The University of New Orleans 2011 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update

The University of New Orleans 2011 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Submitted By The Center for Hazards Assessment, Response and Technology (CHART) 1
at The University of New Orleans. October 2011
1
CHART is an applied social sciences hazard research center housed in the Department of Sociology at The University of New Orleans. Table of Contents Table of Contents ...................................................................................................... TC­1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... ES­3 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... ES­3 1. Hazard Profile ........................................................................................... ES­4 2. Vulnerability Assessment .......................................................................... ES­5 3. Mitigation Action Plan ............................................................................... ES­9 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... I­1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. I­2 1.1.1 The Problem .................................................................................................. I­2 1.1.2 Why this plan? ............................................................................................... I­3 1.2 THE PLANNING PROCESS ................................................................................ I­4 1.3 ORGANIZATION ................................................................................................. I­6 1.3.1 The Advisory Committee ............................................................................... I­6 1.4 MITIGATION PLANNING .................................................................................... I­7 1.5 HAZARD PROFILE .............................................................................................. I­8 1.6 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT ....................................................................... I­8 1.7 INVOLVING STAKEHOLDERS ........................................................................... I­9 1.7.1 Update Meetings ........................................................................................... I­9 1.7.2 Update Stakeholder Interviews ..................................................................... I­9 1.8 COORDINATION ................................................................................................. I­9 1.9 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT ............................................. I­11 1.10 GOALS ............................................................................................................ I­12 UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 TC­1 1.11 MITIGATION STRATEGIES ............................................................................ I­12 1.12 ACTION PLAN ................................................................................................. I­13 1.13 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ............................................................................... I­13 1.15 REFERENCES ................................................................................................ I­16 CHAPTER 2. HAZARD PROFILES ........................................................................... HP­1 2.1 FLOODS .......................................................................................................... HP­2 2.1.1 Description ................................................................................................ HP­2 2.1.1.1 Hurricane Flooding ................................................................................. HP­5 2.1.2 Area Affected ............................................................................................ HP­6 2.1.3 Historical Occurrences .............................................................................. HP­7 2.1.4 Frequency ............................................................................................... HP­10 2.1.5 Threat to People ...................................................................................... HP­12 2.1.6 Property Damage .................................................................................... HP­12 2.2 WIND ................................................................................................................. HP­15 2.2.1 Description .............................................................................................. HP­15 2.2.2 Area Affected .......................................................................................... HP­17 2.2.3 Historical Occurrences ............................................................................ HP­17 2.2.4 Frequency ............................................................................................... HP­19 2.2.5 Threat to People ...................................................................................... HP­20 2.2.6 Property Damage .................................................................................... HP­20 2.3 HAIL ............................................................................................................... HP­21 2.3.1 Description .............................................................................................. HP­21 2.3.2 Area Affected .......................................................................................... HP­22 2.3.3 Historical Occurrences ............................................................................ HP­22 2.3.4 Frequency ............................................................................................... HP­22 2.3.5 Threat to People ...................................................................................... HP­23 2.3.6 Property Damage .................................................................................... HP­23 2.4 LIGHTNING ................................................................................................... HP­24 2.4.1 Description .............................................................................................. HP­24 2.4.2 Area Affected .......................................................................................... HP­24 UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 TC­2 2.4.3 Historical Occurrences ............................................................................ HP­25 2.4.4 Frequency ............................................................................................... HP­25 2.4.5 Threat to People ...................................................................................... HP­25 2.4.6 Property Damage .................................................................................... HP­26 2.5. STORM SURGE ........................................................................................... HP­26 2.5.1 Description .............................................................................................. HP­26 2.5.2 Area Affected .......................................................................................... HP­27 2.5.3 Historical Occurrences ............................................................................ HP­28 2.5.4 Frequency ............................................................................................... HP­29 2.5.5 Threat to People ...................................................................................... HP­29 2.5.6 Property Damage .................................................................................... HP­30 2.6 WINTER STORMS ........................................................................................ HP­30 2.6.1 Description .............................................................................................. HP­30 2.6.2 Area Affected .......................................................................................... HP­30 2.6.3 Historical Occurrences ............................................................................ HP­31 2.6.4 Frequency ............................................................................................... HP­31 2.6.5 Threat to People ...................................................................................... HP­32 2.6.6 Property Damage .................................................................................... HP­32 2.7 SUBSIDENCE ............................................................................................... HP­33 2.7.1 Description .............................................................................................. HP­33 2.7.2 Area Affected .......................................................................................... HP­34 2.7.3 Historical Occurrences ............................................................................ HP­34 2.7.4 Frequency ............................................................................................... HP­34 2.7.5 Threat to People ...................................................................................... HP­35 2.7.6 Property Damage .................................................................................... HP­35 2.8 DROUGHT..................................................................................................... HP­35 2.8.1 Description .............................................................................................. HP­35 2.8.2 Area Affected .......................................................................................... HP­36 2.8.3 Historical Occurrences ............................................................................ HP­36 2.8.4 Frequency ............................................................................................... HP­37 UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 TC­3 2.8.5 Threat to People ...................................................................................... HP­37 2.8.6 Property Damage .................................................................................... HP­38 2.9 EARTHQUAKES ............................................................................................ HP­38 2.9.1 Description .............................................................................................. HP­38 2.9.2 Area Affected .......................................................................................... HP­40 2.9.3 Historical Occurrences ............................................................................ HP­40 2.9.4 Frequency ............................................................................................... HP­41 2.9.5 Threat to People ...................................................................................... HP­41 2.9.6 Property Damage .................................................................................... HP­41 2.10 TERMITES................................................................................................... HP­41 2.10.1 Description ............................................................................................ HP­41 2.10.2 Area Affected ........................................................................................ HP­42 2.10.3 Historical Occurrences .......................................................................... HP­42 2.10.4 Frequency ............................................................................................. HP­43 2.10.5 Threat to People .................................................................................... HP­43 2.10.6 Property Damage .................................................................................. HP­43 2.11 EPIDEMICS ................................................................................................. HP­44 2.11.1 Description ............................................................................................ HP­44 2.11.2 Area Affected ........................................................................................ HP­45 2.11.3 Historical Occurrences .......................................................................... HP­45 2.11.4 Frequency ............................................................................................. HP­45 2.11.5 Threat to People .................................................................................... HP­45 2.11.6 Property Damage .................................................................................. HP­46 2.12 MOLD .......................................................................................................... HP­46 2.12.1 Description ............................................................................................ HP­46 2.12.2 Area Affected ........................................................................................ HP­46 2.12.3 Historical Occurrences .......................................................................... HP­46 2.12.4 Frequency ............................................................................................. HP­47 2.12.5 Threat to People .................................................................................... HP­47 2.12.16 Property Damage ................................................................................ HP­48 UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 TC­4 2.13 DAM FAILURE ............................................................................................ HP­48 2.13.1 Description ............................................................................................ HP­48 2.13.2 Area Affected ....................................................................................... HP­48 2.13.3 Historical Occurrences ......................................................................... HP­48 2.13.4 Frequency ............................................................................................ HP­48 2.13.5 Threat to People .................................................................................... HP­49 2.13.6 Property Damage ................................................................................. HP­49 2.14 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPILLS ............................................................ HP­49 2.14.1 Description ............................................................................................ HP­49 2.14.2 Area Affected ........................................................................................ HP­49 2.14.3 Historical Occurrences .......................................................................... HP­50 2.14.4 Frequency ............................................................................................. HP­51 2.14.5 Threat to People .................................................................................... HP­51 2.14.6 Property Damage .................................................................................. HP­52 2.15 NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS .............................................................................. HP­53 2.15.1 Description ............................................................................................ HP­53 2.15.2 Area Affected ........................................................................................ HP­53 2.15.3 Historical Occurrences .......................................................................... HP­54 2.15.4 Frequency ............................................................................................. HP­54 2.15.5 Threat to People .................................................................................... HP­54 2.15.6 Property Damage .................................................................................. HP­55 2.1.16 CIVIL UNREST ......................................................................................... HP­55 2.16.1 Description ............................................................................................ HP­55 2.16.2 Area Affected ........................................................................................ HP­57 2.16.3 Historical Occurrences .......................................................................... HP­57 2.16.4 Frequency ............................................................................................. HP­57 2.16.5 Threat to People .................................................................................... HP­58 2.16.6 Property Damage .................................................................................. HP­58 2.17 TERRORISM ............................................................................................... HP­58 2.17.1 Description ............................................................................................ HP­58 UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 TC­5 2.17.2 Area Affected ........................................................................................ HP­59 2.17.3 Historical Occurrences .......................................................................... HP­59 2.17.4 Frequency ............................................................................................. HP­60 2.17.5 Threat to People .................................................................................... HP­60 2.17.6 Property Damage .................................................................................. HP­61 2.18 Risk Summary ............................................................................................. HP­61 2.19 References .................................................................................................. HP­63 CHAPTER 3. VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT ....................................................... VA­1 3.1 PROPERTY DAMAGE .................................................................................... VA­2 3.1.1 Building Inventory ...................................................................................... VA­2 3.1.2 Contents Values ........................................................................................ VA­4 3.2 IMPACT ON PEOPLE ..................................................................................... VA­6 3.3 UNIVERSITY OPERATIONS ........................................................................... VA­7 3.4 FLOODS .......................................................................................................... VA­8 3.4.1 Minor ......................................................................................................... VA­9 3.4.2 Major Flooding (Includes Hurricane and Levee Failure) .......................... VA­10 3.5 WIND ............................................................................................................. VA­12 3.5.1 Thunderstorms ........................................................................................ VA­13 3.5.2 Tropical Storms ....................................................................................... VA­13 3.5.3 Hurricanes (Categories 1­5) .................................................................... VA­15 3.5.4 Tornadoes ............................................................................................... VA­17 3.6 HAIL ............................................................................................................... VA­19 3.7 LIGHTNING ................................................................................................... VA­19 3.8 STORM SURGE ........................................................................................... VA­20 3.9 Winter Storms ................................................................................................ VA­22 3.10 SUBSIDENCE ............................................................................................. VA­23 3.11 DROUGHT................................................................................................... VA­24 3.12 EARTHQUAKES .......................................................................................... VA­24 3.13 TERMITES................................................................................................... VA­25 3.14 EPIDEMIC ................................................................................................... VA­26 UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 TC­6 3.15 MOLD .......................................................................................................... VA­27 3.16 DAM FAILURE ............................................................................................. VA­28 3.17 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPILLS ............................................................ VA­28 3.18 NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS .............................................................................. VA­29 3.19 CIVIL UNREST ............................................................................................ VA­30 3.20 TERRORISM ............................................................................................... VA­30 3.21 SUMMARY OF VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT ...................................... VA­32 3.21.1 Property Damage .................................................................................. VA­32 3.21.2 Impact on People .................................................................................. VA­33 3.21.3 Impact on University Operations ........................................................... VA­34 3.21.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................ VA­35 3.22 References ............................................................................................... VA­36 CHAPTER 4. MITIGATION ACTION PLAN .......................................................... MAP­1 4.1 GOALS AND STRATEGIES ......................................................................... MAP­1 4.2 POTENTIAL MITIGATION ACTIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS ..................... MAP­2 4.2.1 Flood Protection ..................................................................................... MAP­2 4.2.2 Retrofitting .............................................................................................. MAP­8 4.2.3 Development and Construction Policies ............................................... MAP­14 4.2.4 University Emergency Operations ........................................................ MAP­18 4.2.5 University Operations ........................................................................... MAP­25 4.2.6 Information and Education ................................................................... MAP­27 4.3 Action Items ................................................................................................ MAP­30 4.4 IMPLEMENTATION AND PLAN MAINTENANCE ...................................... MAP­47 4.5 References ................................................................................................. MAP­49 APPENDIX A: THUNDERSTORMS IN ORLEANS PARISH APPENDIX B: PLANNING PILOT GRANT PROGRAM PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 TC­7 UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan ES­1 January 2012 ADOPTION PAGE INSERT SCANNED COPY UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan ES­2 January 2012 Hazard Mitigation Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The University of New Orleans is subject to natural hazards and human­caused hazards, accidental or intentional that threatened life and health and have caused extensive property damage. To better understand these hazards and their impacts on people and property, and to identify ways to reduce those impacts, the University undertook the development of this Hazard Mitigation Plan. Flooding on UNO main campus from Hurricane Katrina Mitigation activities need funding. Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (42 USC 5165), a mitigation plan is a requirement for Federal mitigation funds. Therefore, a mitigation plan will both guide the best use of mitigation funding and meet the prerequisite for obtaining such funds from The Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This Mitigation Plan meets the criteria of all these programs. This Hazard Mitigation Plan was developed through a collaborative effort of the Research Team and the Disaster­Resistant University Advisory Committee at the University of New Orleans. The Research Team included members of UNO faculty and staff, representing the Center for Hazards Assessment and Response Technology (CHART), UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan ES­3 January 2012 the Environmental Health and Safety Office, the Department of Political Science, the School of Urban and Regional Studies (SURS), and graduate students. The Disaster­
Resistant Advisory Committee consisted of The sections in this Executive members representing a wide range of Summary correspond to the departments and offices from the University, and chapters in the full Plan. The was a part of the already­established UNO full text of the UNO Hazard Emergency Preparedness Committee created by Mitigation Plan can be the Chancellor. reviewed or downloaded from The Research Team led planning activities, and www.uno.edu the Advisory Committee provided collaborative input, in addition to reviewing and critiquing the draft plan. In the review process, the same committee was convened and public meetings were held to bring in new input. 1. Hazard Profile The Research Team reviewed the hazards and their effects on people and property, considered a variety of ways to reduce and prevent damage, and recommended the most appropriate and feasible measures for implementation. Its work was coordinated with various stakeholders, and a variety of local and state agencies and organizations, in addition to involving the community for public input. The Committee reviewed 15 hazards that face the University of New Orleans in the 2006 plan, but this update adds two new hazards – storm surge (originally included in floods) and dam failure, which had been added to the State of Louisiana’s Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Research Team identified these hazards as having affected the University in recent history or having the possibility of affecting it in the future. Chapter 2 reviews what causes them, their likelihood of occurrence, and their impact on people and property. The following is a list of hazards that are included in this Plan. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan ES­4 January 2012 Natural hazards Floods Wind Hail Lightning Storm Surge Winter Storms Subsidence Drought Earthquakes Termites Epidemics Mold Dam Failure Human­Caused Hazards Hazardous Material Spills Nuclear Accidents Civil Unrest Terrorism (includes acts of student violence) 2. Vulnerability Assessment Chapter 3 reviews how vulnerable the University is to property damage, threats to public health and safety, and adverse impacts on university operations from each of the 17 hazards identified in the Plan. The vulnerability assessment consisted of a nine­step procedure ranging from collecting data on property, calculating damage costs for property by hazard, and determining impacts on people and university operations by hazard to summarizing the findings to compare the relative impact of each hazard. The conclusions are as followed and can be viewed in each of the summary tables.  Some types of property and areas are more vulnerable than others. For example, buildings that contain basements are more vulnerable to flooding than other buildings. Buildings constructed of cinderbrick are more resistant to water damage by flooding, yet are more vulnerable to earthquakes than are structures of metal, wooden frame. Arena and frame structures are more vulnerable to wind damage, whereas concrete and steel structures are expected to be the most resistant to structural damage from wind, water, earthquakes, and termites.  The hazard causing the greatest amount of destruction in a single event is a wind followed by levee break flooding and terrorism. The hazard that is likely to cause the most property damage over the long run is wind.  The greatest threats to people during a single event are nuclear accidents, terrorism, hurricanes, tornadoes, and epidemics. Over the long run, the “people score” shows that greatest continuous threats are lightning, wind from tornadoes and storm surge.  Hazards that have high impacts on university operations include levee break flooding, hurricanes, tornadoes, storm surge, and terrorist attacks. Over the long run, the greatest threats to University operations are wind from tornadoes and storm surge. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan ES­5 January 2012 Property damage summary and frequencies Hazard Minor Flooding Major/Hurricane Flooding Wind ­ Thunderstorms Wind ­ Tropical Storm Wind ­ Cat I Hurricane Wind ­ Cat 2 Hurricane Wind ­ Cat 3 Hurricane Wind ­ Cat 4 Hurricane Wind ­ Cat 5 Hurricane Wind – Tornado Hail Lightning Storm Surge Winter Storms Subsidence Drought Earthquakes Termites Epidemic Mold Dam Failure Haz Mat Spills Nuclear Accidents Civil Unrest Terrorism Frequency Dollar Damage Average Annual $ Damage 1.55 $22,576 $35,725 0.020 $71,196,990 $1,431,264 $0 $0 2.18 0.400 $34,419,834 $13,767,933 0.130 $18,283,255 $2,376,823 0.050 $27,417,956 $1,370,898 0.030 $66,038,362 $1,981,151 0.010 $66,144,869 $661,449 0.006 $665,597,035 $3,993,582 0.28 $114,270,345 $31,995,697 0.57 $157,596 $89,830 0.59 $695,267 $392,642 0.90 $275,805 $247,100 0.050 $695,267 $31,162 1.000 N/A $73,393 0.03 $0 $0 0.070 $7,339,302 $513,751 1.000 N/A $224,000 0.030 $0 $0 0.020 $22,160,739 $469,222 N/A N/A N/A 0.010 $1,737,668 $17,377 0.010 $6,137,397 $61,374 0.020 $13,901,348 $278,027 0.010 $91,993,308 $919,933 UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan ES­6 January 2012 Summary of the impact on people Mental Hazard Safety Health Health Minor Flooding Low Nil Nil Major/Hurricane Flooding Mod. Mod. High Wind ­ Thunderstorms Nil Nil Nil Wind ­ Tropical Storm Mod. Mod. Low Wind – Cat 1 Hurricane Mod. Mod. Low Wind – Cat 2 Hurricane High Mod. High Wind – Cat 3 Hurricane High Mod. High Wind – Cat 4 Hurricane High Mod. High Wind – Cat 5 Hurricane High Mod. High Wind – Tornado High Mod. High Hail Nil Nil Nil Lightning High Nil Nil Storm Surge Mod. Mod. High Winter Storms Mod. Low Nil Subsidence Nil Nil Nil Drought Nil Nil Nil Earthquakes Mod. Low Low Termites Nil Low Nil Epidemic Low High High Mold Low High Mod. Dam Failure N/A N/A N/A Haz Mat Spills High Mod. Mod. Nuclear Incidents High High High Civil Unrest Mod. Low Mod Terrorism High High High Single People Event Frequency Score 12 1.55 18.60 180 0.02 3.60 3 2.18 6.54 90 0.40 36.00 90 0.13 11.70 240 0.05 12.00 240 0.03 7.20 240 0.01 2.40 240 0.006 1.44 240 0.28 67.20 3 0.57 1.71 102 0.59 60.18 180 0.90 162.00 51 0.05 2.55 3 1.00 3.00 3 0.03 0.09 60 0.07 4.20 12 1.00 12.00 210 0.03 6.30 150 0.02 3.00 N/A N/A N/A 180 0.01 1.80 3.00 300 0.01 1.80 90 0.02 3.00 300 0.01 UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan ES­7 January 2012 Summary of impact on university operations Hazard Minor Flooding Major/Hurricane Flooding Wind – Thunderstorms Wind ­ Tropical Storm Wind­ Cat 1 Hurricane Wind­ Cat 2 Hurricane Wind­ Cat 3 Hurricane Wind­ Cat 4 Hurricane Wind­ Cat 5 Hurricane Wind – Tornado Hail Lightning Storm Surge Winter Storms Subsidence Drought Earthquakes Termites Epidemic Mold Dam Failure Haz Mat Spills Nuclear Incidents Civil Unrest Terrorism Impact on University Operations nil high Number Score 1 100 nil low moderate moderate high high high high nil low high low nil nil low nil moderate moderate N/A low moderate moderate high Frequency Impact Score 1.55 1.55 0.02 2.00 2.18 0.40 0.13 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.006 0.28 0.57 0.59 0.90 0.05 1.00 0.03 0.07 1.00 0.03 0.02 N/A 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 2.18 4.00 5.20 2.00 3.00 1.00 0.60 28.00 0.57 5.90 90.00 0.50 1.00 0.03 0.70 1.00 1.20 0.80 N/A 0.10 0.40 0.80 1.00 1 10 40 40 100 100 100 100 1 10 100 10 1 1 10 1 40 40 N/A 10 40 40 100 UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan ES­8 January 2012 3. Mitigation Action Plan Chapter 4 includes the Mitigation Action Plan based on the findings set forth in Chapters 2 and 3. It provides a review of the mitigation goals set for this Plan, a list of those goals, and recommended mitigation actions that will assist the University community in achieving those goals. Following a review of goals and objectives from the original UNO Mitigation Plan and the Mitigation Plan for the Off­Site Locations, it was decided that these goals and objectives would remain with minor edits. The goals are organized under three general goal statements followed by six general strategies to implement them. These are used to guide the planning and implementation of mitigation activities and projects. The goals and strategies are as follows: Goals: 1. Protect the lives and health of the faculty, staff, students, tenants, and visitors. 2. Protect the University’s buildings, contents, utilities, and infrastructure from damage by natural and human caused hazards. 3. Ensure that disruption to the University’s operations and tenants’ operations during and following an event will be minimal. Strategies: 1. Protect, strengthen, or retrofit University buildings and facilities so they will suffer little or no damage during an incident and their occupants and contents will be protected. 2. Educate the faculty and staff as well as students and tenants, on ways to protect themselves and their property from damage by natural and human caused hazards. 3. Have the necessary emergency response facilities, equipment, staff, and procedures in place to minimize the danger and damage to people, University property, and the surrounding community during an incident. 4. Have the disaster recovery facilities, equipment, staff, and procedures in place to allow University facilities to reopen immediately after an incident, with minimal reliance on outside sources of assistance. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan ES­9 January 2012 5. Pay special attention to certain special University resources, including Library holdings, student housing, records, and art collections. 6. Invest resources needed to reach the goals at a level appropriate to the hazard and its impacts on property, people, and University operations. Potential Mitigation Actions/Recommendations/Action Items The Research Team along with the Advisory Committee identified several hazard mitigation actions that could benefit the University. These recommendations were based on a range of potential mitigation actions described in section 4.2. The recommendations were categorized according to areas of mitigation including flood protection, retrofitting, development and construction policies, emergency operations, university operations, and information and education. Specific action items were then recommended based on the general recommendations stated in section 4.2 and with five factors in mind: hazards that pose the greatest threats, appropriate measures, costs and benefits, affordability, and environmental impact. Section 4.4 lists the 15 action items that address the major hazards, are appropriate for those hazards, are cost­effective, are affordable and have minimal negative impacts on the human and natural environment. The last section of the chapter addresses how these action items are to be implemented along with the adoption and revision of the mitigation plan. Action Item 1. Maintain Permanent DRU Advisory Committee: ONGOING The University’s Mitigation Advisory Committee will continue to serve as a permanent advisory body, the DRU Advisory Committee. The Committee should continue to consider whether other individuals or groups should be invited to participate to ensure that all University interests are included in the process. They should also continue to work toward mitigation goals and engage in plan updates. This item has been completed, with the Advisory Committee continuing coordination and efforts, but will need to be maintained through the next update. Action Item 2. Drainage System Evaluation: ONGOING A review of the surface and subsurface parts of the drainage system will be conducted to ensure that all storage and conveyance facilities are designed and maintained to minimize flood damage to buildings. Evaluation of drainage is conducted with each new construction project, and drainage has been improved along Perimeter Road. As new Capital Projects and paving activities are conducted, this Action Item will continue. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan ES­10 January 2012 Action Item 3. Retrofitting Measures: ONGOING Buildings that were flooded by the Katrina levee breaks will be either (1) retrofitted with appropriate floodproofing measures or (2) rebuilt above the Katrina flood level. The retrofitting projects can be funded as mitigation actions under FEMA’s Public Assistance program. Several projects have been scoped and are ready for enactment as funding becomes available. Action Item 4. Safe Floor/Area: ONGOING The University will design and construct a “safe floor” or “safe area”, the “Campus Disaster Management Center” that will perform multiple functions. The University Computing and Communications building has been hardened and University Police have moved into this location to create such a center in a centrally­located position on the Main Campus. Action Item 5. Target Building Evaluation: ONGOING “Target buildings” will be evaluated separately to determine where they are vulnerable and to identify appropriate retrofitting or other protective actions. Additional buildings will be reviewed as needed. This activity is now part of a regular campus procedure. Action Item 6. ONGOING Future Development and Construction Policies Evaluation: The University has a variety of development and construction policies and procedures that govern how sites are developed and improved. These will be evaluated. Since 2006, a number of changes have been made to construction plans, largely in relation to knowledge gained during Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Gustav. Action Item 7. Master Plan Reassessment: EXPANDED/ONGOING Pre­Katrina, the University of New Orleans had developed a FY 2006­2007 Capital Outlay Plan that would guide the university’s major expenditures for the following 5 years. The plan contained several projects that took into consideration the costs of mitigation measures. The original Action Item referred only to this Capital Outlay Plan. However, it has come to the attention of the Advisory Committee that simply targeting the Capital Outlay Plan is not enough, and there are other plans that need integration with this plan. DRU Advisory Committee members sit on the committees for this other plan, and thus encourage this integration. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan ES­11 January 2012 Action Item 8. Building and GIS Data: ONGOING There is a wealth of information on the buildings, facilities and infrastructure on campus. However, a majority of the information is not in a format readily usable by police, fire and other emergency personnel. Some building floor prints have been collected and put into GIS, in addition to basic attributes to those buildings. Under this project, this work will continue and information will be collected, catalogued, organized, and provided in formats that first responders need. While the goal of this item is to have a fully integrated GIS for first responders, this task has not been fully completed. Now, on Sharepoint, there are digitized floor plans for every floor in every building on campus. However, this information has not been integrated with a GIS at this time. Action Item 9. Emergency Operations Procedures: ONGOING The University has several different plans for different hazards, emergencies, and contingencies. Under this action item, they will be reviewed, coordinated, and augmented as appropriate. A number of procedures have been developed for individual hazards, and this process is ongoing. Additionally, some members of the University Police staff have undergone advanced training. Action Item 10. University Emergency Communications System: EXPANDED/ONGOING The University will establish a system to identify an impending hazard as early as possible and to issue warnings appropriate to the situation. The original plan aspired at installing warning sirens. This was accomplished, with two sirens operational on campus at this time. However, the communications system has been expanded to include the e2campus alert system allowing for hazard and emergency information to be sent to registered faculty, staff and students via text message or email in addition to the shelter­in­place sirens. Currently, the University is exploring ways to improve information provided after a fire alarm has been sounded, and to incorporate emergency and disaster information through social media. Action Item 11. Business Continuity Plan: ONGOING The University will create a university­wide Business Continuity Plan (BCP) to serve as an asset in the disaster recovery process by ensuring that the University can continue mission critical functions. While an umbrella BCP has not been developed, it is now a requirement that each University unit have on Sharepoint a BCP for their unit. These plans should be reviewed and updated as needed, and the units should encourage familiarity among faculty and staff. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan ES­12 January 2012 Action Item 12. Hazard Protection Education: ONGOING A short training course on the hazards faced on campus and the appropriate safety and property protection measures will be developed. Since 2006, a University Success course has been added for all incoming freshman. Efforts are being made to incorporate more hazard preparedness information into this class. Additionally, funding from the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness has allowed incorporation of hazard preparedness and mitigation to be incorporated into more curriculums. Action Item 13. Hazard Protection Information Projects: ONGOING Each year, the DRU Advisory Committee will institute a series of projects to advise faculty, staff, and students about hazard safety and property protection. Residential students are informed about hazard mitigation activities and preparedness by Campus Facilities staff. Evacuation information is available to all faculty, staff, students and visitors and is easily accessible at the University Center’s information desk. While some projects have been implemented, this is an area that stands out as an area that could be improved upon. Action Item 14. Increased Use of On­line Learning: ONGOING The University will develop a plan to increase the continuity of university operations, particularly the continuance of classes in the event of a hazard. This plan will encourage more faculty and students to learn how to use UNO’s web­based learning tools. The plan will include the requirement of faculty to have the ability to convert his or her classes to on­line classes in a specified amount of time. Blackboard has been upgraded to Moodle and all classes have at least a shell online. The University Senate has formed a committee to explore additional integration of online learning. This committee has increased online integration of classrooms, and has expanded its goals by forming a taskforce that is looking for new opportunities to teach courses in an online­only format. Action Item 15. Violence Prevention/Mental Health: NEW ITEM The University community will review current policies and procedures related to violence prevention and related mental health issues. Based on findings, a comprehensive Action Plan will be developed to address related issues including identifying and obtaining assistance for those members of the University community who may pose a danger to themselves or others. Although this is a new item, it was identified for the satellite campus plan, and progress has been made on this item. There is a campus safety committee that meets monthly to review new information and discuss appropriate UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan ES­13 January 2012 mitigation actions. Members of the committee have had advanced training that include recognizing “red flags,” related to mental health and crisis control. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan ES­14 January 2012 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Disaster Resistant University Program: In October 2004, the University of New Orleans (UNO) was awarded a Disaster Resistant University (DRU) grant under the Pre­Disaster Mitigation Grant Program administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The grant provided the necessary funding for UNO to develop and implement a pre­disaster hazard mitigation plan with the goal of reducing risk to its students, faculty and staff, academic, administrative and athletic facilities, and research assets. The original plan was adopted in October 2005. This funding also assisted with the raising of High water line on main campus sign risk awareness throughout the University and surrounding community and the due to Hurricane Katrina. strengthening of collaborative efforts with local and state emergency responders. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Expanded Mitigation Strategies Planning Grant Pilot was authorized by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 2006. As administered in the State of Louisiana, it is referred to as the Planning Pilot Grant Program (Pilot Program). The Pilot program provides funds to update hazard mitigation plans and/or to identify and document feasible mitigation projects. Funding is derived from that seven percent of the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita HMGP fund that is available for the development of mitigation plans. The Pilot Program planning funds have been made available in part since there has been a change of regulatory standard, including the publication of FEMA­generated Advisory Base Flood Elevations (ABFEs), and the fact that many jurisdictions have experienced an extreme hazard occurrence that presents additional hazard information and unique mitigation opportunities. The funds assist applicants in updating their hazard mitigation plans to reflect new UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 I­1 information such as the ABFEs and identifying cost effective specific mitigation projects, focusing on those particular types of projects that may be eligible for HMGP funding. This 2011 update is funded through the Pilot program. 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1.1.1 The Problem The University of New Orleans (UNO) is subject to natural and human­caused hazards that threaten life and health and cause significant property damage. To better understand these hazards and their impacts on the University community, and to identify ways to reduce those impacts, an interdisciplinary research team at UNO undertook this Hazards Mitigation Plan. UNO Lakefront Campus In the last decade, disasters have affected university and college campuses with disturbing frequency, sometimes causing death and injury, but always imposing monetary losses and disruption of the institution’s teaching, research, and public service. The damage to buildings and infrastructure and interruption to the institutional mission result in significant losses that can be measured by faculty and student departures, decreases in research funding, at the least, and injury and loss of life at the extreme. For example, Hurricane Katrina in 2005 caused severe damage to campus infrastructure, resulting in the closure of the campus for over four months. Losses like these could be substantially reduced or eliminated through comprehensive pre­disaster planning and mitigation actions. These natural and human­caused disasters not only produce damaging effects to university and college campuses, they also bring about a monetary impact to the city and state in which the institution is located. For instance, UNO has a substantial influence on the economy of the City of New Orleans as well as the State of Louisiana. The University employs approximately 2,100 faculty and staff. The University generates more than $115 million in research grants and a budget of over $200,000,000. The importance of UNO to the community is also emphasized by the fact that the majority of UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 I­2 all UNO graduates remain in the New Orleans area after graduation. U.S. News & World Report ranks UNO as the 16th most popular universities in the nation. Programs in Naval Architecture & Marine Engineering and film rank among the top in the nation. Overall, effects of disasters extend far beyond the academic community, reaching the City of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana. Considering the well­being of a considerable number of students, faculty and staff, the economic impact and the potential hazards that face the city in which it resides, UNO has successfully sought funding from FEMA to reduce and manage its vulnerability to these hazards through the development of a comprehensive campus mitigation plan. Although the mitigation plan will target The Lakefront Arena is located on UNO’s East Campus. natural hazards, it will also focus on other hazards, including those that are human­
caused, whether they may be intentional or accidental. The goal of this plan is to focus on identifying and reducing risks throughout UNO’s Main and East campuses. “Hazard mitigation” does not mean that all hazards are stopped or prevented. It does not suggest complete elimination of the damage or disruption caused by such incidents. Natural forces are powerful and most natural hazards are well beyond our ability to control. Mitigation does not mean quick fixes. It is a long­term approach to reduce hazard vulnerability. As defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “hazard mitigation” refers to any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the long­term risk to life and property from a hazard event. 1.1.2 Why this plan? Every university faces different hazards and each has its own unique resources and interests to bring to bear on its problems. Because there are many ways to deal with natural hazards and many agencies that can help, there is no one solution or method for managing or mitigating their effects. Planning is one of the best ways to correct these shortcomings and produce a program of activities that will best mitigate the impact of local hazards and meet other university needs. A well­developed mitigation plan will ensure that all possible activities are UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 I­3 reviewed and implemented so that the problem is addressed by the most appropriate and efficient solutions. It can also ensure that all activities are coordinated with each other and with other goals and programs, preventing conflicts and reducing the costs of implementing each individual activity. Since the University of New Orleans is a community within Orleans Parish, the university mitigation plan can coordinate with and compliment the mitigation plan developed by the Parish. Mitigation planning and defining the university’s role during a crisis will assist both entities to collaboratively reduce or prevent damage from disasters. Vulnerability studies conducted by the City of New Orleans demonstrate that New Orleans is extremely vulnerable to a myriad of disasters, which include but are not limited to flooding (which is identified as the most likely hazard), hurricanes, tornados, strong storms, hail, subsidence, drought, levee failure, epidemics, acts of terrorism, and nuclear accidents, to name just a few (Orleans Parish Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2010). 1.2 THE PLANNING PROCESS This Plan is the product of an organizational group thought process that reviews alternatives and selects those that will work best for the situation. This process avoids the need to make quick decisions based on inadequate information. Key officials from the organization collaborated to develop the Plan and to update the original document. The ability to build the capacity to conduct hazard mitigation planning, and have it remain resident within the University community was an important goal of the project. It was also recognized that a research methodology that included a high degree of collaboration by various stakeholders was essential to the development of a user­
focused, comprehensive mitigation plan. This is exemplified by the various actors listed in section 1.3. The Advisory Committee followed the following phases of the Planning Process per FEMA guidelines for components of a local hazard mitigation plan. In updating the plan, we conducted two public meetings to generate input and to discuss changes in language, new hazards and new strategies. The initial meeting was conducted to help identify new hazards and new mitigation strategies. The second meeting discussed changes indentified from the previous meeting and from comparing the current plan to existing plans for the satellite campuses, the City of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 I­4 Step 1: Hazard Identification and Analysis This step involved describing and analyzing the 13 natural and four human­caused hazards to which the University of New Orleans could be susceptible. Chapter 2 contains the results of this planning step, includes historical data on past hazard events, and establishes an individual hazard profile and risk index for each hazard based on frequency, magnitude, and impact. The summary risk assessment in section 2.18 of the plan serves as the foundation for concentrating and prioritizing local mitigation efforts. Step 2. Vulnerability Assessment This step involved research and mapping, using best available data, to determine and assess current conditions. Chapter 3 of the plan, which contains the results of this planning step, includes descriptions of buildings located on the main and east campuses of the University, damage potential to each of those properties, and potential impact on people and university operations for each of the 17 hazards reviewed in the plan. Step 3. Goals and Objectives Next, the Advisory Committee worked to formulate and agree upon general goals and objectives for the mitigation plan based on the hazard profile and vulnerability assessment. These goals were set to guide the review of possible mitigation measures and can be found in Chapter 4. Chapter 4 also provides a review of how the goals were set by the Advisory Committee. Step 4. Mitigation Strategies Based on the Goals and Objectives, the Advisory Committee formulated the mitigation strategies summarized in Chapter 4. The recommended mitigation actions were deemed appropriate for the University, reflective of school priorities, and consistent with other plans for the campus Step 5. Action Plan The Advisory Committee developed an Action Plan based on the mitigation strategies and goals. Mitigation projects or action items were then developed. This step included designating responsibility for implementation of each action. The committee also established a procedure for review and revisions of the plan. The review process provides for the general public to have input on plan review. Then they developed a UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 I­5 procedure for a comprehensive review and update of the plan on a 5­year schedule. The results of this planning step are found in Chapter 4 of the mitigation plan. Step 6. Adoption The Chancellor of the University then adopted the Plan based on the recommendation by the Advisory Committee. The adoption followed a public review period. 1.3 ORGANIZATION 1.3.1 The Advisory Committee The Advisory Committee members’ names and positions are as followed: Darlene Berggren, Auxiliary Services Jim Burgard, University Computing and Communication Monica Farris, Ph.D. CHART Steven Day, University Police Scott Whittenburg, Academic Affairs & Fiscal Administration Marco Perez, Lakefront Arena David Richardson, Environmental Health and Safety James Royer, Facility Services Tom Harrington, Public Safety Joel Chatelain, Campus Services Merrill L. Johnson, Academic Affairs Janice Lyn, Student Life Denise Perez, Student Wellness and Health Promotion Deborah Hadaway, Facility Services Sherri Ganucheau, Risk Management Jeanie Decuers, Campus Services Lee Robert, Facility Services In order to develop a comprehensive campus mitigation plan that addresses multiple hazards, various planning activities were accomplished. These included a risk assessment, priority profiling of potential hazards, a vulnerability assessment, and multiple interviews with key stakeholders. Also, an interdisciplinary committee of resident experts from UNO was formed. These committee members represented a wide range of offices and departments, including the Center for Hazards Assessment Response and Technology (CHART), the Environmental Health and Safety Office, Student Affairs, Student Housing, University Administration including the Chancellor’s Office, Academic Affairs, Facility Services, Human Resources, University Computing and Communications, Public Information, the Lakefront Arena and University Police. These people were selected for this interdisciplinary advisory team to provide collaborative input, identify and develop mitigation strategies, review and critique plan drafts, and to provide diverse viewpoints in order to create a disaster­resistant university campus. Moreover, they were a part of the already­established UNO Emergency Preparedness Committee created by the Chancellor to discuss emergency issues and UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 I­6 strategies on campus. These professionals have dealt with previous campus emergency situations. 1.3.2 The Research Team Participant Monica Farris David Richardson John Kiefer Carrie Beth Lasley Departments CHART = Center for Hazards Assessment and Response Technology Table 1.1 Hazard mitigation research team Department CHART Environmental Health & Safety Political Science, Public Administration Position Principal Investigator Safety Officer Associate Professor CHART­Urban Studies PhD, GIS GIS = Geographic Information Systems Research Assistant The Research Team that led the plan update included CHART staff and UNO faculty and staff, representing CHART, the Environmental Health and Safety Office, and a CHART graduate student from the School of Regional and Urban Affairs. The Research Team followed a standard process, based on FEMA’s guidance and requirements. They assessed the hazards facing the University, set goals, and reviewed a wide range of activities that can mitigate the adverse effects of the hazards. The following sections of the chapter describe the tasks performed by the Research Team. 1.4 MITIGATION PLANNING The Research Team conducted a thorough risk assessment, identifying potential hazards that may impact the University of New Orleans. This information was gathered through newspaper articles in the local newspaper, the Times­Picayune; the Lexis­Nexis database; Internet websites such as the Federal UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Kick­
Emergency Management Agency Off Meeting, June 2011 (FEMA) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); insurance claim files made available by the UNO Office of Risk Management and the State of Louisiana Office of Risk Management; and UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 I­7 hazard profiles developed by the City of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana. The significant data collected from these sources yielded a list of potential hazards that could affect UNO. 1.5 HAZARD PROFILE Comprehensive maps of UNO’s buildings along with building details and descriptions of each building, facility and infrastructure (when available) are now saved on the University’s shared drive allowing access to those who plan, etc. These data provide information to the research team about campus facilities that could be affected by and/or that may need to be closed due to a variety of hazards such as flooding or power outages. These maps can be continually expanded and adapted for campus emergency personnel to use as an ongoing planning tool and serves as part of the University’s geographic information system. 1.6 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT A detailed inventory was conducted of campus assets during the organization phase. This inventory went beyond the mapping of the asset locations and provided the description and value of each asset valued at over $1,000.00 on campus. The vulnerability assessment was based on the hazard profiles and the inventory of assets of the University as reported by the UNO Department of Property Control and updated by the Office of Risk Management. This assessment helped determine what is actually at risk from an identified hazard, and allowed the Research Team to estimate potential structural and monetary losses, while at the same time prioritizing components of the mitigation plan. The vulnerability assessment included a detailed description of each University facility in terms of its square footage, construction make­up (i.e., number of floors, type of foundation, roof material and construction, and building material), date of construction, and use. The Research Team also identified three critical structures; the Administration Annex, the University Communications and Computing Center (UCC), and the Central Utility Plant, as particularly vulnerable because of their importance to the continuity of campus operations and the high value contents. In addition, the Administration Annex is currently identified as a command center for top University administrators before and after hazard events, and campus­wide communication infrastructure is housed in the UCC. For these three facilities, engineering surveys were conducted to ascertain structural vulnerability. Since the update, more of the critical functions for the University UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 I­8 have been moved to these buildings to create an emergency center inside the University Computing Center. 1.7 INVOLVING STAKEHOLDERS 1.7.1 Update Meetings For the update, two public meetings were held on campus seeking Plan input and the resulting information was integrated into this document. The first meeting was held on July 12, 2011 during the drafting phase of the Plan. The second meeting was held on September 13, 2011 following the completion of the first full draft but prior to the Plan’s final adoption and approval. Both meetings were advertised in The Times­Picayune and UNO News (sent via email by UNO Public Relations to all UNO email addresses). The full draft Plan was posted on UNO­CHART’s website for review. Stakeholders were given the opportunity to voice comments/questions at both meetings and/or submit comments/questions via UNO­CHART’s email address before and after both meetings. Changes largely occurred as the result of changes to University since the previous plan or because of changes in Plan requirements. 1.7.2 Update Stakeholder Interviews Additional interviews were conducted with faculty/staff at UNO throughout the drafting process. These included interviews with David Richardson, Safety Officer, Sherri Ganucheau, Risk Management, Lee Robert and James Royer, Facility Services and Steve Day, University Police, to gather information pertaining to emergency operations and response to hazards. For the update, information that needed to be collected was identified and stakeholders and informants sought to fill in gaps about new hazards and changes to the University’s physical plant and operations. 1.8 COORDINATION Existing plans and programs were reviewed during the planning process. Reviewed items include all university emergency and evacuation plans including the Bomb Threat Response Procedure, Bomb Scare Procedures, Significant Rain Event Response Plan, Hurricane Preparedness Guidelines and Action Plan, the university FY 2006­2007 Capital Outlay Plan and other master plans that guide University policies and procedures. The UNO Mitigation Plan for its Off­Campus Locations 2011, the Orleans UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 I­9 Parish Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010) and the Louisiana State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010) were also reviewed. These local planning mechanisms were reviewed and incorporated as appropriate into the UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan. Please refer to Chapter 4, Action Item 7, of the Plan for a complete overview of campus planning mechanisms. The UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan Update will be made available for incorporation into local planning mechanisms and other plans will incorporate the goals and strategies of the Plan through the following process:  The Plan, including all Updates, will be distributed to all University departments charged with developing and maintaining other University planning mechanisms to include all Plans mentioned here.  The DRU Advisory Committee will be charged with reviewing other planning mechanisms to ensure that the contents of each reflect and do not contradict the Plan (See Chapter 4 for an overview of the Committee’s responsibilities).  DRU Advisory Committee members will serve on other planning committees on campus. Members will be charged with incorporating the strategies and goals of The Plan into other existing planning exercises and documents as appropriate, and will see to it that planning mechanisms external to The Plan do not contradict its goals and strategies.  All University plans, including the Capital Outlay Plan, the Strategic Plan, and the Institutional Effectiveness Plan, will be reviewed annually in light of the annual report produced by the DRU Advisory Committee. At this time, appropriate mitigation projects and other plan elements should be considered for inclusion in these planning documents. As of this Plan Update, the “consideration of mitigation and risk reduction” is specifically mentioned in UNO’s 2007­2010 Strategic Plan. In addition, the Strategic Plan sets goals related to emergency awareness and alerts, incorporating hazard mitigation in rebuilding efforts, upgrading the electricity in the UCC, ensuring redundancy of the network, and incorporating disaster planning into the business continuity plan for all units. No specific elements of the current Mitigation Plan were incorporated in any other UNO plan except of course for the Mitigation Plan for the Off­Campus Locations. During the planning process, contacts were made with various agencies and organizations (See following list for names of Agencies and Organizations that were contacted). Each agency/organization was sent a notice via email requesting their review of the draft Plan, providing them a link to view the plan, and inviting them to an upcoming hazard mitigation planning public meeting. They were advised that the draft UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 I­10 could be reviewed on the CHART website and they were asked to provide any comments or relevant information regarding any plans, programs, activities, or ideas that could help in the effort to identify the best ways to reduce the dangers and damage from future hazards. The organizations and/or agencies were asked to provide any information by contacting the planning team. In addition to the direct emails, all stakeholders were invited to participate in two public meetings via posts in The Times­
Picayune and the UNO News (sent via email by UNO Public Relations to all UNO email addresses). Agencies: 1. Federal Emergency Management Agency Region VI 2. Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness 3. Orleans Parish Hazard Mitigation Office 4. Orleans Levee District Organizations: 1. Ben Franklin High School 2. Lakeview Civic Improvement Association 3. Lakeview Crime Prevention District 4. Gentilly Neighborhood Association 5. LSU Cooperative Extension Services 6. National Weather Service 7. Southeast Louisiana American Red Cross 8. Salvation Army 9. Burbank Civic & Improvement Association 10. Milneburg Civic Association 11. Gentilly Heights/East 12. Lake Oaks Civic Association 13. Lake Terrace Property Owner’s Association 14. Oak Park Civic Association 15. Seabrook Neighborhood Association 16. Vista Park Civic & Improvement Association 1.9 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT An extensive profile of potential UNO hazards was created based on historical accounts, existing emergency plans, and knowledge of students, faculty, and staff. The various hazards identified through the risk assessment were then prioritized based on the likelihood of occurrence, severity of the hazard and cost of damage to the University. This information provided a basis for mitigation planning efforts in terms of focus and allocation of resources. The hazards reviewed include those locally reported and all natural hazards listed in the State and Orleans Parish Hazard Profiles. They are: UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 I­11 Natural Hazards Floods* Wind* Hail Lightning Storm surge Winter storms Subsidence Drought Earthquakes Termites Epidemics Mold Dam Failure Human­caused Hazards Hazardous materials spills Nuclear accidents Civil unrest Terrorism *Hurricanes are included in these hazard descriptions. The hazard data, any public input, and the Advisory Committee’s findings and conclusions are covered in Chapter 2 of this Plan. For this update, the list of hazards was updated to include storm surge and dam failure. Chapter 2 assesses each hazard – what causes it and the likelihood of occurrence. Chapter 3 reviews the impact of these hazards on UNO. 1.10 GOALS After the Advisory Committee reviewed the hazards, it developed the goals to mitigate their impacts. These are listed in Chapter 4. They were used to guide the selection of mitigation measures. These goals were maintained for the update with some revision to accommodate a more inclusive language that better coordinated with the hazard mitigation plan developed for the satellite locations. 1.11 MITIGATION STRATEGIES The Research Team, in consultation with the Advisory Committee, considered a wide range of strategies that could positively affect the impact of the hazards and developed alternatives. They are organized under five general strategies for reaching the goals. These strategies are the subject of Chapter 4 in this Plan.       Property protection – e.g., relocation out of harm’s way, retrofitting buildings Preventive – e.g., restricted access to sensitive areas, securing power plant Emergency services – e.g., warning, response, evacuation Structural projects – e.g., drainage improvements University operations Public information – e.g., outreach projects UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 I­12 For this update, strategies from the previous plan were evaluated by the team and Advisory Committee. The existing strategies were deemed still relevant and important. As such, it was decided that these strategies would remain the same. 1.12 ACTION PLAN After the alternatives were reviewed, the Research Team drafted an “action plan” that specifies recommended projects, who is responsible for implementing them, and when they are to be done. The action plan is included as Chapter 4 of this Hazard Mitigation Plan. Each action item was carefully reviewed during the update process by the Research Team and the Advisory Team. The actions were also presented during the public meetings. The action plan now includes one new action item, Item #15 – Violence Prevention/Mental Health. This action item was identified during the team and Advisory Committee’s coordination in developing the satellite campuses plan and was included in the 2011 update for the main campus as well. The remaining action items were updated based on any progress made in completing the actions. Plan maintenance was highlighted in the update with specific information added on how the public could better participate in plan updates and overall plan maintenance. 1.13 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION There are many ways that the public could participate in the drafting of this hazard mitigation plan. The Research Team identified the most effective ways for public participation. The campus community and neighboring communities along with local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities were provided with opportunities to comment on the action plan during the drafting stage and prior to approval of the plan. The various agencies and organizations along with neighborhood community associations are listed in section eight of this chapter. After the draft action plan was completed, a news release was issued by the UNO Public Relations staff announcing the plan, and it was posted on the University of New Orleans web site for public review. A special link, “UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan ready for public input,” directed individuals to the hazard mitigation plan. Prior to the approval of the Plan, a news release was again sent to the UNO community announcing that revisions to the Plan were posted on the University’s website and were available for review. A special link directed individuals to the revised plan. The public was invited to submit comments. . UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 I­13 Again, two public meetings were held prior to the completion of the draft. All comments were incorporated into the final draft. 1.14 UPDATING THE PLAN  Planning Process: The DRU Advisory Committee has been active since the previous plan was created. In updating the planning process, we conducted two public meetings, inviting the participation of the Advisory Committee, to generate input and to discuss changes in language, new hazards and new strategies. The initial meeting was conducted to help identify new hazards and new mitigation strategies. The second meeting discussed changes indentified from the previous meeting and from comparing the current plan to existing plans for the satellite campuses, the City of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana. In both plans, ideas, progress and new mitigation strategies were requested from participants  Risk Analysis: To update the risk analysis, state and local plans were reviewed to see how others classified hazards. Vulnerability was updated on conjunction with Risk Management. The values and uses of buildings were confirmed or updated. New construction was added to the list and frequencies were recalculated.  Mitigation Strategy: The team and UNO community reviewed the existing mitigation strategies and added one new activity. Several other activities were updated or enhanced based on progress since the initial plan or because of changing conditions or knowledge about University processes.  Plan Maintenance: By gaging the capabilities and successes of the previous five years, the current planning process was carried over and enhanced. Enhancements include regular annual updates, and hosting a public comment period and public meeting to seek review between official plan updates. 1.15 DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA OF STUDY The University of New Orleans was established by the Louisiana Legislature in 1956. It was created to bring public­supported higher education to the state’s largest urban community. The Board of Supervisors acquired a 195­acre site in New Orleans, Louisiana on the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain. The property was a former United States Navy air station. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 I­14 TABLE 1.2 UNO Student Population Breakdown White 56% African­American 14.6% Hispanic 6.7% Asian 5.6% International 650 students A number of the buildings remaining on the property were renovated for academic purposes during the winter and spring of 1958. In September 1958, Louisiana State University in New Orleans opened. It was later renamed the University of New Orleans in 1974. By 1962, the University was operating as a full four­year, degree­granting institution. Today, programs of study are offered through six academic undergraduate colleges, including: Business Administration, Education and Human Development, Engineering, Liberal Arts, Sciences, and Urban Studies. There is also a Graduate School. (www.uno.edu, 2011). The University of New Orleans main campus consists of 20 major academic, administrative, and residential buildings, while the East Campus consists of 200 acres that include an arena with the seating capacity for 10,000 people, sports facilities, and one administrative building. UNO is a public university with an approximate enrollment of 11,000 students (8,000 undergraduates and 3,000 graduate students) resulting in its ranking as the largest public university in the city and the third largest in the state. The student body is diverse with 56% white, 14.6% black, 6.7% Hispanic, 5.6% Asian, and approximately 650 international students. The University is comprised of a faculty and staff of over 2,100 people (www.uno.edu, 2011). The University of New Orleans is classified as a Southern Regional Education Board Four­Year II institution, as a Carnegie Doctoral/Research Intensive University, and as a Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Level VI institution. It was officially transferred from the Louisiana State University System to the University of Louisiana System in July 2011, and the transfer was under way at the writing of this update. The University of New Orleans has become a comprehensive urban university that provides academic support for the enhancement of the educational, economic, cultural, and social well­being of the New Orleans metropolitan area (www.uno.edu, 2011). UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 I­15 1.15 REFERENCES Office of Emergency Preparedness. (2010). “Orleans Parish Hazard Mitigation Plan”. City of New Orleans. Louisiana Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness. “ (2010). “Louisiana State Hazard Mitigation Plan.” State of Louisiana.
UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 I­16 CHAPTER 2. HAZARD PROFILES This chapter reviews the natural and human­caused hazards that face The University of New Orleans Main and East campuses. The hazards described here are based on the State of Louisiana Hazard Profile, the City of New Orleans Hazard Profile, the University of New Orleans Hazard Profile (Off­sire locations) and/or were identified by the Research Team as having affected the specified locations in recent history. Natural Hazards Floods (Stormwater, groundwater, levee faiur and hurricane) Wind (Thunderstorms, tornadoes Tropical storms and hurricanes) Lightning Storm surge Winter storms Subsidence Drought Earthquakes Termites Epidemics Mold Dam Failure Human­caused Hazards Hazardous materials spills Nuclear accidents Civil unrest Terrorism This chapter has seventeen sections, one for each hazard identified in this Plan. The first two natural hazards, floods and wind, are actually the result of a variety of occurrences such as tropical storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, and levee failure. Rather than address each of the aforementioned occurrences as separate hazards, this Plan examines these from their potential impacts: flooding and high winds. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­1 2.1 FLOODS 2.1.1 Description Floods are caused by the presence of more water than the drainage system can convey. There are a number of types of flood hazards facing UNO’s Main Campus and East Campus: stormwater flooding; groundwater flooding; riverine flooding (e.g., ‘overbank’ or ‘backwater’ flooding); and extensive flooding resulting from levee failure. A number of natural events can bring about flooding, including thunderstorms, heavy and/or prolonged rain events, and tropical storms and hurricanes. Potential for flooding from storm surge and dam failure are covered in sections 2.5 and 2.13, respectively. Minor Flooding Types Stormwater Flooding: Stormwater flooding typically Campus Rain Event August 2010 follows local heavy rains. Stormwater drainage can be a problem during heavy rain storms, and thus surface flooding is common. Additionally, the levees that protect the densely populated areas of Orleans Parish make it more difficult for stormwater to flow out. Stormwater must be pumped over the levee system and into Lake Pontchartrain or other local waterbodies. There are 22 drainage pumping stations that perform this task, and they can drain the city of 29 billion gallons a Example of a clogged storm drain inlet day (Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans 2011). Flooding in New Orleans occurs most frequently in the summer and early fall due to weather patterns that allow for monsoon­
like storm events fed by heat and humidity. The pumping system can remove approximately one inch of rainfall in the first hour, and one­half inch each additional hour from the city, and therefore large storms can overwhelm the city leading to localized flooding problems, especially in lower­lying areas (Monteverde 2009). UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­2 In the case of UNO’s Main and East campuses, stormwater flows from the high ground near the lake toward Leon C. Simon Boulevard, affecting off­campus parking as well as ingress and egress points on campus as storm drains are overwhelmed and water backs up into the roadways. Clogging from debris can create a situation in which stormwater is unable to access the underground drainage system and backups ensue with smaller rain events than would be expected. Groundwater flooding: Groundwater is sub­surface water, and the potential for groundwater flooding increases with the proximity of a structure to the water table. The distance between the ground surface and the water table varies from place to place, and the distance decreases in times of heavy precipitation. Groundwater flooding is a concern for all of UNO’s campus locations as locally heavy precipitation may produce flooding in areas other than delineated floodplains or along recognizable drainage channels. If local conditions cannot accommodate intense precipitation through a combination of infiltration and surface runoff (“sheet flow”), water may accumulate (“pond”) and cause flooding problems. Drainage of floodwaters in Orleans Parish is accomplished through a system of subsurface drainage lines, canals and drainage pump stations. This system has proven in the past to be inadequate to handle certain volumes of floodwater which has led to groundwater flooding. Basements are particularly prone to flooding from groundwater. Two buildings on UNO’s campus have basements – the Liberal Arts Building and the Sciences Building. However, underground electrical components are also threatened by groundwater flooding. Major Flooding Types Riverine Flooding: Flooding of rivers and their tributaries and floodplains may occur during periods of heavy precipitation as a result of runoff. The Bonnet Carré Spillway serves as the primary flood control system for the Lower Mississippi River Valley; located in nearby St. Charles Parish, the floodway protects New Orleans and other nearby and downriver communities from major Mississippi River flooding by diverting excess water into Lake Pontchartrain. Additional upstream floodways include the Morganza Floodway and the West Atchafalaya Floodway. Although flooding from the Mississippi River is unlikely to UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­3 affect the Main and East Campuses of UNO, maps released during the May 2011 Mississippi River flooding event indicated that up to 20 feet of water from the Mississippi River is possible should the floodways not be operated in time. UNO N Figure from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Interagency Performance and Evaluation Team Report Two breaches in the London Avenue Levees caused flooding on UNO’s Main Campus during Hurricane Katrina in 2005 Levee Failure Flooding: Levee failure flooding could result from a number of factors during a natural hazard event, including surface or internal erosion, under­seepage, and overtopping. The primary levee, north of the Main and East Campuses along Lake Pontchartrain was not breached during Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and has been lifted since that event. However, a storm surge that overtopped this levee could lead to flooding on the Main and East Campuses of greater than 10 feet. Two breaches along the interior London Avenue Canal during Katrina exposed the secondary weakness of the interior levees, allowing floodwaters to come from the south and flood parts of the Main Campus. The effects on campus should the Lake Pontchartrain levees fail will be described in the profile of storm surge. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­4 Flooding on Leon C. Simon Boulevard (southern boundary of campus) 2.1.1.1 Hurricane Flooding Hurricane flooding can be either minor or major. Smaller storms or those that make landfall farther away, including Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in 2008, cause just minor flooding due to the volume of rain, which can cause either/both groundwater or storm water flooding. During these events, the levees protected the City and the University from major flooding. In the event of a levee failure or a storm surge that exceeds the levee design, the University may experience levee failure or storm surge, which will be profiled in section 2.5. Most Hurricanes to flood the area have caused just rainfall flooding, Hurricane Andrew (2000), Hurricane Betsy (1965) and Hurricane Camille (1969) caused about 6 inches of UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­5 rainfall in the area, but dropped as much as 11 inches in nearby areas.2 According to the NCDC, Hurricane Katrina (2005) included 8­10 inches of rain, causing minor flooding on campus, but it was levee failure that caused major flooding on the South and west parts of campus. Storm surge contributed to levee failure, but did not overtop the lakefront levees. 2.1.2 Area Affected The state of Louisiana is highly prone to flooding, and it is the state’s most prevalent natural hazard. This is largely due to Louisiana’s location near the end of the Mississippi River Basin and its proximity to the Gulf of Mexico, in addition to the number of rivers, streams, and bayous throughout the state. Also, the climate throughout most of the state lends itself to heavy rainfall. The delta area of southeastern Louisiana, including Orleans Parish where UNO’s main and East campus are located, receives the highest rainfall of any other part of the state. Hence, both campuses are susceptible to flood hazards. There are three ways to examine flood risk at the current time: 1.) The effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Orleans Parish is undergoing modernization as this document is written. This map indicates that the UNO Campuses lie in an AO Zone for flooding and are subject to sheetflow of up to 1.5 feet above grade during a flood with a 1 percent annual chance of occurring. 2.) The Advisory Base Flood Elevation (ABFE) is the current standard for all new construction in New Orleans. The ABFE is 3 feet above the highest existing adjacent grade, or the elevation indicated on the effective FIRM, whichever is higher. In the case of UNO, which is subject to just 1.5 feet in the effective FIRM, the ABFE would be the regulatory standard. 3.) The Preliminary Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map is available for review at this time. Likely to be adopted before this plan is updated again; it represents the best available knowledge of current flood risk. It places the majority of both the Main and East campuses out of the regulatory flood zone for a 1 percent annual chance of flooding. However, areas west and near Founders Boulevard, and near Leon C. Simon Boulevard are considered to be in the AE Zone, a zone at risk for flooding up to 1 foot above sea level. Buildings in this zone include: The Cove, Facility Services, Lafitte Village, the Bicentennial Education Building, Geology & Psychology Building, Science Building, Engineering Building, The Commons, the Oliver St. Pe Center, Bienville Halls, Pontchartrain Halls and the Human Performance Center. These buildings would be subject to flooding to the level of 1 foot above sea level, but in a number of cases, the ground level exceeds this height. 2
Pfost, Russell L. (1993) Rainfall Patterns and Hurricane Andrew: A Hydro­
meteorological Survey. Technical Attachment. Slideall, La: Lower Mississippi River Forecast Center. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­6 UNO CAMPUS Excerpt from Orleans Parish Flood Insurance Rate Map, Panel 95, March 1, 1984 2.1.3 Historical Occurrences Stormwater flooding, although most typical in the summer or early fall, can happen at any time of the year. The May 1995 stormwater flooding event is one such event commonly referred to in the area. A two­day period inundated the New Orleans area with up to 20 inches of rainfall during a 12­
hour period. Damages in the New Orleans region totaled $1 billion. The May 1995 event was a federally declared disaster. However, smaller storms have caused localized flooding and damages. Local media reports state that flash flooding from Hurricane Betsy’s flooding storm events occurred in March 2011, when 2 inches of rain fell UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­7 in less than two hours, and several times in December 2009 when there were rainfalls of greater than 3 inches on four occasions within a week’s time. Groundwater flooding is brought on by heavy rains and thunderstorms, as well as tropical storms and hurricanes. All 14 Federally Declared Disasters for New Orleans since 1965 have involved rain events. Over the last 20 years, four of these events have entailed 10 inches or more falling in a 24­hour period. The two major levee failure flooding events in New Orleans’ recent history have occurred as a result of Hurricanes Betsy (1965) and Katrina (2005). Other storms have caused flooding in Orleans parish but had limited or no affect on campus. During Betsy in September of 1965, the waters of Lake Pontchartrain overtopped the levees, flooding some sections of the city. Betsy’s maximum winds were up to 140 mps and made landfall near the mouth of the Mississippi River. Levee failure occurred south of the University of New Orleans along the Industrial Canal, but this flooding did not affect campus, which was flooded by rain. About 164,000 homes were flooded by Hurricane Betsy. Betsy was the first hurricane to result in $1 billion in damage, and 58 lives were lost. The flooding that resulted from Hurricane Katrina was far more extensive, and multiple levee breaches around the city caused the majority of the city of New Orleans and part of the UNO campuses to be inundated – in addition to widespread flooding throughout parishes bordering Orleans Parish (e.g., Jefferson, Plaquemines, and St. Bernard). Prior to impacting the Gulf Coast, Hurricane Katrina reached Category 5 intensity before wind shear and impact with the coast reduced the storm to Category 3 strength with sustained winds of 130 mph upon landfall August 29 at Buras in Plaquemines Parish. On August 28, a mandatory evacuation of the city was enforced, and campus was absent of faculty, staff, students and residents at the time of the event. The storm surge of up to 28 feet overcapacitated the levee system at several locations, causing failures, breaches and overtopping in various locations. This storm surge exceeds what is expected from a Category 3 storm, and is more in line with what would be expected from a Category 5 storm. More than 220 miles of levees would need to be repaired or restored after Katrina’s impact. While the most severe impact was felt southeast of campus in the Lower Ninth Ward and St. Bernard Parish, about 80 percent of the city was impacted including some areas of campus as identified in the map below which identifies the footprints of University of New Orleans buildings and flood depths on campus and in the surrounding area. In all, more than 134,000 structures were flooded in Orleans Parish. Although hurricane flooding on campus was limited to areas on the south UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­8 and east portions of campus, and much of campus was dry, some of the most severe flooding occurred just off campus and many nearby residents who did not heed the evacuation orders occupied campus to secure dry clothing, food and water. N Areas flooded by the Hurricane Katrina levee break. Building footprints in the map correspond to University of New Orleans properties. The final costs wrought by Hurricane Katrina in southeast Louisiana remain unknown; however, estimates from the National Hurricane Center suggest that at least $81 billion of damage occurred. Flooding during Hurricane Katrina began after the London Avenue Canal was breached in two locations. Lower­lying portions of campus in the south and west were flooded from these breaches beginning on August 30, 2005. Students, faculty and staff had been evacuated for the event, but property damage from flooding included damage to carpet and floor tiles, warping of wooden and particle board furniture and damage to contents. Additionally, there was damage to infrastructure, including HVAC systems located in the basement of Liberal Arts. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­9 Hurricane Rita reinundated some of these areas less than a month later, when on September 24, 2005, the storm made landfall in Johnsons Bayou Louisiana in far western Cameron Parish. Although a Category 3 storm at landfall, Rita, too, achieved Category 5 strength while over open Gulf waters. Storm surge from Rita entered through unrepaired breaches. The impact on campus is combined with damages from Hurricane Katrina since the campus had not yet been reoccupied. During Hurricane Gustav in 2008, the city was under a mandatory evacuation, so there were not students, faculty or staff on campus. On September 2, 2008, Gustav came ashore as a Category 2 hurricane in Cocodrie, with winds sustained at 105 mph. Although surges were as high as 13 feet, the levee system near campus held and did not experience overtopping. The levee system held, and flooding was limited to minor drainage issues along Perimeter Road. Less than a month later, Hurricane Ike passed offshore prior to making landfall as a Category 2 hurricane on September 13, 2008 in Galveston, Texas. Although landfall was far away, its path and size caused low­land flooding and damage in Southeastern Louisiana. There was no flooding or damage to campus, but it forced the cancellation of classes for one day. 2.1.4 Frequency Minor Flooding: Stormwater and groundwater flooding: These two sources of flooding are connected. In Orleans Parish, there have been 28 minor flooding events since 1994.3 Frequency: 1.55. 3
The data used to calculate the frequency of flood events – and the data used to calculate the frequency of all the hazards events listed in this hazard mitigation plan – are drawn from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). The Storms Events database contains the following sources: (1) all weather events from 1993 ­ 1995, as entered into Storm Data. (Except 6/93 ­ 7/93, which is missing) (NO Latitude/Longitude); (2) all weather events from 1996 ­ Current, as entered into Storm Data. (Including Latitude/Longitude); and (3) additional data from the Storm Prediction Center, including tornadoes (1950­1992), Thunderstorm Winds (1955­1992), and Hail (1955­1992). UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­10 Table 2.1 Recent Minor Flood Events, Orleans Parish Date Number of Property Damage Deaths 05/09/1994 0 $500,000 05/08/1995 4 0 05/19/1997 0 0 01/05/1998 0 0 03/07/1998 0 0 04/29/1998 0 0 08/21/1998 0 0 09/11/1998 0 0 08/09/1999 0 0 06/05/2001 0 0 06/07/2001 0 $25,000 06/11/2001 0 $50,000 06/21/2001 0 0 08/17/2002 0 0 08/22/2002 0 0 09/25/2002 0 0 06/19/2003 0 $150,000 06/30/2003 0 $130,000 12/21/2006 0 0 10/22/2007 0 0 04/26/2008 0 0 06/15/2008 0 0 06/29/2008 0 0 03/27/2009 0 0 09/13/2009 0 0 12/12/2009 0 0 04/23/2010 0 0 05/16/2010 0 $10,0000 Source: National Climatic Data Center website. Major Flooding: Levee failure flooding: A 1993 FEMA Flood Insurance Study for Orleans Parish recognizes that federally built levees were considered to remain intact during the 100­year storm event. Proper maintenance of the levees is essential in maintaining the level of protection from the levees. As the levees consolidate and/or subside, the frequency and severity of surge overtopping could increase and create higher hazards in the areas protected by the levees. Congress authorized the Lake Pontchartrain project to protect the New Orleans from flooding caused by storm surge or rainfall associated with a hurricane that had the chance of occurring once in 200 years. This was termed as the “standard project hurricane” and represented the most severe combination of meteorological conditions considered reasonable for the region. As hurricanes are currently characterized, the Corps’ standard project hurricane approximately equals a fast­moving category 3 hurricane, according to the Corps. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­11 Weaknesses in the levee system were revealed by Katrina. This plan estimates that deeper flooding caused by levee failure could affect the campus once every 50 years. Frequency: 0.02 Hurricane Flooding: Previous flooding from hurricanes has occurred only in association with a levee break. Using the same standards as in levee failure, water should not over top and levees should not break for smaller hurricanes. Using the Corps standard, hurricane flooding should occur just once every 50 years. Frequency: 0.02. Major flooding on UNO main campus due to levee failure 2.1.5 Threat to People The risk presented to human life by floodwater varies depending on its depth. Aside from the threat of drowning, a number of circumstances contribute to flood deaths, including: imminent health issues (e.g., heart attack, stroke) prompted by exertion; electrocution; fires; and secondary hazards like gas leaks. Direct deaths are those attributable to the direct effects of winds, floods, and storm surges, while indirect deaths are those attributable to hurricane­related accidents (e.g., auto accidents, sanitation issues). The human death toll from Hurricane Katrina is still debated, but the number of deaths resulting directly from the storm in Orleans Parish as of February 2006 was 1,101. More than 200 indirect deaths in Orleans Parish were reported, and the death toll for the Gulf Coast as a whole was 1,836. Floodwater is typically highly unsanitary, and that which is inundated (e.g., carpets, furniture) should almost always be disposed of. Secondly, mildew and mold remain even after the water on an inundated surface or object has dried, thus contributing to health issues. Lastly, the psychological impact of experiencing and surviving a flood event can be dire; the resulting stress may lead to serious mental health issues. 2.1.6 Property Damage The extent of damages caused to property by flooding varies according to the depth and duration of flooding. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­12 Flood­insured damages in the state of Louisiana following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita alone totaled nearly $13 billion. More than half the state’s damages reported were in Orleans Parish, where flood­insured damages exceeded $7 billion. The most common type of damage inflicted by a flood in New Orleans is caused by soaking. When soaked, many materials change their composition or shape. Wet wood will swell and, if dried too quickly, will crack, split or warp. Flooring comes unglued and warps. Plywood can delaminate. Gypsum wallboard and wooden particle board will fall apart if it is bumped before it dries out. Nails that have been submerged in salt water for a long period of time can become corroded. In the long run, this could compromise the integrity of the nails. Wooden furniture may become so badly warped that it cannot be used. Other furnishings such as upholstery, carpeting, mattresses, Sediment damage to Lafitte Village and books usually are not worth drying out and restoring. The longer these materials are wet, the more moisture, sediment and pollutants they will absorb. As evidenced in photos, sediment damage, water damage and warping were all experienced at UNO during Hurricane Katrina UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­13 .
