams provide benefits such as flood protection, power generation, drinking water, irrigation, and recreation. Failure of these structures results in an uncontrolled release of impounded water. Failures are relatively rare, but structural damages and injuries are possible in downstream communities when such events occur. For more information on dam failures and its impacts, please see Dam Failure under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. There are no dams within the University Southwest Planning District, with the closest dam located in the West Park Planning District to the northeast. Building Collapse Buildings may collapse for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Overall structural integrity; Poor construction or maintenance; Accidents; Environmental forces, such as wind or heavy snowfall; or Earthquakes. Building age increases the risk of collapse. The map to the right shows the number of properties built in the University Southwest Planning District built before 1939. Vacant properties also increase the risk of a building collapse, as these properties fall into disrepair and neglect. The map to the right shows the number of vacant properties in the University Southwest Planning District. The University Southwest Planning District has a comparatively higher number of vacant properties than many other parts of Philadelphia. Philadelphia Licenses and Inspections (L&I) records imminently dangerous structures found each year through inspections. Some of these structures have partially collapsed, while others are found and acted upon before they collapse. Property owners can repair or demolish these structures. The map below shows the location of imminently dangerous structures in the University Southwest Planning District, most of which are located in the southwestern portion of the planning district. Extreme Heat Extreme heat can be described as temperatures that hover 10°F or more above the average high temperature for a region during the summer months. Extreme heat is responsible for more deaths in Pennsylvania than all other natural disasters combined.520 For more information on extreme heat and its impacts, please see Extreme Heat under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Philadelphia is subject to heat island effects. The heat island effect describes the phenomenon that built up areas are hotter than nearby rural areas. The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F warmer than its surroundings.521 Heat islands can affect communities by increasing energy demand, air conditioning costs, air pollution, and heat-related illness and deaths. Impervious surfaces contribute to the heat island effect. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right displays impervious surfaces in the University Southwest Planning District. Impervious Surfaces Most Impervious Least Impervious Philadelphia Planning Districts 520 521 2013 York County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Retrieved February 16, 2016. “Heat Island Effect”. US EPA. Retrieved March 3, 2016. Philadelphia, like other metropolitan areas, heats unevenly because of variations in vegetation, impervious surface coverage, and proximity to bodies of water. The map below shows this heating pattern. 522 As the map shows, the University Southwest is located in an area which experiences higher heat island effects than other portions of the city and surrounding counties. 522 “Downscaling Air Temperature and LST Using MODIS and Landsat Data: Philadelphia 2002”. URSA. Retrieved March 7, 2016. Flooding Flooding is the temporary condition of partial or complete inundation on normally dry land and it is the most frequent and costly of all hazards in Pennsylvania. Flooding events are generally the result of excessive precipitation. General flooding typically occurs when precipitation occurs over a given river basin for an extended period of time. Flash flooding is usually a result of heavy localized precipitation falling in a short time period over a given location, often along mountain streams and in urban areas where much of the ground cover is primarily impervious surfaces. The severity of a flood event is dependent upon a combination of: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ stream and river basin topography and physiography, hydrology, precipitation and weather patterns, present soil moisture conditions, the degree of vegetative clearing, and the presence of impervious surfaces in and around floodprone areas.523 Winter flooding includes ice jams which occur when warm temperatures and heavy rain cause snow to melt rapidly. Snow melt combined with heavy rains can cause frozen rivers to swell, which breaks the ice layer on top of a river. The ice layer often breaks into large chunks, which float downstream, piling up in narrow passages and near other obstructions such as bridges and dams. All forms of flooding can damage infrastructure.524 For more 523 524 “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. information on flooding and its impacts, please see Flooding under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. A small portion of the University Southwest Planning District falls within either the one percent or 0.2 percent annual risk areas for a flood event. The map above shows the one and 0.2 percent annual percent flood hazard areas. Data available does not capture surface flooding from overwhelmed water management infrastructure. Those homes with a federally backed mortgage in the 1% annual chance flood event area are required to carry flood insurance. Flood insurance is not part of an average homeowner’s insurance policy and must be purchased separately. Within the University Southwest Planning District there are 61 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policies in force. For more information on the National Flood Insurance Program, see the National Flood Insurance Program section of the Capability Assessment. Flash flooding is a concern for some areas of the University Southwest Planning District, but less so than other parts of Philadelphia given the greater amount of permeable surfaces in the district. A flash flood is rapidly rising water that occurs during an intense rain storm, such as those that accompany hurricanes. A flash flood may also occur as a result of rapidly melting snow. The presence of impervious surfaces contributes to an increased risk of flash flooding. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right displays impervious surfaces in the University Southwest Planning District. Those areas with greater concentrations of impervious surfaces that are already in flood prone areas are at a greater risk for flash flooding. Impervious Surfaces Most Impervious Least Impervious Philadelphia Planning Districts Hazardous Material Train Derailment Derailments can happen for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ Issues with the track, roadbed, and structures the train travels on; ▪ Signal and communications issues; ▪ Human error in train operations; ▪ Mechanical and/or electrical failures; or ▪ Other causes such as environmental conditions or loading procedures.525 In many cases, derailments do not result in the compromise of tank cars carrying hazardous materials or the release of dangerous chemicals. In rare cases, a derailment can result in the release of hazardous materials. Depending on the characteristics of the material released, these events can pose explosive and/or contaminant threats to the community. For more information on hazardous material train derailment and its impacts, please see Hazardous Material Train Derailment under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Rail lines throughout the city often are multi-use lines. The same freight lines can carry a variety of different materials, both nonhazardous and select hazardous products. The map to the right illustrates those freight lines that run through Philadelphia and carry many different kinds of materials and equipment. 525 Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis. Train Accident Cause Codes. Retrieved April 13, 2016. Urban Conflagration Conflagrations are extensive, widespread fires that damage property and potentially endanger lives. Urban conflagrations spread beyond artificial and natural barriers to destroy whole sections of a city.526 While conflagrations are rare in modern, developed cities, there is the risk that they could occur after a large storm, earthquake, or during civil unrest. Simultaneous ignitions can overwhelm emergency responders. For more information on urban conflagrations and its impacts, please see Urban Conflagration under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Unoccupied or vacant homes pose a greater risk for both fires and collapse than occupied homes.527 Vacant properties that are also uninsured or under-insured greatly increase the likelihood of a longer recovery time. The University Southwest Planning District has a comparatively higher number of vacant properties than many other parts of Philadelphia. William Michael Kramer. “Disaster Planning and Control”. Fire Engineering. Retrieved January 11, 2016. Income, Housing, and Fire Injuries: A Census Tract Analysis. Donna Shai, PhD. Public Health Reports, Vol. 121, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 2006), pp. 149-154. Retrieved March 7, 2016. 526 527 Densely built urban environments pose an additional risk for conflagration. Closely built environments allow fire to spread more easily than less dense environments if not placed under control. Density mapping assists in the identification of densely built environments. The map to the right depicts the University Southwest Planning District’s housing density. Data was unavailable for those portions of the map left uncolored. 