Water damage, Facilities Service office Water damage, Bienville Hall student room Floor tile damage, The Cove Warped cabinets, Bienville Hall UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­14 2.2 WIND 2.2.1 Description High wind hazards are caused by a number of phenomena, including thunderstorms, tropical storms, hurricanes, and tornadoes. Thunderstorms: Thunderstorms create downbursts and microbursts, which are strong, concentrated, straight­line winds created by falling rain and sinking air. These storms are of a rapid­
onset nature and can reach speeds of 125 mph. Thunderstorms can occur anywhere on campus. There have been 133 occurrences in Orleans Parish since 1950 but not all of them affected campus. Parishwide, property damage exceeded $1.25 million (Appendix A). Tropical Storms and Hurricanes: Tropical storms and hurricanes are large­scale systems of severe thunderstorms that develop over tropical or subtropical waters and have a defined circulation. Also, tropical storms and hurricanes have the potential to produce thunderstorms and tornadoes. Hurricane season runs from June 1 until November 30; however, isolated storms can occur outside of these dates. Storms that affect the Gulf region are the ones that form over the Atlantic Ocean, moving from east to west. Saffir­Simpson Scale Type Category Winds (mph) Depression TD < 39 Tropical Storm TS 39­73 Hurricane 1 74­95 Hurricane 2 96­110 Hurricane 3 111­130 Hurricane 4 131­155 Hurricane 5 >155 Tropical storms and hurricanes are measured by their respective wind speeds, as is measured according to the Saffir­Simpson Scale. The highest wind speed recorded in Orleans Parish was 125 mph during Hurricane Camille in 1969. Tornadoes: Hurricane Andrew Approaching Louisiana Tornadoes are rotating funnels of air UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan Source: LSU Coastal Studies Institute January 2012 HP­15 extending from storm clouds to the ground; their magnitude is measured according to the Enhanced Fujita Scale. Their size and scope vary; wind speeds that accompany tornadoes range from 40 mph up to more than 300 mph. Tornadoes are created during severe weather events like thunderstorms and hurricanes. For instance, Hurricane Gustav (September 2008) is known to have produced 41 tornadoes, 11 of which occurred in Louisiana. Tornadoes are more likely to occur during the summer and fall months; however, they can occur at any time of day during any season. Louisiana’s location renders the state more prone to tornado activity than are the peripheral sides of the country because of the recurrent collision of different weather fronts. The strength and wind speeds of tornadoes are measured on the Enhanced Fujita Scale. Tornadoes that strike water bodies, such as Lake Pontchartrain, are called waterspouts. Waterspouts can move onto land, becoming tornadoes, and the campus’ location makes it susceptible to this type of event. Table 2.2 Enhanced Fujita Tornado Measurement Scale and Occurrences in Louisiana 1950­2010 Source: LOEP Hazard Profile Category Wind Speed Examples of Possible Damage Number in Louisiana F0 Gale (40­72 mph) Light damage. Some damage to chimneys; break branches off trees; push over shallow­rooted trees; damage to sign boards. 322 F1 Moderate (73­112 mph) Moderate damage. Surface peeled off roofs; mobile homes pushed off foundations or overturned; moving autos pushed off roads. 698 F2 Significant (113­157 mph) Considerable damage. Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile homes demolished; boxcars pushed over; large trees snapped or uprooted; light­object missiles generated. 295 F3 Severe (158­206 mph) Severe damage. Roofs and some walls torn off well­
constructed houses; trains overturned; most trees in forest uprooted; cars lifted off ground and thrown. 132 F4 Devastating (207­260 mph) Devastating damage. Well­constructed houses leveled; structures with weak foundations blown off some distance; cars thrown and large missiles generated. 18 F5 Incredible (261­318 mph) Incredible damage. Strong frame houses lifted off foundations and carried considerable distance to disintegrate; automobile­sized missiles fly through the air in excess of 100­yards; trees debarked; incredible phenomena will occur. 2 Total tornadoes in Louisiana, 1950­2010 UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 1,468 HP­16 Table 2.3 2.2.2 Area Affected Thunderstorms, tropical storms, and hurricanes vary in scale, but can be so vast in scale that they can affect all areas of southeast Louisiana, including UNO’s campus. Tropical storms and hurricanes gain their energy crossing over warm waters, and they lose strength as their systems pass over land. However, because of the New Orleans metropolitan region’s close proximity to the Gulf of Mexico, there is little time for the storms to weaken before reaching the area. Because of the recurrent collision of different weather fronts in the state of Louisiana, the central and northern parts of the state are more likely to experience tornadoes than are the southern areas of the state. However, no place is really safe from tornadoes outside of mountainous areas. All University locations are subject to thunderstorms, tropical storms, hurricanes, and tornadoes. 2.2.3 Historical Occurrences Thunderstorms/High Winds Historical Average Wind Speeds Name Year Hurricane Category Tropical Storm 1 2 3 4 5 Audrey 1957 60 78 88 120 Betsy 1965 40 70 93 105 120 Camille 1969 190 Edith 1971 69 98 Fern 1971 Carmen 1974 52 86 Babe 1977 57 75 Debra 1978 57 Bob 1979 46 75 Claudette 1979 52 Chris 1982 58 Danny 1985 52 85 Elena 1985 56 115 Juan 1985 65 77 Not Named 1987 121 150 Beryl 1988 49 Florence 1988 69 81 Andrew 1992 57 92 132 Danny 1997 63 78 Hermine 1998 42 Alison 2001 60 Isidore 2002 60 Lili 2002 60 Bill 2003 50 Ivan 2004 165 Matthew 2004 40 Cindy 2005 75 Dennis 2005 150 Katrina 2005 175 Gustav 2008 155 Source: State Hazard Profile and Unisys Weather According to the National Climatic Data Center, between 1950 and late 2010, Orleans Parish has had 132 instances of thunderstorms and high winds, resulting in $1,265,000 in property damage. Most recently during this update process, a November 2010 storm caused more than $50,000 of property damage in the nearby Gentilly neighborhood. However, during this storm, there was no significant damage on campus. Thunderstorms hit campus regularly, UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­17 especially in the summer months; however, the impact on campus has not been significant. Tropical Storms and Hurricanes: The National Climatic Data Center reports that, between 1995 and September 2005, Orleans Parish has experienced 16 hurricanes and tropical storms. The resulting property damage totaled $17,396,000,000. Only five hurricanes categorized at 4 or above have made landfall in Louisiana since 1900: unnamed hurricanes in 1909 and 1915; Hurricane Audrey in 1957; Hurricane Camille in 1969 (the only category 5 hurricane to hit the state since the 1850s); and Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Hurricanes and tropical storms not passing through the area also can affect the area. Hurricane Ike and Hurricane Gustav in September 2008 triggered class cancellations, with Gustav triggering a mandatory evacuation of the city Table 2.4 and preparedness actions to be undertaken Tornadoes in Orleans Parish at UNO. Date Tornadoes: The history of tornadoes from 1953 to 2010 shows that the state of Louisiana averages 27 tornadoes per year (Table 2.4). Since 1975, the state has averaged more than 30 tornadoes per year. The majority of these have ranked as an F0 or an F1 on the Enhanced Fujita Scale. Over the past 40 years, Louisiana has had six tornado­related federal disaster declarations; the most recent instances occurred in November of 2004, February of 2006, February of 2007 and July 2010. Time Mag Dth Inj Damage 11/01/1951 0700 F1 0 0 $25,000 07/17/1953 1120 F2 0 2 $250,000 06/27/1957 0600 F0 0 0 $25,000 07/13/1957 1250 F0 0 0 $3,000 03/31/1962 0700 F1 0 0 $3,000 10/03/1964 0900 F2 0 2 $2,500,000 03/10/1971 0200 F2 0 0 $2,500,000 12/06/1971 1330 F1 0 0 $25,000 07/29/1977 1150 F1 0 3 $25,000 06/22/1981 1345 F2 0 0 $25,000 04/19/1991 1330 F1 0 0 $25,000 08/10/2000 1612 F0 0 0 0 06/30/2003 1145 F0 0 0 $5,000 02/02/2006 0242 F2 0 0 $500,000 The National Climatic Data Center reports 02/13/2007 0303 F2 0 15 $2,000,000 that, between 1950 and 2010, Orleans Parish has experienced 17 tornadoes, 02/13/2007 0310 F2 1 10 $1,000,000 causing $8.92 million in property damage. 07/06/2010 0844 F0 0 0 $10,000 None of these tornadoes was greater than Source: National Climatic Data Center an estimated F2. Recent occurrences include an estimated F0 in July 2010 and an estimated F2 in February 2010, both in the nearby Gentilly neighborhood. The 2007 event occurred in the middle of the night and UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­18 caused one death and 10 injuries. No tornadoes have been reported to have directly touched down on campus. 2.2.4 Frequency During the years 1950 through 2011, there have been 133 instances of thunderstorms and high winds in Orleans. Table 2.5 Frequency: 2.18. Frequency of Hurricanes Passing Within 80 Miles of New Orleans In Orleans Parish, there have been 17 tornado events over the past 60 years; fortunately, these tornadoes have only affected a relatively small area. Frequency: 0.28. Frequencies for hurricanes (Categories 1­5) were calculated by the US Geological Survey for hurricanes passing within 80 miles of Orleans Parish (Table 2.5). The National Weather Service keeps a log of historic storms since the 1850s. A total of 126 tropical storms or hurricanes have made landfall in Louisiana since 1850 (Table 2.6). Intensity Occurrences Frequency Category 1 8 years 0.13 Category 2 19 years 0.05 Category 3 32 years 0.03 Category 4 70 years 0.01 Category 5 180 years 0.006 Source: USGS, “Environmental Atlas of Lake Pontchartrain,” in LOEP Hazard Profiles Table 2.6 Louisiana Storm History Decade Hurricanes T.S.s Total 1850s 3 1 4 1860s 7 2 9 1870s 6 3 9 1880s 7 3 10 1890s 3 6 9 1900s 2 7 9 1910s 3 2 5 1920s 3 2 5 1930s 2 8 10 1940s 3 9 12 1950s 2 7 9 1960s 4 1 5 1970s 4 3 7 1980s 4 5 9 1990s 3 2 5 2000s 6 6 12 Totals 62 64 126 Frequency, Tropical Storm, 0.40, or every 2.5 years. Frequency, Category 1: 0.13, or every 8 years Frequency, Category 2: 0.05, or every 19 years Frequency, Category 3: 0.03, or every 32 years Frequency, Category 4: 0.01, or every 70 years Frequency, Category 5: 0.006, or every 180 years Source: National Weather Service UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­19 2.2.5 Threat to People Storm tracking technology enhances our ability to predict the occurrence of events like thunderstorms, tropical storms, and hurricanes, thus enabling people to take precautions against the threat that these hazards may pose. Nine out of 10 deaths during hurricanes are caused by storm surge flooding. High winds from thunderstorms and tropical storms are more likely to cause injuries than fatalities, mainly due to falling tree limbs and airborne debris. While most tornadoes in Louisiana and in the New Orleans region have been relatively minor, there have been disastrous ones to hit the state. Between 1990 and 2011, tornadoes across the state resulted in 27 deaths Table 2.7 and more than 600 injuries. Most deaths caused Wind Pressures by tornadoes occur indoors. Wind speed Pressure High winds themselves may pose a risk to humans (Table 2.7). Downed trees and damaged buildings are a potential hazard due to instability, electrical system damage, broken pipelines, and chemical and gas leaks. 2
25 mph 2 lbs/ft 75 mph 50 lbs/ft 125 mph 1,250 lbs/ft 2
2
Pressure is measured in pounds per square foot 2.2.6 Property Damage Structures can be damaged by high winds in three ways: wind forces, flying debris, and pressure. Wind forces have the potential to down trees, break tree limbs, and destroy loose items such as power lines. As winds increase, so does the pressure against stationary objects. Pressure against a wall rises with the square of the wind speed. The potential for damage to structures is increased when debris breaks the building envelope and allows the wind pressures to impact all surfaces. Roof damage on Kiefer Lakefront Arena on the UNO campus More recently, Hurricanes Katrina (2005) and Gustav (2008) have resulted in considerable damage to the University’s campuses, the former making landfall as a strong Category 3 storm on the Saffir­Simpson scale (Table 2.8), and the latter making landfall as a Category 2 storm. Damages from Hurricane Katrina topped $100 million, with $83 million of damage done to property and another $17 million in contents damages. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­20 Broken windows, roof damage, rain damage and damage from projectiles, including composite roof parts, characterized the damage. Wind also damaged landscaping. The first and second floor of the Earl K. Long Library was damaged in Hurricane Gustav with winds causing ceiling tiles to fail and rain to enter the structure. Damages totaling $118,000 are currently under repair. During the tornadoes that occurred in the New Orleans region in February 2006, many structures in the Lakefront neighborhood that had been damaged during Hurricane Katrina were decimated, just four miles from campus. An F2 tornado that occurred on February 13, 2007, affected Orleans Parish and resulted in $2 million in damage. In Orleans Parish, 32 houses were destroyed and 295 others were damaged. Table 2.8 Saffir­Simpson Scales of Wind Damage Name Wind speed Expected Property Damage Strong gale 47­54 mph Chimneys blown down, slate tiles torn from roofs Whole gale 55­63 mph Trees broken or uprooted Storm 64­75 mph Trees Uprooted, cars overturned 74­95 mph Minimal: Damage is done primarily to shrubbery and trees, unanchored mobile homes are damaged, some signs are damaged, no real damage is done to structures. 96­110 mph Moderate: Some trees are toppled, some roof coverings are damaged, major damage is done to mobile homes. 111­130 mph Extensive: Large trees are toppled, some structural damage is done to roofs, mobile homes are destroyed, structural damage is done to small homes and utility buildings. 131­155 mph Extreme: Extensive damage is done to roofs, windows, and doors; roof systems on small buildings completely fail; some curtain walls fail. Category 1 Hurricane Category 2 Hurricane Category 3 Hurricane Category 4 Hurricane Category 5 Hurricane >155 mph Catastrophic: Roof damage is considerable and widespread, window and door damage is severe, there are extensive glass failures, and entire buildings could fail. 2.3 HAIL 2.3.1 Description Other than flooding and tornadoes, a major threat from strong storms to the University of New Orleans is hail. Hailstones are ice crystals that form within severe thunderstorms when extreme temperature differences from the ground upward produce strong updraft winds that cause ice formation. High velocity updraft winds keep hail in suspension in UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­21 thunderclouds. Frozen droplets gradually accumulate on the ice crystals until, having amassed sufficient weight, they fall as precipitation. The severity of hailstorms depends on the size of hailstones, the duration of the storm, and the extent to which the storm affects developed areas. Hailstorms generally occur more frequently during the late spring and early summer, which is a period of extreme variation between ground surface temperatures and jet stream temperatures. The hotter the Earth’s surface, the stronger the updraft will be. Higher temperatures relative to elevation result in increased suspension time, allowing hailstones to grow in size. 2.3.2 Area Affected Because hail accompanies thunderstorms, The University of New Orleans campuses are at risk for hailstorms. 2.3.3 Historical Occurrences Table 2.9 Historic Hail Events in New Orleans Date Size of hail (inches) 2/5/1962 1.75 4/26/1964 1.75 3/30/1972 1.75 6/17/1973 0.75 9/1/1974 1 5/7/1975 1.5 7/1/1977 1.75 4/18/1980 1 4/26/1982 1.75 7/5/1984 0.75 5/21/1985 0.75 3/2/1991 0.75 4/9/1991 1 2/17/1992 1 6/4/1992 0.75 4/10/1995 1.75 10/27/1995 1.75 4/14/1996 0.75 7/28/1996 0.75 1/24/1997 0.88 3/29/1997 1.5 1/23/2000 0.75 6/21/1998 0.75 1/23/2000 1 6/21/2001 0.88 5/30/2002 0.75 2/4/2004 1.75 The state of Louisiana experienced more than 4,600 hailstorms between 1962 and 2010; the maximum recorded hailstone size is that of a softball (which is roughly 4.5 inches in diameter). Since 1962, Orleans Parish has experienced 28 hailstorms with hail of at least 0.75 inches in diameter. This includes hail events with golf­ball­sized hail (which is roughly 1.75 7/8/2004 0.75 inches in diameter) on seven separate occasions. Source: National Climatic Data Center This is the largest size hail that has been experienced on campus, and most hail events do not have hailstones of this size. 2.3.4 Frequency The University of New Orleans is likely to experience several strong storms each year, with the greatest risk coming in the summer months. Between 1962 and 2010, there have been 28 hail events in Orleans Parish. Frequency: 0.57 UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­22 2.3.5 Threat to People Hailstorms rarely result in human fatalities, although large hailstones can cause bodily injury. There have been no fatalities or serious injuries listed in Orleans Parish due to hail. 2.3.6 Property Damage Hailstorms may result in damage to property (e.g., homes and automobiles), as well as damage to crops. Small hail (which measures 0.25 to 0.5 inches) usually does minimal damage to property. Large hail (which measures 0.75 inches or greater) can cause damage to building roofs and exterior walls. It can also cause significant damage to automobiles. Furthermore, hail can lead to leaks in roofs, which can result in water damage inside buildings. All buildings are vulnerable to hail damage in times of severe weather. Also, any automobile or other uncovered property is at risk for hail damage. Buildings with older roofs are more prone to this kind of damage. However, because the age Windows and cars are especially vulnerable to hail of a roof does not necessarily damage. correlate to the age of its building, it is impossible to say that older Source: University of Nebraska buildings are necessarily at greater risk than newer ones. No property damage resulting from hailstorms has been reported at The University of New Orleans. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­23 2.4 LIGHTNING 2.4.1 Description Lightning typically occurs as a by­product of thunderstorms. The action of rising and descending air in a thunderstorm separates positive and negative charges, with lightning resulting from the buildup and discharge of the energy between positive and negative charge areas. Table 2.10: Lightning Activity Level LAL Cloud and Storm Development Lightning strikes/min. 1 No thunderstorms N/A 2 Cumulus Clouds are common but only a dew reach the towering cumulus stage. A single thunderstorm must be confirmed in the observation area. The clouds produce mainly virga, but light rain will occasionally reach the ground. Lightning is very infrequent. 1 to 8 3 Towering cumulus covers less than 2/10 of the sky. 9 to 15 Thunderstorms are few, but two or three must occur within the observation area. Light to moderate rain will reach the ground, and lightning infrequent. 4 Towering cumulus covers 2/10 to 3/10 of the ski. Thunderstorms are scattered and more than three must occur within the observation area. Moderate rain is common and lightning is frequent. 16 to 25 5 Towering cumulus and thunderstorms are numerous. They cover more than 3/10 and occasionally obscure the sky. Rain is moderate to heavy and lightning is frequent and intense. More than 25 6 Similar to LAL 3, except thunderstorms are dry. 9 to 15 Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2.4.2 Area Affected Because lightning is a function of thunderstorms, every person and building on the University of New Orleans campuses is vulnerable to a lightning strike. According to the state hazard mitigation plan, those Louisiana parishes adjacent to Lake Pontchartrain UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­24 seem to experience a higher number of flashes per square mile than do other parishes. All areas of campus can experience lightning at any level indicated by the above chart. 2.4.3 Historical Occurrences The state of Louisiana is second in the nation in terms of flash density, which measures the annual number of lightning flashes per square kilometer. Louisiana ranks tenth in the nation in terms of lightning­related fatalities, when factoring in population. Table 2.11: Since 1994, Orleans Parish has Historic Lightning Events in New Orleans experienced 10 lightning events. In Date Deaths Injuries Damage May 2002, a lightning strike caused 6/17/1994 0 0 $50,000 a fire that resulted in $91,725 in 5/30/1995 0 2 $0 property damage to the UNO 4/14/1996 0 0 $0 4/17/1996 1 0 $0 Lakefront Arena marquee on East 6/21/1998 0 0 $120,000 Campus. In August 2002, lightning 9/6/1999 0 0 $50,000 caused $8,475.89 in damage to the 6/4/2000 2 0 $0 university alumni center construction 5/30/2005 0 0 $0 site on the main campus. In 6/6/2005 0 0 $0 September 2002, $1,425 in damage 6/4/2007 0 0 $50,000 was caused by lightning to the Source: National Climatic Data Center phone lines that service the pay parking lot computers on the main campus. In May 2004, a lightning strike caused a fire that resulted in $275,000 in damage to the Privateer Park scoreboard located on our East campus. No additional strikes have been reported during this update period. The Louisiana Office of Risk Management has made claims on behalf of The University of New Orleans worth $35,186.38.4 2.4.4 Frequency Regarding lightning strikes that are severe enough to warrant record, Orleans Parish experienced 10 such events between 1994 and 2010. Frequency: 0.59. 2.4.5 Threat to People Lightning strikes kill more people than do tornadoes. Statistics show that, on average, lightning hazards result in injury or death 50 percent of the time. Most lightning fatalities and injuries occur outdoors at recreation events and under or near trees. Nationwide, it is estimated that 25 million cloud­to­ground lightning flashes occur each year, and that UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­25 52 people are killed and 1,000 are injured. Most of these deaths can be prevented through safe practices. Much information has come out over the last 20 years regarding lightning safety. For example, before 1990, on average, 89 people were killed each year by lightning; by 2000, this number had dropped to 52. A UNO student was killed by lightning while on the University’s main campus in 1990 and three other students were knocked to the ground by the lightning strike. Those three students were treated at the university’s student health center and did not sustain major injuries. Lightning strikes resulted in one death in New Orleans in 1996, as well as two deaths in the city in 2000.5 2.4.6 Property Damage Lightning can cause direct damage to property. A major concern is damage to critical infrastructure. Since 1994, lightning strikes have resulted in $270,000 in property damage in Orleans Parish. In May 2002, a lightning strike caused a fire that resulted in $91,725 in property damage to the UNO Lakefront Arena marquee. In August 2002, lightning caused $8,475.89 in damage to a university alumni center construction site on the main campus. In September 2002, $1,425 in damage was caused by lightning to the phone lines that service the pay parking lot computers on the main campus. In May 2004, a lightning strike caused a fire that resulted in $275,000 in damage to the Privateer Park scoreboard located on our East campus. The Louisiana Office of Risk Management has made claims on behalf of The University of New Orleans worth $35,186.38.4 2.5. STORM SURGE 2.5.1 Description Storm surge events occur when water is pushed toward the shoreline by winds swirling around a tropical event such as tropical storms or hurricanes. This push of water 4
Louisiana Office of Risk Management UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­26 combines with the normal tide levels to create storm surge, which can increase the water level by at least 15 feet5. When wind­driven waves overtop the storm tide, the rise in water level can cause severe flooding in coastal areas. This affects much of the United States' densely populated Atlantic and Gulf Coast coastlines because they largely lie less than ten feet above mean sea level. 2.5.2 Area Affected High water mark in Bienville Hall after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 Since The University of New Orleans borders Lake Pontchartrain, it is Source: University of Nebraska exposed to the possibility of storm surge. Although levees along the Main and East campuses are designed to protect the campuses from storm surge, levee failure, overtopping or breaching could result in a significant storm surge event, of as many as 10 feet across both campuses. Such an event would have significant impacts on campus. Lakeshore Drive is outside the levee system in many areas and has been closed from time­to­time due to storm surge, including in 2008 during Hurricanes Gustav and Ike. While this does not affect the campus, it does have the potential to impact ingress and egress to the campus along Lakeshore Drive. 5
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Hurricane Center. “Storm Surge.” Last accessed on 23 July 23, 2010 at <http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/HAW2/english/storm_surge.shtml>. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­27 Storm Surge Maximum Outputs 2.5.3 Historical Occurrences Storm surge resulting from hurricanes and other severe storms is responsible for most coastal flooding and coastal erosion along the Louisiana Gulf Coast. Storm surge can also impact areas that are further inland, including lakes and rivers. Storm surge in Jefferson and Orleans Parishes is primarily the result of hurricanes that approach land from the Gulf of Mexico. While storm surge is most likely to impact the southern portion of Jefferson Parish, the northern part is vulnerable to storm surge from Lake Pontchartrain. Orleans Parish is vulnerable to storm surges from Lake Pontchartrain as well as Lake Borgne via the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet shipping channel. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­28 The National Hurricane Center estimates storm surge heights based on pressure, size, forward speed, tracks, and the radius of maximum winds. These estimates are produced utilizing SLOSH (Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes) modeling. The map found on the next page is a result of the current SLOSH models available for southern Louisiana. The map indicates the areas that may be impacted by storm surge due to hurricanes. Please note that the map represents not just one single event but the cumulative storm surges for hundreds of modeled hypothetical hurricane tracks. Hence, all UNO buildings are vulnerable to the storm surge hazard. Table 2.12 Storm Surge Events ­ Orleans Parish Location or County Date Type Chef Menteur 2/15/1998 Storm Surge Countywide 9/12/1998 Storm Surge LAZ038 ­ 040 ­ 058 ­ 060>063 ­ 066>070 6/30/2003 Storm Surge LAZ040 ­ 058 ­ 060>062 ­ 066>070 9/15/2004 Storm Surge LAZ038 ­ 040 ­ 050 ­ 058 ­ 060>062 ­ 066>070 10/9/2004 Storm Surge LAZ061>062 ­ 064 ­ 067>070 7/5/2005 Storm Surge LAZ040 ­ 059 ­ 061>064 ­ 067>070 8/29/2005 Storm Surge LAZ038 ­ 040 ­ 050 ­ 058>070 9/23/2005 Storm Surge LAZ038 ­ 040 ­ 049 ­ 057>058 ­ 060 Storm ­ 062 ­ 066 9/11/2008 Surge/tide Source: NOAA ­ NCDC Property Death Injuries Damage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1M 4.0M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100K 2.5M 31.3B 432.0M 0 0 0 2.5.4 Frequency Based on the data provided by the National Climatic Data Center for the period 1998­
2010, the frequency for this hazard is as follows: Frequency: 0.90 2.5.5 Threat to People If storm surge was likely to affect campus, a mandatory evacuation order would likely be in effect, making the threat to people minimal, since the campus would be unoccupied. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­29 2.5.6 Property Damage If a major storm or a major levee breach during a small storm were to occur, the damage to property could be significant. With the possibility of a 10­foot surge, the first floors of many campus buildings would be significantly damaged. Damage from floating debris could also pose a threat to property. 2.6 WINTER STORMS 2.6.1 Description Winter storms can take the form of heavy snowfalls, ice storms, or extreme cold temperatures. Winter storms can occur as a single event, or they can occur in combinations, which can make the events more severe. Severe winter weather consists of freezing temperatures and heavy precipitation, usually in the form of rain, freezing rain, or sleet, and sometimes in the forms of snow. For example, a moderate snowfall could create severe conditions if it were followed by freezing rain and subsequent extremely cold temperatures. An ice storm occurs when freezing rain falls from clouds and freezes immediately upon impact. Freezing rain is found in between sleet and rain. It occurs when the precipitation falls into a large layer of warm air and does not have time to refreeze in a cold layer (at or below 32 degrees Fahrenheit) before it comes in contact with the surface which is also at or below freezing. UNO during 2008 snowfall 2.6.2 Area Affected Despite the region’s mild winters, all of the University of New Orleans campuses are subject to the effects of winter storms. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­30 2.6.3 Historical Occurrences Louisiana has, in recent history, experienced a number of ice storms, primarily affecting the northern part of the state. Storms in February 1994 resulted in widespread power outages and over $13,000,000 in damage. Storms in December 2000 effected a presidential disaster declaration. Winter months in Louisiana are generally warmer than most parts of the continental United States, and thus New Orleans is rarely affected by winter storms. The average daily high temperature in January is 62 degrees Fahrenheit, and the average daily low temperature for the month of January is 43 degrees Fahrenheit. Only two winter storms have hit since 1950. Snow fell on December 25, 2004, as well as on December 11, 2008 (the only event reported since the original Mitigation Plan was adopted). The December 2004 event, which occurred during the winter break for students and holiday break for faculty and staff, included a mix of sleet and snow accumulating to one­half inch, elevated roadways iced over contributing to a high number of traffic accidents and closure of the airport. In 2008, there snow showers continued for a few hours, and accumulation was less than a quarter of an inch. There were no significant effects on campus. This is the only snow and ice event to be recorded in the University’s history. The last major freeze occurred in 1989, when temperatures dropped below freezing for 64 consecutive hours; the lowest temperature recorded during that cold spell was 11 degrees Fahrenheit. The greatest measurable snowfall occurred in the region in 1963, when up to 3 inches fell. None of these events caused property damage or injuries or affected University operations. 2.6.4 Frequency According to the National Climatic Data Center, the entire state of Louisiana is in the lowest category of probable snow depth ­ 0 to 10 inches of snow depth with a 5 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. However, Southeastern Louisiana is less susceptible to extreme cold conditions. Moreover, cold spells experienced in the state seldom endure longer than one week.6 An average high of 82.7 degrees Fahrenheit in July to an average low of 52.6 degrees is found in Orleans Parish. The only federally declared snow and ice event in Orleans Parish, according to the NCDC, was the 2004 event, and the event did not result in deaths, injuries or damage in the City or on campus. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­31 Frequency: 0.05. 2.6.5 Threat to People Winter storms can cause injury or death to people. Extreme cold can result in people and animals suffering from hypothermia and frostbite. Hypothermia is a condition whereby the core body temperature is lowered below 95 degrees Fahrenheit; severe hypothermia is a condition whereby the core body temperature is lowered below 85 degrees Fahrenheit, resulting in unconsciousness (and subsequently death, if left untreated). People are most at­risk from cold Injuries Related to Cold temperatures, downed power lines due to – 50% happen to people over 60 years old falling tree limbs, and unsafe driving – More than 75% happen to males conditions. Winter storms bring hazardous – About 20% happen at home driving and walking conditions; even small accumulations of ice can be dangerous to motorists and pedestrians. Bridges and overpasses are particularly dangerous because they freeze faster than other surfaces. Roughly 70 percent of the injuries caused by the effects of winter storms result from vehicle accidents, and 25 percent of injuries to people occur when they are caught outdoors during a storm. The ice storms that hit Louisiana in December 2000 resulted in one fatality. Two deaths from hypothermia resulted from extreme cold temperatures recorded in Orleans Parish in January 2008. Additionally, the exertion brought on by shoveling can potentially lead to a heart attack. 2.6.6 Property Damage Property damage can occur from falling trees and broken water pipes. Most damage from winter storms results from broken or frozen water pipes, as is evidenced by the winter storm that hit the region in 1989. There have been no reports of significant damage or injuries at the University as a result of past winter storms. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­32 2.7 SUBSIDENCE 2.7.1 Description Subsidence refers to the gradual settling or sinking of the Earth’s surface due to removal or movement of subsurface earth materials. Some principal causes of subsidence are compaction, underground mining, and removal of groundwater. In coastal Louisiana, large amounts of sediment were being deposited by the Mississippi River in a relatively short amount of time, causing the crust to compensate for the extra weight of the sediment. Geology and soil types do not have much effect on subsidence rates. Other causes like human occupancy, buildings and infrastructure, oil and gas extraction, and lowering of the water table due to groundwater extraction have much more of an effect. Human acceleration of natural processes through leveeing rivers, draining wetlands, dredging channels, and cutting canals through marshes exacerbates the subsidence problem. Relative sea level rise is a term that describes the combined effects of eutrophic (ocean­wide) sea­level rise and land subsidence. Both of these geologic processes impact Louisiana in a similar manner, making it difficult to separate the effects of one from the other. The most prominent cause of sea­level rise is the melting of the Earth’s glacial ice caps. Because it is difficult to separate the effects of subsidence and sea­level rise, a new approach to categorizing the hazard has been developed. A coastal vulnerability index (CVI) is determined based on rate of sea­level rise, coastal erosion, wave height, tidal characteristics, regional coastal slope, and coastal geomorphology. The CVI for the Louisiana coast is high to very high. Some portions rank very high for every factor with the exception of wave height. The main factors responsible for the high ranking, however, are geomorphology, coastal slope, and rate of relative sea­level rise. The US Geological Survey estimates that the rate of sea­level rise in Louisiana is approximately 3.0 feet/century and the US EPA estimates that it is approximately 3.4 feet/century. There is little to suggest that these processes will cease to occur in the future, indeed rates may increase due to the naturally occurring sediment deposition. The highest rate of subsidence is occurring at the Mississippi River delta (3.5 feet/century). Subsidence rates decrease away from the delta in a northeast, northwest, and western direction. A system of subsidence faults in southern Louisiana developed due to the extra weight from rapid sediment deposition from the Mississippi River. The system stretches across the southern portion of the State of Louisiana from Beauregard UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­33 Parish in the east to St. Tammany Parish in the west, and includes every Parish to the south of this line. 2.7.2 Area Affected All UNO campuses are subject to subsidence. According to the Louisiana Governor’s Office of Coastal Protection and Restoration, there 1,829 square miles of Louisiana have been lost since the 1930s. Despite comprising about a third of all marshlands in the conterminous United States, Louisiana marshes account for 90 percent of the loss. Losses range from 13 to 40 square miles per year, but large storm events can cause dramatic losses. 2.7.3 Historical Occurrences Records show that the level of Lake Pontchartrain rose about 25 centimeters or 10 inches since 1931. There are no single incidents or occurrences of subsidence. It is a process. An acre of land along the coast disappears every 24 minutes. Sea­level rise and land subsidence are increasingly identified as significant contributors to direct disaster damages in Louisiana, especially the latter. However, because for the most part, sea­level rise and subsidence are two processes that are slow acting, their effects have not been as evident as sudden­occurrence hazards like earthquakes. 2.7.4 Frequency As noted under historical occurrences, there is no recurrence interval. Subsidence is a constant process, and the effect in Coastal Louisiana is considered very high. The USGS rates subsidence rates according to vulnerability of to Sea Level Rise, and the Southeast Louisiana coast is considered to have the highest vulnerability (Very High), as shown in the map on the next page. Some shoreline loss is accelerated during tropical storms and hurricanes. The frequency for subsidence is continuous. Frequency: 1.0. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­34 2.7.5 Threat to People Subsidence does present an immediate threat to life, safety and public health. 2.7.6 Property Damage Sea level rise and subsidence along the Louisiana coast means that over time, there is less land between developed areas and Table 2.13 water. The process means Palmer Drought Severity Index development will be more exposed to (Source: NOAA, National Weather Service ­ damage by storm surge and wetland Climate Prediction Center) vegetation will be more subject to ­4.0 or less (Extreme Drought) ­3.0 to ­3.9 (Severe Drought) saltwater intrusion or submergence. ­2.0 to ­2.9 (Moderate Drought) ­1.9 to +1.9 (Near Normal) +2.0 to +2.9 (Unusual Moist Spell) +3.0 to +3.9 (Very Moist Spell) +4.0 or above(Extremely Moist) Land and wetlands act as cushions during tropical storms and hurricanes. Less cushion means storm surges will reach farther inland and levees will have to be raised to maintain flood protection levels. 2.8 DROUGHT 2.8.1 Description Drought is a period during which precipitation is below average. Its duration and severity are usually measured by deviation from norms of annual precipitation. Episodes of UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­35 drought are often tied to the El Niño/La Niña cycle. A La Niña period features colder than normal sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific Ocean. There are four classes of drought, based upon what is impacted by the shortage of water:     Meteorological Drought: less precipitation than average or normal amount based on monthly, seasonal, or annual time scales Hydrologic Drought: less stream flows and reservoir, lake, and groundwater levels Agricultural Drought: a reduction in soil moisture enough to affect plant life, usually crops Socioeconomic Drought: a reduction in water supply to the extent that demand exceeds supply The Palmer Drought Severity Index shown in Table 2.13 serves as indication of relative dryness or wetness and can be applied to any part of the country. Per NOAA, it is the semi­official drought index but is most effective in determining long term drought. It uses a 0 as normal, and shows drought in terms of minus numbers. Excess rain is shown by plus numbers in the Index. 2.8.2 Area Affected Drought conditions may occur anywhere in the United States. Although the New Orleans region typically has a rainy climate, it has been threatened by drought conditions in the past. All of The University of New Orleans campuses can be affected by drought. 2.8.3 Historical Occurrences Despite Louisiana’s large number of major and lesser bodies of water, the state is still subject to drought conditions. This is especially true in the northern half of the state, where adverse conditions during periods of drought have been known to result in crop damage. Water restrictions that other U.S. residents often face are rarely imposed in the state of Louisiana. History shows a relationship between southern Louisiana precipitation and the establishment of La Niña weather patterns. La Niña, characterized by unusually cold ocean temperatures in the Pacific, can bring abnormally warm and dry weather conditions to Louisiana. In approximately 80 percent of past significant La Niña occurrences, winter and spring rainfall has been less than average. This pattern was seen during the last dry spell in the state, which was 1998­2000; over this time span, drought in the state of Louisiana resulted in almost $385,000,000 in crop damage. The year 2000 had the driest winter in over a century. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­36 Table 2.14. Drought Events for Orleans Parish Per the National Climatic Data Center Location or County Date Death Injuries Property Damage Crop Damage 1 LAZ034>040 ­ 046>050 ­ 056>070 07/01/1998 0 0 0 0 2 LAZ034>040 ­ 046>050 ­ 056>070 08/01/1998 0 0 0 $77.5 million Although only two drought events are recorded for Orleans Parish by the National Climatic Data Center (See Table 2.14), drought effects on the Parish have been acknowledged for the following events recorded for nearby Jefferson Parish:    February 2000 / Southeast Louisiana felt effects of ­4.5 rated drought October 2005 / ­2.25 rated on the Palmer Index June 2009 / ­1.67 rated on the Palmer Index During these droughts, there were no significant effects on the people, property or university operations. The only damage in Orleans parish was $77.5 million in crop damage in 1998, according the NCDC. 2.8.4 Frequency Per the NCDC, between January 1950 and April 2011, Orleans Parish has only been affected by two recognized drought events. Per FEMA, no federally declared disasters related to drought have occurred in Orleans Parish. Frequency: 0.03. 2.8.5 Threat to People Unlike other hazards, drought does not occur quickly. Drought evolves over time as certain conditions are met and are spread over a large geographical area. While these conditions do not kill or injure people outright, they do have serious consequences, including:      Reduced capacity of hydroelectric power generators Reduced stream flows for navigation, recreation, and community water supplies Reduced water quality Reduced crop production Increased fire risk UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­37 2.8.6 Property Damage Drought does not directly damage structures and other human development. It does, however, increase the risk of damage by fire, especially in the urban­wild land interface. In areas with expansive soils, drought can shrink the soils under foundations. The result may crack walls and floors or even undermine supports. Out of the 250,000 homes built each year on expansive soils, 10 percent sustain significant damage during their useful lives, some beyond repair, and 60 percent sustain minor damage. Similar damage can occur to roads and bridges. Such expansive soils are common in southeast Louisiana. The effects of expansive soils are most prevalent when prolonged periods of drought are followed by long periods of rainfall. Houses and small buildings are impacted more by expansive soils than larger buildings. Large buildings are not so susceptible because their weight counters pressures from soil swelling. The 2000 drought caused cracks in levees; however, they were not considered threatening to the stability of the levees. The drought also put the foundations of area houses and apartment buildings at risk to cracking. Drought also can exacerbate subsidence as dry soils are more easily compacted when the water table is lower than normal. When such conditions occur on levees, compaction can reduce the height of protection and lead to weak spots in the levee system. During the 2011 Mississippi River floods, a number of large cracks were discovered due to drought. While it was believed that they posed no large threat, repairs were made to secure the levee system. Drought conditions have had no significant impact on the University’s campus to date. This hazard has a very low probability of significant impacts on the University, and therefore the mitigation strategy refers only to landscaping practices in relation to drought. 2.9 EARTHQUAKES 2.9.1 Description Earthquakes are one of nature’s most damaging hazards. Earthquakes are caused by the release of strain between or within the Earth’s tectonic plates. The severity of an earthquake depends on the amount of strain or energy that is released along a fault or at the epicenter of an earthquake, and the type of bedrock that the energy travels through. The energy released by an earthquake is sent to the earth’s surface and released. Earthquakes in Louisiana have had two distinct sources: a system of subsidence faults (also known as “growth faults”) in southern Louisiana, and the New Madrid seismic zone UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­38 to the north of Louisiana. The more severe earthquakes are related to the New Madrid seismic zone to the north of Louisiana. There are several common measures of earthquakes, including the Richter Scale and the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale (Table 2.12). The Richter Scale is a measurement of the magnitude or amount of energy released by an earthquake. Magnitude is measured by seismographs. The Modified Mercalli Intensity is an observed measurement of the earthquake’s intensity felt at the earth’s surface. The MMI varies, depending on the observer’s location in relation to the earthquake’s epicenter. Table 2.15 Earthquake Measurement Scales Richter 0 – 4.3 Mercalli Intensity Felt I Not felt except by very few people under special conditions. Detected mostly by instruments. II Felt by a few people, especially those on upper floors of buildings. Suspended objects may swing. III Felt noticeably indoors. Standing automobiles may rock slightly. IV Felt by many people indoors, by a few outdoors. At night, some people are awakened. Dishes, windows, and doors rattle. 4.3 – 4.8 V VI Felt by everyone. Many people become frightened and run outdoors. Some heavy furniture is moved. Some plaster falls. VII Most people are alarmed and run outside. Damage is negligible in buildings of good construction, considerable in buildings of poor construction. VIII Damage is slight in specially designed structures, considerable is ordinary buildings, great in poorly built structures. Heavy furniture is overturned. IX Damage is considerable in specially designed buildings. Buildings shift from their foundations and partly collapse. Underground pipes are broken. X Some well­built wooden structures are destroyed. Most masonry structures are destroyed. The ground is badly cracked. Landslides occur on steep slopes. 4.8 – 6.2 6.2 – 7.3 Felt by nearly everyone. Many people are awakened. Some dishes and windows are broken. Unstable objects are overturned. XI Few, if any, masonry structures remain standing. Rails are bent. Broad fissures appear in the ground. XII Virtually total destruction. Waves are seen on the ground surface. Objects are thrown in the air. 7.3 – 8.9 UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­39 An earthquake’s intensity depends on the geologic make­up of the area and the stability of the underlying soils. The effects of earthquakes can be localized near its epicenter or felt significant distances away. For example, a 6.8­magnitude earthquake in the New Madrid Fault in Missouri would have a much wider impact than a comparable event on the California Coast. The thick sandstone and limestone strata of the central United States behave as “conductors” of the earthquake’s energy, and tremors can be felt hundreds of miles away. By contrast, the geology of the West Coast allows the energy to be dissipated relatively quickly which keeps the effects of the earthquake more localized. Earthquakes can also trigger other types of ground failures which could contribute to the damage. These include landslides, dam and levee failures, and liquefaction. In the last situation, shaking can mix groundwater and soil, liquefying and weakening the ground that supports buildings and severing utility lines. This is a special problem in floodplains where the water table is relatively high and soils are more susceptible to liquefaction. 2.9.2 Area Affected If an earthquake were to occur on the campus of the University of New Orleans, the entire University would be affected. There are no records of earthquakes directly striking the University of New Orleans; however, there have been reports of earthquakes in the surrounding areas. 2.9.3 Historical Occurrences The earthquake closest to the campuses of The University of New Orleans was on November 6, 1958. This MMI IV earthquake was confined to an area within a five­ to seven­mile radius of downtown New Orleans. The assigned MMI IV is based on reports of maximum effects as windows shook and doors rattled. The largest earthquake to have occurred in Louisiana was centered at Donaldsonville, about 60 miles west of New Orleans on October 19, 1930. Maximum intensity reached MMI IV at Napoleonville. Intensity V effects were noticed at Des Allemands, Donaldsonville, Franklin, Morgan City, and White Castle, where small objects overturned, trees and bushes were shaken, and plaster cracked. The total area that felt the effects of this earthquake was 15,000 square miles. The famous 1812 New Madrid quake was felt in New Orleans. A repeat of that severe an incident is predicted to produce MMI of III or IV in southern Louisiana. The Louisiana UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­40 Geological Survey reports that the “New Madrid seismic zone remains the area most likely to produce earthquakes that could affect Louisiana.” Most recently, an earthquake occurred in Alaska that resulted in effects being felt at the University of New Orleans’ main campus. Evidence of waves and overflow of water at the UNO pool were the only effects felt on campus. Two earthquakes have occurred within 200 miles of campus in recent years. On August 2, 2010, a 3.0 magnitude earthquake occurred near Clinton, Louisiana. On February 18, 2011, a 3.5 magnitude earthquake was recorded just offshore from Dauphin Island, Alabama. There were no reported campus observations of these events. 2.9.4 Frequency Although University buildings lie in an area of low seismic risk, a number of earthquakes have occurred in the State of Louisiana over the last 200 years. Most of these earthquakes were of low magnitude and occurred infrequently. The USGS has recognized three earthquakes occurring in Louisiana since 1973. Frequency: 0.07. 2.9.5 Threat to People The single most common cause of death during an earthquake is the collapse of a building. Other threats to people include collapsing roads and bridges, flooding from dam and levee breaches, fires from ruptured gas lines, and release of hazardous chemicals from broken storage tanks or trucks. Small earthquakes such as those typical in Louisiana are unlikely to cause these damages. 2.9.6 Property Damage All of the earthquakes that occurred in Louisiana since 1843 were of low magnitude, resulting mostly in limited property damage, such as broken windows, damaged chimneys, and cracked plaster. 2.10 TERMITES 2.10.1 Description Termites are small pale colored insects that live off of wood and wooden structures at or near the ground. These creatures are similar to ants as they both live in colonies, they UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­41 both have workers that gather and collect food, and they both have a queen that is in charge of the colony. Queen termites can lay upwards of 10,000 eggs per year and the worker termites are responsible for maintaining and caring for these eggs. Termites tend to live close to the ground and near areas of moisture and sources of food or wood. Their role in nature is to recycle wood. They can cause significant damage to any wooden structure if the conditions are favorable for a termite colony’s development. There are two types of termites that live in southeastern Louisiana: drywood termites and subterranean termites. Drywood termites live in the wood that they are ingesting and do not require soil and moisture. Subterranean termites require soil and Formosan Termite moisture in order to survive. They will bring the soil and Source: LSU AgCenter moisture with them into the wood that they are infesting. Mud tubes are created and lead from the colony’s home to the infested wood in order to supply the area with moisture and soil. The Formosan termite is a species of the subterranean termite. Formosans are very aggressive. They have the largest colonies of any termites in North American and can cause extensive damage in a short time. To reach food and water, Formosan termites can chew through Signs of subterranean termites materials such as thin sheets of soft metals, rubber, Indoors stucco, and seals on water lines. – Earthen masses on door frames, edges 2.10.2 Area Affected The main concentration of termites occurs in southeastern Louisiana. Most of Orleans Parish is affected. The termite problem is expected to continue to spread. 2.10.3 Historical Occurrences The Formosan termite was originally introduced into the New Orleans area and other coastal areas just after World War II. By the time it was identified in UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 of walls, floors, ceiling, stairs, skirting or other areas of the house – Blistering of paint on windows, door frames and skirting – Damp areas on walls – Distortion of floor, window or door frames Outdoors – Large number of alates (winged termites) either inside or outside the house – Mud tubes over foundation walls, piers and edges of concrete slabs – Trees with earthen material near the base and on the bark – Damaged fences, utility poles and landscaping timbers Source: LSU AgCenter HP­42 1966, the insect was firmly entrenched into the local environment. Because this termite has no natural predators in the area, it is free to breed and spread without control. Termite infestations of structures have been devastating. The national estimates dealing with termite damage has risen from $750 million in 1988, to $2 billion by 1993. The estimate of losses for the state of Louisiana on a yearly basis is around $500 million, with $300 million of this being in the New Orleans area. The University has been affected by termites, particularly in the University Center. 2.10.4 Frequency The termite threat is a year­round issue. There is an annual peak of swarms between the months of April and June, with the heaviest concentration in May. The number of termites is dependent on the weather that occurs in the spring. Since 1989, there has been an increase in the number of swarms in the New Orleans metro area almost every year between 1989 and 1998. The frequency for damage from termites is on­going and affects every building on campus. Frequency: 1.00. 2.10.5 Threat to People The greatest risk to people is safety around and in a structure or object that may have been damaged by a termite infestation. Termites can reduce the load bearing weight of support beams in houses and businesses, putting them at greater risk of having part or all of the structure collapse when force is applied. If termites have weakened a tree or pole, a slight wind could prove to be enough to push the pole over or remove a branch from the tree. 2.10.6 Property Damage According to Louisiana State University’s Agricultural Center, Formosan termites “can cause major structural damage to a home in six months and almost complete UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan Damage from termites in Children’s Center January 2012 HP­43 destruction in two years.” Termites, especially Formosan termites, will often infiltrate the building through a weakness in the foundation or at a location where the building comes into contact with soil. There have been recorded instances where a termite infestation has caused a house to split in half. At The University of New Orleans, all newer buildings are concrete masonry, reducing the opportunity termites have to do damage, but any building with a pitched roof will have damage, and even in brick buildings, termites enter through the vents and do damage to contents inside. They even provide a threat to underground assets, eating the insulation around underground electrical infrastructure. 2.11 EPIDEMICS 2.11.1 Description Epidemics are outbreaks of disease that affect a disproportionate percentage of the population within a region. They can develop through a variety of mechanisms. In the modern world, international travel and shipping allow pathogens to travel from region to region and country to country easily. An example of a disease being spread by travel is the outbreak of SARS in East Asia and Toronto. Epidemics can also be caused by pathogens transmitted as insects and animals migrate. An example of this type of transmission can be found in the recent outbreak of the West Nile Virus in Louisiana. The West Nile virus outbreak is one epidemic to have affected the New Orleans metropolitan area in recent years. West Nile fever is usually a mild disease in people, characterized by flu­like symptoms. West Nile fever typically lasts only a few days and does not appear to cause any long­term health effects. The virus can cause more severe disease in humans, “West Nile encephalitis,” West Nile meningitis or West Nile meningoencephalitis. Encephalitis refers to an inflammation of the brain, meningitis is an inflammation of the membrane around the brain and the spinal cord, and meningoencephalitis refers to inflammation of the brain and the membrane surrounding it. Another recent epidemic to impact Louisiana was H1N1 (also referred to as “swine flu”). Per the CDC, H1N1 is a new influenza virus first detected in people in the United States in April 2009. It spread much like the seasonal flu spreads worldwide. In 2009, there were 1,472 confirmed cases of this virus and 20 deaths in Louisiana, although it was suspected that more than 97,000 cases of H1N1 occurred. Cases have been confirmed UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­44 in the New Orleans area. The University is especially concerned with the idea that students, faculty, and staff at any location can get sick with flu, and institutions may act as a “point of spread.” Students, faculty, and staff can easily spread flu to others in their institutions as well as in the larger community. Per the CDC, the highest number of cases of 2009 H1N1 flu have been confirmed among people 5–24 years old. They are also at risk of getting seasonal influenza. 2.11.2 Area Affected The threat from any epidemic depends in part on how the disease is spread and how easily it can be prevented and controlled. Diseases that are spread from person to person require different control measures and may be harder to manage than diseases that spread from insect to person. Another factor that will determine how vulnerable The University of New Orleans is to any given epidemic is the length and severity of the illness caused by the disease. 2.11.3 Historical Occurrences According to the Director of the Student Health Office, there have been no known deaths related to any epidemic on any UNO campus. However, two Tulane students in separate incidents died of meningococcal septicemia (meningitis) in the year of 2001, which resulted in the majority of students receiving vaccines. Meningitis is a rare blood infection that initially begins with minor­like cold symptoms and then proceeds rapidly causing high fever, rapid heart rate, low blood pressure and death. It is spread through close contact with an infected individual, for example, drinking after another individual, sneezes, coughs, and kissing. 2.11.4 Frequency Considering the flu pandemic following World War, and more recent incidents of the West Nile and H1N1 viruses, chances of the occurrence of an epidemic are two or three in every 100 years. Frequency: 0.03 2.11.5 Threat to People If an epidemic were to break out on campus, any susceptible person could be contaminated with the illness. It could easily spread to faculty, staff, and students. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­45 2.11.6 Property Damage No direct property damage is caused by an epidemic. However, particular buildings may have to be quarantined and disinfected, which could result in temporary or long­term closure of facilities and the potential cancellation of campus activities. 2.12 MOLD 2.12.1 Description Molds are fungi that can form both indoors and outdoors; their growth is spurred by the presence of excess moisture, as well as the presence of standing water. Continued humid and damp conditions contribute to further growth of molds; this is likely to occur as the result of the effects of natural hazards such as tropical storms, hurricanes, and floods. However, once mold spores are formed, they have the ability to thrive in the absence of moist and humid conditions. Mold in its early stages is known as Indoor mold damage resulting from water mildew. Outdoors, mold tends to grow in damage from Hurricane Katrina shady or damp areas or places where leaves and other vegetation are decomposing. Indoors, mold tends to grow where humidity levels are the highest, such as basements and showers. Molds digest organic material, and they usually grow on surfaces such as wood, ceiling tiles, cardboard, wallpaper, carpets, drywall, fabric, plants, food, and insulation. 2.12.2 Area Affected Based on the number of surfaces on which mold is able to grow (and subsequently reproduce), the threat of the mold hazard affects all buildings on each of the UNO campuses. 2.12.3 Historical Occurrences Mold posed a huge problem to UNO’s campuses following Hurricane Katrina, mostly due to stormwater intrusion. According to UNO Vice­Chancellor Joel Chatelain, “100% of the buildings on [the main] campus were damaged by molds after Hurricane Katrina” UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­46 (personal interview, February 22, 2006). Campus records do not include detailed reports on instances of mold as they would report other hazard events. During both Katrina and Gustav, there was damage from mold. With every structure hit by mold during Katrina, carpets on lower floors were particularly hard hit. During Gustav, there was mold damage in the Library, Chemical Sciences Building and Recreation Center. On the East Campus, mold damage occurred in the Concessions Building. 2.12.4 Frequency Mildew and molds continue to grow and reproduce until measures are taken to eliminate the source of the problem (typically moisture). On a university campus with maintenance staff, the sources of mold problems can be dealt with swiftly and efficiently. However, if there is no electricity and thus no ability to ventilate building, which occurred following Hurricane Katrina, molds will continue to grow and cause damage to the surfaces on which they have formed. Frequency: 0.02. 2.12.5 Threat to People Thousands of molds exist, and mildew and molds can grow and reproduce on a number of surfaces and in a number of environments. Under the right conditions, and when found in high concentration, all molds can be hazardous to human health. A few molds produce harmful mycotoxins that can cause serious problems. However, with the right conditions and high concentrations, all molds are capable of adversely affecting human health. People who are allergic to mold may exhibit a number of mild symptoms, including nasal stuffiness, eye irritation, wheezing, or skin irritation. More serious side effects of exposure to mold include fever and shortness of breath. People at higher risk for adverse health effects from mold are infants, children, immune­compromised patients, pregnant women, individuals with pre­existing respiratory illnesses, and the elderly. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan Mold in the Engineering Building at UNO in 2005 January 2012 HP­47 2.12.16 Property Damage Seeing and smelling mold is a good indication of a mold problem. There may be hidden molds if a building smells moldy, or if you know there has been water damage. Molds may be hidden in places such as the back side of drywall, wallpaper, or paneling; the top side of ceiling panels; or the underside of carpets and pads. Other possible locations of hidden mold include areas inside walls around pipes (with leaking or condensing pipes), the surface of walls behind furniture (where condensation forms), inside ductwork, and in roof materials above ceiling tiles (due to roof leaks or insufficient insulation). Cleaning must remove – not just kill – the molds, because dead spores can still lead to health problems. 2.13 DAM FAILURE 2.13.1 Description Generally defined, dams are artificial barriers that impound or divert water. Dams can fail for a variety of reasons to include: overtopping caused by floods, acts of sabotage, structural failure, movement/failure of supporting foundation, settlement and cracking of concrete or embankment, piping and internal erosion of soil, and inadequate maintenance (FEMA). Dam failure can of course result in flooding. 2.13.2 Area Affected There are more than 80,000 dams across the United States with 557 located in the State of Louisiana. Per the 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update for Orleans Parish, there is one dam located in Orleans Parish at the Carrollton Water Purification Plant. This dam is classified as one of 71 “significant” dams located in our State. As this dam contains just 500 acre­feet of water and is located 5.2 miles from UNO’s campus, failure would not inundate any area near campus. 2.13.3 Historical Occurrences There have been no reports of flooding caused by dam failure in Orleans Parish. 2.13.4 Frequency No dam provides a direct threat to the University. Frequency: 0.00 UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­48 2.13.5 Threat to People The one dam located in Orleans Parish is rated as a significant hazard dam; a rating given to those dams where potential failure results in “no probable loss of human life” (FEMA 2004). Due to its size and location, UNO is not threatened by the potential failure of this dam. 2.13.6 Property Damage There have been no reports of property damage as a result of dam failures in Orleans Parishes. 2.14 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPILLS 2.14.1 Description A hazardous material is anything that may cause damage to persons, property, or the environment when substances are released into soil, water, or air. As many as 700,000 products pose physical or health hazards that can be defined as hazardous chemicals. Each year more than 1,000 new synthetic chemicals are introduced. Hazardous substances are categorized as toxic, corrosive, flammable, irritant, or explosive. 2.14.2 Area Affected The University of New Orleans could experience hazardous chemical fallout of some kind due to the presence of science labs on the main campus and the nearby CERM Building, as well as campus proximity to railroad lines, the Interstate and the Mississippi River, and the variety of chemical plants within the Greater New Orleans area. Technicians in HAZMAT suits recovering material from a chemical spill Typical chemicals used in area plants include hydrochloric acid, ammonia, chlorine, chromium, manganese, nickel, propane, methyl isobutyl ketone, and styrene. A leak at one of these plants could cause health problems for persons on campus, property damage, and losses due to cancelled classes and research. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­49 UNO campuses also face threats from chemicals that are transported through the metropolitan area on highways, railways, and waterways. Interstate 10, a major east­
west corridor, runs through Orleans Parish and is within 3 miles or fewer of UNO. Because of its proximity to several major ports (including Jacksonville, New Orleans, Houston, Los Angeles), I­10 serves as a major transportation route for many freight trucks and is less than 5 miles from campus. Six major freight rail companies operate in the New Orleans area, including Illinois Central, CSX, Norfolk Southern, Kansas City Southern, BNSF, and Union Pacific. Many toxic chemicals are transported by rail through New Orleans routinely. While transportation incidents attract larger media attention, statistics show that almost 75 percent of all acute hazardous material events, excluding fuel spills, occur in the fixed locations where they are used or stored. Hazardous chemical incidents in the UNO laboratories would be localized to the labs and their immediate environs, however incidents from a transportation or plant accidental release may put the entire campus at risk due to wind variations. 2.14.3 Historical Occurrences Per the State Hazard Mitigation Plan, the State of Louisiana receives an average of 5,000 reports of accidental hazardous materials releases annually. Most accidental releases occur while chemicals are being transported along major highways. The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration has a specification for what are referred to as “serious incidents." This classification entails one or more of the following Oil spill resulting from overturned/derailed railway car conditions:(1) a fatality or major injury caused by the release of a hazardous material; (2) the evacuation of 25 or more persons as a result of release of a hazardous material or exposure to fire; (3) a release or exposure to fire which results in the closure of a major transportation artery; (4) the alteration of an aircraft flight plan or operation; (5) the release of radioactive materials from Type B packaging; the release of UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­50 over 11.9 gallons or 88.2 pounds of a severe marine pollutant; or (6) the release of a bulk quantity (over 119 gallons or 882 pounds) of a hazardous material. Since 2001, 98 hazardous materials incidents have occurred in Orleans Parish, according to the PHMSA, over the past 10 years totaling more than $55,000 in damages; one of these events resulted in a non­hospital injury. 2.14.4 Frequency The overall probability for exposure at a UNO campus to a hazardous material is relatively low. People most likely to encounter hazardous material exposure are professors and students working in the science labs, and emergency personnel that respond to emergency calls without being forewarned that hazardous materials may be involved. Frequency in Orleans Parish: 9.8. Frequency near campus: 0.01 2.14.5 Threat to People Hazardous chemicals released into the environment can penetrate water, food and human processes. It is important to recognize that exposure to chemical compounds that are categorized as hazardous have the potential to develop adverse effects when exposed to vulnerable populations and environments. Toxic chemicals often produce injuries to communities, people, environments, and to almost any part of the body they come into contact with, typically the skin and the mucous membranes of the eyes, nose, mouth, or respiratory tract. Corrosive substances can cause severe damage by chemical action to living tissue, other freight, or the means of transport. Flammable substances are materials which are liable to cause fire by friction, absorption of water, spontaneous chemical changes, or retained heat from manufacturing or processing, or which can be readily ignited and burn vigorously. Irritant means a substance that will produce local irritation or inflammation such as on skin or eyes, or that will, after inhalation, produce local irritation or inflammation of nasal or lung tissue. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­51 An explosive means a solid or liquid material, or a mixture of materials, which is in itself capable by chemical reaction of producing gas at such a temperature and pressure and at such a speed as to cause damage to its surroundings. A hazardous materials accident can occur almost anywhere on campus or the surrounding area, depending on the processes, for example: storage, shipping, development, etc., associated to the hazardous materials. In a severe event, there is potential for closure of public buildings, widespread interruption of classes and research, and economic losses while cleanup is completed. There is a low, medium, and high range that can be associated to the severity that again is dependent on the type of chemical, the amount, location, and affected environments. Hazardous material incidents can range anywhere from small releases at a campus laboratory to rapidly expanding events that can endanger communities and environments. People in close proximity to facilities producing, storing, or transporting hazardous substances are at higher risk. Populations further downstream and in the periphery of released substances are particularly vulnerable depending on the substance and Emergency Management's attempts to contain the hazardous material leakage. 2.14.6 Property Damage In the worst case, there could be injuries or death to the individuals affected by a hazmat incident. Yet buildings and other facilities may also be affected. Facilities may have to evacuate depending on the quantity and type of chemical released, or campus officials might close a building or area for hours, possibly days until a substance is properly cleaned up. Buildings and facilities located near the site of a hazardous materials spill or release are likely to be unaffected unless the substance is airborne and poses a threat to areas outside the accident site. In that case, campus and other local emergency officials would order an immediate evacuation of areas that could potentially be affected. Depending on the type of hazardous substance, it could take hours or days for campus officials to deem the area safe for return. In some cases, special equipment might be used to decontaminate people, objects or buildings affected. Workers might need medical attention. In the meantime, productivity losses are likely. There have been no reports of damage at UNO. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­52 2.15 NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS 2.15.1 Description Nuclear Accident generally refers to events involving the release of significant levels of radioactivity or exposure of workers or the general public to radiation. Nuclear accidents are classified in three categories: 1. Criticality accidents involve loss of control of nuclear assemblies or power reactors. 2. Loss­of­coolant accidents result whenever a reactor coolant system experiences a break or opening large enough so that the coolant inventory in the system cannot be maintained by the normally operating makeup system. 3. Loss­of­containment accidents involve the release of radioactivity and have involved materials such as tritium, fission products, plutonium, and natural, depleted, or enriched uranium. Points of release have been containment vessels at fixed facilities or damaged packages during transportation accidents. 2.15.2 Area Affected The nuclear plant within Southeast Louisiana, designated Waterford Unit 3, is in St. Charles Parish, 25 miles WNW of New Orleans and 50 miles SSE of Baton Rouge. It is located on the Mississippi River near Taft, Louisiana, 13 miles from the City of Kenner. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 Map showing Waterford III in relation to UNO HP­53 2.15.3 Historical Occurrences There has only been one nuclear incident above the “Alert” classification in the United States, at the TMI nuclear facility, which is located approximately 9 miles southeast of the boundary of Cumberland County, along the Susquehanna River near Harrisburg. Pennsylvania. In March 1979, a “Site Area Emergency” classification event occurred at the TMI Unit 2 that came to be known as the most serious commercial nuclear accident in U.S. history. The resulting contamination and state of the reactor core led to the development of a 10­year cleanup and scientific effort. Despite the severity of the damage, no injuries due to radiation exposure occurred. There were however, significant health effects reported due to the psychological stress on the individuals living in the area. There have been no major incidents related to Waterford 3 reported to this date. 2.15.4 Frequency Across the United States, a number of “Unusual Event” and “Alert” classification level events occur each year at the 100+ nuclear facilities that warrant notification of local emergency managers. Of these, Alert­level emergencies occur less frequently. For example, in 1997, there were 40 notifications of Unusual Events and three Alert­level emergencies nationwide. However, per the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission6, statistics show that the number of significant events has dropped from an industry average of 0.9 per year in 1989 to 0.01 per year in 2006. A significant event affects the performance of a plant, increases the probability of damage to its core or causes an abnormal occurrence in plant operations. Frequency for significant nuclear accidents is .01. 2.15.5 Threat to People Exposure to radiation can have a dramatic and immediate effect on the human body. The gastrointestinal system is very sensitive to radiation, leading to nausea and vomiting immediately after exposure. The blood system is often the hardest hit, although antibiotics and transfusions may allow a recovery. But severe radiation damage to the 6
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, http://www.nrc.gov/. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­54 immune system can cause overwhelming infections. And although nerves and the brain are most resistant to radiation, acute exposure usually results in damage to the central nervous system. High doses can kill outright. The long­term effects of radiation exposure can include sterility, cancer and genetic damage that can be passed to children. There are three ways to minimize the risk of radiation exposure:    Time: Radioactive materials decompose and lose strength over time. For some materials, the process is quick, but for others, it takes centuries. Distance: The further away from the source of radiation, the better. Shielding: In an exposed area, heavy, dense materials such as lead offer protection. The duration of primary exposure could range in length from hours to months; however, the University of New Orleans campuses are located outside of the 10 mile Plume Exposure Pathway. Therefore the impact of a nuclear incident is determined to likely be moderate at UNO. UNO is located inside the Ingestion Exposure Pathway defined as a radius of 50 miles surrounding Waterford 3 where resources could be contaminated because of a release of radioactive materials into the atmosphere. The risk lies in possible ingestion of contaminated water or foods. 2.15.6 Property Damage The environmental consequences from exposure to radiation levels can have serious long­term effects on buildings and property. Radiological contamination can render affected areas unusable for significant periods of time. The main campus of the University of New Orleans is a Reception Center for Orleans Parish in the event of an emergency at Waterford 3, and participates in a drill with Waterford personnel every three years. 2.1.16 CIVIL UNREST 2.16.1 Description Civil unrest is an individual or collective action causing serious interference with the peace, security, and/or functioning of a community (e.g., riot). Our country’s history has many examples of civil unrest. The modern civil disturbance has become increasingly associated with sports events and issues unrelated to political positions. Civil disorders have become a part of the urban environment. “Riots” can now generally be classified as either being politically motivated or spontaneously erupting UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­55 around an incident. The most important characteristic of civil disorders is an association with property damage and clashes with law enforcement and authorities. In some cases injuries and deaths occur. In recent years, civil disorder typically begins as nonviolent gatherings. Injuries are usually restricted to police and individuals observed to be breaking the law. Crowds throwing bottles, rocks, and other projectiles are usually responsible for the majority of law enforcement injuries. Injuries to protestors, demonstrators, or law breakers are often the result of efforts to resist arrest, exposure to tear gas or mace, attempts to strike a police officer or from other civilians and law breakers. Of particular concern on a university campus are celebrations resulting from outcomes of sporting events and annual holiday celebrations that may evolve into violence. The central characteristic of these “riots” have been related to substance abuse and consumption of alcohol. Incidents of this type are common in other parts of the world following soccer matches. In the United States, civil disturbances have come to be anticipated following basketball championships (Chicago Bulls, 1991 and 1992; Detroit Pistons, 1990; Boston Celtics, 2008; the LA Lakers, 2001 and 2009; Michigan State University, 1999). There has been an evolution of tactics used by demonstrators and agitators that has resulted in an increasingly complex confrontation/interface between officials and civilians. Sophisticated communications capabilities are now available for retail purchase. Radios and “police scanners” have made it possible for demonstrators to organize their efforts and counter law enforcement tactics. This was seen during the World Trade Organization (WTO) disturbances in Seattle, 1999. Members of one group intercepted police tactical communications and broadcast the information over the Internet. One group transmitted over an illegal FM station. The result has been an increase in the integration of efforts between federal agency officials from the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Bureau of Investigation with local law enforcement. There are several types of riots:     Communal riot (“race riot”): people targeted because of ethnic group, language or religion Commodity riot: property is destroyed regardless of ownership Celebratory riot: violence to celebrate sports victory, defeat or other occasion Other types not typically found in contemporary U.S. ­­ soccer riots, food riots. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­56 2.16.2 Area Affected Places of public gathering are generally potential areas of greatest risk. 2.16.3 Historical Occurrences When large groups or organizations take action all at once, the results can be disastrous and disruptive. There has been a long history of campus unrest in the U.S.:   Students protested in favor of the U.S. Revolution In the late 18th Century Harvard students rioted against bad food. In the 19th Century there were riots against in loco parentis and other institutional policies; students protested against mandatory military training. In the 1960s­70s there was widespread protest regarding the Vietnam War and civil rights. In the 1990s­2000 riots unrelated to protest became common; these are called “celebratory riots,” “mixed issue campus disturbances,” or “convivial disorders.” At the University of New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, storm evacuees were evacuated from area rooftops by helicopter to open ground at UNO. Subsequently, many of these evacuees broke into a number of the campus buildings and spent several days on campus, with the bulk of them, 1,500 or more, sleeping at Kirschman Hall, the brand new multi­story College of Business building. According to University Chancellor Timothy Ryan, "Apparently there was some miscommunication, because they were left there for several days," adding there was "some substantial damage done, but reparable damage." More recently, on September 1, 2010, a student rally to protest state cuts to higher education funding resulted in two student arrests, one student receiving mace in the face, and an ankle injury to a police officer. However, campus law enforcement was capable of handling the protest. 2.16.4 Frequency September 2010 Protests at UNO The potential exists on the UNO campus for civil unrest that exceeds the capabilities of the campus police to handle. However, the university campus has no history of civil instability at that level. The estimated frequency of civil unrest is once every 50 years. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­57 Frequency: 0.02 2.16.5 Threat to People The effects of civil unrest are typically felt by the population. The greatest risk is to human lives during times of unrest. 2.16.6 Property Damage Looting can be commonly found in association with these types of events. During Hurricane Katrina, several University buildings, including CERM were looted and significant property was destroyed. There was no property damage during the 2010 event. 2.17 TERRORISM 2.17.1 Description Officially, terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” (28 CFR §0.85). The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) further characterizes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization.   Domestic Terrorism: The unlawful use or threat of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States and without foreign direction. International Terrorism: The unlawful use of force or violence committed by a group or individual who has some connection to a foreign power. However, the origin of the terrorist or person causing the hazard is far less relevant to mitigation planning than the hazard itself and its consequences. Following several serious international and domestic terrorist incidents during the 1990s and early 2000s, citizens across the United States paid increased attention to the potential for deliberate, harmful actions of individuals or groups. Terrorism refers to the use of WMD, including, biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological weapons; arson, incendiary, explosive, and armed attacks; industrial UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­58 sabotage and intentional hazardous materials releases; and “cyber­terrorism.” Within these general categories, however, there are many variations. Cyberterrorism: This is the deliberate destruction, disruption or distortion of digital data or information flows with widespread effect for political, religious or ideological reasons. Worms and viruses are spread through shared documents and through the use of email. They self­replicate and send themselves to other users in found in the infected computer. Per the Cyberterrorism Defense Initiative, “computers and servers in the United States are the most aggressively targeted information systems in the world, with attacks increasing in severity, frequency, and sophistication each year.” The University has no control over these external risks, i.e., viruses from external sources and national cyberterrorism, except to restrict email and/or entrance of data into the university’s cyber system. 2.17.2 Area Affected An important consideration in estimating the likelihood of a terrorist incident is the existence of facilities, landmarks, or other buildings of major importance. The Greater New Orleans area has many notable landmarks from a local historic perspective as well as several sites with national symbolism (i.e., the Superdome, French Quarter, etc.). It also has several sites of critical national infrastructure (e.g., Huey P. Long Bridge), and the Mississippi River is a major national trade corridor. 2.17.3 Historical Occurrences The campuses of the University of New Orleans could become a target for terrorism. Al Qaeda has already listed America’s universities as potential targets. It is conceivable that a domestic or international terrorist attack could happen on one of UNO’s campuses. Cyberterrorism: There has never been a cyber­terrorism incident on a UNO campus. However the accidental compromise of the campus cyber system may leave the University vulnerable to terrorist or criminal activity. In 2007, it was discovered that the records of students and staff were unintentionally exposed on the Internet by the Louisiana Board of Regents (BOR). Names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and other personal data on some 80,000 students and employees in the state’s university system were accessible through the internet15. UNO is part of that system. Following this incident, the BOR enhanced its IT security to prevent similar occurrences. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­59 UNO already uses student ID numbers that are not related to Social Security numbers. The University is made aware of threats and vulnerabilities through several FBI­
sponsored programs such as U.S. CERT and INFRAGUARD. In addition to domestic, international, and cyber terrorist attacks, there is the threat of terrorism from random individuals who wish to harm, injure, or kill other people for various reasons. There is the threat of individual attacks performed by a student, a group of students, and/or individuals on one of the university’s campuses. For example, it is possible that an incident such as the shootings that occurred on the campus of Virginia Tech could occur at UNO. On April 16, 2007, a Virginia Tech student shot 21 fellow students on campus. It is the deadliest campus shooting in US history. Closer to home, a student at Louisiana Technical College in Baton Rouge, Louisiana shot two fellow students before shooting herself on February 16, 2008. 2.17.4 Frequency The most probable type of terrorist activity that has potential relevance to a UNO campus is an intentional hazardous material release. A major rail transportation route is located near the campus, as is Interstate 10 and the Mississippi River, making intentional hazardous materials release a potential threat to the UNO community and the environment. The probability of terrorism occurring cannot be quantified with as great a level of accuracy as that of many natural hazards. For instance, these incidents generally occur at a specific location, such as a building, rather than encompassing an area such as a floodplain. While the likelihood of a terrorist attack is possible within the area, it is estimated to be less than one percent or 0.01. The likelihood that a UNO campus building would be impacted by cyber­terrorism is very low, estimated also to be less than one percent. Frequency: < 0.01 2.17.5 Threat to People Acts of terrorism can range from threats to actual assassinations, kidnappings, hijackings, bomb scares, car bombs, building explosions, mailings of dangerous materials, computer­based attacks, and the use of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons — weapons of mass destruction (WMD). People are particularly vulnerable to biological and chemical weapons. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­60 2.17.6 Property Damage Damage to campus locations could vary from potential destruction of buildings to disruption on events. 2.18 Risk Summary This chapter provides information on the natural hazards in addition to the human­
caused hazards that can impact the University of New Orleans’ off­campus locations. In this chapter, data on the hazards are provided in terms of descriptions of the hazard, areas affected, historical occurrences, frequency of the hazard, and the threats presented to people and property by each hazard. While it is hard to compare different phenomena, a general summary shows their relative importance to the University. This is done in Table 2.16. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­61 Table 2.16. Hazard Risk Summary Hazard Annual Chance 2.1 Floods Minor Flooding (Groundwater/Stormwater) Major Flooding (Levee Failure/Hurricane) 1.55 2.2 Wind Thunderstorms 2.180 Tropical storms 0.400 Hurricanes Category 1 0.130 Category 2 0.050 Category 3 0.030 Category 4 0.010 Category 5 0.006 Tornadoes 0.28 2.3 Hail 2.4 Lightning 2.5 Storm Surge 2.6 Winter Storms 2.7 Subsidence 2.8 Drought 2.9 Earthquakes 2.10 Termites 2.11 Epidemics 2.12 Mold 2.13 Dam Failure 2.14 Hazardous Materials Spills 2.15 Nuclear Accidents 2.16 Civil Unrest 2.17 Terrorism 0.57 0.59 0.090 0.050 1.0 0.03 0.070 1.0 0.030 0.020 N/A 0.01 UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan 0.020 0.010 0.020 0.010 January 2012 HP­62 2.19 References Abelson, Philip H. “Need for Enhanced Nuclear Safeguards.” Science 263. 1994: 1543. Anderson, Christopher. “Countering Nuclear Terrorism.” Science 264. 1994: 337. Arnst, Catherine, and Williams Symonds. “The Nuclear Nightmare Just Got More Real.” Business Week 3751. 2001: 60­61. Badey, Thomas J. “Nuclear Terrorism: Actor­Based Threat Assessment.” Intelligence and National Security 16. 2001: 39­54. Baldwin, David M. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. 1980. Regulation of the Movement of Hazardous Cargoes. Transportation Research Board/National Research Council. Washington, DC. Battelle Memorial Research Laboratories, Battelle Human Affairs Research Center. 1985. Assessment of State and Local Notification Requirements for Transportation of Radioactive and Other Hazardous Materials. Columbus, OH. Barber, E.J., Hildebrand, L. K., Peat, Marwick, Mitchell, & Co., U.S Department of Transportation. 1980. Guidelines for Applying Criteria to Designate Routes for Transporting Hazardous Materials, Implementation Package. FHWA­IP­80­20. Federal Emergency Management Agency. ND. Digest of Federal Training Programs in Hazardous Materials. Emmitsburg, MD. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1985. Interim Guide for Development of State and Local Emergency Operations Plans. CPG 1­8. Washington, DC. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1985. Interim Guide for the Review of State and Local Emergency Operations Plans. CPG 1­8A. Washington, DC. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1985. Hazard Identification, Capability Assessment, and Multi­Year Development Plan for Local Governments. CPG 1­35. Washington, DC. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2004. Mold & Mildew: Cleaning up Your flood damaged home. Washington, DC. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1997. Multi­Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. Washington, DC. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1981. Planning Guide and Checklist for Hazardous Materials Contingency Plans. Washington, DC. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­63 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2001. Understanding Your Risks? Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses. Publication 386­2. Washington, DC. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Insurance Institute for Property Loss Reduction. 1995. Hail Loss Potential in the U.S. Washington, DC. Federal Emergency Management Agency. “Why Dams Fail.” Last accessed from http://www.fema.gov/hazard/damfailure/why.shtm on January 28, 2011. Interagency Committee on Dam Safety. “Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety. Hazard Potential Classification System for Dams (FEMA 333).” (October 1998, reprinted January 2004). Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. 2008 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, July, 2008 Louisiana Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, 2010. State of Louisiana Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Draft. Baton Rouge, LA. Louisiana Office of Emergency Preparedness. 2003. Hazard Mitigation Plan: Hazard Profiles. Baton Rouge, LA. Minnesota Department of Health. “Mold in Homes.” Last Accessed from http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/indoorair/mold/ on March 2, 2006. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Center. “NCDC Storm Event Database,” U.S. Department of Commerce. Last accessed from http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi­in/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms on June 30, 2011. New Orleans Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness. 2010 Orleans Parish Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. OMB Watch. “Guide for All­Hazard Emergency Operations Planning.” Last accessed from http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3088/1/97 on January 18, 2006, SLG 101. Poniewozik, James. "TV Makes a Too­Close Call." Time 20 Nov. 2000: 70­71. Print. Silverman, Sheryl. “Famous Worms and Viruses”. Last accessed from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/computer_worms/famous.html on July 7, 2006. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. “CorpsMap: National Inventory of Dams.” Last Accessed from http://geo.usace.army.mil/pgis/f?p=397:3:4019517468154293::NO::P3_STATES:LA on December 17, 2011. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­64 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control. “Facts about Avian Influenza and Avian Influenza A.” Last accessed from http://www.cdc.gov/flu/avian/gen­info/facts.htm on July 11, 2011. U.S. Dept of Transportation. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). Office of Hazardous Materials Safety. “Internet Reports Database Search.” Last accessed from http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/library/data­stats/incidents. on July 11, 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “A Brief Guide to Mold, Moisture, and Your Home.” Last accessed from http://www.epa.gov/iaq/molds/moldbasics.html on March 2, 2006. U.S. Governmental Accounting Office. 2005. Hurricane Protection: Statutory and Regulatory Framework for Levee Maintenance and Emergency Response for the Lake Pontchartrain Project. Publication GAO­06­322T. Washington, DC. Washington State Department of Health, Division of Environment Health. Got Mold? Frequently Asked Questions About Mold. Last accessed from http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/ts/IAQ/Got_Mold.html. on March 2, 2006.
UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 HP­65 CHAPTER 3. VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Chapter 2 reviews the hazards that face The University of New Orleans. If they struck vacant land, there would not be much cause for concern, but because UNO has a student population of approximately 11,000 and is the largest public university in the city, third in the state, containing many critical facilities, the potential for damage, injury and deaths can be high. Chapter 3 reviews how vulnerable UNO is to property damage, threats to public health and safety, and adverse impacts on university operations from each hazard. The potential for property damage is measured in dollars. It accounts for how much is exposed to damage and the likelihood of damage occurring. This vulnerability assessment follows a nine step procedure. The steps consist of the following: Property damage after Katrina at UNO 1. Inventory property subject to damage 2. Obtain values of damage­prone properties 3. Determine categories of property based on damage potential 4. Determine the level of damage to each category by hazard 5. Calculate the cost of damage by each hazard 6. Calculate the average annual cost of damage by each hazard 7. Determine the impact of the hazard on people 8. Determine the impact of the hazard on university operations 9. Summarize the findings to compare the relative impact of each hazard UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­1 Section 3.1 reviews steps 1 – 4, 3.2 ­ 3.3 observes that there are other impacts of hazards such as impact on people and on university operations and sections 3.4 – 3.20 describe the exposure for different scenarios for each hazard. Tables are then presented with the resulting summary data for each hazard, followed by a narrative discussion of the estimated loss of life, injuries, and impact on university operations from each hazard. Section 3.21 summarizes the findings. 3.1 PROPERTY DAMAGE Steps 1­4 of the vulnerability assessment involve obtaining a property inventory and values of damage­prone properties for UNO’s main and east campuses, and then categorizing the properties based on damage potential. 3.1.1 Building Inventory A Lakefront campus building inventory was obtained from UNO’s Department of Facility Services Office of Risk Management. The inventory does not include small structures, such as bus stops and picnic shelters, in addition to the structures and buildings located at the Research and Technology Park and others that are not part of the University’s main campus. The properties in the building inventory were categorized into three building types based on their exposure to damage. Buildings can be either Type A, Type B, or Type C. Type A buildings are expected to be the most resistant to structural damage and are composed of concrete and steel. The building materials for type B buildings include cinderbrick and brick structures, and properties classified as a type C building are composed of metal and wood. Type B buildings are expected to be resistant to water damage but not to shaking, and type C buildings are resistant to shaking but less resistant to high winds. Table 3.1 on the next page displays the building inventory of UNO’s Main and East campuses. The first category provides the building name and campus location followed by the second and third categories which show the building structures and classification of Type A, B, or C. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­2 Table 3.1. Building inventory of UNO’s Main and East Campuses Building Name Building Material Bldg Type Concrete and Steel Beam Concrete and Cinderbrick Concrete and Cinderbrick Cinderbrick and steel beam Cinderbrick and concrete Concrete and metal beam Brick Concrete and Cinderbrick Brick Concrete and steel structure Steel beam and concrete Metal Steel beam, concrete, metal Steel structure Pre­fab aluminum siding, steel beam Cinderbrick and concrete Concrete Steel beam and Cinderbrick Brick Steel beam and concrete Concrete, fire and ceramic brick Concrete and Cinderbrick Concrete and Cinderbrick Cinderbrick walls Cinderbrick walls Cinderbrick walls Cinderbrick walls Steel, brick and veneer exterior Cinderbrick and steel beam Metal beam and concrete Concrete and Cinderbrick Cinderbrick and steel beam Concrete and Cinderbrick Metal beam and Concrete Metal beam and Concrete Glass and steel structure Concrete and brick structure Brick and stucco exterior w/concrete and metal A A A A A A B A B A A C A A C A A A B A A B B B B B B A A A A A A A A A A A Main Campus Administration Bldg. Administration Annex Bicentennial Education Ctr. Bienville Hall Biology Bldg. Computer Center Children's Center Cove Chemical Sciences Annex Bldg. Engineering Auditorium Engineering Bldg. Engineering Walkway Fine Arts Bldg. Facility Services Garage Facility Services Geology & Psychology Bldg. Hazardous Storage Health and Physical Education Bldg. Homer L. Hitt Alumni & Visitors Ctr. Kirschman Hall Liberal Arts Bldg. Lafitte Village ­ Apartment A Lafitte Village ­ Apartment B Lafitte Village ­ Apartment C Lafitte Village ­ Apartment D Lafitte Village ­ Apartment E Lafitte Village ­ Laundry Building F Earl K. Long Library Mathematics Bldg. Milneburg Hall Milneburg Hall Boiler Building North Central Plant Building Performing Arts Center Pontchartrain Hall North Pontchartrain Hall South Recreation & Fitness Center Science Bldg. Oliver St. Pe Bldg. ­ (TRAC Bldg.) UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­3 University Center University Commons UNO Central Utility Central Utility Emergency Generator Bldg UNO Warehouse (Building 16) Steel beams, plaster walls Brick, metal deck, steel beams Concrete C B A Cinderbrick building Galvanized metal siding, steel frame B C Steel beam structure, concrete support in arena Wood frame Cinderbrick, steel beam Metal beam Cinderbrick, metal deck Brick Brick and Stucco with concrete Wood frame Brick Steel beam, metal A C A C A C A C C C East Campus Kiefer UNO Lakefront Arena East Campus Tennis Clubhouse East Central Plant Athletic Center ADC Mech. Equipment Bldg. Athletic Facility Field Service Facility Press Box & Concession Stand Stadium Bathroom Bldg. VIP/Press Box & Scoreboard 3.1.2 Contents Values Contents values were obtained from Facility Services.7 However, these reported values did not appear to be realistic so FEMA HAZUS guidance was used to calculate more realistic contents values. Content values as a percentage of building replacement value are: Residential, 50%, Commercial, 100%, and Education colleges/universities, 150%. The results for contents values are shown in Table 3.2. They are shown in four columns: HAZUS Occupancy Class, Structure Value, HAZUS Contents Multiplier, and HAZUS Contents Value. 7
Values were obtained from the State of Louisiana Office of Risk Management by UNO’s department of Facility Services. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­4 Table 3.2 Contents values as reported by Facility Services and as calculated by FEMA HAZUS guidance Building Name Main Campus HAZUS Occupancy Class Administration Bldg. Administration Annex Bicentennial Education Ctr. Bienville Hall Biology Bldg. Computer Center Children's Center Cove Campus Police Building Chemical Sciences Annex Bldg. Engineering Auditorium Engineering Bldg. Engineering Walkway Fine Arts Bldg. Facility Services Garage Facility Services Geology & Psychology Bldg. Hazardous Storage Health and Physical Education Bldg. Homer L. Hitt Alumni & Visitors Ctr. Kirschman Hall Liberal Arts Bldg. Lafitte Village ­ Apartment A Lafitte Village ­ Apartment C Lafitte Village ­ Apartment D Lafitte Village ­ Apartment E Lafitte Village ­ Laundry Building F Earl K. Long Library Mathematics Bldg. Milneburg Hall Milneburg Hall Boiler Building North Central Plant Building Performing Arts Center Pontchartrain Hall North Pontchartrain Hall South Recreation & Fitness Center Education Education Education Vacant Education Education Education Commercial Education Education Education Education Commercial Education Commercial Commercial Education Commercial Education Education Education Education Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Education Education Education Commercial Commercial Education Residential Residential Commercial UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan HAZUS Contents Multiplier HAZUS Contents Value $2,134,595 $1,831,943 $6,953,554 $11,676,556 $4,120,492 $4,463,058 $1,518,480 $1,156,836 $1,442,600 $9,282,625 $790,174 $22,602,295 $230,900 $2,431,773 $13,376 $1,593,834 $7,320,629 $30,130 $4,448,786 $1,952,660 $18,021,209 $7,827,937 $796,104 $844,686 $844,686 $844,686 $97,189 $24,206,113 $6,856,463 $10,575,698 $176,300 $358,700 $8,264,236 $14,348,760 $14,260,630 $9,763,899 150% 150% 150% 0% 150% 150% 150% 100% 150% 150% 150% 150% 100% 150% 100% 100% 150% 100% 150% 150% 150% 150% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 150% 150% 150% 100% 100% 150% 50% 50% 100% $3,201,893 $2,747,915 $10,430,331 $0 $6,180,738 $6,694,587 $2,277,720 $1,156,836 $2,163,900 $13,923,938 $1,185,261 $33,903,443 $0 $3,647,660 $13,376 $1,593,834 $10,980,944 $30,130 $6,673,179 $2,928,990 $27,031,814 $11,741,906 $398,052 $422,343 $422,343 $422,343 $48,595 $36,309,170 $10,284,695 $15,863,547 $7,874 $16,844 $12,396,354 $7,174,380 $7,130,315 $9,763,899 Structure Value January 2012 VA­5 Science Bldg. Oliver St. Pe Bldg. ­ (TRAC Bldg.) University Center University Commons UNO Central Utility Central Utility Emergency Generator Bldg UNO Warehouse (Building 16) East Campus Education Education Education Commercial Commercial Education Education $10,406,805 $2,572,293 $13,138,757 $1,662,831 $183,485 $15,502 $260,955 150% 150% $23,253 $391,433 Kiefer UNO Lakefront Arena East Campus Tennis Clubhouse East Central Plant Athletic Center ADC Mech. Equipment Bldg. Athletic Facility Field Service Facility Press Box & Concession Stand Stadium Bathroom Bldg. VIP/Press Box & Scoreboard Commercial Commercial Education Education Education Education Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial 150% $15,610,208 150% $3,858,440 150% $19,708,136 100% $1,662,831 100% $183,485 $68,443,390 $685,760 $1,096,570 $1,093,587 $14,556 $345,000 $320,819 $73,360 $98,250 $100,000 100% $68,443,390 100% $28,290 150% $1,644,855 150% $1,640,381 150% $21,834 150% $517,500 100% $320,819 100% $73,360 100% $98,250 100% $100,000 Sections 3.4 – 3.20 review the exposure of the properties described to each of the 17 hazards covered in Chapter 2. The levels of damage to each property are assessed along with the cost of damage and the average annual cost of damage by each hazard. The impacts on people and on university operations are observed followed by a summary of the findings to compare the relative impact of each hazard. 3.2 IMPACT ON PEOPLE The impact of each hazard on individual people is described in terms of its impact on safety, health, and mental health. The safety of individuals is jeopardized by potential hazards, some hazards presenting a higher threat than others. Hazards also affect a person’s health and well­being, not only physical health, but also mental health. Mental health affects individuals in different ways. Not all individuals may need treatment after the occurrence of a disaster; however, some people will need treatment. Natural hazards and human­caused hazards both present threats to mental health. The terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 had multiple effects on mental health. Some include the norm of living in fear and an increased level of caution and awareness. Americans and the increased fear among them in turn affected the UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­6 economy, way of living, and well­being of communities.8 Natural or human­caused hazards may also result in the development of Post­Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and other anxiety disorders in some individuals. Some symptoms of PTSD include increased anxiety, loss of appetite, disorientation, and difficulty in decision making. Other symptoms of trauma related stress or anxiety disorders may include migraines, difficulty sleeping, increased anger and suspicion, and / or depression. PTSD as well as other impacts on mental health as a result of disasters can affect an individuals’ ability to function effectively at work or school, in relationships, or in other areas of their lives. One cannot put dollar figures on these impacts. Therefore, four subjective measures of nil, low, moderate, and high are used in this chapter. At the end of the chapter, these subjective measures are converted to numbers to facilitate comparison between hazards. 3.3 UNIVERSITY OPERATIONS “University operations” is a term that represents a combination of teaching, research, administration, information technology, and student services ­ activities that make a university a university. Loss or delay in implementation of these activities means that the university is not doing its job. Loss or delay of some operations, such as student housing or contracted research, mean loss of income to the school, too. These operations are further explained in Chapter 4 of this plan. UNO struggled to maintain operations during Katrina. Following the two hurricanes, the City of New Orleans and the surrounding parishes were left without power for weeks. Restoration of electrical service to the campus did not occur until early October. By this time, the extent of the damage was massive: water entered many of the campus buildings as roofs were blown off, windows were broken and window seals compromised due to high winds, rising flood waters inundated many first floor and basement levels of the facilities. Floodwaters, high humidity, and high temperatures in September and October, combined with lack of air conditioning and humidity control, created an extensive mold growth problem in those flooded buildings and among those which lost large portions of their roofs. The mold growth required removal and discard of extensive amounts of drywall, insulation, flooring, equipment and furniture throughout the campus. 8