21.1.13 Upper Far Northeast 21.1.13.1 Geography and Hydrology The Upper Far Northeast planning district contains addresses in the zip codes 19116, 19115, and 19154. Zip codes in the Upper Far Northeast Planning District The Upper Far Northeast planning district fall partially in the Pennypack Creek and Poquessing Creek Watersheds. Watersheds in the Upper Far Northeast Planning District The Upper Far Northeast planning district resides within the 10th Council District of Philadelphia. Council Districts in the Upper Far Northeast Planning District The Upper Far Northeast planning district falls mostly within the 7th Police District, and also crosses into the 8th Police District. Police Districts in the Upper Far Northeast Planning District 21.1.13.2 Social Characteristics Data used for social characteristics is from the most recent American Community Survey provided from the U.S. Census. The ACS produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates over a five-year period between censuses. The data used for these statistics is from 2014. Population, Gender and Age Characteristics of the Upper Far Northeast Planning District Population 164,978 - Male population 76,657 - Female population 85,321 Median Age 42.44 - Age dependency ratio (the percentage of the population under 15 and over 64) 64.52% - Population under 15 32.54% - Population over 64 31.96% 21.1.13.3 Housing, Mobility, and Poverty For emergency management, whether a home is owned or rented division implies a difference in insurance coverage which affects long-term recovery. Renters insurance covers exists mainly to cover the occupants’ belongings, not the housing itself. This can present challenges in housing unit repair and re-occupancy. Those households living in poverty may have a more difficult time preparing for and recovering from disasters, and the district’s population living below the federal line of poverty. Housing, Mobility, and Poverty Characteristics of the Upper Far Northeast Planning District Number of households - Households owned - Households rented No vehicle access Population below the federal line of poverty Households Owned vs Rented by Planning District 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Percentage of Households Owned Percentage of Households Rented 63,744 41,099 22,645 7,876 11.28% Poverty in the Upper Far Northeast Planning District Population Living Above the Line of Poverty Population Living Below the Line of Poverty 21.1.13.4 Disability Of those individuals residing within the Upper Far Northeast Planning District, 15.4 percent reported having a disability. The table below lists disabilities reported by individuals in the Upper Far Northeast Planning District by the percentage of the total population of the District. Disabilities are not exclusive, as some individuals may report having more than one disability type. Disability Reported Hearing difficulty Vision difficulty Cognitive difficulty Ambulatory Difficulty Self-care Difficulty Independent Living Difficulty Percentage of Population 4.8% 5.3% 5.8% 5.6% 5.6% 5.4% 21.1.13.5 Upper Far Northeast Hazards Many hazards affect the City of Philadelphia on a wide scale, such as windstorms or hurricanes, while others can have varying levels of risk across the city. These hazards include: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Infrastructure Failure Extreme Heat Flooding Hazardous Material Train Derailment Urban conflagration Each of these hazards are detailed below on the risk factors present in the Upper Far Northeast Planning District. For a complete list of hazards in the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan and a description of the city-wide risk level for each, please see the Risk Assessment section in the main body of the plan. Infrastructure Failure Bridge Failure A bridge collapse consists of a failure of decking, superstructure, or foundation leading to a progressive or immediate collapse of the entire assembly.528 Bridges can span waterways, railways, or roadways and provide overpasses for surface transportation or passenger/freight rail lines. For more information on bridge failures and its impacts, please see Bridge Failure under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Structurally deficient bridges are those have major deterioration, cracks, or other flaws that reduce its ability to support vehicles. A “structurally deficient bridge” typically requires maintenance and repairs to remain in service, or rehabilitation or replacement to address the underlying issue.529 530 Depending on the type and extent of deterioration, the Philadelphia Streets Department or PennDOT may impose weight restrictions. If the deterioration is severe, regulating agencies may shut down the bridge to traffic until maintenance crews can repair the damage. The table below shows those bridges found to be structurally deficient. The map to Structurally Deficient Bridges in the the below shows those bridges deemed structurally Upper Far Northeast Planning District deficient in the Upper Far Northeast Planning Name Location Year Built District.531 CSX Transportation Byberry Rd and NW Route 1 1996 Poquessing Creek Old Lincoln and US 1 1805 City of Philadelphia Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 2010 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance - System Conditions: Highways and Bridges. Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved March 23, 2016. 530 Ibid. 531 Map Information: MPMS IQ. PennDOT. Retrieved March 2, 2016. 528 529 Dam Failure A dam is a barrier across flowing water that obstructs, directs, or slows down water flow. Dams provide benefits such as flood protection, power generation, drinking water, irrigation, and recreation. Failure of these structures results in an uncontrolled release of impounded water. Failures are relatively rare, but structural damages and injuries are possible in downstream communities when such events occur. For more information on dam failures and its impacts, please see Dam Failure under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. There are no dams in the Upper Far Northeast Planning District. Building Collapse Buildings may collapse for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Overall structural integrity; Poor construction or maintenance Accidents; Environmental forces, such as wind or heavy snowfall; or Earthquakes. Building age increases the risk of collapse. The map to the right shows the number of properties built in the Upper Far Northeast Planning District built before 1939. Vacant properties also increase the risk of a building collapse, as these properties fall into disrepair and neglect. The map to the right shows the number of vacant properties in the Upper Far Northeast Planning District. Philadelphia Licenses and Inspections (L&I) records imminently dangerous structures found each year through inspections. Some of these structures have partially collapsed, while others are found and acted upon before they collapse. Property owners can repair or demolish these structures. The map below shows the location of imminently dangerous structures in the Upper Far Northeast Planning District. Extreme Heat Extreme heat can be described as temperatures that hover 10°F or more above the average high temperature for a region during the summer months. Extreme heat is responsible for more deaths in Pennsylvania than all other natural disasters combined.532 For more information on extreme heat and its impacts, please see Extreme Heat under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Philadelphia is subject to heat island effects. The heat island effect describes the phenomenon that built up areas are hotter than nearby rural areas. The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F warmer than its surroundings.533 Heat islands can affect communities by increasing energy demand, air conditioning costs, air pollution, and heatrelated illness and deaths. Impervious surfaces contribute to the heat island effect. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right displays impervious surfaces in the Upper Far Northeast Planning District. Philadelphia, like other metropolitan areas, heats unevenly because of variations in vegetation, impervious surface coverage, and proximity to bodies of water. The map below shows this heating pattern. 534 As the map shows, the Upper Far Northeast is not located in the areas which experience the highest heat island effects, but the Upper Far Northeast still feels some of the effects of such an event more than the surrounding counties. 2013 York County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Retrieved February 16, 2016. “Heat Island Effect”. US EPA. Retrieved March 3, 2016. 534 “Downscaling Air Temperature and LST Using MODIS and Landsat Data: Philadelphia 2002”. URSA. Retrieved March 7, 2016. 532 533 Flooding Flooding is the temporary condition of partial or complete inundation on normally dry land and it is the most frequent and costly of all hazards in Pennsylvania. Flooding events are generally the result of excessive precipitation. General flooding typically occurs when precipitation occurs over a given river basin for an extended period of time. Flash flooding is usually a result of heavy localized precipitation falling in a short time period over a given location, often along mountain streams and in urban areas where much of the ground cover is primarily impervious surfaces. The severity of a flood event is dependent upon a combination of: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ stream and river basin topography and physiography, hydrology, precipitation and weather patterns, present soil moisture conditions, the degree of vegetative clearing, and the presence of impervious surfaces in and around flood-prone areas.535 Winter flooding includes ice jams which occur when warm temperatures and heavy rain cause snow to melt rapidly. Snow melt combined with heavy rains can cause frozen rivers to swell, which breaks the ice layer on top of a river. The ice layer often breaks into large chunks, which float downstream, piling up in narrow passages and near other obstructions such as bridges and dams. All forms of flooding can damage infrastructure.536 For more 535 536 “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. information on flooding and its impacts, please see Flooding under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. A small portion of the Upper Far Northeast Planning District falls within either the one percent or 0.2 percent annual risk areas for a flood event. The map above shows the one and 0.2 percent annual percent flood hazard areas. Data available does not capture surface flooding from overwhelmed water management infrastructure. Those homes with a federally backed mortgage in the 1% annual chance flood event area are required to carry flood insurance. Flood insurance is not part of an average homeowner’s insurance policy and must be purchased separately. Within the Upper Far Northeast Planning District there are 281 of policies in force. For more information on the National Flood Insurance Program, see the National Flood Insurance Program section of the Capability Assessment. Flash flooding is a concern for some areas of the Upper Far Northeast Planning District, but less so than other parts of Philadelphia given the greater amount of permeable surfaces in the district. A flash flood is rapidly rising water that occurs during an intense rain storm, such as those that accompany hurricanes. A flash flood may also occur as a result of rapidly melting snow. The presence of impervious surfaces contributes to an increased risk of flash flooding. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right displays impervious surfaces in the Upper Far Northeast Planning District. Those areas with greater concentrations of impervious surfaces that are already in flood prone areas are at a greater risk for flash flooding. Hazardous Material Train Derailment Derailments can happen for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Issues with the track, roadbed, and structures the train travels on; Signal and communications issues; Human error in train operations; Mechanical and/or electrical failures; or Other causes such as environmental conditions or loading procedures.537 In many cases, derailments do not result in the compromise of tank cars carrying hazardous materials or the release of dangerous chemicals. In rare cases, a derailment can result in the release of hazardous materials. Depending on the characteristics of the material released, these events can pose explosive and/or contaminant threats to the community. For more information on hazardous material train derailment and its impacts, please see Hazardous Material Train Derailment under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Rail lines throughout the city often are multi-use lines. The same freight lines can carry a variety of different materials, both non-hazardous and select hazardous products. The map to the right illustrates those freight lines that run through Philadelphia and carry many different kinds of materials and equipment. 537 Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis. Train Accident Cause Codes. Retrieved April 13, 2016. Urban Conflagration Conflagrations are extensive, widespread fires that damage property and potentially endanger lives. Urban conflagrations spread beyond artificial and natural barriers to destroy whole sections of a city. 538 While conflagrations are rare in modern, developed cities, there is the risk that they could occur after a large storm, earthquake, or during civil unrest. Simultaneous ignitions can overwhelm emergency responders. For more information on urban conflagrations and its impacts, please see Urban Conflagration under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Unoccupied or vacant homes pose a greater risk for both fires and collapse than occupied homes.539 Vacant properties that are also uninsured or underinsured greatly increase the likelihood of a longer recovery time. The Upper Far Northeast Planning District has comparatively fewer vacant properties than many other parts of Philadelphia, and therefore has a slightly lower risk for urban conflagration. William Michael Kramer. “Disaster Planning and Control”. Fire Engineering. Retrieved January 11, 2016. Income, Housing, and Fire Injuries: A Census Tract Analysis. Donna Shai, PhD. Public Health Reports, Vol. 121, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 2006), pp. 149-154. Retrieved March 7, 2016. 538 539 Densely built urban environments pose an additional risk for conflagration. Closely built environments allow fire to spread more easily than less dense environments if not placed under control. Density mapping assists in the identification of densely built environments. The map to the right depicts the Upper Far Northeast Planning District’s housing density. The Upper Far Northeast has pockets of higher housing density in the northwest portion of the district. Data was unavailable for those portions of the map left uncolored. 21.1.14 Upper North 21.1.14.1 Geography and Hydrology The Upper North Planning District contains addresses in the zip codes 19150, 19138, 19141, 19144, 19140, 19120, and 19126. Zip codes in the Upper North Planning District The Upper North planning district falls mostly in the Tookany/Tacony-Frankford Watershed, with only a small portion crossing into the Wissahickon Creek Watershed. Watersheds in the Upper North Planning District The Upper North Planning District resides within the 9th, 8th, and 7th Council Districts of Philadelphia. Council Districts in Upper North Planning District 9 The Upper North Planning District falls mostly within the 35th and 14th Police Districts, and also crosses into the 25th Police District. Police Districts in the Upper North Planning District 14 21.1.14.2 Social Characteristics Data used for social characteristics is from the most recent American Community Survey provided from the U.S. Census. The ACS produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates over a five-year period between censuses. The data used for these statistics is from 2014. Population, Gender and Age Characteristics of the Upper Far Northeast Planning District Population 281,897 - Male population 129,175 - Female population 152,722 Median Age 35.4 - Age dependency ratio (the percentage of the population under 15 and over 64) 61.9% - Population under 15 40.4% - Population over 64 21.5% 21.1.14.3 Housing, Mobility, and Poverty For emergency management, whether a home is owned or rented division implies a difference in insurance coverage which affects long-term recovery. Renters insurance covers exists mainly to cover the occupants’ belongings, not the housing itself. This can present challenges in housing unit repair and re-occupancy. Those households living in poverty may have a more difficult time preparing for and recovering from disasters, and the district’s population living below the federal line of poverty. Housing, Mobility, and Poverty Characteristics of the Upper Far Northeast Planning District Number of households - Households owned - Households rented No vehicle access Population below the federal line of poverty Households Owned vs Rented by Planning District 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Percentage of Households Owned Percentage of Households Rented 68,116 36,755 31,361 22,730 27.5% Poverty in the Upper North Planning District Population Living Above the Line of Poverty Population Living Below the Line of Poverty 21.1.14.4 Disability Of those individuals residing within the Upper North Planning District, 16.1 percent reported having a disability. Disabilities reported by individuals in the Upper North Planning District are listed in the table below by the percentage of the total population of the District. Disabilities are not exclusive. Disability Reported Hearing difficulty Vision difficulty Cognitive difficulty Ambulatory Difficulty Self-care Difficulty Independent Living Difficulty Percentage of Population 7.5% 7.8% 8.6% 8.2% 8.2% 8.6% 21.1.14.5 Upper North Hazards Many hazards affect the City of Philadelphia on a wide scale, such as windstorms or hurricanes, while others can have varying levels of risk across the city. These hazards include: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Infrastructure Failure Extreme Heat Flooding Hazardous Material Train Derailment Urban conflagration Each of these hazards are detailed below on the risk factors present in the Upper Far Northeast Planning District. For a complete list of hazards in the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan and a description of the city-wide risk level for each, please see the Risk Assessmentsection in the main body of the plan. Infrastructure Failure Bridge Failure A bridge collapse consists of a failure of decking, superstructure, or foundation leading to a progressive or immediate collapse of the entire assembly.540 Bridges can span waterways, railways, or roadways and provide overpasses for surface transportation or passenger/freight rail lines. For more information on bridge failures and its impacts, please see Bridge Failure under Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Structurally deficient bridges are those have major deterioration, cracks, or other flaws that reduce its ability to support vehicles. A “structurally deficient bridge” typically requires maintenance and repairs to remain in service, or rehabilitation or replacement to address the underlying issue.541 542 Depending on the type and extent of deterioration, the Philadelphia Streets Department or PennDOT may impose weight restrictions. If the deterioration is severe, regulating agencies may shut down the bridge to traffic until maintenance crews can repair the damage. The table below shows those bridges found to be structurally deficient. The map to the below shows those bridges deemed structurally deficient in the Upper North Planning District.543 City of Philadelphia Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 2010 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance - System Conditions: Highways and Bridges. Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved March 23, 2016. 542 Ibid. 543 Map Information: MPMS IQ. PennDOT. Retrieved March 2, 2016. 540 541 Structurally Deficient Bridges in the Upper North Planning District Name Location Tacony Creek SEPTA Tacony Creek Tabor Road Olney Ave by W. Rising Sun Adams Ave by West Train Station Year Built 1957 1929 1901 Dam Failure A dam is a barrier across flowing water that obstructs, directs, or slows down water flow. Dams provide benefits such as flood protection, power generation, drinking water, irrigation, and recreation. Failure of these structures results in an uncontrolled release of impounded water. Failures are relatively rare, but structural damages and injuries are possible in downstream communities when such events occur. For more information on dam failures and its impacts, please see Dam Failure under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. The table below shows the dam name, the waterway on which the dam is located, whether the dam is a high hazard dam, and who currently holds the permit for the structure. Dam Name Waterway High Hazard? Permitted Owner Tacony Creek Park Tacony Creek No City of Philadelphia Building Collapse Buildings may collapse for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Overall structural integrity; Poor construction or maintenance; Accidents; Environmental forces, such as wind or heavy snowfall; or Earthquakes. Building age increases the risk of collapse. The map to the right shows the number of properties built in the Upper North Planning District built before 1939. Vacant properties also increase the risk of a building collapse, as these properties fall into disrepair and neglect. The map to the right shows the number of vacant properties in the Upper North Planning District. Philadelphia Licenses and Inspections (L&I) records imminently dangerous structures found each year through inspections. Some of these structures have partially collapsed, while others are found and acted upon before they collapse. Property owners can repair or demolish these structures. The map below shows the location of imminently dangerous structures in the Upper North Planning District. Extreme Heat Extreme heat can be described as temperatures that hover 10°F or more above the average high temperature for a region during the summer months. Extreme heat is responsible for more deaths in Pennsylvania than all other natural disasters combined.544 For more information on extreme heat and its impacts, please see Extreme Heat under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Philadelphia is subject to heat island effects. The heat island effect describes the phenomenon that built up areas are hotter than nearby rural areas. The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F warmer than its surroundings.545 Heat islands can affect communities by increasing energy demand, air conditioning costs, air pollution, and heat-related illness and deaths. Impervious surfaces contribute to the heat island effect. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right displays impervious surfaces in the Upper North Planning District. Impervious Surfaces Most Impervious Least Impervious Philadelphia Planning Districts 544 545 2013 York County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Retrieved February 16, 2016. “Heat Island Effect”. US EPA. Retrieved March 3, 2016. Philadelphia, like other metropolitan areas, heats unevenly because of variations in vegetation, impervious surface coverage, and proximity to bodies of water. The map below shows this heating pattern. 546 As the map shows, the Upper North is located in an area which experience higher heat island effects, and feels some of the effects of such an event more than the bordering counties. 546 “Downscaling Air Temperature and LST Using MODIS and Landsat Data: Philadelphia 2002”. URSA. Retrieved March 7, 2016. Flooding Flooding is the temporary condition of partial or complete inundation on normally dry land and it is the most frequent and costly of all hazards in Pennsylvania. Flooding events are generally the result of excessive precipitation. General flooding typically occurs when precipitation occurs over a given river basin for an extended period of time. Flash flooding is usually a result of heavy localized precipitation falling in a short time period over a given location, often along mountain streams and in urban areas where much of the ground cover is primarily impervious surfaces. The severity of a flood event is dependent upon a combination of: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ stream and river basin topography and physiography, hydrology, precipitation and weather patterns, present soil moisture conditions, the degree of vegetative clearing, and the presence of impervious surfaces in and around floodprone areas.547 Winter flooding includes ice jams which occur when warm temperatures and heavy rain cause snow to melt rapidly. Snow melt combined with heavy rains can cause frozen rivers to swell, which breaks the ice layer on top of a river. The ice layer often breaks into large chunks, which float downstream, piling up in narrow passages and near other obstructions such as bridges and dams. All forms of flooding can damage infrastructure.548 547 548 “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. For more information on flooding and its impacts, please see Flooding under the Risk Assessmentsection of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. A small portion of the Upper North Planning District falls within either the one percent or 0.2 percent annual risk areas for a flood event. The map above shows the one and 0.2 percent annual percent flood hazard areas. Data available does not capture surface flooding from overwhelmed water management infrastructure. Those homes with a federally backed mortgage in the 1% annual chance flood event area are required to carry flood insurance. Flood insurance is not part of an average homeowner’s insurance policy and must be purchased separately. Within the Upper North Planning District there are 45 of policies in force. For more information on the National Flood Insurance Program, see the National Flood Insurance Program section of the Capability Assessment. Flash flooding is a concern for some areas of the Upper North Planning District, but less so than other parts of Philadelphia given the greater amount of permeable surfaces in the district. A flash flood is rapidly rising water that occurs during an intense rain storm, such as those that accompany hurricanes. A flash flood may also occur as a result of rapidly melting snow. The presence of impervious surfaces contributes to an increased risk of flash flooding. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right displays impervious surfaces in the Upper North Planning District. Those areas with greater concentrations of impervious surfaces that are already in flood prone areas are at a greater risk for flash flooding. Impervious Surfaces Most Impervious Least Impervious Philadelphia Planning Districts Hazardous Material Train Derailment Derailments can happen for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ Issues with the track, roadbed, and structures the train travels on; ▪ Signal and communications issues; ▪ Human error in train operations; ▪ Mechanical and/or electrical failures; or ▪ Other causes such as environmental conditions or loading procedures.549 In many cases, derailments do not result in the compromise of tank cars carrying hazardous materials or the release of dangerous chemicals. In rare cases, a derailment can result in the release of hazardous materials. Depending on the characteristics of the material released, these events can pose explosive and/or contaminant threats to the community. For more information on hazardous material train derailment and its impacts, please see Hazardous Material Train Derailment under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Rail lines throughout the city often are multi-use lines. The same freight lines can carry a variety of different materials, both nonhazardous and select hazardous products. The map to the right illustrates those freight lines that run through Philadelphia and carry many different kinds of materials and equipment. 549 Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis. Train Accident Cause Codes. Retrieved April 13, 2016. Urban Conflagration Conflagrations are extensive, widespread fires that damage property and potentially endanger lives. Urban conflagrations spread beyond artificial and natural barriers to destroy whole sections of a city.550 While conflagrations are rare in modern, developed cities, there is the risk that they could occur after a large storm, earthquake, or during civil unrest. Simultaneous ignitions can overwhelm emergency responders. For more information on urban conflagrations and its impacts, please see Urban Conflagration under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Unoccupied or vacant homes pose a greater risk for both fires and collapse than occupied homes.551 Vacant properties that are also uninsured or under-insured greatly increase the likelihood of a longer recovery time. The Upper North Planning District has comparatively fewer vacant properties than many other parts of Philadelphia, and therefore has a slightly lower risk for urban conflagration. William Michael Kramer. “Disaster Planning and Control”. Fire Engineering. Retrieved January 11, 2016. Income, Housing, and Fire Injuries: A Census Tract Analysis. Donna Shai, PhD. Public Health Reports, Vol. 121, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 2006), pp. 149-154. Retrieved March 7, 2016. 550 551 Densely built urban environments pose an additional risk for conflagration. Closely built environments allow fire to spread more easily than less dense environments if not placed under control. Density mapping assists in the identification of densely built environments. The map to the right depicts the Upper North Planning District’s housing density. Data was unavailable for those portions of the map left uncolored. 21.1.15 Upper Northwest 21.1.15.1 Geography and Hydrology The Upper Northwest Planning District contains addresses in the zip codes 19118, 19119, 19138, 19144, and 19128. Zip codes in the Upper Northwest Planning District The Upper Northwest planning district falls partially in the Wissahickon, Tookany/Tacony-Frankford Creek, and Schuylkill River Watersheds. Watersheds in the Upper Northwest Planning District The Upper Northwest Planning District resides within the 8th and 4th Council Districts of Philadelphia. Council Districts in Upper Northwest Planning District The Upper Northwest Planning District falls within the 14th and 39th Police Districts. Police Districts in the Upper Northwest Planning District 21.1.15.2 Social Characteristics Data used for social characteristics is from the most recent American Community Survey provided from the U.S. Census. The ACS produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates over a five-year period between censuses. The data used for these statistics is from 2014. Population, Gender and Age Characteristics of the Upper Far Northeast Planning District Population 114,894 - Male population 51,525 - Female population 63,369 Median Age 38.6 - Age dependency ratio (the percentage of the population under 15 and over 64) 60.2% - Population under 15 33.8% - Population over 64 26.4% 21.1.15.3 Housing, Mobility, and Poverty For emergency management, whether a home is owned or rented division implies a difference in insurance coverage which affects long-term recovery. Renters insurance covers exists mainly to cover the occupants’ belongings, not the housing itself. This can present challenges in housing unit repair and re-occupancy. Those households living in poverty may have a more difficult time preparing for and recovering from disasters, and the district’s population living below the federal line of poverty. Housing, Mobility, and Poverty Characteristics of the Upper Far Northeast Planning District Number of households - Households owned - Households rented No vehicle access Population below the federal line of poverty HouseholdsOwned OwnedvsvsRented Rentedby byPlanning PlanningDistrict District Households 80% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 0% 10% 0% Percentage of Households Owned Percentage of Households Owned Percentage of Households Rented Percentage of Households Rented 33,431 16,003 17,428 9,906 22.2% Poverty Povertyininthe theUpper Upper Northwest NorthwestPlanning PlanningDistrict District Population PopulationLiving LivingAbove Abovethe theLine LineofofPoverty Poverty Population PopulationLiving LivingBelow Belowthe theLine LineofofPoverty Poverty 21.1.15.4 Disability Of those individuals residing within the Upper Northwest Planning District, 12.5 percent reported having a disability. Disabilities reported by individuals in the Upper Northwest Planning District are listed in the table below by the percentage of the total population of the District. Disabilities are not exclusive. Disability Reported Hearing difficulty Vision difficulty Cognitive difficulty Ambulatory Difficulty Self-care Difficulty Independent Living Difficulty Percentage of Population 6.5% 6.9% 6.7% 6.7% 6.8% 6.5% 21.1.15.5 Upper Northwest Hazards Many hazards affect the City of Philadelphia on a wide scale, such as windstorms or hurricanes, while others can have varying levels of risk across the city. These hazards include: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Infrastructure Failure Extreme Heat Flooding Hazardous Material Train Derailment Urban conflagration Each of these hazards are detailed below on the risk factors present in the Upper Far Northeast Planning District. For a complete list of hazards in the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan and a description of the city-wide risk level for each, please see the Risk Assessment section in the main body of the plan. Infrastructure Failure Bridge Failure A bridge collapse consists of a failure of decking, superstructure, or foundation leading to a progressive or immediate collapse of the entire assembly.552 Bridges can span waterways, railways, or roadways and provide overpasses for surface transportation or passenger/freight rail lines. For more information on bridge failures and its impacts, please see Bridge Failure under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Structurally deficient bridges are those have major deterioration, cracks, or other flaws that reduce its ability to support vehicles. A “structurally deficient bridge” typically requires maintenance and repairs to remain in service, or rehabilitation or replacement to address the underlying issue.553 554 Depending on the type and extent of deterioration, the Philadelphia Streets Department or PennDOT may impose weight restrictions. If the deterioration is severe, regulating agencies may shut down the bridge to traffic until maintenance crews can repair the damage. The table below shows those bridges found to be structurally deficient. The map to the below shows those bridges deemed structurally deficient in the Upper Northwest Planning District.555 City of Philadelphia Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 2010 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance - System Conditions: Highways and Bridges. Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved March 23, 2016. 554 Ibid. 555 Map Information: MPMS IQ. PennDOT. Retrieved March 2, 2016. 552 553 Structurally Deficient Bridges in the Upper Northwest Planning District Name Location Year Built Valley Green Road SEPTA Wissahickon Creek SEPTA Chestnut Hill West SEPTA Chestnut Hill 1960 1883 1915 1901 1908 Cherokee Street and W. Springfield Ave Willow Grove Ave, north of St. Martins Ln Valley Green Rd Coulter Ave Allens Lane Dam Failure A dam is a barrier across flowing water that obstructs, directs, or slows down water flow. Dams provide benefits such as flood protection, power generation, drinking water, irrigation, and recreation. Failure of these structures results in an uncontrolled release of impounded water. Failures are relatively rare, but structural damages and injuries are possible in downstream communities when such events occur. For more information on dam failures and its impacts, please see Dam Failure under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. The table below shows the dam name, the waterway on which the dam is located, whether the dam is a high hazard dam, and who currently holds the permit for the structure. Dam Name Margaree Thomas Mill Rd Livezey Morris Arboretum Swan Pond Waterway Wissahickon Creek Wissahickon Creek Wissahickon Creek Wissahickon Creek High Hazard? No No No No Permitted Owner City of Philadelphia City of Philadelphia City of Philadelphia Morris Arboretum Building Collapse Buildings may collapse for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Overall structural integrity; Poor construction or maintenance Accidents; Environmental forces, such as wind or heavy snowfall; or Earthquakes. Building age increases the risk of collapse. The map to the right shows the number of properties built in the Upper Northwest Planning District built before 1939. Vacant properties also increase the risk of a building collapse, as these properties fall into disrepair and neglect. The map to the right shows the number of vacant properties in the Upper Northwest Planning District. Philadelphia Licenses and Inspections (L&I) records imminently dangerous structures found each year through inspections. Some of these structures have partially collapsed, while others are found and acted upon before they collapse. Property owners can repair or demolish these structures. The map below shows the location of imminently dangerous structures in the Upper Northwest Planning District. Extreme Heat Extreme heat can be described as temperatures that hover 10°F or more above the average high temperature for a region during the summer months. Extreme heat is responsible for more deaths in Pennsylvania than all other natural disasters combined.556 For more information on extreme heat and its impacts, please see Extreme Heat under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Philadelphia is subject to heat island effects. The heat island effect describes the phenomenon that built up areas are hotter than nearby rural areas. The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F warmer than its surroundings.557 Heat islands can affect communities by increasing energy demand, air conditioning costs, air pollution, and heat-related illness and deaths. Impervious surfaces contribute to the heat island effect. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right displays impervious surfaces in the Upper Northwest Planning District. Impervious Surfaces Most Impervious Least Impervious Philadelphia Planning Districts 556 557 2013 York County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Retrieved February 16, 2016. “Heat Island Effect”. US EPA. Retrieved March 3, 2016. Philadelphia, like other metropolitan areas, heats unevenly because of variations in vegetation, impervious surface coverage, and proximity to bodies of water. The map below shows this heating pattern. 558 As the map shows, the Upper Northwest is located in an area which experiences very limitedlimited higher heat island effects. 558 “Downscaling Air Temperature and LST Using MODIS and Landsat Data: Philadelphia 2002”. URSA. Retrieved March 7, 2016. Flooding Flooding is the temporary condition of partial or complete inundation on normally dry land and it is the most frequent and costly of all hazards in Pennsylvania. Flooding events are generally the result of excessive precipitation. General flooding typically occurs when precipitation occurs over a given river basin for an extended period of time. Flash flooding is usually a result of heavy localized precipitation falling in a short time period over a given location, often along mountain streams and in urban areas where much of the ground cover is primarily impervious surfaces. The severity of a flood event is dependent upon a combination of: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ stream and river basin topography and physiography, hydrology, precipitation and weather patterns, present soil moisture conditions, the degree of vegetative clearing, and the presence of impervious surfaces in and around floodprone areas.559 Winter flooding includes ice jams which occur when warm temperatures and heavy rain cause snow to melt rapidly. Snow melt combined with heavy rains can cause frozen rivers to swell, which breaks the ice layer on top of a river. The ice layer often breaks into large chunks, which float downstream, piling up in narrow passages and near other obstructions such as bridges and dams. All forms of flooding can damage infrastructure.560 For more 559 560 “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. information on flooding and its impacts, please see Flooding under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. A small portion of the Upper Northwest Planning District falls within either the one percent or 0.2 percent annual risk areas for a flood event. The map above shows the one and 0.2 percent annual percent flood hazard areas. Data available does not capture surface flooding from overwhelmed water management infrastructure. Those homes with a federally backed mortgage in the 1% annual chance flood event area are required to carry flood insurance. Flood insurance is not part of an average homeowner’s insurance policy and must be purchased separately. Within the Upper Northwest Planning District there are 69 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policies in force. For more information on the National Flood Insurance Program, see the National Flood Insurance Program section of the Capability Assessment. Flash flooding is a concern for some areas of the Upper Northwest Planning District, but less so than other parts of Philadelphia given the greater amount of permeable surfaces in the district. A flash flood is rapidly rising water that occurs during an intense rain storm, such as those that accompany hurricanes. A flash flood may also occur as a result of rapidly melting snow. The presence of impervious surfaces contributes to an increased risk of flash flooding. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right displays impervious surfaces in the Upper Northwest Planning District. Those areas with greater concentrations of impervious surfaces that are already in flood prone areas are at a greater risk for flash flooding. Impervious Surfaces Most Impervious Least Impervious Philadelphia Planning Districts Hazardous Material Train Derailment Derailments can happen for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ Issues with the track, roadbed, and structures the train travels on; ▪ Signal and communications issues; ▪ Human error in train operations; ▪ Mechanical and/or electrical failures; or ▪ Other causes such as environmental conditions or loading procedures.561 In many cases, derailments do not result in the compromise of tank cars carrying hazardous materials or the release of dangerous chemicals. In rare cases, a derailment can result in the release of hazardous materials. Depending on the characteristics of the material released, these events can pose explosive and/or contaminant threats to the community. For more information on hazardous material train derailment and its impacts, please see Hazardous Material Train Derailment under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Rail lines throughout the city often are multi-use lines. The same freight lines can carry a variety of different materials, both non-hazardous and select hazardous products. The map to the right illustrates those freight lines that run through Philadelphia and carry many different kinds of materials and equipment. 561 Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis. Train Accident Cause Codes. Retrieved April 13, 2016. Urban Conflagration Conflagrations are extensive, widespread fires that damage property and potentially endanger lives. Urban conflagrations spread beyond artificial and natural barriers to destroy whole sections of a city.562 While conflagrations are rare in modern, developed cities, there is the risk that they could occur after a large storm, earthquake, or during civil unrest. Simultaneous ignitions can overwhelm emergency responders. For more information on urban conflagrations and its impacts, please see Urban Conflagration under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Unoccupied or vacant homes pose a greater risk for both fires and collapse than occupied homes.563 Vacant properties that are also uninsured or under-insured greatly increase the likelihood of a longer recovery time. The Upper Northwest Planning District has some vacant properties with a concentration of vacant properties in the south eastern portion of the planning district. William Michael Kramer. “Disaster Planning and Control”. Fire Engineering. Retrieved January 11, 2016. Income, Housing, and Fire Injuries: A Census Tract Analysis. Donna Shai, PhD. Public Health Reports, Vol. 121, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 2006), pp. 149-154. Retrieved March 7, 2016. 