Blueprint for Responding to Mental Health Needs in Times of Crisis UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­7 The State of Louisiana Department of Health and Human Services halted the needed repairs to the buildings until a certified health inspector issued facilities a “clean bill of health”. The resulting damage to 60 campus buildings and its infrastructure necessitated the closure of the main campus until January 2006. In addition to the damage from flooding and mold, evacuees made way to the campus after the storm forced entry into many buildings seeking protection and food resulting in serious damage to the university. Major Flooding on UNO's campus and Leon C. Simon The effects of the two storms on university operations were multi­fold:       Interruption of the University’s teaching, research and public service mission; A negative impact on the regional economy of $600 million; Loss of housing for students, especially foreign students; Faculty and student departures; Decreases in research investments; Reduction of state and federal funding. Because so much of the impact cannot be measured in dollars, the impact of a hazard on university operations is also described in the subjective terms of nil, low, moderate, and high. 3.4 FLOODS There are two levels of floods used to calculate the impact of flooding: minor and major. Minor floods include the frequent, shallow flooding caused by heavy storms whereas major floods are the rarer, deeper, floods that accompany pumping failure or a levee break. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­8 3.4.1 Minor Minor flooding includes stormwater and groundwater flooding. As discussed in Chapter 2, stormwater flooding and groundwater flooding are both the result of an overflow of water in the drainage system or the water table.  Property Although a single storm will not flood the entire area, all properties listed in the building inventory are exposed to the hazard. The cost of damage by a minor flood to each building was calculated by a formula that multiplies the contents values times the “percent damage” figure. Because the damage only reaches the first floor, the value of first floor damage is calculated by dividing the damage figure by the number of stories. Because the first floor has more valuable equipment on it than the higher floors, the result is multiplied by 1.25. The “percent damage” multiplier was adjusted so that the results approximate the estimated dollar damage reported for those buildings that were flooded by Hurricane Katrina. This formula to calculate minor flood damage works for most buildings. Buildings with basements are more susceptible to this type of minor flooding. There are only two buildings with basements on the UNO campus, Sciences and Liberal Arts. These have had problems in the past during stormwater and high groundwater flooding when water enters the basements and damages the electrical service, heating and air conditioning equipment. Therefore, a higher percent damage figure is used for these structures, but in response to previous damages, the electrical infrastructure has been moved out of the basement to safer levels. When the frequency of the hazard is included in the vulnerability analyses, the aggregate costs will accurately reflect the annual risk. The same applies to the remaining hazards in Chapter 3. Table 3.3. Property damage from minor flooding Building Type Percent Damage UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan Damage from One Event January 2012 Average Annual $ Damage VA­9 A − Concrete B − Cinderbrick C – Frame Basements 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 2.50% Frequency $11,667 $1,167 $2,416 $7,324 $22,576 1.55 $18,084 $1,810 $3,746 $12,085 $35,725  People A minor flood usually does not kill or harm anyone. No shelters are opened as a result of minor flooding. If the need arises, anyone who is affected by minor flooding or whose homes sustain damage from minor flooding usually find friends or relatives to house them temporarily. There are no reported health problems. Safety: low, Health: nil, Mental Health: nil  University Operations Minor flooding will not disrupt university operations. Stormwater and/or groundwater flooding may delay attendance to classes and result in early closure of the campus but will not prevent teaching, research, or administrative activities for other than a day, possibly two. The impact of minor flooding is low on university operations. Impact: nil 3.4.2 Major Flooding (Includes Hurricane and Levee Failure) This type of flooding involves severe damage to the city’s pumping system from inundation from the river or lake or from hurricanes or levee failure. UNO is protected from the Mississippi River and Lake Pontchartrain by a levee system. Threats to campus come primarily from riverine flooding from the Mississippi that could devastate the city, or from hurricane flooding caused by the failure of either the levee to the north of UNO’s main campus or other levee/floodwall combinations along the canals that drain into the lake. One such canal levee protects the western boundary of the University from flooding of the London Canal. It was this levee that failed during Hurricaen Katrina. As a result of multiple breaches in the levee system during Hurricane Katrina, the influx of water from Lake Pontchartrain overwhelmed Orleans Parish pumping stations in effect causing them to fail when these pumping stations would usually keep surrounding UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­10 neighborhoods dry. Failures in the levee system resulted in flooding approximately 80 percent of the city with waters as much as 20 feet high.  Property A levee failure during a hurricane is a rare occurrence with the frequency of 0.02 or odds of once in 50 years. Levee failures cause deep flooding which causes major damage to property. The entire UNO campus is vulnerable to property damage from major or hurricane flooding. Unlike the minor flooding calculations, structural value is included in the formula along with contents value. Even though major flooding is deep, it is not expected to go higher than the first floor, so the total building value is divided by the number of stories and multiplied times 1.25. Table 3.4 shows the percent damage and the annual and average costs for property damage from major flooding. Table 3.4 Property damage from levee failure Building Type Percent Damage A − Concrete 25.00% B − Cinderbrick 25.00% C − Frame 25.00% Basements 30.00% Frequency 0.02 Dollar Damage $53,636,255 $5,343,767 $10,385,862 $1,831,105 $71,196,990 Average Annual $ Damage $1,072,725 $106,875 $207,717 $43,947 $1,431,264 Table 3.5 Property damage from hurricane flooding Building Type Percent Damage A − Concrete 25.00% B − Cinderbrick 25.00% C − Frame 25.00% Basements 30.00% Frequency 0.02 Dollar Damage $53,636,255 $5,343,767 $10,385,862 $1,831,105 $71,196,990 Average Annual $ Damage $1,072,725 $106,875 $207,717 $43,947 $1,431,264  People When a levee fails, it can be sudden. Because people were killed by the flooding after Hurricane Katrina, it is expected that the Orleans Levee District Police and the Campus Police will be even more diligent when flood levels reach a height where there is a potential for failure, to ensure that the area is evacuated and that patrols will monitor and respond to any threat, thus minimizing the life safety threat. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­11 Safety: moderate, Health: moderate, Mental Health: high  University Operations Major flooding, such as that from a levee failure, has a high impact on university operations. This was exemplified following Hurricane Katrina. Classes on campus came to a halt and teaching was suspended until the university was able to get more distance learning available for students. All other university operations such as research, administration, housing, and information technology were severely disrupted. However, not all of the disruptions were directly from the major flooding; some could be attributed to other hazards that the storm brought with it, particularly mold and civil unrest. Structures were damaged as a result of mold and civil unrest from looters during the storm which delayed or prevented classes and activities. After approximately four months, classes and other university operations were able to resume on campus. Impact: high 3.5 WIND There are four levels of wind that are used to determine the impact of damage by wind on each property and the average costs of damage. These levels include thunderstorms, tropical storms, hurricanes of categories 2­5, and tornadoes. The Saffir­Simpson Scale is used as a reference for the levels of wind. Some structures on campus may be more susceptible to damage than the other structures Kiefer Lakefront Arena on UNO’s East on campus. This holds true for “arenas” or other Campus * Note wind damage from buildings with wide spans and large open areas. Hurricane Katrina Three buildings on campus were categorized as “arenas” and given a higher damage potential from high winds:  Health and Physical Education  Recreation & Fitness Center  Kiefer Lakefront Arena UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­12 3.5.1 Thunderstorms Thunderstorms include winds that are less than 39 mph. They occur frequently but cause little or no damage and are a minimal threat to people.  Property Most recently constructed buildings are built to withstand winds up to 120 mph. There is no property damage from the first level of wind or thunderstorms.  People Thunderstorms do not present much danger to people. The threat to life varies by the cause of death. Thunderstorms can bring flash floods, wind, and lightning. The safety impact of these hazards is picked up in their sections. No special health problems are attributable to thunderstorms. Safety: nil, Health: nil, Mental Health: nil  University Operations Winds from thunderstorms have practically no impact on university operations. Occasionally, higher winds may knock out power lines which cause some disruptions to classes and information technology. Downed servers may prevent students from gaining access to email and Blackboard. Impact: nil 3.5.2 Tropical Storms Tropical storms have winds ranging from 39 mph to 73 mph. However, because the university is on the lake, storm­related winds are more severe because the buildings do not have structural or natural buffers.  Property Damage from wind affects properties throughout the campus. Recall that the percent damage figure is the expected percent of damage that would be done to each building type. The following columns in Table 3.5 include the expected costs in dollar damage for one event or one occurrence of the specified hazard and the expected average costs spent UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­13 annually on the amount of damage for the specified hazard, in the case below, tropical storms. The “percent damage” multiplier was adjusted so that the results approximate the estimated dollar damage reported for those buildings that suffered wind damage from recent storms, such as Tropical Storm Cindy. The “dollar damage” figures are the contents and structure values (from Table 3.2) multiplied times the “percent damage” figures. This provides the total estimated dollar damage to each building type and for the whole campus. The “average annual dollar damage” accounts for how often the hazard is expected to strike. It is the dollar damage figure multiplied times the frequency. While a single occurrence of a hazard incident may cause a lot of dollar damage, the campus’ vulnerability must reflect the likelihood of occurrence and the exposure of the buildings to damage over the years. Table 3.6 Property damage from tropical storms Building Type A − Concrete B − Cinderbrick C − Frame Arenas Frequency Percent Damage 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 0.400 Dollar Damage $31,652,422 $366,874 $725,173 $1,675,365 $34,419,834 Average Annual $ Damage $12,660,969 $146,749 $290,069 $670,146 $13,767933  People Under the tropical storm scenario, there are no deaths and only a few minor injuries from falling limbs or flying debris. Many individuals evacuate the area, and most of them find friends or relatives to house them if they feel the need to leave the area. As for students at the university regarding tropical storms, evacuations are their responsibility. There have been no evacuations of students for tropical storms. Safety: moderate, Health: moderate, Mental Health: low  University Operations The impact of wind from tropical storms for university operations is a little greater than it is for thunderstorms. Wind may disrupt some teaching and perhaps information technology, but other operations such as research, student services, and administration are likely to continue UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­14 unless the storm was predicted to be of a higher category and campus closure was undertaken to insure safety. Impact: low 3.5.3 Hurricanes (Categories 1­5) Hurricanes bring winds up to 155 mph. A category 5 hurricane, the “worst case” hurricane scenario, would bring winds exceeding 150 miles per hour and a storm surge up to 18 feet along the Lake Pontchartrain shore. Property Wind damage can be spread evenly throughout the campus; however in instances, depending on the locations, some buildings may serve to buffer other structures preventing or lessening damage to them. There will be significant wind damage to roofs, street lights, transformers, and buildings. The “percent damage” multiplier was adjusted so that the results approximate the estimated dollar damage reported for those buildings that suffered wind damage from Hurricane Katrina. Given the preoccupation of hurricanes and the extent of the threat to property from hurricanes, the property damage from hurricanes has been calculated separately for each category hurricane, 1­
5. Table 3.7 Property damage from Category 1 hurricanes Building Type A − Concrete B − Cinderbrick C − Frame Arenas Frequency Percent Damage 2.00% 2.00% 4.00% 4.00% 0.13 Dollar Damage $8,853,788 $733,747 $1,994,258 $6,701,462 $18,283,355 Average Annual $ Damage $1,150,992 $95,387 $259,254 $871,190 $2,376,823 Table 3.8 Property damage from Category 2 hurricanes UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­15 Building Type A − Concrete B − Cinderbrick C − Frame Arenas Frequency Percent Damage 3.00% 3.00% 6.00% 6.00% 0.05 Dollar Damage $13,280,682 $1,100,621 $1,984,460 $10,052,193 $27,417,956 Average Annual $ Damage $664,034 $55,031 $149,223 $502,610 $1,370,898 Table 3.9 Property damage from Category 3 hurricanes Building Type A − Concrete B − Cinderbrick C − Frame Arenas Frequency Percent Damage Dollar Damage 5.00% $22,134,470 5.00% $3,584,695 10.00% $23,565,542 10.00% $16,753,654 $66,038,362 0.030 Average Annual $ Damage $664,034 $107,541 $706,966 $502,610 $1,981,151 Table 3.10 Property damage from Category 4 hurricanes Building Type A – Concrete B – Cinderbrick C – Frame Arenas Frequency Percent Damage Dollar Damage 7.00% $30,988,258 7.00% $12,568,115 15.00% $7,458,014 15.00% $25,130,481 $66,144,869 0.010 Average Annual $ Damage $309,883 $25,681 $74,580 $251,305 $661,449 Table 3.11 Property damage from Category 5 hurricanes Building Type A – Concrete B − Cinderbrick C − Frame Arenas Frequency Percent Damage Dollar Damage 9.00% $411,318,425 9.00% $36,687,362 20.00% $50,054,706 20.00% $167,536,543 $665,597,035 0.006 Average Annual $ Damage $2,467,911 $220,124 $300,328 $1,005,219 $3,993,582 UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­16  People The safety hazard is considered high because not everyone evacuates, in part because they expect the roads to be too crowded, they want to stay with their pets, protect their property, or they just do not have the transportation. Some people will likely be killed and severely injured from the wind if their homes are destroyed by the tornadoes embedded within the hurricanes or if tree limbs fall on them. Delays in obtaining help to repair and rebuild keep thousands of families and students in temporary housing away from the area and for those nearby, adding greatly to commuting and travel times. Those waiting for a decision on whether they will be allowed to rebuild are particularly hard hit. The destruction, the costs, the delays, and the uncertainty take their toll and there is an increase in family interpersonal crises and reported mental health problems. Safety: high, Health: moderate, Mental Health: high  University Operations Winds from hurricanes are much stronger than winds from a thunderstorm or a tropical storm and have a moderate impact on university operations. Electrical wire and posts may go down causing the systems to go down. Classes on campus are usually cancelled, hence teaching is suspended. The University will be closed, thus administration and student services are affected. Impact: high 3.5.4 Tornadoes Tornadoes have winds greater than 155 mph, up to 300 mph. While 17 tornadoes have struck somewhere in Orleans Parish since 1950, the odds of a tornado striking a particular property are very low.  Property Damage to property by wind from tornadoes will not affect every building on campus as it will from a hurricane. Unlike the path of a hurricane, the path of a tornado is much narrower. The path can be as narrow as 100 feet. The average tornado in Orleans Parish affected 43 acres. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­17 Table 3.12 Property damage from tornadoes Building Type Percent Damage A − Concrete 12.50% B − Cinderbrick 12.50% C − Frame 25.00% Arenas 25.00% Frequency 0.28 Dollar Damage $55,336,175 $4,585,920 $12,464,114 $41,884,136 $114,270,345 Average Annual $ Damage $15,494,129 $1,284,058 $3,489,952 $11,727,558 $31,995,697  People Tornadoes strike with only a few minutes’ warning. In an average year, 800 tornadoes are reported across the United States, resulting in 80 deaths and over 1,500 injuries9. Alternate locations for classes, research activities, etc., may need to be relocated in the event a tornado strikes and destroys a University building. Safety: high, Health: moderate, Mental Health: high  University Operations Tornadoes have a moderate impact on university operations. Winds from a tornado are greater than thunderstorms, tropical storms, and hurricanes, yet these winds have a narrow path and will likely not affect every area on campus. However, those areas affected by the winds will have severe structural damage, affecting operations such as on­site teaching, research, and any other operations occurring in those buildings. Those disrupted operations in most cases will be resumed on other properties located on the campus although research facilities are so specific to that activity that research operations may not be relocated. Impact: high 9
http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/edu/safety/tornadoguide.html UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­18 3.6 HAIL  Property Hail damage is limited to roofs, windows, and vehicles. However, a hail storm can affect a large area and many structures. There is no differentiation by structure type. In the table below, the figures only represent damage to structures, not to contents. Table 3.13 Property damage from hail Building Type A − Concrete B − Cinderbrick C − Frame Frequency Percent Damage 0.05% 0.05% 0.05% 0.57 Dollar Damage $139,013 $8,346 $10,236 $157,596 Average Annual $ Damage $79,236 $4,757 $5,835 $89,830  People Hail is not considered a threat to life and limb. Once a storm begins, people can quickly seek shelter. Safety: nil, Health: nil, Mental health: nil  University Operations Hail has a low impact on university operations. It will not disrupt the majority of operations on campus. Impact: nil 3.7 LIGHTNING  Property There is no differentiation by structure type. Lightning damage figures assume that all types of structures would be affected similarly. Experience has shown that the damage from a strike equals about 10% of the building’s value. The table below factors in the fact that only one out of 100 buildings will be struck by lightning during an occurrence, so the percent damage figure is one­tenth of one percent of the value of all buildings on campus. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­19 Table 3.14 Property damage from lightning Building Type A − Concrete B − Cinderbrick C − Frame Frequency Percent Damage 0.05% 0.05% 0.05% 0.59 Dollar Damage $139,013 $8,346 $10,236 $157,596 Average Annual $ Damage $79,236 $4,757 $5,835 $89,830  People Lighting kills more people than tornadoes. A student was killed by lightning while on the University’s main campus in 1990 and three other students were knocked to the ground by the lightning strike. These students were treated at the University’s student health service and did not sustain major injuries. Most lightning fatalities and injuries occur outdoors at recreation events and under or near trees. Nationwide it is estimated that 25 million cloud­to­ground lightning flashes occur each year, 1,000 people are injured, 52 are killed. Safety: high, Health: nil, Mental Health: nil  University Operations Lightning does not have a major effect on the majority of operations on campus, although electrical supplies may be interrupted. However, lightning may strike a building or transformer causing a fire or electrical outage, resulting in cancelled classes or student activities. Impact: low 3.8 STORM SURGE As discussed in Chapter 2, Orleans Parish is vulnerable to storm surge. The level of vulnerability or risk is very similar to flooding as storm surge often leads to flooding or levee failure (that may lead to flooding); flooding that significantly affects people, structures, and operations. Of course, storm surge is also related to coastal erosion and increased risk to damage from tropical storms and hurricanes. Orleans Parish is most at risk from storm surge in the southeast area of the city where the expanded Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) shipping channel leads directly into UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­20 the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) from the open sea of Lake Borgne. Orleans Parish city is also vulnerable to surges from Lake Pontchartrain to the north. The impact (level of flooding) from storm surge to the UNO campus is dependent on the level of the storm surge event. For instance, storm surge led to the overtopping of levees as well as the multiple breaches in the levee system during Hurricane Katrina. Failures in the levee system resulted in flooding approximately 80% of New Orleans with waters as much as 20 feet high. UNO’s main campus is protected from Lake Pontchartrain by a levee system that has two main parts: the levee to the north of UNO’s main campus and other levee/floodwall combinations along the canals that drain into the lake. One of these protects the western boundary of the University from flooding of the London Canal.  Property Although protected by the levees, flooding caused by storm surge can lead to major damage to property. All UNO campuses are vulnerable to property damage from storm surge. Similar to levee failures, structural value is included in the formula along with contents value. Even though major flooding is deep, it is not expected to go higher than the first floor, so the total building value is divided by the number of stories and multiplied times 1.25. Table 3.14 shows the percent damage and the annual and average costs for property damage from storm surge. Table 3.15 Property damage from storm surge Building Type A − Concrete B − Cinderbrick C − Frame Frequency Percent Damage 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.90 Dollar Damage $238,842 $16,693 $20,270 $275,805 Average Annual $ Damage $214,476 $15,024 $17,600 $247,100  People Storm surge may have a moderate impact on people’s safety and health. The impact from a storm surge on people’s mental health is high. People who experience the impacts of storm surge may feel a tremendous amount of stress and trauma. This was exemplified by Hurricane Katrina. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­21 Safety: moderate, Health: moderate, Mental Health: high  University operations Major flooding resulting from storm surge has a high impact on University operations as was exemplified following Hurricane Katrina. Classes on the main campus came to a halt, and teaching and other services were suspended until the university was able to increase the opportunity for distance learning available for students. However, some classes did resume at UNO’s Jefferson Center during the Fall of 2005 following needed repairs. All other University operations such as research, administration, housing, and information technology were severely disrupted until the main campus opened in Spring 2006. However, not all of the disruptions were directly from the major flooding; some could be attributed to other hazards that the storm brought with it, particularly mold and civil unrest. Structures were damaged as a result of mold and civil unrest from looters during the storm which delayed or prevented classes and activities. After approximately four months, classes and other University operations were able to resume on campus. Impact: high 3.9 Winter Storms  Property Winter storms bring cold temperatures, snow and ice. Of these, ice causes the most problems for property. Freezing rain that accumulates on tree branches and utility lines can create a very heavy weight. When the overloaded tree branches come down, they damage roofs and vehicles. When utility lines are lost, so is the utility service. Table 3.16 Property damage from winter storms Building Type A – Concrete B – Cinderbrick C – Frame Frequency Percent Damage Dollar Damage 0.10% $608,922 0.10% $36,687 0.10% $49,658 $695,257 0.05 Average Annual $ Damage $26,925 $1,834 $2,403 $31,162 UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­22  People Winter storms can cause injury or death to people. Extreme cold can result in people and animals suffering from frostbite and hypothermia. Safety: moderate, Health: low, Mental Health: nil  University Operations At the most, a winter storm may freeze water pipes or disrupt utility services due to ice and fallen tree limbs. In these cases, some operations may be disrupted. Impact: low 3.10 SUBSIDENCE  Property There is no single occurrence of subsidence, it is an ongoing activity. The damage incurred by subsidence in any one year is relatively low. Damage over time is greatest to cinderbrick buildings that can crack when there is even a minor settling of the ground. Table 3.17 Property damage from subsidence Building Type Percent Damage A − Concrete 0.01% B − Cinderbrick 0.02% C − Frame 0.01% Frequency 1.00 Dollar Damage $61,090 $7,337 $4,966 $73,393 Average Annual $ Damage $61,090 $7,337 $4,966 $73,393  People There is relatively no impact on people from subsidence on campus. Safety: nil, Health: nil, Mental Health: nil  University Operations There is relatively no impact on university operations from subsidence. Impact: nil UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­23 3.11 DROUGHT  Property There is no property damage caused by drought. There may be some cracking of foundations or settling of roads during an extended dry period, but repairing such damage is considered a normal maintenance expense.  People The effects of drought are not likely to be threatening to human health or safety. However, because New Orleans takes its water supply from the Mississippi River, a drought which reduces the river’s level may cause the salt water wedge to move up the river from the Gulf of Mexico and threaten the City’s, and thus the university’s water supply. This occurred during the drought of 1987­1989. Safety: nil, Health: nil, Mental Health: nil  University Operations There is a relatively no impact on university operations from drought. While there may be restrictions on watering lawns, the result would not affect the University’s ability to do its job. Impact: nil This hazard has a very low probability of significant impacts on the University, and therefore the mitigation strategy refers only to landscaping practices in relation to drought. 3.12 EARTHQUAKES  Property The level of damage expected from an earthquake in southern Louisiana is quite low. It would be no worse than a Modified Mercali Intensity level of V, where some dishes and windows are broken. Cinderbrick buildings are rated as more subject to damage because they are less resistant to ground shaking. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­24 Table 3.18 Property damage from earthquakes Building Type A – Concrete B − Cinderbrick C – Frame Frequency Percent Damage 1.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.07 Dollar Damage $6,108,972 $733,747 $496,582 $7,339,302 Average Annual $ Damage $427,628 $51,362 $34,761 $513,751  People The level of an expected earthquake in southeast Louisiana is not considered life threatening. Some minor injuries may result from falling objects. Because the likelihood of an earthquake occurring is low, no long­term mental health effects are expected. Safety: moderate, Health: low, Mental Health: low  University Operations There is a relatively low impact on university operations from the type of earthquakes expected in the area. Shaking of buildings and loss of some loose contents may disrupt teaching, research and other activities on campus on a very small scale. Impact: low 3.13 TERMITES  Property Any structure can have a termite problem, even brick structures on slab foundations. If there is wood in the building, termites can find it. Therefore, every building on campus is subject to damage. Of course, properties with wooden structures are more susceptible to damage than other structures. Property damage from termite activity is on­going. However, termites are one of the few natural hazards that can be controlled. This can be done by implementing effective preventive measures and extermination work. Therefore, the cost of termite damage is equated with the cost of preventing it plus the average annual cost of recent damage. The University invests in pest control UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­25 approximately $67,000 each year for termites. Between 2003­2008, the University has spent $785,900 in either replacing items damaged by termites or in repairing building damage. This equates to $157,000 per year. Added to the cost of the pest control contract produces an average annual damage figure of $ 224,000.  People There is practically no life safety or mental health threat from termites. Safety: nil, Health: low, Mental health: nil  University Operations There is no major impact on university operations caused by termites, just the additional costs of repairs to, and protection of, properties on the campuses and lack of use of the part of the building under repair. Impact: nil 3.14 EPIDEMIC  Property Epidemics are not considered to cause property damage.  People Epidemics have a low impact on the safety of individuals, but a high impact on health and mental health of individuals. By definition, an epidemic is a high health hazard. Safety: low, Health: high, Mental Health: high  University Operations Epidemics present a moderate impact on university operations. Unhealthy individuals do not attend classes to teach or to learn, and they do not go to work. In addition, university faculty, staff and students may remain home to avoid contamination. Therefore, some teaching, research, administration, and student services would be affected. Some buildings may have to be quarantined and disinfected, which could result in temporary or long­term closure of a few facilities. Impact: moderate UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­26 3.15 MOLD  Property Damage by mold is not so much related to the value of the building because almost all of the buildings have similar sheetrock and insulation construction. The preliminary estimated costs to remediate the mold that followed Hurricane Katrina varied greatly from building to building. A figure of $1.25 per square foot of floor space resulted in a total cost that approximates the total estimated cost of the post­Katrina mold, but does not produce an accurate representation of the cost for each building. However, this approach is used to provide an aggregate figure for this plan. Table 3.19 Property damage from mold Building Type A – Concrete B – Cinderbrick C – Frame Frequency Damage/sq. ft. $1.25 $1.25 $1.25 0.02 Dollar Damage Average Annual $ Damage $22,847,505 $442,957 $228,736 $4,575 $1,084,498 $21,690 $22,160,739 $469,222  People Mold has a low impact on the safety of individuals and a moderate impact on health and mental health of individuals. For some people, even a relatively small number of mold spores can cause health problems. Those at higher risks for adverse health effects from molds include infants, children, immune­compromised patients, pregnant women, individuals with existing respiratory conditions and the elderly. Safety; low, Health: high, Mental Health: moderate Property damage to an office on campus from mold UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­27  University Operations Damage from mold has a moderate impact on university operations. Mold will disrupt all university operations except for information technology, but disrupted operations may resume in other buildings on campus that do not contain mold. Impact: moderate 3.16 DAM FAILURE Dam failure is not addressed in this chapter as it has been determined that this hazard poses no real risk to the University. 3.17 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPILLS  Property It is unlikely that a hazardous materials spill would affect all buildings. Although the fumes from a spill might affect a large area and a liquid would follow the drainage ways, a spill would be concentrated in one area and only a few buildings would be subjected to property damage. Table 3.20 Property damage from hazardous materials spills Building Type A − Concrete B − Cinderbrick C − Frame Percent Damage 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% Frequency 0.01 Dollar Damage $5,282,825 $366,874 $487,698 $6,137,397 Average Annual $ Damage $52,828 $3,669 $4,877 $61,374  People As with epidemics, by definition a “hazardous” material spill is hazardous to people’s safety and health. Safety: high, Health: moderate, Mental Health: moderate  University Operations UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­28 There is a low impact on university operations since hazardous material spills usually do not affect all areas of the campus, and they can be cleaned up relatively quickly. University operations can be continued with minimal disruption. Impact: low 3.18 NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS  Property As with hazardous materials spills, the impact on buildings from nuclear accidents is low. While radiological contamination can render affected buildings unusable for significant periods of time, the UNO campus is located at a sufficient distance from Waterford 3 to make long­term contamination unlikely. Table 3.21 Property damage from nuclear accidents Building Type A − Concrete B − Cinderbrick C – Frame Frequency Percent Damage 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 0.01 Dollar Damage Average Annual $ Damage $5,382,985 $53,830 $366,874 $3,669 $480,558 $4,806 $6,230,416 $62,304  People The impact on people’s safety, health, and mental health from nuclear accidents are high. Exposure to radiation can affect the gastrointestinal, blood, immune and nervous system. High doses can kill outright. The long­term effects of radiation exposure can include sterility, cancer and genetic damage that can be passed to children. Safety: high, Health: high, Mental Health: high  University Operations If an accident and its resulting radiation affected a significant number of people and/or closed buildings because of contamination, the University’s operations would be affected. Impact: moderate UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­29 3.19 CIVIL UNREST  Property Looting, vandalism, and other destruction to property occur in times of civil unrest. This was demonstrated during Hurricane Katrina, when the damage to the campus by stranded flood victims included broken windows, stolen property, and vandalism. Table 3.22 Property damage from civil unrest Building Type Percent Damage Dollar Damage A − Concrete 2.00% $12,174,436 B − Cinderbrick 2.00% $733,747 C − Frame 2.00% $993,164 $13,901,348 Frequency 0.02 Average Annual $ Damage $243,489 $14,675 $19,863 $278,027  People People may or may not be injured in incidents of civil unrest, and there is a low impact on health. However, civil unrest has a moderate impact on mental health. It can cause frustration, stress, and aggravation to those who experienced the hazard and those worried about it happening again. Safety: moderate, Health: low, Mental Health: moderate  University Operations Civil unrest on the campus has a moderate impact on university operations. Depending on the circumstances, teaching, student services, and other operations can be disrupted due to property damage or offices closed due to strikes or sit­ins. Impact: moderate 3.20 TERRORISM  Property As with hail and lightning, not every building will be hit. Only major buildings will be a target for terrorism. A preliminary list of “target buildings” is identified, and they are the only ones with damage figures. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­30 The likely “target” buildings include the Central Utilities Plant, the Earl K. Long Library, University Center, Kiefer UNO Lakefront Arena, Administration building, Computing Center, Pontchartrain Halls, and the Engineering building. There are eight target buildings, but they would not be hit at the same time. It is assumed that during a single occurrence of a terrorist attack, one building would be 50% damaged. The table below uses a factor of 50%/8 or 6.25% of all eight target buildings for the percent damaged multiplier. Table 3.23 Property damage from terrorism Building Type A – Concrete B – Cinderbrick C – Frame Target Frequency Percent Damage 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.25% 0.01 Dollar Damage $0 $0 $0 $91,993,308 $91,993,308 Average Annual $ Damage $0 $0 $0 $919,933 $919,933  People People may be harmed or even killed in incidents of terrorism. Terrorist attacks make individuals vulnerable, they cause stress, frustration, worry, and bodily harm. Whether it is a cyber attack or a physical attack, the impact on safety, health, and mental health are high. Safety: high, Health: high, Mental Health: high  University Operations A terrorist attack is likely intended to have a high impact on university operations. Whether it is a cyber attack or a terrorist attack targeted to important structures, the impact will be high. Teaching, research, administration, information technology, and student services will be disrupted. Impact: high UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­31 3.21 SUMMARY OF VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT This chapter provides information on how natural and human­caused hazards affect the University of New Orleans in terms of property damage, the threat to people, and the impact on university operations. Property damage is measured in dollars while the impacts on people and university operations are summarized in subjective terms of “nil”, “low”, “moderate”, and “high”. These impacts vary from nil to destruction and death from a category 5 hurricane, nuclear accident, or terrorist incident. However, the severity of these impacts needs to be tempered with their likelihood of occurrence. The odds of an occurrence in any given year or the annual chance of the hazard occurring is listed as the frequency in Chapter 2. 3.21.1 Property Damage Table 3.22 on the following page displays the impacts of hazards on property. The property damage figures are multiplied times the annual chance of occurrence to produce a dollar figure that represents average annual damage from that hazard. The hazard causing the greatest amount of destruction in a single event is a tornado followed by levee break flooding, terrorism, hurricanes, and civil unrest. When the dollar damage from a single event is multiplied by the frequency of occurrence, the hazards that are likely to cause the most property damage over the long run are tropical storms and levee break flooding. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­32 Table 3.24 Property damage summary and frequencies Hazard Frequency Dollar Damage Average Annual $ Damage –Minor Flooding 1.55 $22,576 $34,993 Major or Hurricane Flooding 0.020 $71,196,990 $1,431,264 Wind ­ Thunderstorms 2.180 $0 $0 Wind ­ Tropical Storm 0.400 $34,419,834 $13,767,933 Wind ­ Cat I Hurricane 0.130 $34,419,834 $4,474,578 Wind ­ Cat 2 Hurricane 0.050 $34,419,834 $1,720,991 Wind ­ Cat 3 Hurricane 0.030 $118,305,927 $3,549,178 Wind ­ Cat 4 Hurricane 0.010 $66,144,869 $661,449 Wind ­ Cat 5 Hurricane 0.006 $665,536,543 $3,993,582 Wind ­ Tornado 0.28 $114,270,345 $31,995,697 Hail 0.57 $157,596 $89,830 Lightning 0.59 $157,596 $92,982 Storm Surge 0.90 $157,596 $141,836 Winter Storms 0.050 $695,267 $34,763 Subsidence 1.000 $73,393 $73,393 Drought 0.03 $0 $0 Earthquakes 0.070 $73,393 $5,138 Termites 1.000 N/A $224,000 Epidemic 0.030 $0 $0 Mold 0.020 $22,160,739 $443,215 Dam Failure 0.00 $0 $0 Haz Mat Spills 0.010 $6,137,397 $61,374 Nuclear Accidents 0.010 $22,160,739 $221,607 Civil Unrest 0.020 $13,901,348 $278,027 Terrorism 0.010 $91,993,308 $919,933 3.21.2 Impact on People Table 3.23 is a summary of the impact on people by each hazard. The impact on people is summarized with subjective statements, nil, low, moderate, high. Each subjective term is assigned a number score. High is 100, moderate is 40, low is 10, and nil is 1. The number score of each subjective term is calculated for each hazard. The number scores for safety, mental health, and health are added and displayed in the “single event” column. The “single event” figures are multiplied times the frequency to facilitate comparison of the “average annual” threat or “people score” for each hazard. The resulting “people score” is a numerical representation of the relative impact each hazard has on safety, health, and mental health. Unlike the dollars used for property damage, these numbers have no discrete meaning. They are used to compare the listed subjective values between hazards. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­33 Table 3.25 Summary of the impact on people Hazard Safety Health –Minor Flooding Low Nil Major or Hurricane Flooding Mod. Mod. Wind ­ Thunderstorms Nil Nil Wind ­ Tropical Storm Mod. Mod. Wind – Cat 1 Hurricane Mod. Mod. Wind – Cat 2 Hurricane High Mod. Wind – Cat 3 Hurricane High Mod. Wind – Cat 4 Hurricane High Mod. Wind – Cat 5 Hurricane High Mod. Wind ­ Tornado High Mod. Hail Nil Nil Lightning High Nil Storm Surge Mod. Mod. Winter Storms Mod. Low Subsidence Nil Nil Drought Nil Nil Earthquakes Mod. Low Termites Nil Low Epidemic Low High Mold Low High Haz Mat Spills High Mod. Nuclear Accidents High High Civil Unrest Mod. Low Terrorism High High Mental Health Nil High Nil Low Low High High High High High Nil Nil High Nil Nil Nil Low Nil High Mod. Mod. High Mod. High Single Event Frequency 12 1.55 180 0.02 3 2.18 90 0.40 90 0.13 240 0.05 240 0.03 240 0.01 240 0.006 240 0.28 3 0.57 102 0.59 180 0.9 51 0.05 3 1.00 3 0.03 60 0.07 12 1.00 210 0.03 150 0.02 180 0.01 300 0.01 90 0.02 300 0.01 People Score 18.60 3.60 6.54 36.00 11.70 12.00 7.20 2.40 1.44 67.2 1.71 60.18 162.0 2.55 3.00 0.09 4.20 12.00 6.30 3.00 1.80 3.00 1.80 3.00 The greatest threats to people during a single event are nuclear accidents, terrorism, hurricanes, tornadoes, and epidemics. However, over the long run, the “people score” shows that greatest continuous threats are lightning, wind from tropical storms and hurricanes, nuclear accidents, and termites. 3.21.3 Impact on University Operations Similar calculations were done to determine which hazards have the most affect on university operations. The subjective statements of nil, low, moderate, and high impact were converted to numerical values of 1, 10, 40, and 100 to produce a single event value. These scores are multiplied times the frequency of occurrence to produce an “impact” score. The “impact” scores have no discrete meaning. They are used to compare the listed subjective values between hazards. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­34 Table 3.24 below displays that levee break flooding, hurricanes, tornadoes, and terrorist attacks will have the greatest impact on University operations. However, when factoring in the likelihood of occurrence, over the long run, the greatest threats to University operations are tropical storms, lightning, and hurricanes. Table 3.26 Summary of impact on university operations Hazard Minor Flooding Major or Hurricane Flooding Wind – Thunderstorms Wind ­ Tropical Storm Wind­ Cat 1 Hurricane Wind­ Cat 2 Hurricane Wind­ Cat 3 Hurricane Wind­ Cat 4 Hurricane Wind­ Cat 5 Hurricane Wind ­ Tornado Hail Lightning Storm Surge Winter Storms Subsidence Drought Earthquakes Termites Epidemic Mold Haz Mat Spills Nuclear Accidents Civil Unrest Terrorism Impact on University operations nil high nil low moderate moderate high high high high nil low high low nil nil low nil moderate moderate low moderate moderate high Number Score 1 100 1 10 40 40 100 100 100 100 1 10 100 10 1 1 10 1 40 40 10 40 40 100 Frequency 1.55 0.02 2.18 0.40 0.13 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.006 0.28 0.57 0.59 0.09 0.05 1.00 0.03 0.07 1.00 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 Impact Score 1.55 2.00 2.18 4.00 5.20 2.00 3.00 1.00 0.60 28.00 0.57 5.90 90.00 0.50 1.00 0.03 0.70 1.00 1.20 0.80 0.10 0.40 0.80 1.00 3.21.4 Conclusion The tables and the earlier facts and figures presented in this chapter help prioritize the relative severity of the natural hazards on property and people at UNO’s campuses. The Committee concluded the following: 1. Some types of property and areas are more vulnerable than others. For example, buildings that contain basements are more vulnerable to flooding than other buildings. Buildings constructed of cinderbrick are more resistant to water UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­35 damage by flooding, yet are more vulnerable to earthquakes than are structures of metal, wooden frame. Arena and frame structures are more vulnerable to wind damage, whereas concrete and steel structures are expected to be the most resistant to structural damage from wind, water, earthquakes, and termites. 2. The hazard causing the greatest amount of destruction in a single event is a wind followed by levee break flooding and terrorism. The hazard that is likely to cause the most property damage over the long run is wind. 3. The greatest threats to people during a single event are nuclear accidents, terrorism, hurricanes, tornadoes, and epidemics. Over the long run, the “people score” shows that greatest continuous threats are lightning, wind from tornadoes and storm surge. 4. Hazards that have high impacts on university operations include levee break flooding, hurricanes, tornadoes, storm surge, and terrorist attacks. Over the long run, the greatest threats to University operations are wind from tornadoes and storm surge. 3.22 References 1. American Psychological Association. (2006). “The Effects of Trauma Do Not Have to Last a Lifetime”, Last accessed from http://www.psychologymatters.org/ptsd.html June 26, 2006. 2. Bennet, Dan. (1990). “UNO Student is critically injured by lightning,” Times­
Picayune, Section AA, p. A­1. 3. CNN, U.S. Hurricane Katrina Special Report. “Pumps begin to drain New Orleans, Work expected to take months, Army Corps of Engineers says” Last accessed from http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/05/neworleans.levees . 4. David Baldwin’s Trauma Information Pages. “Disaster Mental Health”. Last accessed from http://www.trauma­pages.com/disaster.php on June 24, 2006. 5. Enarson E., Morgan, O. Maitoba Health & National Mental Health Association. “Blueprint for Responding to Mental Health Needs in Times of Crisis”, S03­32. Annual Hazards Research and Applications Workshop (2003). Last accessed from http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/workshop/2003/S03­32.hrml June 30, 2006. 6. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Center, (1989). “The Public Health Consequences of Disasters”, UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­36 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. 7. National Institute of Mental Health. “Relieving Trauma: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” Last accessed from http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/reliving.cfm on June 24, 2006. 8. Office of Emergency Preparedness. (2008). “Louisiana State Hazard Mitigation Plan” page III­25. 9. Seydlitz, Ruth, J.W. Spencer, Shirley Laska, and Triche, E. (1991). “The Effects of Newspaper and Television News Reports of a Natural Hazard on Response Behavior.” Communication Research, 19, 299­235. 10. Seydlitz, Ruth, J. W. Spencer, Shirley Laska and Elizabeth Triche. 1991. “The Effects of Newspaper Reports on the Public’s Response to a Natural Event.” International Journal Of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 9, 5­29. 11. State of Louisiana Office of Risk Management, “Statewide Land and Buildings System Schedule of Property Values” retrieved by UNO Department of Facility Services as of July, 21 2011, RC­04. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 VA­37 CHAPTER 4. MITIGATION ACTION PLAN For the planning process to be successful, goals are necessary to guide the review of possible mitigation measures. Recommended mitigation actions must be deemed appropriate for all University campuses, reflective of University priorities, and consistent with all other plans. This chapter provides a review of how mitigation goals were set for this Plan, a list of those goals, potential actions and recommended mitigation actions that might achieve those goals. The culmination of this Mitigation Plan is the action plan. The general direction of the overall program is also outlined in this chapter. Specific activities pursuant to the general direction are detailed in Section 4.4, which assigns recommended projects and deadlines to the appropriate offices. 4.1 GOALS AND STRATEGIES During a meeting held on May 27, 2011, the goals that were developed on February 20, 2006 by the DRU Advisory Committee for the original UNO Mitigation Plan were reviewed. It was decided that those goals would remain, with some editing to accommodate a more inclusive language that better coordinated with the hazard mitigation plan developed for the satellite locations. The Satellite Campus plan had been developed since the original UNO Plan. Three general goal statements followed by six general strategies to implement them were used to guide the planning and implementation of mitigation activities and projects. They are as follows: Goals: Goal 1. Protect the lives and health of the students, faculty and staff, tenants and visitors. Goal 2. Protect all University buildings, contents, utilities, and infrastructure from damage by natural and human caused hazards. Goal 3. Ensure that disruption to the University and tenants’ operations during and following an event will be minimal. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­1 Strategies: 1. Protect, strengthen, or retrofit University buildings and facilities so they will suffer little or no damage during an incident and their occupants and contents will be protected. 2. Educate the faculty and staff as well as students and tenants, on ways to protect themselves and their property from damage by natural and human caused hazards. 3. Have the necessary emergency response facilities, equipment, staff, and procedures in place to minimize the danger and damage to people, University property, and the surrounding community during an incident. 4. Have the disaster recovery facilities, equipment, staff, and procedures in place to allow University facilities to reopen immediately after an incident, with minimal reliance on outside sources of assistance. 5. Pay special attention to certain special University resources, including Library holdings, student housing, records, and art collections. 6. Invest resources needed to reach the goals at a level appropriate to the hazard and its impacts on property, people, and University operations.  Coordinating Committee A plan is of little value if there is no vehicle for ensuring that it is implemented. Therefore, a key long­range strategy is to maintain a permanent Disaster Resistant University (DRU) Advisory Committee to monitor the implementation of the Plan, report to the Chancellor on its progress, and recommend revisions to this Plan as needed. This is explained in action item 1. 4.2 POTENTIAL MITIGATION ACTIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS The DRU Research Team along with members of the DRU Advisory Committee identified several hazard mitigation actions that would benefit the University. These recommendations were based on the range of potential mitigation actions which are described throughout this section and are later converted into specific actions in Section 4.3. 4.2.1 Flood Protection Much of the New Orleans Metropolitan area is built on land that is below sea level. Most of Orleans Parish is ringed with a system of levees. These levees were built to keep the water from the Mississippi River to the south and Lake Pontchartrain to the north out of the densely populated areas. However, these same levees effectively hold rainwater making the metro area susceptible to flooding. Rainwater must be pumped out and UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­2 over these levees. This is accomplished through the use of a network of surface drainage pipes, open and closed canals, and pumping stations. The University of New Orleans sits on the edge of the southern shore of Lake Pontchartrain on the east bank of the Mississippi River in New Orleans on land that was created in the 1930s by dredging it from Lake Pontchartrain. Located at the northern boundary of the campus is Lake Pontchartrain’s levee. On the western boundary is the London Canal, which has levees now post­Katrina supplemented with floodwalls on both of its banks. Farther into the city on the London Canal levees embedded with flood walls form the protection. These levees and floodwalls are part of the city’s hurricane protection system. Because of the location of the Lakefront campus on the artificial land, it is higher in elevation than the neighborhood proximate to it that is on the original lake shore. Campus flood control is an issue, demonstrated by the flood damage to the southwest portion of the campus caused by Hurricane Katrina. Figure 5.1 is a map of the Lakefront campus that shows the depth of Katrina flooding. The darker the blue color, the deeper the flood depth. The southwest end of the campus is most susceptible to flooding as it is the lowest in elevation. Original Shoreline Figure 4.1: Flooding of UNO lakefront campus from Hurricane Katrina UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­3 Flooding can be deep and long term, affecting many areas of the metropolitan area. Deep flooding may be caused by storm surge overtopping or breaching the hurricane risk­reduction levee system, such as what happened for the Katrina flooding on the main campus. Levee­failure flooding is projected to occur in the metro area a couple of times per century. On the other hand, shallow flooding can impact localized areas near and on campus for a few hours during and immediately after a heavy rainstorm. High groundwater flooding due to heavy rainfall that temporarily overwhelms the local drainage system can occur more often, with the risk of this type of flooding estimated as once every three years.  National Flood Insurance Program Floodplain management practices to include land use, zoning, and enforcement of local ordinances can mitigate flood damages for new construction as well as existing buildings. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), managed by FEMA, plays an important role in the reduction of flood damage in communities across the United States. The NFIP is made up of three components to include flood insurance, floodplain management, and flood hazard mapping. Participation in the NFIP is voluntary and is based upon a community’s commitment to adopt and enforce a floodplain management ordinance to reduce future flood risks. This commitment by the community allows the Federal Government to make flood insurance available within the community as a financial protection against flood losses. Orleans Parish is a participant in the NFIP.  Levees and Floodwalls The Orleans Levee District and the US Army Corps of Engineers are responsible for the hurricane risk­reduction system: the series of levees that ring the metropolitan area city and protect the University from storm surge referred to in the introduction of this chapter. The Orleans Levee District10 was established by Act 93 of the 1890 General Assembly (Legislature) of the State of Louisiana and is primarily responsible for the operation and maintenance of levees, embankments, seawalls, jetties, breakwaters, water basins, and other hurricane and flood protection improvements surrounding the City of New Orleans, including the southern shores of Lake Pontchartrain and along the Mississippi River. 10
http://www.orleanslevee.com/ UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­4 The US Army Corps of Engineers ­ Team New Orleans11 provides comprehensive water resources management to include navigation, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and environmental stewardship for south Louisiana to ensure public safety and benefit the nation. The Hurricane Protection Office (HPO) executes the floodgate and pump station projects, along with levee and floodwall projects on the East Bank in Orleans, St. Bernard and Plaquemines Parishes.  Drainage Improvements The Sewerage and Water Board (S&WB) of New Orleans has been serving citizens and protecting the environment since 1899. The S&WB is charged with providing drinking water, sanitary sewer and drainage services for the residents of Orleans Parish. Major improvements to the drainage system made by the S&WB in the last ten years have primarily been in partnership with the Corps of Engineers. The S&WB is responsible for the stormwater drainage system, including the canals, surface drainage pipe network and the pumping stations. As a result of the extensive flooding in May 1995, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana (SELA) Project with enactment of Section 108 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996 and Section 533 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1996. This was done to provide for flood control and improvements to rainfall drainage systems in Jefferson, Orleans, and St. Tammany Parishes. Post Katrina, the full SELA funding request of $62.5 million was approved by Congress in the third Supplemental Bill. The SELA project includes channel and pump station improvements in the three parishes. The channel and pumping station improvements in Orleans Parish support existing master drainage plans and generally provide flood protection on a level associated with a 10­year rainfall event, while also reducing damage from larger events. Many other drainage projects have been funded and/or completed since Katrina in the metropolitan area. Many were funded through Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and other FEMA programs implemented following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.  Recommendations There is a risk of large scale flooding of the Lakefront campus due to storm surge from a hurricane. This flooding can be caused by the failure or breaching of the hurricane 11
http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/aboutus/abt_mission.asp UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­5 protection system, the cause of Katrina flooding, or through the overtopping of the city’s hurricane protection system from a storm surge greater than that for which it was designed. The flood elevation in the city and on campus will correspond to the elevation of the water in the lake at the time of the flood event. In order to mitigate this risk, a structural solution can be implemented that keeps the flood waters from the city from entering the campus. This solution consists of creating a secondary levee/floodwall system around the perimeter of the lakefront campus. This type of structural solution only will prevent flooding of the campus from water rising inside of the city due to a breach or breaches in the levee system away from the UNO campus. However, if storm surge should overtop the Lake Pontchartrain levee, the campus will be flooded, even with a secondary levee system in place. Two such flood control alternatives were studied. The alternatives consisted of either creating a levee/floodwall or creating a berm.  Levee/Floodwall Several flood control projects were identified that modify flooding so that flood water from storm surge does not reach campus buildings and other structures. They include berms that protect more than one building and a levee­floodwall structure that would provide protection to the entire Lakefront campus. This type of flood control would reduce the risk of flood damage, reduce or eliminate potential mold problems and will allow the University to reoccupy and reopen flood prone buildings so that classes may resume quickly (assuming there is no wind damage to the structures). Caveats include providing escape of water from the campus­side of the berm if the Pontchartrain levee is overtopped and recognizing that such structures would not address wind damage. Wind damage is not addressed in this section. Smaller scale flood control projects are those that provide more localized mitigation. In other words, they affect smaller areas or single buildings. The first alternative is a campus levee/floodwall system (see Figure 5.2 on the following page). The Lakefront campus, in this scenario, would be bounded on the south and east edges by a levee or floodwall. This system would tie into the city’s hurricane protection levee at the northeastern corner of campus and the London Avenue Canal floodwall at the southwest corner of the campus. This levee/floodwall system would protect the lakefront campus to the 100­year flood level, assuming a breach of the lake levee at the crest of the 100­year flood. Of course, protection would not be obtained if the breach UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­6 occurred in the levee along Lake Pontchartrain on the campus’ northern edge. The cost of the campus levee/floodwall system is estimated to be approximately $3.7 million. Figure 4.2: Limits of campus levee/floodwall (protection from 100 year flood event)  Berm The other alternative provides less flood protection. It is called a “berm” to differentiate it from the major levees already protecting the area. Berms are made of fill and should be designed to the same standards as a levee, but they are not intended to be as obtrusive. Berms and levees are wide at the bottom with sloped sides. They can be incorporated into the landscape and made visually pleasing to a certain extent. A “southern berm” would protect the campus from flooding to the same level as the post­