562 563 Densely built urban environments pose an additional risk for conflagration. Closely built environments allow fire to spread more easily than less dense environments if not placed under control. Density mapping assists in the identification of densely built environments. The map to the right depicts the Upper Northwest Planning District’s housing density. Data was unavailable for those portions of the map left uncolored. 21.1.16 West Park 21.1.16.1 Geography and Hydrology The West Park planning district contains addresses in the zip codes 19151, 19104, and 19131. Zip codes in the West Park Planning District The West Park planning district falls partially in the Cobbs Creek and Schuylkill River Watersheds. Watersheds in the West Park Planning District The West Park planning district resides within the 4th and 3rd Council Districts of Philadelphia. Council Districts in West Park Planning District The West Park planning district falls mostly within the 19th Police District, and also crosses into the 16th Police District. Police Districts in the Upper Far Northeast Planning District 39 North 22 Lower North 15 21.1.16.2 Current and Future Land Use PCPC forecasts that the West Park District will see modest growth over the next 10 years.564 Future land use of the district takes into account those areas where the zoning and land use currently do not match, as well as where best to place incoming and growing populations.565 566 564 565 City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia 2035. West Park District Plan. Retrieved November 20, 2015. Ibid. All graphics, charts, and recommendations come from the City of Philadelphia: Philadelphia 2035 West Park District Plan. Retrieved November 20, 2015. 566 21.1.16.3 Social Characteristics Data used for social characteristics is from the most recent American Community Survey provided from the U.S. Census. The ACS produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates over a five-year period between censuses. The data used for these statistics is from 2014. Population, Gender and Age Characteristics of the Upper Far Northeast Planning District Population 210,017 - Male population 98,122 - Female population 111,985 Median Age 31.8 - Age dependency ratio (the percentage of the population under 15 and over 64) 45.6% - Population under 15 28.4% - Population over 64 17.1% 21.1.16.4 Housing, Mobility, and Poverty For emergency management, whether a home is owned or rented division implies a difference in insurance coverage which affects long-term recovery. Renters insurance covers exists mainly to cover the occupants’ belongings, not the housing itself. This can present challenges in housing unit repair and re-occupancy. Those households living in poverty may have a more difficult time preparing for and recovering from disasters, and the district’s population living below the federal line of poverty. Housing, Mobility, and Poverty Characteristics of the Upper Far Northeast Planning District Number of households - Households owned - Households rented No vehicle access Population below the federal line of poverty Households Owned vs Rented by Planning District 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Percentage of Households Owned Percentage of Households Rented 62,524 26,796 35,728 5,631 32.5% Poverty in the West Park Planning District Population Living Above the Line of Poverty Population Living Below the Line of Poverty 21.1.16.5 Disability Of those individuals residing within the West Park Planning District, 11.5 percent reported having a disability. Disabilities reported by individuals in the West Park Planning District are listed in the table below by the percentage of the total population of the District. Disabilities are not exclusive. Disability Reported Hearing difficulty Vision difficulty Cognitive difficulty Ambulatory Difficulty Self-care Difficulty Independent Living Difficulty Percentage of Population 6.9% 7.1% 7.8% 8.0% 7.8% 5.7% 21.1.16.6 West Park Hazards Many hazards affect the City of Philadelphia on a wide scale, such as windstorms or hurricanes, while others can have varying levels of risk across the city. These hazards include: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Infrastructure Failure Extreme Heat Flooding Hazardous Material Train Derailment Urban conflagration Each of these hazards are detailed below on the risk factors present in the Upper Far Northeast Planning District. For a complete list of hazards in the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan and a description of the city-wide risk level for each, please see the Risk Assessment section in the main body of the plan. Infrastructure Failure Bridge Failure A bridge collapse consists of a failure of decking, superstructure, or foundation leading to a progressive or immediate collapse of the entire assembly.567 Bridges can span waterways, railways, or roadways and provide overpasses for surface transportation or passenger/freight rail lines. For more information on bridge failures and its impacts, please see Bridge Failure under the Risk Assessmentsection of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Structurally deficient bridges are those have major deterioration, cracks, or other flaws that reduce its ability to support vehicles. A “structurally deficient bridge” typically requires maintenance and repairs to remain in service, or rehabilitation or replacement to address the underlying issue.568 569 Depending on the type and extent of deterioration, the Philadelphia Streets Department or PennDOT may impose weight restrictions. If the deterioration is severe, regulating agencies may shut down the bridge to traffic until maintenance crews can repair the damage. The table below shows those bridges found to be structurally deficient. The map to the below shows those bridges deemed structurally deficient in the West Park Planning District.570 City of Philadelphia Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 2010 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance - System Conditions: Highways and Bridges. Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved March 23, 2016. 569 Ibid. 570 Map Information: MPMS IQ. PennDOT. Retrieved March 2, 2016. 567 568 Structurally Deficient Bridges in the West Park Planning District Name Location Year Built Amtrak and SEPTA Amtrak Northeast Corridor Indian Creek Conrail Falls Bridge Amtrak Amtrak and SEPTA Cobb’s Creek CSX Railroad Cobb’s Creek SEPTA (Bala Station) 1964 1964 1918 1974 1895 1928 1926 1935 1890 1934 1910 Spring Garden St and N. 30th Station Spring Garden St near 31st St Sherwood Ave, west of 66th St Greenland Drive, west of West River Dr Schuylkill River 41st St, south of Poplar 59th St, north of Lancaster Ave State Rd, 0.5 miles east of PA-3 Girard Ave at the Philadelphia Zoo Township Line Rd City Line Ave, 0.5 miles south of Belmont Ave Dam Failure A dam is a barrier across flowing water that obstructs, directs, or slows down water flow. Dams provide benefits such as flood protection, power generation, drinking water, irrigation, and recreation. Failure of these structures results in an uncontrolled release of impounded water. Failures are relatively rare, but structural damages and injuries are possible in downstream communities when such events occur. For more information on dam failures and its impacts, please see Dam Failure under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. The table below shows the dam name, the waterway on which the dam is located, whether the dam is a high hazard dam, and who currently holds the permit for the structure. Dam Name Waterway High Hazard? Permitted Owner Fairmont Schuylkill River No Philadelphia Water Department Belmont Raw Water Basin Schuylkill River Watershed Yes Philadelphia Water Department Building Collapse Buildings may collapse for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Overall structural integrity; Poor construction or maintenance; Accidents; Environmental forces, such as wind or heavy snowfall; or Earthquakes. Building age increases the risk of collapse. The map to the right shows the number of properties built in the West Park Planning District built before 1939. Vacant properties also increase the risk of a building collapse, as these properties fall into disrepair and neglect. The map to the right shows the number of vacant properties in the West Park Planning District. The West Park Planning District has a lower concentration of vacant structures than other planning districts in the city. Philadelphia Licenses and Inspections (L&I) records imminently dangerous structures found each year through inspections. Some of these structures have partially collapsed, while others are found and acted upon before they collapse. Property owners can repair or demolish these structures. The map below shows the location of imminently dangerous structures in the West Park Planning District. Extreme Heat Extreme heat can be described as temperatures that hover 10°F or more above the average high temperature for a region during the summer months. Extreme heat is responsible for more deaths in Pennsylvania than all other natural disasters combined.571 For more information on extreme heat and its impacts, please see Extreme Heat under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Philadelphia is subject to heat island effects. The heat island effect describes the phenomenon that built up areas are hotter than nearby rural areas. The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F warmer than its surroundings.572 Heat islands can affect communities by increasing energy demand, air conditioning costs, air pollution, and heat-related illness and deaths. Impervious surfaces contribute to the heat island effect. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right displays impervious surfaces in the West Park Planning District. Impervious Surfaces Most Impervious Least Impervious Philadelphia Planning Districts 571 572 2013 York County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Retrieved February 16, 2016. “Heat Island Effect”. US EPA. Retrieved March 3, 2016. Philadelphia, like other metropolitan areas, heats unevenly because of variations in vegetation, impervious surface coverage, and proximity to bodies of water. The map below shows this heating pattern. 