Katrina flood. It would run along the southern and southeastern boundary of the campus, as shown in Figure 5.3. The cost of the southern berm was estimated in 2006 to be $0.6 million. As of 2011, neither of these suggestions has been enacted. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­7 Figure 4.3: Limits of southern berm (providing protection from Katrina­level flood) 4.2.2 Retrofitting Modifications can be made to the University’s buildings that can reduce damage from future storms and other incidents. Chapters 2 and 3 have identified many potential future events which may negatively impact UNO's mission. Of these, the potential for flooding, high winds, destruction of property by individuals such as terrorists or hurricane victims, and the spreading of mold during extended periods of power outage, have been identified as the greatest concerns. This section discusses types of retrofitting that address each of these hazards.  Flooding There are several types of retrofitting projects that can protect buildings from damage by flooding. However, most of these measures are more appropriate for low­level stormwater flooding than for the deeper flooding that would be caused by levee failure. Some buildings, especially heavily damaged or repetitively flooded ones, are not worth the expense to protect them from future damage. It is cheaper to demolish them and either replace them with new, flood protected structures, or relocate the university activities to a safer site. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­8 All UNO buildings must remain where they are now located, so the campus will not be cleared. Removing individual buildings should only be considered if the building has been substantially damaged or is otherwise not in sound condition. If a building is replaced, it needs to meet all current codes and be protected from the local flood hazard. Elevating a building above the flood level can be almost as effective as moving it out of the floodplain. Water flows under the building, causing little or no damage to the structure or its contents. Elevation is generally feasible only where the buildings are relatively easy to elevate and the flood hazard is severe enough to warrant the expense. Due to the size and structural nature of most of UNO’s buildings, it is not cost­effective to raise them. However, in some cases, it may be possible to install raised floors in areas that have adequate ceiling height. However, after Hurricane Katrina changes in the design to Pontchartrain Hall South resulted in the structure being elevated 6 feet above the original design in 2007 to reduce the risk of flooding. Additionally, the electrical facilities in Liberal Arts were moved from the basement to a higher elevation. Dry floodproofing is also a consideration. A building is dry floodproofed by making the walls watertight and ensuring that all openings will be closed when the flood arrives. It is generally only feasible when the following conditions are met: the building is in good shape; shallow flooding; slab­on­grade foundation; and short duration flooding. The most appropriate dry floodproofing design calls for an application of plastic sheeting on the walls. The plastic is covered by facing brick or other material that protects the plastic from puncture or deterioration by sunlight. Such projects have been built in Louisiana. Dry floodproofed house with facing brick (Baton Rouge) ® Floodguards doorway closure UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­9 Another concern is the sanitary sewer. Through infiltration and inflow, the sewer lines can become flooded. The line from the building can become a conduit for water in the sewer system. Therefore a backflow valve or other system is needed to prevent overloaded sewers from backing up into the structure. As with many retrofitting measures, dry floodproofing can have some shortcomings. The most important concern is duration of flooding. There are many ways and places where a waterproofing application can leak. The longer the floodwaters are up and putting pressure on the application, the greater the chance of a leak. Masonry walls in the New Orleans metropolitan area have weep holes to prevent moisture from building up in the wall cavities. Sealing the walls with plastic sheeting will block these holes. The design must accommodate the need for ventilation within the walls through new, higher weep holes or piping behind the plastic sheeting. The dry floodproofing approach recommended here requires human intervention, i.e., someone must be present at the site to install the retrofitting measure. This requires warning time before floodwaters reach the structure and someone capable of installing the closures. Because the UNO Facility Services staff is spread thin in the hours before a flood, this can be an important shortcoming, and the number of openings that need to be closed should be kept to a minimum. Wet floodproofing is also a consideration. Under this approach, electrical components, machinery, insulation, wallboard, paneling, carpeting and valuable contents are raised above the flood protection level. The flooded area is remodeled with materials that are not subject to water damage. For masonry buildings, with cinderblock interior walls, the key costs are replacing the floor and doors with flood­
resistant materials and coating the walls with epoxy­
based paint. Electrical panels elevated above the flood protection level in a wet floodproofed garage. A wet floodproofed structure should have little or no UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­10 contents subject to damage, or such contents should be kept in spaces above the flood protection level. Therefore, wet floodproofing is not appropriate for residence halls or buildings with much valuable equipment on the first floor. A floodwall is a barrier around the building, usually constructed of concrete. As with dry floodproofing, all doorways and sewer lines must be closed before the floodwaters arrive. The effectiveness of a floodwall is dependent on the underlying soil. If the ground is too porous, water will seep under the wall and flood the area. The design must also handle rain that falls within the wall. Both concerns can be addressed with interior drainage improvements. Low floodwall around a senior citizens’ apartment building These include installing subsurface drain tiles (perforated pipes that collect ground water) that drain to a pump. A pump (with a backup power source) pumps the water from the sump to outside the wall. As part of a Planning Pilot Grant Program (PPGP) activity, seven retrofitting projects were scoped for possible future implementation, several relating to flood retrofitting, including:    Elevator Flood Mitigation: adding controls to the elevators that have them stop and rest at higher floors, reducing the damage done by first­floor flooding. Floodproofing the Engineering Building: Alternatives for scoping much of the first floor, equipment areas or adding a floodwall were scoped, with the floodwall being the preferred method of protection. Improved Drainage along Founders Road: Projects were scoped based on a 2000 engineering report suggesting that drainage was inadequate. Partial and full implementations of recommended actions were scoped.  Wind Most UNO buildings are fully engineered reinforced concrete low­rise structures. The wind levels required for complete destruction are so improbable that retrofitting to reduce the probability of collapse even further are not likely to be economical. However, window breakage, window seal failure and roof failures, leading to extensive water damage from rain, have been experienced in many buildings and they are not improbable in the future. Loss of windows has led to destruction of the interior of many UNO buildings. Recent revisions to US building codes require shatter­resistant “laminated” glass in buildings in UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­11 hurricane­prone areas. It may prove economical to replace the windows and install improved seals, or perhaps apply a film to the windows which will keep them from shattering when hit by “missiles” to reduce the probabilities of these failures. A number of roof coverings were heavily damaged during Hurricane Katrina and have since been replaced. It probably will not prove economical to remove an otherwise effective roof in order to replace it with a more wind resistant one. However, as roofs are replaced over time due to normal degradation, it would be feasible to spend a little extra to get a more wind­resistant system. In addition, when new buildings are constructed, significant attention should be paid to roof construction and window materials and installation. Annual inspections should also occur to ensure there are no loose parts or appendages which could initiate failure during high winds. While all experts concur that the largest threat to the New Orleans area from a hurricane is the flooding, it must be emphasized that the damage caused by roof and window failure has been significant. Interior rooms can be reinforced and retrofitted to be windstorm “safe rooms” One strategy to protect people from high winds has been applied widely in tornado areas. A selected area of a structure is reinforced to resist very high winds. Such a safe room can protect the occupants of the building while a safe building could serve as a means for housing essential campus staff after the area is evacuated. As part of a Planning Pilot Grant Program grant, projects for wind retrofitting were scoped for future implementation. The attached Appendix B includes the PPGP scoping overview sheets for each of the identified projects, which are briefly described below:  Window retrofitting to the Administration Annex: Consideration was given to high­
impact windows, shutters and impact­resistant film.  Window retrofitting to University Center: Alternatives for window replacement, window shutters and impact­resistant film were scoped for future implementation.  UCC Safe Area: Scoped and partially enacted was the hardening of the University Computing Center for the purposes of serving as a safe area during an emergency. Changes have been made to include a secondary generator capable of running the entire building, hardening of external walls, conversion of new police headquarters to include living areas, a water separator to keep water from the gas line, and eliminating carpet on the first floor. However, scoping was done UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­12 to pursue additional communications capability, window shutters, and foundation hardening.  People The threat of attack by a terrorist, criminal, or disgruntled employee/student is always a possibility. The threat of break­ins by hungry and thirsty people displaced by a flood or other disaster has been experienced by the University. Over a thousand evacuees sought protection on the UNO Main Campus after Hurricane Katrina. They entered locked buildings and caused extensive damage. There is also the potential of a riot (or even a victory celebration) that may result in masses of people moving toward or into a University building. Possible retrofitting measures for the hazards that include people are similar to the measures taken to minimize break­ins by criminals. These include fences, extra locks, and strengthened doors and windows. As with a floodproofing measure, these sometimes require “human intervention,” i.e., someone has to put them in place after the alarm is sounded for them to work. University buildings have measures considered adequate for a typical individual. However, retrofitting for a determined and heavily armed terrorist or a large mob would be worthwhile only for selected buildings that have a high potential of being a target. Target buildings have been identified since the original plan. Chapter 3 and the vulnerability assessment indicated that the likelihood of a terrorist attack is very remote for University buildings. However, from time to time, threats may change and terrorists will state that they are targeting university campuses.  Mold Mold grows on many different materials in high humidity environments which are not air­
conditioned for a long period of time, such as the closed spaces of buildings following Hurricane Katrina. Because some people may be negatively affected by high concentrations of mold spores in the air, mold problems in public facilities are regarded very seriously, generally requiring specialized personnel and equipment for treatment. Further, as noted in Chapter 3, removing mold from University property can prove to be very expensive. The probability of future mold growth interfering with UNO operations can be reduced by improving back­up power sources to insure continuous air­conditioning. It may also be possible to reduce the use of “mold friendly” materials such as traditional paper­backed sheetrock and particle board in favor of “mold unfriendly materials such a concrete block, concrete board, treated wood and new “sheet rock” materials. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­13 It probably will not prove economical to remove otherwise functional materials simply to reduce the probability of future mold problems. However, some extra expense to utilize mold unfriendly materials in new construction or to replace materials removed for other reasons will likely be justified.  Recommendations University officials should further evaluate campus buildings for potential flood retrofitting measures designed to address low level flooding. A water­proofing specialist should inspect the exterior of each site to identify all possible sources of water infiltration. Evaluate benefits/costs of replacing windows and installing improved seals, or perhaps applying a film to the windows which will prevent them from shattering when hit by large debris during an event. Building maintenance and replacement procedures should include replacing “mold friendly” materials with “mold unfriendly” materials, including, first­floor carpeting. University officials should still pursue funding for the UCC safe area on the main campus which could potentially serve the entire University community as well as other scoped projects. 4.2.3 Development and Construction Policies Development policies are designed to keep future buildings and landscaping up to code. Their objective is to ensure that future development is not exposed to damage and does not increase the likelihood of damage to other properties. Those policies affecting all University of New Orleans’ campuses include the following: building codes, capital improvements, landscaping procedures, and stormwater management rules.  Building Codes Since all UNO buildings are state­owned, state building codes are applicable to all future and pre­existing construction. RS 40:1722 establishes the Louisiana Building Code and directs that the following codes be established as the standards as minimum standards for this code: the Life Safety Code, Standard 101, 2006 Edition as published by the National Fire Protection Association; XIV (Plumbing) of the State Sanitary Code as promulgated by the secretary of the Department of Health and Hospitals; the International Building Code, 2006 Edition as published by the International Code Council; the International Mechanical Code, 2006 Edition as published by the International Code Council; and the National Electric Code (NFPA No. 70) 2005 Edition as published by the National Fire Protection Association. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­14 Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is encouraging building back stronger and safer after major disasters in communities nationwide. FEMA­funded mitigation and public infrastructure recovery projects — including those in heavily impacted areas of the Gulf Coast region, such as The University of New Orleans, are to be tied to new, higher floodplain elevations updated by FEMA using the most accurate flood risk data available. Communities recovering from disasters are required to use the new elevations when available. Called Advisory Base Flood Elevations (ABFEs), the height at which there is a one percent or greater chance of flooding in a given year, the rebuilding standards are required for all FEMA­funded mitigation and public infrastructure grant­based recovery program projects. This includes the Public Assistance program, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Pre­Disaster Mitigation Grant program, Flood Mitigation Assistance program, and through the implementation of Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management. For New Orleans, FEMA has determined that eventual levee certification is likely and work on the levees is in the final stages as of 2011. FEMA recommends the following: new construction and substantially damaged homes and businesses within a designated FEMA floodplain should be elevated to either the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) shown on the current effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) or at least 3 feet above the highest adjacent existing ground elevation at the building site, whichever is higher; and new construction and substantially damaged homes and businesses not located in a designated FEMA floodplain should be elevated at least 3 feet above the highest adjacent existing ground elevation at the building site. A Base Flood Elevation (BFE) is the height at which there is a one percent or greater chance of flooding in a given year. It is the minimum building standard of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Advisory Base Flood Elevations are produced to assist state and local officials and those rebuilding in making decisions on how to reconstruct to help minimize vulnerability to future flood events. The FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map designates the campus as an AO Zone, with a base flood depth of 1.5 feet above ground level. It therefore would be currently regulated to the ABFE. The FIRM assumes that the lakefront levees will hold during a 100­year flood. If they failed at the crest of a 100­year flood, the campus would be inundated by water up to 18 feet above sea level. Such flooding would be much deeper than was witnessed following the post­Katrina levee breaches, where flood depths reached 3 feet above sea level. New construction on campus also follows the Life Safety Code (NFPA 101), the American with Disabilities Act, and applicable ordinances in the City of New Orleans. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­15  Capital Improvements A capital improvement plan will guide a community’s major public expenditures for the next 5 to 20 years. Capital expenditures may include acquisition of open space within the hazardous areas, extension (or withholding) of public services into hazardous areas or retrofitting existing public structures to withstand a hazard.  Landscaping Procedures Falling trees or limbs cause hundreds of millions of dollars of damage each year, as well as personal injury or death in the most extreme cases. Since trees are particularly subject to damage by wind, ice, and snow storms, downed trees and branches break utility lines and damage buildings, parked vehicles and anything else under them. An urban forestry program can reduce the damage potential of trees. Urban foresters or arborists can select hardier trees which can better withstand high wind and ice accumulation. Lack of proper maintenance, particularly pruning, is a contributing factor in massive damage caused to the region’s urban forest and power interruptions and threats to public safety. Individual species are also a major factor in the amount of storm damage. The older and larger the species of tree, the more brittle the wood and limbs tend to fail with less external stress than younger more pliant trees. By having stronger and more native trees, programs of proper pruning, and on­going evaluation of the trees, universities can prevent serious damage to their tree populations. A properly written and enforced urban forestry plan can reduce liability, alleviate the extent of fallen trees and limbs caused by wind and ice build­up, and provide guidance on repairs and pruning after a storm. University plant selection has been based on the hardiest, most drought tolerant plants available to survive the University’s lack of overall irrigation. This is a collective decision formulated by the University Grounds Manager, Campus Master Planner/Landscape Architect, and Facility Services. Tree selection is different from plant selection. Before Hurricane Katrina, the above offices had to re­think guidelines for the survivability of trees that would be replaced on campus. Trees such as Bradford Pear, Mimosa, Drake’s Chinese Elm, and Southern Magnolia trees did not survive the extreme winds from Hurricane Katrina nor the salt content of the flood waters. Trees that were able to weather the storm with little or no damage were Bald Cypress, Pine Cypress, Crepe Myrtle (depending on duration of submersion), Live Oak, Savannah Holly, Water Oaks, and tropical palm trees. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­16  Stormwater Management The basic University stormwater management guidelines for its main campus are simple: terrace and slope to the street whenever possible. UNO has a swale that extends ½ the perimeter around its main campus. Water is sloped to this swale, and it carries the runoff to an underground culvert. It then enters a City storm drain. The remaining storm water runoff enters area drains, located throughout the campus, which are also tied to the City of New Orleans’ storm drain system. New construction in floodplains can be protected from overbank and coastal flooding by floodplain regulations. The University of New Orleans sites are subject to stormwater flooding, as well as flooding from potential levee breaks. There are three main ways to prevent flooding problems caused by stormwater runoff:    Ensure that new developments have adequate storm sewers and/or drainageways to carry the water away; Require new developments to hold their excess runoff on site, so it will not overload the existing drainageways; and Set construction standards so buildings are protected from shallow water. Because most of New Orleans metropolitan area is flat and surrounded by levees protecting it from Lake Pontchartrain and the Mississippi River, rainwater cannot flow out by gravity. It has to be pumped out. The City of New Orleans has 22 drainage pumping stations and 13 underpass pumping stations that pump water out of the city and into Lake Pontchartrain or canals. Flooding will occur if there is more rainfall than the City’s or the Parish’s drains and pumps can handle. Generally, the pumps can handle about one­half inch to one inch of water per hour for the first few hours. A tropical storm or hurricane may drop several inches per hour, quickly overloading the man­made drainage system. Another factor contributing to the vulnerability of University buildings to shallow surface floods are clogged storm drains. The inlets become clogged with leaves, grass clippings, mud, trash and other debris, preventing storm water from flowing into the large, underground collection boxes that are part of the surface water drainage system. When a new building is constructed on UNO’s campus, the drains from the building are tied into the existing drainage system and the size of the drain lines are increased if necessary. New buildings have area drains in applicable plazas, patios, and any other paved area that is constructed. Roof drains located every 500 square feet handle storm water runoff from rooftops and is carried via roof drains which are directly tied into UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­17 underground storm drains. These drains on campus are then fed into the City’s storm drain located at the University’s property line. When grass is converted to a new parking lot, drains are also tied into the existing drainage system. Parking lots require a certain number of area sub­drainage per square yard, foot, or acre. Where the drainage system looks like it might be overloaded, storage space would be designed on the new parking lot to store the water before it goes into the drainage system. A civil engineer designs these stormwater management systems. One change since the previous Plan includes upgrading drainage in unpaved lots along Perimeter Road. The incorporation of a sub­drainage system into these lots on the main campus have helped to reduce groundwater flooding due to the overflow of the storm drainage system.  Recommendations University­wide development policies should be reassessed in light of the lessons learned from recent storm events. These policies should ensure that future development is not exposed to damage from a storm at least as strong as Katrina and does not increase damage to other properties. However, the University is part of the state’s higher education system and thus, it is held to the procedures dictated by the state. Through the incorporation of DRU Advisory Committee members on a number of sitting planning bodies, there are a number of hazard mitigation goals integrated into other existing University plans, and a number of plans directed toward hazards. The Advisory Committee should make sure that this effort continues. Any additional or replacement landscaping should continue to be limited to those species of plants and trees that are able to withstand damaging effects of high winds and flooding. Selection of the hardiest, most tolerant greenery should continue to be planted on all campus sites to act as a buffer where possible. 4.2.4 University Emergency Operations Threats to the University requiring an emergency response can be divided into two basic categories: lead­time events and rapid­onset events. Lead­time events are those for which there is advance warning and consequent time for thorough preparations. Rapid­onset events, in contrast, are more difficult to respond to and prepare for due to their “surprise” nature. A third category of hazards is not related to events that require emergency operations. These include subsidence, drought and termites. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­18  Lead­Time Events Hazards that fall into this category include major meteorological events such as tropical storms, winter storms, and hurricanes. Storms of this magnitude present the greatest material threat to the University under most circumstances and a potential for loss of life in the absence of adequate preparation. Events such as these affect the entire university and require the coordinated action of all relevant entities. The following hazards are considered lead­time events: hurricanes and tropical storms that cause flood and wind damage, storm surge, winter storms, epidemics and mold. Since hurricanes are the most significant lead time event requiring emergency response that the university is likely to face, much effort has been made, in light of recent experience, to assemble the appropriate leadership team. To this end, the Chancellor of the University New Orleans has designated the Vice Chancellor for Campus Services as the Plan Coordinator of the UNO Hurricane Emergency Plan. During the emergency period, the Plan Coordinator has supervisory responsibility over departments and personnel who comprise the Hurricane Emergency Preparedness Team (HEPT) and Hurricane Emergency Implementation Team (HEIT). All recommendations of the HEPT and HEIT must be relayed by the Plan Coordinator to the University Chancellor for his approval. The following positions comprise UNO’s Hurricane Emergency Preparedness Team (HEPT) and are responsible for making recommendations during the pre­season preparation, threat assessment, class cancellation, and university closure stages.                Provost and Vice Chancellor for Student and Academic Affairs Vice Chancellor for Campus Services Vice Chancellor for Enrollment Management Vice Chancellor for Research and Sponsored Programs Dean of Library Services Dean of Student Affairs Assistant Vice Chancellor for Public Safety Assistant Vice Chancellor for Accounting and Procurement Assistant Vice Chancellor for International Education Associate Vice Chancellor for Auxiliary Services Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities and Operations Chief Information Officer Chief Marketing & Communications Officer Compliance Officer Director, Athletics UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­19      Director, Auxiliary Services Director, Environmental Health and Safety Director, Human Resources Director, Privateer Place Director, Purchasing Department  Director, Student Housing The following positions comprise the Hurricane Emergency Implementation Team (HEIT) and are responsible for implementing specific detailed procedures for their area of responsibility. Each team member may require additional staff under his/her supervision to assist in the implementation of the Hurricane Emergency Plan.               Vice Chancellor for Campus Services (Plan Coordinator). In charge of overall plan coordination and implementation. Vice Chancellor for Enrollment Management. Manages all aspects of term calendarization which includes, registration, fee payment schedules and adjustments where needed to academic calendars. Assistant Vice Chancellor for Accounting and Procurement. Manages all efforts of Financial Accounting Operations, including Purchasing. Assistant Vice Chancellor for Public Safety. Manages all aspects of UNOPD preparation and response. Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Fiscal Administration. Provides information dissemination to both campus and off­campus departments. Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities and Operations. Manages all efforts of Facility Services as the campus deals with storm preparation and recovery issues. Chief Marketing & Communications Officer. Updates Emergency Information Center within SharePoint and the UNO website. Provides information dissemination to the local media and updates the 504­280­6000 main switchboard number with information for the general public. Chief Information Officer. Manages all aspects of the University Computing and Communications system. Provides support to the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer and the Plan Coordinator as needed. Compliance Officer. Activates and manages Business Continuity Plans (BCP) to ensure critical department/college functions resume during extended evacuation periods when re­population of the campus is necessary. Dean, Student Affairs. Manages all aspects of Student Affairs, including: Disabled Students, Health Services, and Judicial Affairs, throughout emergency. Director, Athletics. Manages all aspects of the Intercollegiate Athletic department, athletes, game schedules and athletic facilities throughout emergency Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Fiscal Administration. Provides information dissemination to the different campus departments and buildings. Reminds all departments about disseminating this information to all off campus locations. Director, Auxiliary Services (Food Services, Housing). Manages all efforts for food services and housing units as the campus deals with storm preparation, student evacuation, and storm recovery issues. Director, Environmental Health and Safety. Liaison between the University and emergency agencies such as Red Cross and New Orleans Office of Emergency Preparedness. Provides weather, evacuation, and other emergency information as it becomes available. Director, International Students and Scholars. Oversees contact with and evacuation plans of International Students in all departments. Provides dissemination of information to this group. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­20 These groups of decision­makers are responsible for guiding the university through the range of actions required to protect the lives of students, faculty and staff; to physically prepare the university and to bring it back to full function in the least amount of time. In order to disseminate the necessary information to all concerned parties, the Chancellor has designated the Chief Marketing and Communications Officer as the official source of university announcements. This office will post official information on the UNO switchboard 504­280­6000, make announcements via campus­wide email, and communicate with local TV and radio news programs. Information may also be distributed through the University’s Alert System e2campus, that sends emergency information to students and staff through email and via text message for all those who have signed up for the free service. Current information will also be available at WWNO, UNO’s public radio station. Emergency and essential personnel are required to monitor the University’s Emergency Information Hotline as well as the Emergency Information Center (EIC) found on UNO’s Sharepoint site. The University of New Orleans has developed a Hurricane Emergency Plan that includes general guidelines for all students, faculty and staff, in the event of a tropical storm or hurricane. The Plan is divided into 5 stages. The action steps indicated in the stages may or may not be taken within the stages listed, depending on the circumstances of the storm and time of day in which the storm occurs. In addition, the Plan Coordinator may declare a change in stage at any time due to the unpredictable nature of hurricanes.  Stage 1. Pre­Season Preparation This stage is focused primarily on having students, faculty and staff devise their own Personal Emergency Plan. It also includes a list of sources of information to help individuals develop their plans and remain informed of the progress of events.  Stage 2. Threat Assessment Stage 2 begins when the Director of Environmental Health & Safety sees that a weather pattern is elevated to tropical storm status and poses possible danger to Louisiana. This stage marks the beginning of the implementation of the hurricane plan and consists of various levels of information gathering and sharing. It is also during this stage that the HEPT makes a decision regarding class cancellation and/or evacuation, generally some 72 hours before predicted landfall.  Stage 3. Class Cancellation At this point non­resident students are instructed to initiate their evacuation plan. All required employees are likewise instructed to remain on campus until discharged by their supervisor. Once it has been verified that all buildings have been evacuated and secured, the university moves to Stage 4.  Stage 4. University Closure During Stage 4 all faculty and staff (with the exception of critical emergency personnel specifically designated by the Chancellor to maintain campus security and physical plant operations) are required to leave campus after discharging their responsibilities under the plan. The Student Housing Campus Evacuation Plan is initiated during this stage. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­21  Stage 5. Aftermath The final stage of the plan deals with damage assessment, recovery, reopening, and return to classes. This stage is divided into four phases: In the Damage Assessment stage, post­emergency response teams will come to the campus and inspect the facilities to make sure it is safe for other employees and resident students to return to the UNO Campus. In the Recovery stage, the essential university personnel are allowed back onto the campus to begin cleaning up and preparing their areas to be open to the public. In the Reopening stage, all other University Personnel and resident students are allowed on campus to finalize cleanup and prepare for the opening of the university. In the Return to Classes stage, the University resumes its normal operations.  Rapid­Onset Events Rapid­onset events include both natural and man­made disasters. These events can affect the entire university or a smaller part thereof. All pose a greater threat to life than storms or other hazards that provide advance warning. Rapid­onset events include: thunderstorms that cause stormwater flooding, minor wind damage, hail and lightning; tornadoes; earthquakes; dam failure; hazardous materials spills; nuclear accidents; civil unrest and terrorism. Building coordinators are the main contact point for information dissemination in each building. They also keep an eye out for safety deficiencies in their buildings. In the case of an evacuation building coordinators are the designated person to ensure that the building is evacuated. They are also the point person in an evacuation, i.e., fire or bomb threat, that receives the reports from the different offices in the building on the conditions of those other offices and transmits that information to the authorities as required. Pre­storm preparations require building coordinators to walk around the exterior of their building and identify dangerous situations then report them to Facility Services or take care of it them themselves. Building coordinators are appointed by the administration. Usually it is one of the highest ranking persons in that building. The building coordinators receive no extra compensation for their extra duties; thus, people may not be eager to accept this responsibility. Tornadoes. At present, the University has no means of protection against tornadoes other than the general instruction to seek safety in an interior room of a significant structure. The Weather Service does issue tornado advisories that can provide up to 15 minutes warning time in which many people can get to safety. Although there is a campus­wide emergency warning system comprised of the e2campus text messaging system and an emergency warning siren, the system is located on the main campus in terms of tornadoes, but can be heard off campus as well, including at the Research and Technology Park and the Lake Oaks neighborhood. A new siren has been installed on UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­22 the main campus. WWNO also monitors the National Weather Service’s severe weather warnings. Hazardous Materials Spills. A threat from hazardous materials can take three basic forms: accidental release of materials, release of larger quantities of toxic material on nearby railway lines or by a truck on adjacent roadways, or the intentional release of materials due to a terrorist attack. If toxic chemicals were released by a train derailment or a truck on the Interstate, the University has to rely on the City of New Orleans to inform them of the incident. It is unknown how quickly this notification would occur. However, University officials can receive alerts via text message from NOLAReady, the New Orleans Community Alert System and/or UNO’s e2Campus. In addition, review by University officials of the notification plan that currently exists for the City of New Orleans and the railroad system would give the University more awareness of the most effective way for the building to respond. In instances where sudden evacuation is not possible due to the rapid arrival of the chemical cloud, there is the need to alert the building to “shelter in place.” As mentioned, there is a campus­wide alert system with the addition of a second siren on campus. UNO’s e2Campus could be used to alert the University community. However, only University faculty/staff and students are allowed to register with e2Campus. Tenants and visitors will have to rely on building managers communicating message throughout their respective buildings. Civil Unrest. Perhaps the biggest unforeseen issue in the Katrina experience involved the appearance on campus of large numbers of people from the surrounding flooded neighborhoods. As UNO sits on higher ground, this was a natural occurrence. However, these survivors broke into campus buildings and not only took what they needed to survive, but some engaged in looting and vandalism. In some buildings the monetary damage was greater than that caused by the storm. These events took place because there was no building for a sufficient number of emergency personnel to remain during the storm and no plan in place to provide necessary supplies and services to the evacuees. From an emergency response perspective, having only two police officers on campus in the immediate aftermath was inadequate. One of the issues here is where to safely house such security/safety personnel during a storm. Another issue is the degree to which critical personnel remaining on campus could talk to outside agencies in the UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­23 event of total failure of normal means of communication, assuming that the campus was physically cut off as it was during Hurricane Katrina. The Louisiana National Guard did ultimately arrive to help provide supplies restore order and evacuate survivors but there was a period of communications blackout. If there had been fail­safe communications ability, and a prior plan to coordinate with outside agencies, damage to the university could have been lessened. Terrorism. Terrorism can come in many forms. Explosive devices, toxic chemicals or biological compounds and firearms can cause massive loss of life if employed by a determined individual or group. Bomb “threats” are an unfortunately common occurrence on many University campuses, often called in by individuals with a grievance or simply by those wishing to avoid a deadline of some sort. However, since the detonation of a bomb in a building has the potential to cause great loss of life, all bomb threats must be treated seriously. The University has detailed bomb threat procedures for both those receiving the phone threat as well as for safety personnel. As discussed above, terrorist attacks can come in many forms. It may not be feasible for the university to fully protect itself from every possible type of attack. In the case of a bomb threat, the university is relatively well prepared. In the case of a Columbine type incident or a sniper lodged on the roof of a tall building, the University police rely on city or parish SWAT teams. Some members of the UNO Campus Police department have been trained in SWAT and would most likely be first on the scene in response to an event.  Recommendations Expand use GIS of (Geographic Information Systems) to provide location (including photos, video, etc.) data to assist firefighters and HAZMAT personnel. First responders could have at their fingertips the location of any hazardous materials as well as the locations of critical infrastructure such as electrical shutoffs, water valves, etc. Prior coordination between the University and outside first response agencies such as the NOPD should lead to more effective emergency responses. Ensure that there is adequate training/information dissemination such that, when the campus alert alarm sounds, people know what to do. Encourage faculty/staff and students to register cell phones and email addresses on E2Campus (http://ucc.uno.edu/notification/) for the emergency text messaging system. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­24 This system allows you to receive immediate notification of emergency situations such as school closures, etc. Review the possibility of allowing tenants of off­campus sites to register. Encourage building coordinators to also register with the Orleans Parish emergency alert systems as well. Conduct further review of security measures (cameras, motion activated lights, open access to building during the day; open parking lots and parking too close to building, lack of perimeter fencing). Also, review current emergency plans for inclusion of potential acts of campus violence. Additionally, violence prevention programs should be investigated. 4.2.5 University Operations All major operational components of the University must be examined in order to develop a comprehensive mitigation program. Teaching, both in a classroom and online, research, management functions, information technology, and student services are all vital to the University in fulfilling its mission. The University also relies on the continuity of utilities such as electricity and water. The loss of such services can completely shut down University services and must be prevented. Even in the case of a disruption to operations, such as an evacuation for a storm, continuously functioning utilities are vital for short­term recovery and resumption of University business processes. The guaranteed presence of electricity allows buildings to be maintained at an optimum temperature and prevents the loss of property which is vital to both education and research. Continuity of University operations should be carefully planned and such planning usually takes the form of a Business Continuity Plan. A Business Continuity Plan (BCP) is a tool used by the various departments in an organization to ensure the swift resumption of normal operations following a disaster event. Some universities have elected to purchase software or hire a consulting firm to create their BCP. A BCP might include any of the following: identification of mission critical functions, a Business Impact Analysis, a Risk Reduction Survey, Maximum Acceptable Outage for business processes, and a prioritization of functions. All units at UNO are required to have a BCP, which is stored on Sharepoint. This is a new requirement since the 2006 hazard mitigation plan, and should help see to the continuance of operations in the event of an emergency. Post Emergency Response teams perform a damage assessment on University buildings as soon it is feasible to return after an emergency event. They inspect the facilities (all buildings, grounds, and utilities) to determine a timeframe for other UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­25 employees and resident students to safely return to the affected UNO site. The Post Emergency Response Teams report any unsafe campus conditions to the Highest Ranking Officer of UNO Police. This officer communicates with the Chancellor of the university to inform him of the status of that campus. If the campus is deemed safe, a decision is made on proceeding with reopening the campus. Essential personnel are allowed onto the campus for clean up and preparation of the area to be opened to the public. All remaining individuals such as university personnel, tenants and resident students return to the area for reopening. Since Hurricane Katrina, many improvements are under way to assist in improving the resumption of university operations after a disaster. Plans for some improvements were under way pre­Katrina, whereas others began in light of Hurricane Katrina. For example, the University Computing and Communications Department has developed a “mirror” site or “hot” swappable center for mission critical computer systems. The site is located on the LSU Baton Rouge campus at the Frey Computer Center. This backup location has hardware and software identical to that used on the main campus. Using synchronization software will keep these systems updated in real time so that at a moment’s notice the university can switch computing functions from the main campus to the backup site. The switching process can take anywhere from five to 30 minutes to complete. Approximately 25 backup servers are being maintained at the Frey Computer Center. The following systems have been identified as mission critical functions: Domain Controller, DNS Server, Web (UNO Home Page), E­mail (MS Exchange for faculty, staff and students), PeopleSoft Learning Solutions (HR/Payroll/Student Administration), and PeopleSoft Financials (General Ledger, Purchasing, Payables). In addition to improving redundancy of computer systems, UCC has also established redundant network links to the servers located in Baton Rouge and the main campus. These links have been established with two independent communication providers and therefore take two different paths from campus to Baton Rouge. Additionally, the university has two Internet service providers and has increased communications bandwidth to the off campus servers from forty­five megabits to one­hundred megabits. The university also has a natural gas generator in the computer center capable of running all servers, network equipment and air conditioning units located in our computer room. This will allow for survival through intermittent power outages and provide for the ability to run computer systems without depending on the city’s electric service provider. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­26 The University has installed two emergency sirens on campus that will alert anyone on campus that an emergency has been declared. The University is in the process of upgrading alert systems inside buildings to give more robust information about the nature of the alert and what actions are expected. Other plans for improvements being discussed involve administrators and critical staff having one satellite phone and additional cell phone numbers with outside area codes so that if an instance such as Katrina occurs, where cell phones in the retrospective area did not work, the person could still be contacted through additional contact numbers. Wireless cards, in addition to other software, and notebooks/laptops are being considered for staff so that they may bring their work with them in the event of an evacuation. In addition, University Computing and Communication is working towards having two toll­free telephone numbers to allow students, faculty, and staff to call the university. The additional telephone line will be for essential personnel to retrieve information.  Recommendations The University and its units should continue to consult the BCPs they have developed to make sure that all plans are up­to­date. The University should continue to upgrade the UCC to serve as an emergency operations center in the event of a disaster. The University should continue to develop hazards­based plans like those that have already been developed. These plans should be reviewed to make sure they are up­to­
date. 4.2.6 Information and Education Developing Public Information projects is the first step in the process of orienting students, faculty and staff to the hazards they face and the concept of mitigation. Projects should be designed to encourage people to seek out more information in order to take steps to protect themselves, the University, and their property. Research has proven that outreach projects are effective. Information can bring about voluntary mitigation activities at little or no cost to the University. However, awareness of the hazard is not enough; people must also be told what they can do to protect themselves from the hazard. Projects should include information on safety, health, and property protection measures. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­27 Research has also shown that local programs are more effective than national advertising or publicity campaigns. Therefore, outreach projects should be locally designed and tailored to the University community. Messages used as part of Public Information projects may be tailored to the target audience. The types of messages appropriate for students depend on the student’s particular situation (e.g., disabled students, students residing in campus housing, students from outside of the New Orleans Metropolitan area, international students, students without transportation, etc.). Faculty and staff are charged with the protection of the University’s property. They must be trained on how to back up information systems, protect valuable items, and safeguard their own belongings. Currently, faculty and staff do not receive much guidance from the University. Some departments may have policies in place for faculty, but the University, as a whole does not. Certain critical staff members are tasked with protection measures prior to a storm event, such as clearing debris. These tasks are outlined in the Hurricane Action Plan found on the university web site. However, this plan appears to only be used by Facilities Services. Visitors from outside of the area may be without transportation and be unfamiliar with the evacuation process. These individuals should be advised to alter their travel arrangements, if possible, to exit the area prior to a mandatory evacuation. Visitors may require transportation to the airport, or information on evacuation routes if they will be driving out of the area. At the present time, no information is available specifically for visitors. Public information campaigns can include various forms of media including handouts, newsletters/mailings, websites, news media, WWNO, campus presentations, signs, etc. Brochures can be made available in administrative buildings and the library, or in other high traffic areas where students, faculty/staff, tenants and visitors are likely to notice the materials. Signs, located around campus in high traffic areas, can also serve to inform those individuals who both notice and read them. Signs providing evacuation and hazard information are not currently in place on the campus. The most effective types of outreach projects are mailed or distributed to everyone in the community. A school paper, like UNO’s Driftwood, may reach the entire University community. A website, such as the University’s website, can also be an effective means of providing information to all University stakeholders. One advantage of providing information over the Internet is that it can be easily accessed by anyone with a computer and a connection. Parents outside of the New Orleans metropolitan area can easily look for updates and access the same information as the students themselves. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­28 However, it is critical that the information on the website is easy to locate and access. Faculty/staff and students can currently access some disaster preparedness information on the UNO website. This information can be found on the UNO Environmental Health & Safety website. A Hurricane Preparedness / Action Plan, and a guide to protecting personal information are both available. Local newspapers can be strong allies in efforts to inform the public. Press releases and story ideas may be all that is needed for their interest. After a tornado in another community, people and the media became interested in their tornado hazard and how to protect themselves and their property. Local radio stations and cable TV channels can also be helpful. These media offer interview formats and cable TV and may be willing to broadcast videos on the hazards. WWNO, the local radio station operated by The University of New Orleans is implementing a plan to continue broadcasting during a disaster event. This radio station will be able to deliver important information to students, and other individuals, within the Greater New Orleans Area. Presentations at meetings of University groups, particularly around orientation, can also be an effective form of outreach. At the present time, few such presentations are made. Some information is given during both Freshman Orientation and the International Student Orientation. Overall, there are many ways that public information can be used so that students, faculty/staff, tenants and visitors will be more aware of the hazards they face and how they can protect themselves. University staff can implement many of the proposed public information activities. By formalizing its activities, a University can ensure that all individuals receive proper and adequate information.  Recommendations Safety workshops should be held during student orientation. All student, faculty, and staff should be provided with wallet sized cards containing safety information as well as a detailed evacuation list. The University shall work with Student Government to develop activities during National Preparedness Month, September, to engage students and provide them with important information. Safety workshops for on­campus residents should be continued. These classes are currently instructed by Facility Services personnel. The University’s webpage should include mitigation information in addition to the emergency plans already listed. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­29 Mitigation information is part of the curriculum for the UNIV 1001: University Success class required for all new incoming students and should remain a requirement. 4.3 Action Items The Research Team along with the Advisory Committee identified several hazard mitigation actions that could benefit the University. These recommendations were based on a range of potential mitigation actions described in section 4.2. The recommendations were categorized according to areas of mitigation including flood protection, retrofitting, development and construction policies, emergency operations, university operations, and information and education. Specific action items were then recommended based on the general recommendations stated in section 4.2 and with five factors in mind: hazards that pose the greatest threats, appropriate measures, costs and benefits, affordability, and environmental impact. Section 4.4 lists the 15 action items that address the major hazards, are appropriate for those hazards, are cost­effective, are affordable and have minimal negative impacts on the human and natural environment. The last section of the chapter addresses how these action items are to be implemented along with the adoption and revision of the mitigation plan. Fifteen action items were identified in the update. Fourteen of these actions originated in the 2006 plan; one new action (number 15) was added. No action items from the 2006 Mitigation Plan were deleted during this Update. These Action Items directly relate to the goals and strategies previously discussed in this chapter. The following chart is a summary of the items, including current status. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­30 Table 11­1 Action Item Summary 1. Strengthen buildings and facilities 2. Educate faculty, staff and students 3. Emergency response capabilities 4. Disaster recovery capabilities 5. Attention to special resources 6. Invest appropriate resources 3. Continuity of University operations 1. DRU Advisory Committee 2. Drainage system evaluation 3. Retrofitting measures 4. Safe building/floor/area 5. Target building evaluation 6. Development policies evaluation 7. Master Plan reassessment 8. Building and GIS data 9. Emergency operations procedures 10. University Emergency Communications 11. Business continuity plan 12. Hazard protection education 13. Hazard protection information projects 14. Increased Use of Online Learning 15. Violence Prevention / Mental Health 2. Protect buildings and infrastructure Action Item Strategies 1. Protect lives and health Goals x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Expanded/Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing x x x x x x x Expanded/Ongoing x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing New Status Action Item 1. Maintain Permanent DRU Advisory Committee In May 2007, members of the original DRU Advisory Team agreed to participate in the DRU Advisory Committee on a permanent basis. This Committee should be maintained. Duties of this Team include:     act as a forum for hazard mitigation issues, disseminate hazard mitigation ideas and activities to all participants, monitor the incorporation of this Plan into other planning mechanisms, monitor implementation of this Plan and UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­31  report on progress and recommended changes to the Chancellor. The Committee does not have any powers over University offices or staff. It is purely an advisory body. Its primary duty is to collect information and report to the participating offices and the Chancellor on how well this Plan is being implemented. The DRU Advisory Committee is, in effect, UNO’s hazard mitigation conscience, reminding the offices and staff that they are all stakeholders in the Plan’s success. While it has no formal powers, its work should act as a strong incentive for the offices responsible for the action items to meet their deadlines. Members of the Committee include:                  Academic Affairs & Fiscal Administration Auxiliary Services Campus Services Environmental Health and Safety Office Facility Services Jefferson Center Lakefront Arena/CERM Ogden Museum Public Safety Student Affairs Technology and Economic Development University Advancement University Computing and Communication University Police University Relations & Campus Services University Student Housing CHART, Ad hoc and staff support In addition to the above listed duties, the Committee should continue to consider whether other individuals or groups should be invited to participate and to nominate new committee members when appropriate. The Committee should also continue attempts to include student leaders in the Mitigation Planning Process. Responsible Agency: UNO­CHART will assist the Vice­Chancellor of Campus Services in facilitating meetings and drafting required reports. Deadline: Annual progress reports are due on the anniversary of the date the Plan is adopted. A five year­update is required for continuing credit of this Plan under FEMA’s mitigation funding programs. Cost: Staff time. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­32 Benefits: Those responsible for implementing the various recommendations have many other jobs to do. A monitoring system helps ensure that they don’t forget their assign­
ments or fall behind in working on them. The Plan should be evaluated in light of progress, changed conditions, and new opportunities. The end result will be an up­to­date and effective collection of mitigation activities that will reduce the University’s exposure to the hazards. Hazards Addressed: All 17 hazards, natural and human­caused listed in the hazard identification and analysis. Status: Ongoing ­­ Between adoption and the end of the five­year update cycle, one annual report was produced. During the five years, the committee met regularly and was in contact as they created and adopted a hazard mitigation plan for the satellite campuses, scoped PPGP projects, and hosted a national Disaster­Resistant University Conference with the Louisiana Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness. Being regularly engaged, additional reports were deemed unnecessary. Efforts on this action item should continue. Action Item 2. Drainage System Evaluation An overall review of the surface and subsurface parts of the drainage system will be conducted to ensure that all storage and conveyance facilities are designed and maintained to minimize flood damage to buildings. This review will include an evaluation of:  On­site retention of stormwater in low areas and in parking lots, and  The costs and benefits of a formal swale maintenance program. In addition, a database of recent and planned drainage projects, maintenance procedures, and system needs will be developed to assist in the planning efforts for this action item. Responsible agency: Campus Services/Facility Services (Vice Chancellor) Deadline: Ongoing process as new construction and/or paving projects take place. Cost: Staff time. Benefits: Over the years, the surface drainage system has filled in and deteriorated. Storm sewer inlets have become clogged with debris. Although Facility Services has UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­33 completed an evaluation of the drainage system, this follow­up evaluation will include a review of the surface drainage system that conveys stormwater to the storm sewers. The result will be a drainage system that handles the largest amount of stormwater at the least expense and prevents damage to buildings and other infrastructure. Hazards Addressed: Floods (Minor/Major/Hurricane/Levee Failure), Winter Storms. Status: Ongoing ­­ An evaluation of the drainage system is conducted with each new construction project. As new projects and paving activities are conducted, this evaluation will continue. Recent upgrades include improvements in sub­surface drainage and swales along Perimeter Road. Action Item 3. Retrofitting Measures Buildings that were damaged by recent storms will be (1) retrofitted with appropriate floodproofing measures and/or (2) retrofitted with appropriate wind retrofitting measures. The retrofitting projects may be funded as mitigation actions under various FEMA programs. At this stage, some projects have been implemented, but there are seven projects that have been scoped, and pursuit of resources to implement these projects now becomes the priority for this Action Item, but new retrofitting items could be identified as their need is identified. The projects were identified based on weaknesses discovered during Hurricane Katrina, and were studied for feasibility using the STAPLEE method. These projects, described in more detail in Appendix B, include:  Installation of wind­resistant storm window tracks and paneling on the exterior of the Administration Annex ($53,931)  Installation of wind­resistant storm window tracks and paneling on the exterior of the University Center ($243,202)  Construction of a Floodwall and Floodgate system around the exterior of the Engineering Building. ($1,016,500)  Improving elevators in four buildings that would keep the cabs from returning to the first floor if it were flooded ($73,568)  Implementation of recommended changes in the drainage of Founders Road. ($908,400)  Retrofitting the University Computing Center so that is can serve as a safe building. This action includes new actions to the building, including installation of wind­resistant windows, and upgrading emergency communications. ($80,635)  Purchase and installation of emergency generators. ($400,000 each) Responsible agency: Campus Services, Vice Chancellor UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­34 Deadline: Target completion date for all projects is 2011­2016. Cost: To be determined as projects are fully scoped. Estimates for current scoping included in parentheses following project descriptions. Potential Funding Source: Local/State budget, FEMA (HMGP, PDM) Benefits: Each building will be protected from the type of damage caused by Hurricanes Katrina/Rita/Gustav. The actual benefits of each project will vary, but at a minimum, FEMA’s benefit/cost software will be used to demonstrate that the benefits exceed the costs over time. Hazards Addressed: Floods (Minor/Major/Hurricanes/Levee Failure), Wind(Tropical Storms, Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Thunderstorms), Storm Surge, Winter Storms. Status: Ongoing ­­ Several mitigation projects at the UNO Lakefront Arena have been undertaken. The roof has been upgraded to a modified bitumen system, and can now withstand 135 mph winds. Similarly the fascia and “sloped roof” have been upgraded. The sloped roof was manufactured on premises and was installed on top of the old slope roof, improving insulation and mitigating against wind hazards. A new air conditioning system will dehumidify the air, preventing structural damage in the aquatics center caused by the circulation of chlorinated air. Efforts were also made to replace certain contents of the Arena with water­resistant materials (e.g., plastic lockers, mold resistant seat fabric, etc.). Several other potential mitigation projects have been scoped and are ready to be submitted when grant funding is available for retrofitting activities. These projects include wind and flood retrofitting projects discussed above. Action Item 4. Safe building/Safe Room/Safe Floor The University will design and construct a “safe building/room/floor” that will function as the “University Disaster Management Center”. It will perform multiple functions. It will:  Be built to withstand Category 5 winds and the 500­year flood,  House an emergency operations and communications center,  Provide shelter to a cadre of University emergency management and public safety staff during extreme events,  Consider the possibility of housing emergency operations staff from the City and relevant agencies, so there will be an auxiliary City emergency operations center during emergencies (in the UCC Safe Area), and  House a generator large enough to power emergency services in campus buildings to enable the University to continue operating after a storm or evacuation. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­35 If community residents come onto campus to seek safety, the University will facilitate the flow of evacuees to a designated area for temporary shelter. The designated area will serve as a pick­up point for public authorities to evacuate these residents to a safer location out of the area. In addition, increased collaboration between the city, these public authorities, and UNO officials will be required. Collaboration should involve discussions that include these public authorities possibly residing in the University Disaster Management Center at UNO. Responsible agency: Campus Services (Vice Chancellor / Campus Police Chief). Deadline: Target completion date is 2011­2016. Cost: Initial scoping estimated at $80,635. Potential Funding Source: Local/State budget, FEMA (HMGP, PDM) Benefits: The Campus Disaster Management Center will provide protection to the Campus from the type of damage that interrupted university operations after Hurricane Katrina. It may help to accomplish this task by having adequate staff available during and after an event, problems created by evacuees or intruders can be prevented and post­
disaster clean up can proceed faster. The University Disaster Management Center will have a secure source of power, which will allow for the control of temperature and humidity in buildings. This may help to avoid or reduce the tremendous expense of mold remediation. FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program requires that the University demonstrate that the benefits of the project exceed the costs over time. Hazards Addressed: Floods (Minor/Major/Hurricanes/Levee Failure), Wind(Tropical Storms, Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Thunderstorms), Hail, Lightning, Mold, Earthquakes, Storm Surge, Civil Unrest. Status: The University Computing Center has been hardened to a degree, and operates on separate generators during an emergency. The University Police have moved to the building, which can be converted into a command center during an emergency. The command center includes sleeping and eating facilities, and has some retrofitting for wind and flood resilience. Additional retrofitting projects are being scoped as part of FEMA’s Planning Pilot Grant Program. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­36 Action Item 5. Target Building Evaluation In this plan, there are eight buildings identified on UNO’s main campus that would be likely targets for terrorists, vandals, protesters, and others wanting to do damage to campus structures and operations. Earlier sections of this plan identify additional buildings that may be considered targets as well. Each of these performs a different function and would offer a different opportunity for an attacker. All University buildings should be prioritized to identify an order in which buildings should be evaluated based on the types of hazards to which each may be vulnerable. Each will be evaluated separately to determine where they are vulnerable and to identify appropriate retrofitting or other protective actions. Members of UNO Police have received training related to construction/landscaping techniques and homeland security. Facility Services should continue to coordinate with these individuals to assist identifying/scoping future retrofitting projects, and consider if the list of target buildings should be updated over time Responsible agency: The Department of Public Safety, University Police in conjunction with the Environmental Health and Safety Office and Facility Services (Police Chief/Environmental Health & Safety Officer). Deadline: Annually. Cost: Staff time. Benefits: The eight (and possibly other) target buildings offer attackers opportunities to do great damage to the University and its operations. The evaluations will identify the best way(s) to defend against such attacks. Individual recommended retrofitting projects will be reviewed to ensure that they are cost­effective. Hazards Addressed: Civil Unrest, Terrorism. Status: Ongoing ­­ University Police conduct target­area walk­throughs each Thursday to identify possible hazards, including burned­out lights and low­visibility areas. Concerns are reported to Facility Services for correction. These walk­throughs should continue and the list of target buildings re­evaluated over time. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­37 Action Item 6. Future Development and Construction Policies The University has a variety of development and construction policies and procedures that govern how sites are developed and improved. These will be reviewed to incorporate the following:  Building maintenance and replacement procedures to include: provisions for replacing windows and roofs with appropriate wind and mold resistant materials and technology, or to provide for the stability of structures in the instance of an earthquake,  Standards for construction of new buildings to include stronger wind, hail, and water standards than required by current state codes, and standards for construction considering subsidence of the land,  Landscaping guidance to focus on those species of plants and trees that are able to withstand the damaging effects high winds, flooding, and drought, and  Landscaping guidance to identify the best locations for trees and plants to act as buffers against wind. Responsible agency: Campus Services/Facility Services (Vice Chancellor) Deadlne: Two years from adoption of this Plan. Cost: Staff time. Benefits: The measures listed above are relatively inexpensive approaches to mitigate low intensity hazards. They can be incorporated into ongoing programs and policies to ensure that only cost­effective approaches are included. The result will be better protection of all campus’ buildings and facilities at minimal additional cost. Hazards Addressed: Floods (Minor/Major/Hurricanes/Levee Failure), Wind (Tropical Storms, Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Thunderstorms), Storm Surge, Hail, Lightning, Winter Storms, Subsidence, Earthquakes, Drought Status: Ongoing – A number of changes have been made in planned landscaping and construction activities because of knowledge gained during Hurricanes Katrina/Rita/Gustav. Among these changes are shifts to more hearty trees that better withstand drought, winds and flooding, and elevating Pontchartrain Hall South 6 feet higher than initially planned. As a state­run facility adoption or higher regulatory standards is controlled by the state, but the Advisory Committee continues to look for areas to incorporate mitigation where possible. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­38 Action Item 7. Master Plan Reassessment All University plans, including the Capital Outlay Plan, the Strategic Plan, and the Institutional Effectiveness Plan, will be reviewed annually in light of the annual report produced by the DRU Advisory Committee. At this time, appropriate mitigation projects and other plan elements should be considered for inclusion in these planning documents. Responsible agency: Campus Services/Facility Services (Vice Chancellor) Deadline: Annually. Cost: Staff time. Benefits: Close coordination of the University’s capital expenditures with its mitigation objectives will ensure that future construction will be appropriately protected from hazards. For example, new buildings in the area flooded following the Katrina levee breaks can be elevated above the flood level. By having a flexible and responsive capital outlay program, the University can better react to its immediate needs and opportunities that arise from recent disasters. Before large amounts of funds are spent, each project will be reviewed to ensure that the construction will be disaster resistant. Hazards Addressed: Floods (Minor/Major/Hurricanes/Levee Failure), Wind(Tropical Storms, Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Thunderstorms), Storm Surge, Hail, Subsidence, Earthquakes, Terrorism. Status: Expanded ­­ The original Plan only called the Advisory Committee to coordinate with the Capital Outlay Plan. Since then, the Committee has realized that there are a number of plans that should be considered for coordination including the Strategic Plan. DRU Advisory Committee members sit on the committees on these plans and continue to integrate mitigation activities where appropriate. Committee members serve on the committees that develop these plans. Both the specific goals and hazard mitigation, in general, have been incorporated into these plans. For example, the Strategic Plan sets goals related to emergency awareness and alerts, incorporating hazard mitigation in rebuilding efforts, upgrading the electricity in the UCC, ensuring redundancy of the network, and incorporating disaster planning into the business continuity plan for all units. There are now 11 plans or guides related to emergency procedures, including a Disaster Emergency Plans, a Hurricane Plan, Communications Plan and a University Services Resumption Plan. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­39 Action Item 8. Building and GIS Data There is a wealth of information on the buildings, facilities and infrastructure on campus. However, a majority of the information is not in a format readily usable by police, fire and other emergency personnel. Most building floor prints have been collected, scanned and located on Sharepoint, in addition to basic attributes to those buildings. Under this project, this work will continue and information will be collected, catalogued, organized, and provided in formats that first responders need. The data will include:         Ground and rooftop entries and exits, Electrical and gas shutoffs, Water valves, Ductwork and utility corridors, Valuable and abnormal contents, such as computers and animal colonies, Hazardous materials and chemicals, GIS locational data of these components, and Photos and videos to assist first responders in navigating a dangerous situation. Responsible agency: CHART in coordination with the Department of Public Safety, and the New Orleans Police and Fire Departments. Deadline: As resources become available, the building diagrams should be converted to an integrated GIS. Target completion date is 2011­2016. Cost: Potential software costs and staff time. Additional funds would need to be obtained. Potential Funding Source: Local/State budget Benefits: The Building and GIS data will provide information on structural aspects, infrastructure, and contents, in effect addressing almost all natural hazards. The target building evaluations (Action item 5) will identify the key features of campus buildings and facilities that are of interest to first responders. After these key buildings are evaluated, the rest of the campus will be inventoried. The result will be very useful data that can facilitate response to a variety of hazard events, especially fires, power outages, hazardous materials accidents, terrorists, snipers and other people threatening lives or property. The benefits in lives, property and University down time could be immense. Hazards Addressed: Floods (Minor/Major/Hurricanes/Levee Failure), Wind(Tropical Storms, Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Thunderstorms), Storm Surge, Hail, Lightning, Winter UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­40 Storms, Subsidence, Earthquakes, Termites, Epidemics, Mold, Hazardous Materials Spills, Nuclear Accidents, Civil Unrest, and Terrorism. Status: Ongoing ­­ While the goal of this item is to have a fully integrated GIS for first responders, this task has not been fully completed. Now, on Sharepoint, there are digitized floor plans for every floor in every building on campus. However, this information has not been integrated with a GIS at this time. Action Item 9. Emergency Operations Procedures The University has several different plans for different hazards, emergencies, and contingencies. Under this action item, they will be reviewed, coordinated, and augmented as appropriate to include the following:  Improved coordination with City and State emergency management offices,  Monitoring NOAA Weather Radio and City police frequencies in addition to agency alerts to provide early warning of an incident or weather event,  Specific response actions for different hazards,  Improved evacuation instructions,  Provisions for sheltering students, especially foreign students, during and following an     event, Identification of additional equipment and supplies that may be needed by campus first responders, such as chemical protective suits, radiation detectors, and night vision devices, Operating procedures for an emergency operations center, Training and exercises for all affected personnel, and Distribution of the procedures to all appropriate parties on and off campus. Responsible agency: University Police and Environmental and Health Safety Office under the Department of Public Safety Deadline: Should be done annually as Emergency Plans are updated annually. Cost: Staff time. Benefits: Emergency operations procedures that have been carefully prepared, that are based on all available data on the hazards and their potential impact, that utilize the latest planning and management tools, and that are regularly exercised will greatly improve the University’s disaster response capabilities. Better disaster response means less loss of life, injury to people, damage to property, and/or disruption of university operations. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­41 Hazards Addressed: All 17 hazards, natural and human­caused listed in the hazard identification and analysis. Status: Ongoing ­­ A number of procedures have been developed for individual hazards, and this process is ongoing. A Memorandum of Understanding has been signed with Northwestern State University in Natchitoches for the housing of on­campus students in the event of an evacuation. Additionally, some University Police staff have undergone advanced training. Action Item 10. University Emergency Communications System Investigate ways to enhance the current emergency communications system. Examples include incorporating the use of social media. The University should continue to provide training to faculty, staff and students on the System as it develops. All stakeholders must be informed of the system components, when the system will be activated and how to react when the system is implemented. The University should continue to test the system periodically. Responsible agency: University Police/Environmental and Health Safety Office/Communications Office (Vice Chancellor of Campus Services) Deadline: Training and testing can be done on a quarterly basis. Cost: Staff time to design the system and provide training. Benefits: Early recognition of a tornado, hazardous materials spill plume, nuclear accident, civil unrest, or other rapid onset hazard can save lives and prevent property damage. For example, five minutes of warning of a tornado or lightning would give authorities time to issue an order for everyone to seek shelter indoors. This will augment the fire alarm system which is only indoors and which instructs everyone to go outside. Hazards Addressed: Tornadoes, Hazardous Materials Spill, Nuclear Accident, Civil Unrest, Terrorism, Winter Storms, Floods (Minor/Major/Hurricanes/Levee Failure), Wind (Tropical Storms, Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Thunderstorms), Storm Surge, Hailstorms, and Lightning. Status: Ongoing/Expanded ­­ The University has established a three­level system to identify an impending hazard as early as possible and to issue warnings appropriate to the situation. Continued and increased success will require awareness and encouragement of participation from faculty staff, students and guests. A series of radios provides the initial level of preparedness, allowing relevant staff to communicate and initiate preparedness or response activities. At the second level, the University has UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­42 enrolled in the e2campus alert system that allows faculty, staff, students and guests to enroll for emergency messages by text message and/or email. A final level of warning is issued through warning sirens or emergency alarms. Since the initial plan, two shelter­
in­place sirens have been installed on campus. These sirens cover campus and nearby neighborhoods and indicate that a shelter­in­place emergency has been declared for the area. Examples would include a tornado warning or an armed gunman. Sirens are tested on the Friday or the second week of each semester. Notification is posted on campus and through the email and e2campus alert system. The University continues to pursue improvements to the public address system to deliver pertinent information after emergency alarms are sounded. It is also exploring ways to integrate social media into the emergency communications system. Action Item 11. Business Continuity Plan The University will create a University­wide Business Continuity Plan (BCP) to serve as an asset in the disaster recovery process by ensuring that the University can continue mission critical functions. The creation of the BCP will require (1) the identification of mission critical functions along with the resources and costs it will take for their continued execution (2) the creation of a Business Impact Analysis (BIA), and (3) the creation of a Risk Reduction Survey (RRS). The BCP will also involve the designation of key officials to a designated temporary operations center. Officials will know what they need to bring with them to the center in the event of a disaster. Copies of the BCP will be kept by key department members and at the designated temporary operations center. BCPs created by individual departments are to be updated annually. Training on department BCPs should also take on an annual basis/ Responsible agency for development: CHART Responsible agency for implementation: Academic Affairs/Office of the Chancellor Deadline: Continue to update and promote familiarity with established BCPs annually. Identify resources to develop and implement a university­wide BCP prior to the 5 year update of this Plan in 2016. Cost: Staff time. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­43 Benefits: A BCP will assist in Short Term Recovery and help to ensure that the mission critical functions of the university are allowed to continue in the event of a hazard. It will also help to ensure the long term viability of the University as an institution. Hazards Addressed: All 17 hazards, natural and human­caused listed in the hazard identification and analysis. Status: Ongoing ­­ While an umbrella BCP has not been developed, it is now a requirement that each University unit have on Sharepoint a BCP for their unit. Familiarity and updates must be encouraged. Action Item 12. Hazard Protection Education A short training course on the hazards faced on campus and the appropriate safety and property protection measures will be developed. Students will be required to take the course. The course will also be offered to faculty and staff. New faculty and staff should receive information at their orientations, in addition to students, who should receive information at new student orientations. CHART in partnership with Academic affairs will continue to work together to distribute emergency management information at orientations. Responsible agency for content development: CHART Responsible agency for implementation: Academic Affairs (Provost)/Campus Services (Environmental & Safety Officer) Deadline: Fall Semester 2012 during UNIV 1001: University Success course. Cost: Staff time. Cost: Staff time. Potential Funding Source: Local/State budget Benefits: An educated student body will be a safer student body. Students (and participating faculty and staff) will know how to protect their computers, vehicles, and homes from damage and what they can do to prevent or minimize problems on campus (e.g., keep storm drain inlets cleared). The end result will be a knowledgeable population who will take steps to protect themselves, their belongings, and campus property at minimal cost to the University. Hazards Addressed: All 17 hazards, natural and human­caused listed in the hazard identification and analysis. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­44 Status: Ongoing ­­ A University Success course has been added for all incoming freshman. Efforts are being made to incorporate more hazard preparedness information into this class. Additionally, funding from the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness has allowed incorporation of hazard preparedness and mitigation to be incorporated into more University curriculum. A hazard mitigation minor is under development and a certificate has already been developed under Public Administration. Additional opportunities to expand knowledge of hazards and mitigation actions are being explored. Action Item 13. Hazard Protection Information Projects Each year, the DRU Advisory Committee will institute a series of projects to advise faculty, staff, and students about hazard safety and property protection. These will be reminders for those who have taken the hazard protection course. Examples of such projects include:  Providing all faculty, staff, and students with a small wallet card with safety information,  Providing all faculty, staff, and students with an evacuation checklist,  Providing hazard and mitigation information on the University’s webpage, along with links to related sites,  Selling pre­packaged disaster supply kits in the University bookstore,  Observing National Preparedness Month (September) with special activities, such as a remembrance of Hurricane Katrina and the launching of new public information projects,  Separate orientations for those who are residing in student housing or in the temporary trailer parks, and  Making evacuation maps available to all students, staff and visitors. Responsible agency: PIO in conjunction with the Department of Public Safety, CHART, and Human Resources. Deadline: Additional projects will be drafted within one year of adoption of this Plan. Cost: Staff time. Benefits: The projects will reinforce other campus, city, state, and federal efforts to inform people about the hazards and ways to protect people and property. The end result will be a knowledgeable population who will take steps to protect themselves, their belongings, and campus property at minimal cost to the University. Hazards Addressed: All 17 hazards, natural and human­caused listed in the hazard identification and analysis. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­45 Status: Ongoing ­­ No staff course has been developed, and while the DRU Advisory Committee did provide an information table to some events, this is an area that stands out as an area that needs improvement. Hazard mitigation emphasis areas provide opportunities for interested students, and course offerings expand opportunities for education, but basic information made available to all students, faculty and staff can be improved. Action Item 14. Increased Use of On­line Learning The University will develop a plan to increase the continuity of university operations, particularly the continuance of classes in the event of a hazard. This plan will encourage more faculty and students to learn how to use UNO’s web­based learning tool. Shells are already established for each class on Moodle, and can be converted to online through that format. The University continues to explore the expansion of online­only alternatives, which will encourage familiarity with the format. Responsible Agency: Academic Affairs in conjunction with University Computing and Communication (Provost/Vice Chancellor). Deadline: These efforts are under way. Progress should be made within one year of the plan. Cost: Staff time. Hazards Addressed: All 17 hazards, natural and human­caused listed in the hazard identification and analysis. Status: Blackboard has been upgraded to Moodle and many classes are now online only. The University Senate formed a committee to explore additional integration of online learning which has led to efforts to expand online­only formats as well. This process is ongoing. Action Item 15. Violence Prevention / Mental Health It is recommended that current policies and procedures should be reviewed in an interdisciplinary, collaborative fashion that includes all pertinent campus participants. After review, an integrated, comprehensive Action Plan should be developed by the participants and distributed to the entire university community through all available communication systems. It should be emphasized that current on­campus resources for student and staff services are limited and strained, and costs for implementing new and/or expanded programs must be considered. Other suggestions for further discussion include: UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­46           promoting and utilizing community hotlines for immediate assistance; maintaining the existing committee to review all known information about the individual of concern and to assess the risk for the individual and the campus. Currently this team meets once a month unless additional meetings are necessary. developing a training program for faculty/staff/student in the identification of potential warning signs, “red flag” behavior, and related procedures; establishing a university wide protocol to communicate and share information regarding individuals who exhibit behaviors of concern. This project is underway, and an online reporting form is being developed in accord with best practices in developing the specific wording. promoting information about the UNO Employee Assistance Program and other referral resources to faculty and staff; re­establish the UNO Workplace Violence Committee. working with other state institutions to establish a state­wide campus security task force (see http://www.dps.mo.gov/CampusSafety/index.htm). Members of the safety team have received specialized training in threat assessment that is geared toward higher education. Extending this training to other pertinent faculty and staff should be considered. joint training for all agencies involved in implementing the system ensuring that handling incidents of campus violence is addressed in campus emergency response plans. Responsible Agency: Student Affairs (Associate Dean­lead), University Police, Student Counseling Services, University Counsel, Student Accountability and Advocacy Deadline: A comprehensive review of the current policies, procedures, and programs designed to address mental health and campus safety should be conducted regularly and updated every five years. Meetings should continue to be conducted monthly or more frequently, as needed. Benefits: To better identify and get help for those members of our University community who may pose a danger to themselves or to others in hopes of preventing acts of violence. Cost: Staff time to evaluate current system and make recommendations. Hazards Addressed: Civil Unrest, Terrorism (to include Campus Violence) Status: This is a new item from the satellite plan, and some progress has been made, including regular meeting by the Campus Safety Committee and advanced training for members of that committee. 4.4 IMPLEMENTATION AND PLAN MAINTENANCE This Plan will be implemented upon its adoption by the Chancellor. The action items will be implemented by the designated responsible agencies. Representative of these UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­47 agencies have reviewed this Plan and have agreed to take on the work. They will report their progress to the DRU Advisory Committee, led by the Vice Chancellor of Campus Services. The designated responsible agencies will each develop criteria upon which the respective action item will be implemented. Based on the set criteria, a progress report will be developed to evaluate the implementation that action item on a regular basis. From the time of adoption of the plan until the Committee meets, the responsible party for each action item shall coordinate with others, as necessary, in implementing their assigned action items. The DRU Advisory Committee, led by the Vice Chancellor of Campus Services, will meet annually following adoption of this Plan. At each meeting, the participants will review University, City and State mitigation developments and report on the progress toward implementing their assigned action items. Each of the participants will present his or her individual progress report for each action item. On the anniversary date of adoption of this Plan, the Chair of the DRU Advisory Committee will submit a progress report to the Chancellor. This report will review:  Any hazard events or incidents that occurred during the year.  A review of the action items, including how much was accomplished during the previous year.  A discussion of why any action items were not completed or why implementation is behind schedule.  Recommendations for new projects or revised action items. The annual progress report will be provided to all DRU Advisory Committee members and posted on the University’s website for review and comment. An email to this effect will be sent to all UNO faculty, staff and students as well as outside agencies and neighborhood associations mentioned in Chapter 1 of this Plan. A public meeting will be held to present the annual progress report and to allow for public input. Offices responsible for implementing affected plans, policies and procedures, such as the Capital Outlay Plan and others mentioned in Chapter 1 and Action Item 7 will ensure that their work is consistent with the University’s mitigation efforts. The DRU Advisory Committee, led by the Vice Chancellor of Campus Services, will assign a specific schedule for updating the Plan within the five­year cycle as FEMA requires. The goal will be to submit a draft Mitigation Plan to GOHSEP and FEMA for a formal review approximately 1 year prior to the expiration date of this Plan. UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­48 Within that cycle, the DRU Advisory Committee will prepare a Mitigation Plan Update. The Plan Update will include:  A review of the Plan, the original planning process, and how the Update was prepared,  A review of new studies, reports, and technical information and of the University’s needs, goals, and plans that have been published since this Plan was prepared,  Revisions to Chapters 2 and 3 that account for:  New floodplain maps or hazard information,  New construction on campus,  Major incidents or disasters that occurred since this Plan was adopted,  New flood control or property protection projects, and  Any other change in conditions and/or development exposed to the hazards covered in this Plan.  Recommended revisions to the Plan to account for projects that have been completed, dropped, or changed and for changes in the hazard and vulnerability assessments, as appropriate. It may also adopt new goals, strategies or action items. During the update process and again upon completion of the draft Update, the Plan will be distributed for public review and comment in the same manner followed for the public review of this Plan (announcement of meetings/invitation to comment via email message and The Times­Picayune). Upon approval by the Advisory Committee, the Update will be submitted to FEMA for approval through the State. Following approval by FEMA, the Update will be submitted to the Chancellor for adoption by the University 4.5 References Association of American Universities, August 2007, “Survey on Safety on AAU Campuses after the Virginia Tech Shootings.” Association for University and College Counseling Center Directors (AUCCCD), 2007, “Statement on State Governors Task Force.” Langford, Linda, The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention, Funded by the U.S. Department of Education, “Preventing Violence and Promoting Safety in Higher Education Settings: Overview of a Comprehensive approach.” UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 MAP­49 Appendix A: NCDC Thunderstorms in Orleans Parish The following chart shows the National Climatic Data Center’s Thunderstorm events from 1950 until May 2011. There were 134 events. Not all events affected UNO. Date 4/28/1958 12/31/1960 6/10/1961 2/25/1964 4/25/1964 7/8/1965 1/28/1966 4/21/1966 4/28/1966 6/17/1966 7/3/1967 5/24/1968 7/12/1968 2/1/1970 2/1/1970 7/4/1970 11/13/1970 4/2/1971 3/2/1972 5/12/1972 6/22/1972 12/30/1972 4/26/1973 5/11/1974 1/10/1975 3/18/1975 4/30/1975 4/30/1975 8/26/1975 5/10/1976 5/24/1976 UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan Time 100 730 1340 0 1800 1400 2130 1000 1340 1830 2027 1645 1030 1439 1445 1508 2200 40 525 1748 1230 2227 603 130 1230 628 1140 1751 1312 1145 1711 Winds 0 kts. 63 kts. 50 kts. 50 kts. 55 kts. 50 kts. 0 kts. 0 kts. 50 kts. 0 kts. 60 kts. 0 kts. 50 kts. 90 kts. 0 kts. 75 kts. 0 kts. 58 kts. 51 kts. 50 kts. 52 kts. 50 kts. 60 kts. 0 kts. 70 kts. 52 kts. 53 kts. 71 kts. 52 kts. 64 kts. 55 kts. Property Damage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 January 2012 Date 5/31/1976 7/31/1976 7/2/1977 12/13/1977 6/29/1978 6/29/1978 8/20/1978 4/11/1979 5/4/1979 5/29/1979 7/1/1979 7/16/1979 8/6/1979 6/24/1980 7/7/1980 2/10/1981 4/30/1981 6/1/1981 6/22/1981 7/10/1981 7/30/1981 1/31/1982 6/16/1982 8/8/1982 8/9/1982 9/24/1982 2/21/1983 8/10/1983 12/11/1983 12/27/1983 2/12/1984 2/12/1984 UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan Time 1551 704 1900 1745 902 2202 1630 1300 1057 1710 1700 1753 1936 1214 1638 540 1540 600 1405 1920 1818 200 2000 1342 1342 2030 1117 1420 445 2302 1320 1320 Winds 55 kts. 0 kts. 60 kts. 68 kts. 50 kts. 50 kts. 0 kts. 0 kts. 52 kts. 52 kts. 0 kts. 50 kts. 58 kts. 65 kts. 55 kts. 65 kts. 0 kts. 0 kts. 0 kts. 0 kts. 0 kts. 0 kts. 0 kts. 0 kts. 50 kts. 0 kts. 68 kts. 50 kts. 0 kts. 0 kts. 74 kts. 75 kts. Property Damage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 January 2012 Date 2/12/1984 2/12/1984 7/25/1984 2/11/1985 2/23/1985 5/21/1985 8/1/1985 7/13/1986 7/16/1986 5/6/1987 5/21/1988 5/4/1989 11/15/1989 5/27/1990 5/27/1990 9/4/1990 9/4/1990 4/18/1991 4/11/1995 4/11/1995 4/11/1995 5/8/1995 5/8/1995 5/9/1995 11/11/1995 1/24/1996 2/13/1997 4/26/1997 4/26/1997 2/10/1998 6/21/1998 1/2/1999 UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan Time 1345 1350 1330 155 0 1235 1430 1640 1645 2050 1140 1830 1607 1800 1825 1900 1943 345 556 630 642 2125 2133 2235 605 219 110 304 410 2133 1730 730 Winds 61 kts. 53 kts. 0 kts. 52 kts. 0 kts. 0 kts. 50 kts. 0 kts. 0 kts. 0 kts. 0 kts. 0 kts. 55 kts. 0 kts. 0 kts. 54 kts. 72 kts. 0 kts. 60 kts. 0 kts. 60 kts. 0 kts. 50 kts. 70 kts. 52 kts. 53 kts. 0 kts. 57 kts. 54 kts. 50 kts. 0 kts. 0 kts. Property Damage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 750K 250K 0 0 0 1K 50K 0 0 1K 1K January 2012 Date 7/14/2000 7/22/2000 8/20/2000 8/20/2000 8/31/2000 9/1/2000 9/1/2000 11/6/2000 6/19/2001 6/5/2001 4/8/2002 4/8/2002 4/8/2002 7/7/2002 7/13/2002 7/13/2002 7/17/2003 4/11/2004 11/18/2003 6/3/2004 7/6/2004 11/24/2004 1/13/2005 7/3/2005 8/15/2006 11/6/2006 2/6/2008 5/4/2007 2/12/2008 2/12/2008 5/15/2008 3/27/2009 4/2/2009 5/16/2009 7/2/2009 11/30/2010 6/4/2010 4/4/2011 UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan Time Winds Property Damage 1630 0 kts. 1K 1930 0 kts. 10K 1902 59 kts. 0 1940 0 kts. 5K 1728 53 kts. 0 2000 0 kts. 1K 2006 0 kts. 5K 1345 0 kts. 50K 1445 0 kts. 15K 1028 51 kts. 0 1315 0 kts. 15K 1334 57 kts. 0 1355 0 kts. 10K 1805 0 kts. 4K 1238 56 kts. 0 1250 0 kts. 0K 1420 50 kts. 3K 945 50 kts. 8K 420 52 kts. 0 1422 53 kts. 0 1300 50 kts. 15K 500 50 kts. 2K 910 50 kts. 2K 1500 50 kts. 2K 1615 50 kts. 0K 1718 50 kts. 1K 1205 50 kts. 1K 338 63 kts. 0K 1442 59 kts. 0K 1445 50 kts. 2K 800 50 kts. 2K 1200 50 kts. 1K 1233 50 kts. 4K 1330 50 kts. 3K 1826 52 kts. 0K 1300 52 kts. 2K 710 61 kts. 50K 1844 51 kts. 0K 1.265M January 2012 Appendix B Planning Pilot Grant Program Project Descriptions UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 Please provide the following information for each project: 1. Type of Facility: □ Community Shelter □ Police Station □ Municipal Building □ Hospital □ Water Well □ Prison □ Fire Station □ EOC x Other Education Building 2. Project Location: University of New Orleans ­ Biology Building Address: 2000 Lakeshore Drive GPS Coordinates: 30.02799, ­90.06908 New Orleans, LA 70148 3. Responsible Agency: □ School Board □ Public Works □ Police Jury □ Police Department □ Fire Department x Other University of New Orleans/State of La □ Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness 4. Generator Type: x Standby □ Portable 5. Generator Size: 400 KW Note: See attached worksheet for assistance in determining power needs. 6. Fuel Source □ Diesel □ Gasoline x Natural Gas 7. Cost of Generator $ $400,000 Note: See attached price range information sheet. 8. Environmental Assessment □ Potential Impacts x No Potential Impacts Explanation: Generator to be located on building roof Please provide contact information for the individual completing this worksheet: Name:Michael Folse Phone Number: 504.280.7268 Position: Associate Professor Date: 6/25/10 UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 Please provide the following information for each project: 1. Type of Facility: □ Community Shelter □ Police Station □ Municipal Building □ Hospital □ Water Well □ Prison □ Fire Station □ EOC x Other Chemistry Building 2. Project Location: University of New Orleans­Chemical Sciences Building Address: 2000 Lakeshore Drive GPS Coordinates: 30.02688, ­90.06778 New Orleans, LA 70148 3. Responsible Agency: □ School Board □ Public Works □ Police Jury □ Police Department □ Fire Department x Other University of New Orleans/State of La □ Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness 4. Generator Type: x Standby □ Portable 5. Generator Size: 400 KW Note: See attached worksheet for assistance in determining power needs. 6. Fuel Source □ Diesel □ Gasoline x Natural Gas 7. Cost of Generator $ $400,000 Note: See attached price range information sheet. 8. Environmental Assessment □ Potential Impacts x No Potential Impacts Explanation: Generator to be located on building roof Please provide contact information for the individual completing this worksheet: Name:Michael Folse Phone Number: 504.280.7268 Position: Associate Professor Date: 6/25/10 UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 Please provide the following information for each project: 1. Type of Facility: □ Community Shelter □ Police Station □ Municipal Building □ Hospital □ Water Well □ Prison □ Fire Station □ EOC x Other University Library 2. Project Location: University of New Orleans ­ Earl K. Long Library Address: 2000 Lakeshore Drive GPS Coordinates: 30.02793, ­90.06722 New Orleans, LA 70148 3. Responsible Agency: □ School Board □ Public Works □ Police Jury □ Police Department □ Fire Department x Other University of New Orleans/State of La □ Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness 4. Generator Type: x Standby □ Portable 5. Generator Size: 400 KW Note: See attached worksheet for assistance in determining power needs. 6. Fuel Source □ Diesel □ Gasoline x Natural Gas 7. Cost of Generator $ $400,000 Note: See attached price range information sheet. 8. Environmental Assessment □ Potential Impacts x No Potential Impacts Explanation: Generator to be located on building roof Please provide contact information for the individual completing this worksheet: Name:Michael Folse Phone Number: 504.280.7268 Position: Associate Professor Date: 6/25/10 UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 Please provide the following information for each project: 1. Type of Facility: □ Community Shelter □ Police Station □ Municipal Building □ Hospital □ Water Well □ Prison □ Fire Station □ EOC x Other University Physical Plant 2. Project Location: University of New Orleans­North Central Plant Address: 2000 Lakeshore Drive GPS Coordinates: 30.02596, ­90.06661 New Orleans, LA 70148 3. Responsible Agency: □ School Board □ Public Works □ Police Jury □ Police Department □ Fire Department x Other University of New Orleans/State of La □ Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness 4. Generator Type: x Standby □ Portable 5. Generator Size: 400 KW Note: See attached worksheet for assistance in determining power needs. 6. Fuel Source □ Diesel □ Gasoline x Natural Gas 7. Cost of Generator $ $400,000 Note: See attached price range information sheet. 8. Environmental Assessment □ Potential Impacts x No Potential Impacts Explanation: Generator to be located on building roof Please provide contact information for the individual completing this worksheet: Name:Michael Folse Phone Number: 504.280.7268 Position: Associate Professor Date: 6/25/10 UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 1.0 Project Overview
1.1 Report Submittal Type 1.2 Report Submittal Date 1.3 Jurisdiction Name: 1.4 Jurisdiction Type: 1.5 Project Title: 1.6 Project Type: 1.7 Hazard(s) mitigated by project: 1.8 Description of protection provided by the project: Note: Where appropriate, include relevant standards or codes that the project will comply with. For example, “10 residential structures will be elevated above the BFE in accordance with NFIP requirements and protected from the 100­year recurrence interval flood.” or “The Parish EOC will be retrofitted to provide protection from high winds according to standards in FEMA Publication 361 and the International Building Code (current edition).” Use only the space provided in this table. 1.9 Estimated Total Project Cost (Attachment D) 1.10 Benefit­Cost Ratio (Attachment F) UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan Draft Final June 2011 University of New Orleans Parish Incorporated Municipality Private Non­Profit
Administration Building Annex Windows Retrofit Acquisition, Elevation or Mitigation Reconstruction Retrofit of Existing Building Flood Control or Drainage Improvements
Other: Flood High Wind Other (list) Other (list) The UNO Administration Building Annex will be retrofitted to provide protection from high wind events according to the latest edition of the International Building Codes Standards publication. The design includes the addition of protective coverings for all building openings. $ 53,931 0.71 January 2012 1.0 Project Overview
1.1 Report Submittal Type 1.2 Report Submittal Date 1.3 Jurisdiction Name: 1.4 Jurisdiction Type: 1.5 Project Title: 1.6 Project Type: 1.7 Hazard(s) mitigated by project: Draft Final October 2011 University of New Orleans Parish Incorporated Municipality Private Non­Profit
Floodproof Engineering Building Acquisition, Elevation or Mitigation Reconstruction Retrofit of Existing Building Flood Control or Drainage Improvements
Other: Flood High Wind Other (list) Other (list) 1.8 Description of protection A combination of floodwalls and gates will be constructed around provided by the project: the perimeter of the UNO Engineering Building. Wall/gate system to include new drainage system and pumps to handle Note: Where appropriate, include rainfall within walls and gates. Flooding following Hurricane relevant standards or codes that the Katrina on August 29, 2005, rose to about 15 inches above the project will comply with. For example, first floor. New flood walls and gates will be constructed to an “10 residential structures will be elevated above the BFE in accordance elevation of 30 inches above the first floor, an average of about with NFIP requirements and protected 42 inches above existing grade along the proposed wall from the 100­year recurrence interval perimeter. flood.” or “The Parish EOC will be retrofitted to provide protection from high winds according to standards in FEMA Publication 361 and the International Building Code (current edition).” Use only the space provided in this table. 1.9 Estimated Total Project Cost (Attachment D) 1.10 Benefit­Cost Ratio (Attachment F) UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan $ 1,016,500 .11 January 2012 1.0 Project Overview
1.1 Report Submittal Type 1.2 Report Submittal Date 1.3 Jurisdiction Name: 1.4 Jurisdiction Type: 1.5 Project Title: 1.6 Project Type: 1.7 Hazard(s) mitigated by project: 1.8 Description of protection provided by the project: Note: Where appropriate, include relevant standards or codes that the project will comply with. For example, “10 residential structures will be elevated above the BFE in accordance with NFIP requirements and protected from the 100­year recurrence interval flood.” or “The Parish EOC will be retrofitted to provide protection from high winds according to standards in FEMA Publication 361 and the International Building Code (current edition).” Use only the space provided in this table. 1.9 Estimated Total Project Cost (Attachment D) 1.10 Benefit­Cost Ratio (Attachment F) UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan Draft Final October 2011 University of New Orleans Parish Incorporated Municipality Private Non­Profit
Founders Road Drainage Acquisition, Elevation or Mitigation Reconstruction Retrofit of Existing Building Flood Control or Drainage Improvements
Other: Flood High Wind Other (list) Other (list) Existing undersized drainage pipes along Founders Road will be replaced with pipes of adequate size to handle the 10­year recurrence rain event. New drop in lets and catch basins will be constructed as required. $908,400 .54 January 2012 1.0 Project Overview
1.1 Report Submittal Type 1.2 Report Submittal Date 1.3 Jurisdiction Name: 1.4 Jurisdiction Type: 1.5 Project Title: 1.6 Project Type: 1.7 Hazard(s) mitigated by project: Draft Final July 2011 University of New Orleans Parish Incorporated Municipality Private Non­Profit
UNO Computer Center Safe Area Acquisition, Elevation or Mitigation Reconstruction Retrofit of Existing Building Flood Control or Drainage Improvements
Other: Flood High Wind Other (list) Other (list) 1.8 Description of protection The UNO Computer Center sustained major damage following provided by the project: Hurricane Katrina in August 2005. Several renovations are required to create a space on the second floor of the UCC to Note: Where appropriate, include protect computer equipment, records, and other items during relevant standards or codes that the times of emergencies such as tornadoes or hurricanes. The project will comply with. For example, project will harden the existing floor envelope to exceed the “10 residential structures will be elevated above the BFE in accordance International Building Code wind load requirements. with NFIP requirements and protected from the 100­year recurrence interval flood.” or “The Parish EOC will be retrofitted to provide protection from high winds according to standards in FEMA Publication 361 and the International Building Code (current edition).” Use only the space provided in this table. 1.9 Estimated Total Project Cost (Attachment D) 1.10 Benefit­Cost Ratio (Attachment F) UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan $ 80,635 3.00 January 2012 1.0 Project Overview
1.1 Report Submittal Type 1.2 Report Submittal Date 1.3 Jurisdiction Name: 1.4 Jurisdiction Type: 1.5 Project Title: 1.6 Project Type: 1.7 Hazard(s) mitigated by project: 1.8 Description of protection provided by the project: Note: Where appropriate, include relevant standards or codes that the project will comply with. For example, “10 residential structures will be elevated above the BFE in accordance with NFIP requirements and protected from the 100­year recurrence interval flood.” or “The Parish EOC will be retrofitted to provide protection from high winds according to standards in FEMA Publication 361 and the International Building Code (current edition).” Use only the space provided in this table. 1.9 Estimated Total Project Cost (Attachment D) 1.10 Benefit­Cost Ratio (Attachment F) UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan Draft Final June 2010 University of New Orleans Parish Incorporated Municipality Private Non­Profit
UNO Elevator Flood Mitigation Acquisition, Elevation or Mitigation Reconstruction Retrofit of Existing Building Flood Control or Drainage Improvements
Other: Flood High Wind Other (list) Other (list) New controls to keep elevator cars above flood waters will be installed in the following UNO main campus buildings: Engineering, TRAC, Bienville Hall, HPC, Geology/Psychology, and Science. $ 73,568 Engineering (17.40), TRAC (2.15), Bienville Hall (16.23), HPC (1.96), Geology/Psychology(2.76), and Science (11.32) January 2012 UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan January 2012 The University of New Orleans Mitigation Plan for the
University’s Off-campus Locations1
Submitted by
The University of New Orleans,
Center for Hazards Assessment, Response & Technology (UNO-CHART)
August 2011
1
This Plan was funded by FEMA and the Louisiana Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency
Preparedness through a Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant.