573 As the map shows, the West Park is located in an area which experiences some heat island effects, and experiences greater effects of such an event more than the bordering counties. 573 “Downscaling Air Temperature and LST Using MODIS and Landsat Data: Philadelphia 2002”. URSA. Retrieved March 7, 2016. Flooding Flooding is the temporary condition of partial or complete inundation on normally dry land and it is the most frequent and costly of all hazards in Pennsylvania. Flooding events are generally the result of excessive precipitation. General flooding typically occurs when precipitation occurs over a given river basin for an extended period of time. Flash flooding is usually a result of heavy localized precipitation falling in a short time period over a given location, often along mountain streams and in urban areas where much of the ground cover is primarily impervious surfaces. The severity of a flood event is dependent upon a combination of: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ stream and river basin topography and physiography, hydrology, precipitation and weather patterns, present soil moisture conditions, the degree of vegetative clearing, and the presence of impervious surfaces in and around floodprone areas.574 Winter flooding includes ice jams which occur when warm temperatures and heavy rain cause snow to melt rapidly. Snow melt combined with heavy rains can cause frozen rivers to swell, which breaks the ice layer on top of a river. The ice layer often breaks into large chunks, which float downstream, piling up in narrow passages and near other obstructions such as bridges and dams. All forms of flooding can damage 574 “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. infrastructure.575 For more information on flooding and its impacts, please see Flooding under the Risk Assessmentsection of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. A small portion of the West Park Planning District falls within either the one percent or 0.2 percent annual risk areas for a flood event. The map above shows the one and 0.2 percent annual percent flood hazard areas. Data available does not capture surface flooding from overwhelmed water management infrastructure. Those homes with a federally backed mortgage in the 1% annual chance flood event area are required to carry flood insurance. Flood insurance is not part of an average homeowner’s insurance policy and must be purchased separately. Within the West Park Planning District there are 26 of policies in force. For more information on the National Flood Insurance Program, see the National Flood Insurance Program section of the Capability Assessment. 575 “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. Flash flooding is a concern for some areas of the West Park Planning District, but less so than other parts of Philadelphia given the greater amount of permeable surfaces in the district. A flash flood is rapidly rising water that occurs during an intense rain storm, such as those that accompany hurricanes. A flash flood may also occur as a result of rapidly melting snow. The presence of impervious surfaces contributes to an increased risk of flash flooding. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right displays impervious surfaces in the West Park Planning District. Those areas with greater concentrations of impervious surfaces that are already in flood prone areas are at a greater risk for flash flooding. Impervious Surfaces Most Impervious Least Impervious Philadelphia Planning Districts Hazardous Material Train Derailment Derailments can happen for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ Issues with the track, roadbed, and structures the train travels on; ▪ Signal and communications issues; ▪ Human error in train operations; ▪ Mechanical and/or electrical failures; or ▪ Other causes such as environmental conditions or loading procedures.576 In many cases, derailments do not result in the compromise of tank cars carrying hazardous materials or the release of dangerous chemicals. In rare cases, a derailment can result in the release of hazardous materials. Depending on the characteristics of the material released, these events can pose explosive and/or contaminant threats to the community. For more information on hazardous material train derailment and its impacts, please see Hazardous Material Train Derailment under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Rail lines throughout the city often are multi-use lines. The same freight lines can carry a variety of different materials, both nonhazardous and select hazardous products. The map to the right illustrates those freight lines that run through Philadelphia and carry many different kinds of materials and equipment. 576 Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis. Train Accident Cause Codes. Retrieved April 13, 2016. Urban Conflagration Conflagrations are extensive, widespread fires that damage property and potentially endanger lives. Urban conflagrations spread beyond artificial and natural barriers to destroy whole sections of a city.577 While conflagrations are rare in modern, developed cities, there is the risk that they could occur after a large storm, earthquake, or during civil unrest. Simultaneous ignitions can overwhelm emergency responders. For more information on urban conflagrations and its impacts, please see Urban Conflagration under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Unoccupied or vacant homes pose a greater risk for both fires and collapse than occupied homes.578 Vacant properties that are also uninsured or under-insured greatly increase the likelihood of a longer recovery time. The West Park Planning District has a lower concentration of vacant properties than many other parts of Philadelphia, and therefore has a slightly lower risk for urban conflagration. William Michael Kramer. “Disaster Planning and Control”. Fire Engineering. Retrieved January 11, 2016. Income, Housing, and Fire Injuries: A Census Tract Analysis. Donna Shai, PhD. Public Health Reports, Vol. 121, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 2006), pp. 149-154. Retrieved March 7, 2016. 577 578 Densely built urban environments pose an additional risk for conflagration. Closely built environments allow fire to spread more easily than less dense environments if not placed under control. Density mapping assists in the identification of densely built environments. The map to the right depicts the West Park Planning District’s housing density. Data was unavailable for those portions of the map left uncolored. 21.1.17 West 21.1.17.1 Geography and Hydrology The West Planning District contains addresses in the zip codes 19151, 19139, 19131, 19104, and 19143. Zip codes in the West Planning District The West planning district falls partially in the Cobbs Creek and Schuylkill River Watersheds. Watersheds in the West Planning District Council Districts in West Planning District The West Planning District resides within the 4th and 3rd Council Districts of Philadelphia. The West Planning District falls within the 19th, 18th, and 16th Police Districts. Police Districts in the West Planning District 21.1.17.2 Social Characteristics Data used for social characteristics is from the most recent American Community Survey provided from the U.S. Census. The ACS produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates over a five-year period between censuses. The data used for these statistics is from 2014. Population, Gender and Age Characteristics of the Upper Far Northeast Planning District Population 236,060 Male population 107,798 Female population 128,262 Median Age 32.2 Age dependency ratio (the percentage of the population under 15 and over 64) 51.1% Population under 15 32.7% Population over 64 18.4% 21.1.17.3 Housing, Mobility, and Poverty For emergency management, whether a home is owned or rented division implies a difference in insurance coverage which affects long-term recovery. Renters insurance covers exists mainly to cover the occupants’ belongings, not the housing itself. This can present challenges in housing unit repair and re-occupancy. Those households living in poverty may have a more difficult time preparing for and recovering from disasters, and the district’s population living below the federal line of poverty. Housing, Mobility, and Poverty Characteristics of the Upper Far Northeast Planning District Number of households Households owned Households rented No vehicle access Population below the federal line of poverty Households Owned vs Rented by Planning District 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Percentage of Households Owned Percentage of Households Rented 86,908 39,290 47,618 38,041 35.0% Poverty in the West Planning District Population Living Above the Line of Poverty Population Living Below the Line of Poverty 21.1.17.4 Disability Of those individuals residing within the West Planning District, 14.3 percent reported having a disability. Disabilities reported by individuals in the West Planning District are listed in the table below by the percentage of the total population of the District. Disabilities are not exclusive. Disability Reported Hearing difficulty Vision difficulty Cognitive difficulty Ambulatory Difficulty Self-care Difficulty Independent Living Difficulty Percentage of Population 6.1% 6.3% 7.0% 7.4% 7.1% 7.5% 21.1.17.5 West Hazards Many hazards affect the City of Philadelphia on a wide scale, such as windstorms or hurricanes, while others can have varying levels of risk across the city. These hazards include: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Infrastructure Failure Extreme Heat Flooding Hazardous Material Train Derailment Urban conflagration Each of these hazards are detailed below on the risk factors present in the Upper Far Northeast Planning District. For a complete list of hazards in the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan and a description of the city-wide risk level for each, please see the Risk Assessment section in the main body of the plan. Infrastructure Failure Bridge Failure A bridge collapse consists of a failure of decking, superstructure, or foundation leading to a progressive or immediate collapse of the entire assembly.579 Bridges can span waterways, railways, or roadways and provide overpasses for surface transportation or passenger/freight rail lines. For more information on bridge failures and its impacts, please see Bridge Failure under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Structurally deficient bridges are those have major deterioration, cracks, or other flaws that reduce its ability to support vehicles. A “structurally deficient bridge” typically requires maintenance and repairs to remain in service, or rehabilitation or replacement to address the underlying issue.580 581 Depending on the type and extent of deterioration, the Philadelphia Streets Department or PennDOT may impose weight restrictions. If the deterioration is severe, regulating agencies may shut down the bridge to traffic until maintenance crews can repair the damage. The table below shows those bridges found to be structurally deficient. The map to the below shows those bridges deemed structurally deficient in the West Planning District.582 City of Philadelphia Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. Retrieved February 16, 2016. 2010 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance - System Conditions: Highways and Bridges. Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved March 23, 2016. 581 Ibid. 582 Map Information: MPMS IQ. PennDOT. Retrieved March 2, 2016. 579 580 Structurally Deficient Bridges in the West Planning District Name Location Year Built Amtrak and SEPTA, 32nd Amtrak Northeast Corridor Amtrak (HSBG Branch) Amtrak and SEPTA Cobb’s Creek Schuylkill River, West River Dr 1964 1964 1928 1926 1964 1966 Spring Garden St, North 30th St Station Spring Garden St, near 31st St 41st St, south of Poplar St 59th St, north of Lancaster Ave Marshall Rd Spring Garden St near the Art Museum Dam Failure A dam is a barrier across flowing water that obstructs, directs, or slows down water flow. Dams provide benefits such as flood protection, power generation, drinking water, irrigation, and recreation. Failure of these structures results in an uncontrolled release of impounded water. Failures are relatively rare, but structural damages and injuries are possible in downstream communities when such events occur. For more information on dam failures and its impacts, please see Dam Failure under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. There are no dams in the West Planning District. Building Collapse Buildings may collapse for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Overall structural integrity; Poor construction or maintenance; Accidents; Environmental forces, such as wind or heavy snowfall; or Earthquakes. Building age increases the risk of collapse. The map to the right shows the number of properties built in the West Planning District built before 1939. Vacant properties also increase the risk of a building collapse, as these properties fall into disrepair and neglect. The map to the right shows the number of vacant properties in the West Planning District. The West Planning District has a higher concentration of vacant properties in the southern portion of the district than the rest of the district. Philadelphia Licenses and Inspections (L&I) records imminently dangerous structures found each year through inspections. Some of these structures have partially collapsed, while others are found and acted upon before they collapse. Property owners can repair or demolish these structures. The map below shows the location of imminently dangerous structures in the West Planning District. Extreme Heat Extreme heat can be described as temperatures that hover 10°F or more above the average high temperature for a region during the summer months. Extreme heat is responsible for more deaths in Pennsylvania than all other natural disasters combined.583 For more information on extreme heat and its impacts, please see Extreme Heat under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Philadelphia is subject to heat island effects. The heat island effect describes the phenomenon that built up areas are hotter than nearby rural areas. The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F warmer than its surroundings.584 Heat islands can affect communities by increasing energy demand, air conditioning costs, air pollution, and heat-related illness and deaths. Impervious surfaces contribute to the heat island effect. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right displays impervious surfaces in the West Planning District. Impervious Surfaces Most Impervious Least Impervious Philadelphia Planning Districts 583 584 2013 York County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Retrieved February 16, 2016. “Heat Island Effect”. US EPA. Retrieved March 3, 2016. Philadelphia, like other metropolitan areas, heats unevenly because of variations in vegetation, impervious surface coverage, and proximity to bodies of water. The map below shows this heating pattern. 585 As the map shows, the West is located in an area which experiences higher heat island effects, and feels the effects of such an event more than the bordering areas outside the city. 585 “Downscaling Air Temperature and LST Using MODIS and Landsat Data: Philadelphia 2002”. URSA. Retrieved March 7, 2016. Flooding Flooding is the temporary condition of partial or complete inundation on normally dry land and it is the most frequent and costly of all hazards in Pennsylvania. Flooding events are generally the result of excessive precipitation. General flooding typically occurs when precipitation occurs over a given river basin for an extended period of time. Flash flooding is usually a result of heavy localized precipitation falling in a short time period over a given location, often along mountain streams and in urban areas where much of the ground cover is primarily impervious surfaces. The severity of a flood event is dependent upon a combination of: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ stream and river basin topography and physiography, hydrology, precipitation and weather patterns, present soil moisture conditions, the degree of vegetative clearing, and the presence of impervious surfaces in and around floodprone areas.586 Winter flooding includes ice jams which occur when warm temperatures and heavy rain cause snow to melt rapidly. Snow melt combined with heavy rains can cause frozen rivers to swell, which breaks the ice layer on top of a river. The ice layer often breaks into large chunks, which float downstream, piling up in narrow passages and near other obstructions such as bridges and 586 “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. dams. All forms of flooding can damage infrastructure.587 For more information on flooding and its impacts, please see Flooding under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. A small portion of the West Planning District falls within either the one percent or 0.2 percent annual risk areas for a flood event. The map above shows the one and 0.2 percent annual percent flood hazard areas. Data available does not capture surface flooding from overwhelmed water management infrastructure. Those homes with a federally backed mortgage in the 1% annual chance flood event area are required to carry flood insurance. Flood insurance is not part of an average homeowner’s insurance policy and must be purchased separately. Within the West Planning District there are 16 of policies in force. For more information on the National Flood Insurance Program, see the National Flood Insurance Program section of the Capability Assessment. 587 “Standard Operating Guide”. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s All Hazard Mitigation Planning. October 18, 2013. Retrieved February 16, 2016. Flash flooding is a concern for some areas of the West Planning District, but less so than other parts of Philadelphia given the greater amount of permeable surfaces in the district. A flash flood is rapidly rising water that occurs during an intense rain storm, such as those that accompany hurricanes. A flash flood may also occur as a result of rapidly melting snow. The presence of impervious surfaces contributes to an increased risk of flash flooding. Impervious surfaces are those that are impenetrable by water, such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. The map to the right displays impervious surfaces in the West Planning District. Those areas with greater concentrations of impervious surfaces that are already in flood prone areas are at a greater risk for flash flooding. Impervious Surfaces Most Impervious Least Impervious Philadelphia Planning Districts Hazardous Material Train Derailment Derailments can happen for a variety of reasons, including: ▪ Issues with the track, roadbed, and structures the train travels on; ▪ Signal and communications issues; ▪ Human error in train operations; ▪ Mechanical and/or electrical failures; or ▪ Other causes such as environmental conditions or loading procedures.588 In many cases, derailments do not result in the compromise of tank cars carrying hazardous materials or the release of dangerous chemicals. In rare cases, a derailment can result in the release of hazardous materials. Depending on the characteristics of the material released, these events can pose explosive and/or contaminant threats to the community. For more information on hazardous material train derailment and its impacts, please see Hazardous Material Train Derailment under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Rail lines throughout the city often are multi-use lines. The same freight lines can carry a variety of different materials, both nonhazardous and select hazardous products. The map to the right illustrates those freight lines that run through Philadelphia and carry many different kinds of materials and equipment. 588 Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis. Train Accident Cause Codes. Retrieved April 13, 2016. Urban Conflagration Conflagrations are extensive, widespread fires that damage property and potentially endanger lives. Urban conflagrations spread beyond artificial and natural barriers to destroy whole sections of a city.589 While conflagrations are rare in modern, developed cities, there is the risk that they could occur after a large storm, earthquake, or during civil unrest. Simultaneous ignitions can overwhelm emergency responders. For more information on urban conflagrations and its impacts, please see Urban Conflagration under the Risk Assessment section of the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Unoccupied or vacant homes pose a greater risk for both fires and collapse than occupied homes.590 Vacant properties that are also uninsured or under-insured greatly increase the likelihood of a longer recovery time. The West Planning District has a higher concentration of vacant properties in the southern portion of the district than the rest of the district. William Michael Kramer. “Disaster Planning and Control”. Fire Engineering. Retrieved January 11, 2016. Income, Housing, and Fire Injuries: A Census Tract Analysis. Donna Shai, PhD. Public Health Reports, Vol. 121, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 2006), pp. 149-154. Retrieved March 7, 2016. 589 590 Densely built urban environments pose an additional risk for conflagration. Closely built environments allow fire to spread more easily than less dense environments if not placed under control. Density mapping assists in the identification of densely built environments. The map to the right depicts the West Planning District’s housing density. Data was unavailable for those portions of the map left uncolored.