Table of Contents
Resolution to Adopt Plan
Executive Summary
Chapter 1 – Introduction...................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 The Planning Process .................................................................................. 1-3
1.3 Organization ................................................................................................ 1-5
1.4 Mitigation Planning .................................................................................... 1-6
1.5 Hazard Profile ............................................................................................. 1-7
1.6 Vulnerability Assessment ........................................................................... 1-7
1.7 Involving Stakeholders ............................................................................... 1-7
1.8 Coordination ................................................................................................ 1-8
1.9 Hazard Identification and Assessment....................................................... 1-9
1.10 Goals .......................................................................................................... 1-9
1.11 Mitigation Strategies ................................................................................. 1-10
1.12 Action Plan ................................................................................................ 1-10
1.13 Public Participation ................................................................................... 1-10
1.14 Description of the Areas of Study............................................................ 1-11
1.15 References ................................................................................................. 1-16
Chapter 2 – Hazard Profile .................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Floods .......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Wind............................................................................................................. 2-9
2.3 Hail............................................................................................................... 2-18
2.4 Lightning ..................................................................................................... 2-19
2.5 Storm Surge ................................................................................................. 2-21
2.6 Winter Storms ............................................................................................. 2-26
2.7 Subsidence ................................................................................................... 2-28
2.8 Drought ........................................................................................................ 2-30
2.9 Earthquakes ................................................................................................. 2-32
2.10 Termites ..................................................................................................... 2-35
2.11 Epidemics .................................................................................................. 2-37
2.12 Mold ........................................................................................................... 2-39
2.13 Dam Failure ............................................................................................... 2-40
2.14 Hazardous Materials Spills....................................................................... 2-41
2.15 Nuclear Accidents ..................................................................................... 2-44
2.16 Civil Unrest ............................................................................................... 2-47
2.17 Terrorism ................................................................................................... 2-49
2.18 Risk Summary ........................................................................................... 2-51
2.19 References ................................................................................................. 2-53
Chapter 3 – Vulnerability Assessment ............................................................... 3-1
3.1 Property Damage......................................................................................... 3-2
3.2 Impact on People ......................................................................................... 3-3
3.3 University Operations ................................................................................. 3-4
3.4 Floods .......................................................................................................... 3-5
3.5 Wind............................................................................................................. 3-9
3.6 Hail............................................................................................................... 3-16
3.7 Lightning ..................................................................................................... 3-17
3.8 Storm Surge ................................................................................................. 3-18
3.9 Winter Storms ............................................................................................. 3-20
3.10 Subsidence ................................................................................................. 3-21
3.11 Drought ...................................................................................................... 3-21
3.12 Earthquakes ............................................................................................... 3-22
3.13 Termites ..................................................................................................... 3-23
3.14 Epidemic .................................................................................................... 3-24
3.15 Mold ........................................................................................................... 3-25
3.16 Dam Failure ............................................................................................... 3-26
3.17 Hazardous Materials Spill ........................................................................ 3-26
3.18 Nuclear Accidents ..................................................................................... 3-27
3.19 Civil Unrest ............................................................................................... 3-28
3.20 Terrorism ................................................................................................... 3-29
3.21 Summary of Vulnerability Assessment ................................................... 3-31
3.22 References ................................................................................................. 3-38
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Action Plan ................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Goals and Strategies.................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Potential Mitigation Actions/Recommendations ...................................... 4-2
4.3 Priorities....................................................................................................... 4-22
4.4 Action Items ................................................................................................ 4-24
4.5 Implementation ........................................................................................... 4-36
4.6 References ................................................................................................... 4-39
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE UNIVERSITY
OF NEW ORLEANS OFF-CAMPUS LOCATIONS, NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
WHEREAS, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, as amended, requires the development
and adoption of hazard mitigation plans in order to receive certain federal assistance; and,
WHEREAS, the University of New Orleans was awarded a Pre-Disaster Mitigation
Grant and the Disaster-Resistant University Advisory Committee to develop aHazndMitigation
Plan for off-campus locations (the Center for Energy Resources Management, Goldring Hall at
the Ogden Museum of Southern Art and Jefferson Campus): and,
WHEREAS, the University of New Orleans relied on its Center for Hazards Assessment,
Response and Technology (CHART) and the Disaster Resistant Advisory Committee to develop
a comprehensive hazard
mitigation plan for the university's off-campus locations; and,
WHEREAS, the Disaster Resistant University Advisory Committee held meetings,
facilitated by CHART, to study the university's off-site buildings' risk from, and vulnerabilities
to, natural and human-caused hazards and to make recommendations on mitigating the effects of
such hazards on the university buildings; and,
WHEREAS, the efforts of the Disaster Resistant Advisory Committee and CHART have
resuited in the development of The University of New Orleans Hazard Mitigation Plan for the
University's Off-campus Locations.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Office of the Chancellor of the
University of New Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana,that the University of New Orleans Hazard
Mitigation Plan for the University's Off-campus Locations, dated August, 2011, is hereby
approved and adopted for the University of New Orleans.
ADOPTED this 1 lth day of August 201 1.
Vice Chancellor for
ATTESTED
bY
Gambino Decuers
ility Project Planner
Hazard Mitigation Plan
for the University’s Off-campus Locations
Executive Summary
Introduction
The University of New Orleans is subject to natural and human-caused hazards,
accidental or intentional, that have threatened life and health and have caused extensive
property damage. To better understand these hazards and their impacts on people and
property, and to identify ways to reduce those impacts, the University undertook the
development of a Hazard Mitigation Plan for the University’s main Lakefront and east
campuses 1. This Hazard Mitigation Plan was produced for three of UNO’s off-campus
locations: the Center for Energy Resources Management (CERM) building; Goldring
Hall at the Ogden Museum of Southern Art; and the Jefferson Campus building, locations
not covered in the original UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Mitigation activities need funding. Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (42 USC
5165), a mitigation plan is a requirement for Federal mitigation funds. Therefore, a
mitigation plan will both guide the best use of mitigation funding and meet the
prerequisite for obtaining such funds from The Department of Homeland Security’s
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This Mitigation Plan, like the first
University Hazard Mitigation Plan, meets the criteria of all these programs.
This Hazard Mitigation Plan was developed through a collaborative effort of the
Research Team and the Disaster-Resistant University Advisory Committee at The
University of New Orleans. The Research Team included members of UNO faculty and
staff, representing the Center for Hazards Assessment and Response Technology
(CHART), the Environmental Health and Safety Office, the School of Urban and
Regional Studies (SURS), the College of Engineering, and graduate students. The
Disaster-Resistant Advisory Committee consisted of members representing a wide range
of departments and offices from the University community.
1
The UNO Mitigation Plan was approved by DHS-FEMA in October 2006.
Executive Summary 1
The Research Team led planning activities, and the Advisory Committee provided
collaborative input, in addition to reviewing and critiquing the draft plan.
Hazard Profile
The Research Team reviewed the hazards and their
effects on people and property, considered a variety
of ways to reduce and prevent damage, and
recommended the most appropriate and feasible
measures for implementation. Its work was
coordinated with various stakeholders, and a variety
of local and state agencies and organizations, in
addition to involving the community for public
input.
The sections in this Executive
Summary correspond to the
chapters in the full Plan. The
full text of the UNO Hazard
Mitigation Plan for the Offcampus Locations can be
reviewed or downloaded from
UNO-CHART’s website found
at www.chart.uno.edu.
The Committee reviewed 17 hazards that face the University of New Orleans off-campus
locations in Jefferson and Orleans Parishes. The Research Team identified these hazards
as having affected the University in recent history. Chapter 2 reviews what causes them,
their likelihood of occurrence, and their impact on people and property. The following is
a list of hazards that are included in this Plan.
Natural hazards
Human-caused hazards
Floods
Wind
Hail
Lightning
Storm Surge
Winter Storms
Subsidence
Drought
Earthquakes
Termites
Epidemics
Mold
Dam Failure
Hazardous materials spills
Nuclear accidents
Civil unrest
Terrorism
Executive Summary 2
Vulnerability Assessment
Chapter 3 reviews how vulnerable the University locations are to property damage,
threats to public health and safety, and adverse impacts on university operations from
each of the 17 hazards identified in the Plan. The vulnerability assessment consisted of a
nine step procedure ranging from collecting data on property, calculating damage costs
for property by hazard, and determining impacts on people and university operations by
hazard to summarizing the findings to compare the relative impact of each hazard. The
conclusions are as follows and can be viewed in each of the summary tables:
1. Some types of property and areas are more vulnerable than others. For example,
buildings that contain basements are more vulnerable to flooding than other
buildings.
2. The hazard causing the greatest amount of destruction in a single event is terrorism, followed by a tornado, hurricanes, and flooding from a levee break or storm
surge. The hazards that are likely to cause the most property damage over the
long run are tornadoes and tropical storms.
3. The greatest threats to people during a single event are nuclear accidents, terrorism, hurricanes, tornadoes, and epidemics. However, over the long run, the
“people score” shows that greatest continuous threats are hazmat spills, storm
surge, wind from tropical storms, lightning, and storm surge.
4. Hazards that have high impacts on university and tenant operations include levee
break and storm surge flooding, hurricanes, tornadoes, and terrorist attacks. Over
the long run, the greatest threats to University operations are storm surge and tornadoes.
Executive Summary 3
Property damage summary and frequencies, Jefferson Parish
Hazard
Frequency Dollar Damage Average Annual $ Damage
Floods - Stormwater
1.54
$14
$21
Floods - Levee Break
0.02
$341,263
$6,825
Wind - Thunderstorms
2.10
$0
$0
Wind - Tropical Storm
0.93
$43,682
$40,624
Wind - Cat I Hurricane
0.13
$174,727
$22,714
Wind - Cat 2 Hurricane
0.05
$262,090
$13,104
Wind - Cat 3 Hurricane
0.03
$436,816
$13,104
Wind - Cat 4 Hurricane
0.01
$655,224
$6,552
Wind - Cat 5 Hurricane
0.006
$873,633
$5,242
Wind - Tornado
0.71
$1,092,041
$775,349
Hail
0.31
$1,965
$609
Lightning
0.50
$4,368
$2,184
Storm Surge
1.10
$341,263
$6,825
Winter Storms
0.50
$4,368
$2,184
Subsidence
1.00
N/A
N/A
Drought
0.20
N/A
$0
Earthquakes
0.05
$43,682
$2,184
Termites
1.00
N/A
N/A
Epidemic
0.03
N/A
$0
Mold
0.02
$71,716
$1,434
Haz Mat Spills
0.60
$10,920
$6,552
Nuclear Accidents
0.01
$43,682
$437
Civil Unrest
0.05
$87,363
$4,368
Terrorism
0.01
N/A
N/A
Executive Summary 4
Property damage summary and frequencies, Orleans Parish
Hazard
Frequency Dollar Damage Average Annual $ Damage
Floods - Stormwater
1.64
$919
$1,507
Floods - Levee Break
0.02
$3,924,064
$78,481
Wind - Thunderstorms
2.22
$0
$0
Wind - Tropical Storm
0.64
$536,215
$343,177
Wind - Cat I Hurricane
0.13
$1,072,429
$139,416
Wind - Cat 2 Hurricane
0.05
$1,608,644
$80,432
Wind - Cat 3 Hurricane
0.03
$2,681,073
$80,432
Wind - Cat 4 Hurricane
0.01
$3,753,502
$37,535
Wind - Cat 5 Hurricane
0.006
$4,825,931
$28,956
Wind - Tornado
0.29
$6,702,683
$1,943,778
Hail
0.66
$11,777
$7,773
Lightning
0.77
$53,621
$41,289
Storm Surge
0.90
$3,924,064
$78,481
Winter Storms
0.50
$53,621
$26,811
Subsidence
1.00
N/A
N/A
Drought
0.20
N/A
$0
Earthquakes
0.05
$536,215
$26,811
Termites
1.00
N/A
N/A
Epidemic
0.03
N/A
$0
Mold
0.02
$201,258
$4,025
Haz Mat Spills
1.20
$134,054
$160,864
Nuclear Accidents
0.01
$536,215
$5,362
Civil Unrest
0.05
$1,072,429
$53,621
Terrorism
0.01
$0
$0
Executive Summary 5
Summary of the impact on people, Jefferson Parish
Hazard
Floods – Stormwater
Safety
Health
Mental
Health
Low
Nil
Nil
12
1.54
18.48
Floods - Levee Break
Mod.
Mod.
High
180
0.02
3.60
Wind - Thunderstorms
Nil
Nil
Nil
3
2.10
6.30
Wind - Tropical Storm
Mod.
Mod.
Low
90
0.93
83.70
Wind – Cat 1 Hurricane
Mod.
Mod.
Low
90
0.13
11.70
Wind – Cat 2 Hurricane
High
Mod.
High
240
0.05
12.00
Wind – Cat 3 Hurricane
High
Mod.
High
240
0.03
7.20
Wind – Cat 4 Hurricane
High
Mod.
High
240
0.01
2.40
Wind – Cat 5 Hurricane
High
Mod.
High
240
0.006
1.44
Wind – Tornado
High
Mod.
High
240
0.71
170.40
Nil
Nil
Nil
3
0.31
0.93
Lightning
High
Nil
Nil
102
0.50
51.00
Storm Surge
Mod.
Mod.
High
180
1.10
198.0
Winter Storms
Mod.
Low
Nil
51
0.50
25.50
Subsidence
Nil
Nil
Nil
3
1.00
3.00
Drought
Nil
Nil
Nil
3
0.20
0.60
Mod.
Low
Low
60
0.05
3.00
Termites
Nil
Low
Nil
12
1.00
12.00
Epidemic
Low
High
High
210
0.03
6.30
Mold
Low
High
Mod.
150
0.02
3.00
Haz Mat Spills
High
Mod.
Mod.
180
0.60
108.00
Nuclear Accidents
High
High
High
300
0.01
3.00
Civil Unrest
Mod.
Low
Mod.
90
0.05
4.50
Terrorism
High
High
High
300
0.01
3.00
Hail
Earthquakes
Single
Event
Frequency
People
Score
Executive Summary 6
Summary of the impact on people, Orleans Parish
Safety
Health
Mental
Health
Floods - Stormwater
Low
Nil
Nil
12
1.64
19.68
Floods - Levee Break
Mod.
Mod.
High
180
0.02
3.60
Wind - Thunderstorms
Nil
Nil
Nil
3
2.22
6.66
Wind - Tropical Storm
Mod.
Mod.
Low
90
0.64
57.60
Wind – Cat 1 Hurricane
Mod.
Mod.
Low
90
0.13
11.70
Wind – Cat 2 Hurricane
High
Mod.
High
240
0.05
12.00
Wind – Cat 3 Hurricane
High
Mod.
High
240
0.03
7.20
Wind – Cat 4 Hurricane
High
Mod.
High
240
0.01
2.40
Wind – Cat 5 Hurricane
High
Mod.
High
240
0.006
1.44
Wind - Tornado
High
Mod.
High
240
0.29
69.60
Nil
Nil
Nil
3
0.66
1.98
Lightning
High
Nil
Nil
102
0.77
78.54
Storm Surge
Mod.
Mod.
High
180
0.90
162.0
Winter Storms
Mod.
Low
Nil
51
0.50
25.50
Subsidence
Nil
Nil
Nil
3
1.00
3.00
Drought
Nil
Nil
Nil
3
0.20
0.60
Mod.
Low
Low
60
0.05
3.00
Termites
Nil
Low
Nil
12
1.00
12.00
Epidemic
Low
High
High
210
0.03
6.30
Mold
Low
High
Mod.
150
0.02
3.00
Haz Mat Spills
High
Mod.
Mod.
180
1.20
216.00
Nuclear Accidents
High
High
High
300
0.01
3.00
Civil Unrest
Mod.
Low
Mod.
90
0.05
4.50
Terrorism
High
High
High
300
0.01
3.00
Hazard
Hail
Earthquakes
Single
Event
Frequency
People
Score
Executive Summary 7
Summary of impact on university operations, Jefferson Parish
Floods - Stormwater
Impact on
University
Operations
nil
Floods - Levee Break
high
Wind - Thunderstorms
Hazard
Number
Score
Frequency
Impact Score
1
1.54
1.54
100
0.02
2.00
nil
1
2.10
2.10
Wind - Tropical Storm
low
10
0.93
9.30
Wind- Cat 1 Hurricane
moderate
40
0.13
5.20
Wind- Cat 2 Hurricane
moderate
40
0.05
2.00
Wind- Cat 3 Hurricane
high
100
0.03
3.00
Wind- Cat 4 Hurricane
high
100
0.01
1.00
Wind- Cat 5 Hurricane
high
100
0.006
0.60
Wind - Tornado
high
100
0.71
71.00
Hail
nil
1
0.31
0.31
Lightning
low
10
0.50
5.00
Storm Surge
high
100
1.10
110.0
Winter Storms
low
10
0.50
5.00
Subsidence
nil
1
1.00
1.00
Drought
nil
1
0.20
0.20
Earthquakes
low
10
0.05
0.50
Termites
nil
1
1.00
1.00
Epidemic
moderate
40
0.03
1.20
Mold
moderate
40
0.02
0.80
low
10
0.60
6.00
Nuclear Accidents
moderate
40
0.01
0.40
Civil Unrest
moderate
40
0.05
2.00
high
100
0.01
1.00
Haz Mat Spills
Terrorism
Executive Summary 8
Summary of impact on university operations, Orleans Parish
Floods - Stormwater
Impact on
University
Operations
nil
Floods - Levee Break
high
Wind - Thunderstorms
Hazard
Number
Score
Frequency
Impact Score
1
1.64
1.64
100
0.02
2.00
nil
1
2.22
2.22
Wind - Tropical Storm
low
10
0.64
6.40
Wind- Cat 1 Hurricane
moderate
40
0.13
5.20
Wind- Cat 2 Hurricane
moderate
40
0.05
2.00
Wind- Cat 3 Hurricane
high
100
0.03
3.00
Wind- Cat 4 Hurricane
high
100
0.01
1.00
Wind- Cat 5 Hurricane
high
100
0.006
0.60
Wind - Tornado
high
100
0.29
29.00
Hail
nil
1
0.66
0.66
Lightning
low
10
0.77
7.70
Storm Surge
High
100
0.90
90.00
Winter Storms
low
10
0.50
5.00
Subsidence
nil
1
1.00
1.00
Drought
nil
1
0.20
0.20
Earthquakes
low
10
0.05
0.50
Termites
nil
1
1.00
1.00
Epidemic
moderate
40
0.03
1.20
Mold
moderate
40
0.02
0.80
low
10
1.20
12.00
Nuclear Accidents
moderate
40
0.01
0.40
Civil Unrest
moderate
40
0.05
2.00
high
100
0.01
1.00
Haz Mat Spills
Terrorism
Executive Summary 9
Mitigation Action Plan
Chapter 4 sets forth the Mitigation Action Plan based on the findings set forth in Chapters
2 and 3. It provides a review of the mitigation goals set for this Plan, a list of those goals,
and recommended mitigation actions that will assist the University community in
achieving those goals.
Following a review of goals and objectives from the original UNO Mitigation Plan, it
was decided that these goals and objectives would remain with edits to accommodate
unique aspects of the off-campus sites. The goals are organized under three general goal
statements followed by six general strategies to implement them. These are used to guide
the planning and implementation of mitigation activities and projects. The goals and
strategies are as follows:
Goals:
1. Protect the lives and health of the faculty, staff, students, tenants, and visitors.
2. Protect the University’s buildings, contents, utilities, and infrastructure from
damage by natural and human caused hazards.
3. Ensure that disruption to the University’s operations and tenants’ operations
during and following an event will be minimal.
Strategies:
1. Protect, strengthen, or retrofit University buildings and facilities so they will
suffer little or no damage during an incident and their occupants and contents
will be protected.
2. Educate the faculty and staff as well as students and tenants, on ways to protect
themselves and their property from damage by natural and human caused hazards.
3. Have the necessary emergency response facilities, equipment, staff, and procedures in place to minimize the danger and damage to people, University property,
and the surrounding community during an incident.
4. Have the disaster recovery facilities, equipment, staff, and procedures in place to
allow University facilities to reopen immediately after an incident, with minimal
reliance on outside sources of assistance.
5. Pay special attention to certain special University resources, including the
Library, student housing, records, and art collections.
Executive Summary 10
6. Invest resources needed to reach the goals at a level appropriate to the hazard
and its impacts on property, people, and University operations.
Potential Mitigation Actions/Recommendations/Action Items
The Research Team along with the Advisory Committee identified several hazard
mitigation actions that could benefit the University’s off-campus sites. These
recommendations were based on a range of potential mitigation actions described in
section 4.2. The recommendations were categorized according to areas of mitigation
including flood protection, retrofitting, development and construction policies,
emergency operations, university operations, and information and education.
Specific action items were then recommended based on the general recommendations
stated in section 4.2 and with five factors in mind: hazards that pose the greatest threats,
appropriate measures, costs and benefits, affordability, and environmental impact.
Section 4.4 lists the 14 action items that address the major hazards, are appropriate for
those hazards, are cost-effective, are affordable and have minimal negative impacts on
the human and natural environment. The last section of the chapter addresses how these
action items are to be implemented along with the adoption and revision of the mitigation
plan.
Action Item 1.
Permanent DRU Advisory Committee
The University’s Mitigation Advisory Committee has agreed to participate in the DRU
Advisory Committee on a permanent basis. The Committee should continue to consider
whether other individuals or group should be invited to participate to ensure that all
University interests are included in the process.
Action Item 2.
Retrofitting Measures that Address Flood and Wind
Off-site locations that were damaged by recent storms will be (1) retrofitted with
appropriate floodproofing measures or (2) retrofitted with appropriate wind retrofitting
measures. The retrofitting projects can be funded as mitigation actions under various
FEMA programs.
Action Item 3. Safe Floor/Area
The University is currently scoping a “safe floor/area” that will function as the
“University Disaster Management Center”. Although housed on the main campus, it will
serve the CERM Building as well as the entire University community by addressing the
need for business continuity.
Action Item 4.
Target Building Evaluation – all buildings
Specific off-campus sites will be considered as “Target buildings”. These buildings are
to be evaluated separately to determine where they are vulnerable and to identify
appropriate retrofitting or other necessary protective actions.
Executive Summary 11
Action Item 5.
Future Development and Construction Policies Evaluation
The University has a variety of development and construction policies and procedures
that govern how sites are developed and improved. These will be evaluated to ensure
appropriateness for off-campus locations.
Action Item 6.
Master Plan Reassessment
All University Plans including the Capital Outlay Plan, the Strategic Plan, and the
Institutional Effectiveness Plan, will be reviewed will be reviewed every year in light of
reports by the DRU Advisory Committee to reflect the current environment.
Action Item 7.
Building and GIS Data
There is a wealth of information on University buildings, facilities and infrastructure.
However, a majority of the information is not in a format readily usable by police, fire
and other emergency personnel. Some building floor prints have been collected and put
into GIS, in addition to basic attributes to those buildings. Under this project, this work
will continue and information will be collected, catalogued, organized, and provided in
formats that first responders need.
Action Item 8.
Emergency Operations Procedures
The University has several different plans for different hazards, emergencies, and
contingencies. Under this action item, they will be reviewed, coordinated, and augmented
as appropriate.
Action Item 9.
Emergency Warning System
The University will establish a system to identify an impending hazard as early as
possible and to issue warnings appropriate to the situation. This will include an outdoor
system of sirens and related training.
Action Item 10. Business Continuity Plan
The University will create a university wide Business Continuity Plan (BCP) to serve as
an asset in the disaster recovery process by ensuring that the University can continue
mission critical functions.
Action Item 11. Hazard Protection Education
A short training course on the hazards faced by UNO and the appropriate safety and
property protection measures will be developed.
Action Item 12. Hazard Protection Information Projects
Each year, the DRU Advisory Committee will institute a series of projects to advise
faculty, staff, and students about hazard safety and property protection. These will be
reminders for those who have taken the hazard protection course.
Action Item 13. Increased Use of On-line Learning
Executive Summary 12
The University will develop a plan to increase the continuity of university operations,
particularly the continuance of classes in the event of a hazard. This plan will encourage
more faculty and students to learn how to use UNO’s web-based learning tools,
Blackboard and Sharepoint.
Action Item 14. Violence Prevention / Mental Health
The University community will review current policies and procedures related to
violence prevention and related mental health issues. Based on findings, a
comprehensive Action Plan will be developed to address related issues including
identifying and obtaining assistance for those members of the University community who
may pose a danger to themselves or others.
Executive Summary 13
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Disaster Resistant University Program:
In October 2004, The University of New Orleans (UNO) was awarded a Disaster Resistant
University (DRU) grant under the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Grant Program administered
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The grant provided the necessary
funding for UNO to develop and implement a pre-disaster hazard mitigation plan with the goal
of reducing risk to its students, faculty and staff, academic, administrative and athletic facilities,
and research assets. This Plan was approved by FEMA in October 2006; however, the Plan only
focused on the University’s Main and East campuses.
In June 2007, UNO was awarded a second PDM grant allowing the University to develop and
implement a hazard mitigation plan for its off-campus locations. These include the Center for
Energy Resources Management (CERM); the Jefferson Center; and Goldring Hall at the Ogden
Museum of Southern Art.
1.1
INTRODUCTION
1.1.1 The Problem:
All campuses of The University of New Orleans (UNO)
are subject to natural and human-caused hazards that
threaten life and health and cause significant property
damage. To better understand these hazards and their
impacts on the University community, and to identify
ways to reduce those impacts, an interdisciplinary
research team at UNO completed the University’s first
Hazard Mitigation Plan in 2006. Subsequently, the
research team was charged with completing a
Mitigation Plan for three of the University’s offcampus locations: the Center for Energy Resources
Management; the Jefferson Center; and Goldring Hall
at the Ogden Museum of Southern Art.
Damage at the Jefferson Center
following Hurricane Katrina,
September 2005
1-1
In the last decade, disasters have affected university and college campuses with disturbing
frequency, sometimes causing death and injury, but always imposing monetary losses and
disruption of the institution’s teaching, research, and public service. The damage to buildings
and infrastructure and interruption to the institutional mission result in significant losses that can
be measured by faculty and student departures, decreases in research funding, at the least, and
injury and loss of life at the extreme.
For example, Hurricane Katrina in 2005 caused severe damage to campus infrastructure,
resulting in the closure of the University’s main campus and off-campus locations 1 for up to four
months. Losses like these could be substantially reduced or eliminated through comprehensive
pre-disaster planning and mitigation actions.
These natural and human-caused disasters not only produce damaging effects to university and
college campuses, they also bring about a monetary impact to the parishes and state in which the
institution is located. For instance, UNO has a substantial influence on the economy of the City
of New Orleans as well as the State of Louisiana. The University employs approximately 2,200
faculty and staff making it one of the largest employers in the State of Louisiana 2. The
University generates more than $100 million in research grants and has a budget of over
$200,000,000. The importance of UNO to the community is also emphasized by the fact that the
majority of all UNO graduates remain in the New Orleans area after graduation.
Overall, effects of disasters extend far beyond the academic community, reaching the City of
New Orleans, Jefferson Parish and the State of Louisiana. Considering the well-being of a
considerable number of students, faculty and staff, the economic impact and the potential
hazards that face the city in which it resides, UNO has successfully sought funding from FEMA
to reduce and manage its vulnerability to these hazards through the development of a
comprehensive campus mitigation plan for its main campus and off-site locations. Although this
mitigation plan will target natural hazards, it will also focus on other hazards, including those
that are human-caused, whether they may be intentional or accidental. The ultimate goal of this
plan is to focus on identifying and reducing risks for all University facilities and locations.
“Hazard mitigation” does not mean that all hazards are stopped or prevented. It does not suggest
complete elimination of the damage or disruption caused by such incidents. Natural forces are
powerful and most natural hazards are well beyond our ability to control. Mitigation does not
mean quick fixes. It is a long-term approach to reduce hazard vulnerability. As defined by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “hazard mitigation” refers to any sustained
action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to life and property from a hazard event.
1
The Ogden Museum and the Jefferson Center were able to open earlier than most of the University’s buildings as
these sited suffered the least amount of damages.
2
UNO Office of Institutional Research and Data Management, Fall 2008
1-2
1.1.2 Why this plan?
Every university faces different hazards and each has its own unique resources and interests to
bring to bear on its problems. Because there are many ways to deal with natural hazards and
many agencies that can help, there is no one solution or method for managing or mitigating their
effects.
Planning is one of the best ways to correct these shortcomings and produce a program of
activities that will best mitigate the impact of local hazards and meet other university needs. A
well developed plan will ensure that all possible activities are reviewed and implemented so that
the problem is addressed by the most appropriate and efficient solutions. It can also ensure that
all activities are coordinated with each other and with other goals and programs, preventing
conflicts and reducing the costs of implementing each individual activity. Since the University of
New Orleans is a community within Orleans and Jefferson Parishes, the university mitigation
plans can coordinate with and compliment the mitigation plans developed by both Parishes.
Mitigation planning and defining the university’s role during a crisis will assist all entities to
collaboratively reduce or prevent damage from disasters.
The City of New Orleans developed the Orleans Parish Hazard Mitigation Plan (2006).
Vulnerability studies conducted by the City demonstrate that New Orleans is extremely
vulnerable to a myriad of disasters, which include but are not limited to flooding which is
identified as the most likely hazard, hurricanes, tornados, strong storms, hail, subsidence,
drought, levee failure, epidemics, acts of terrorism, and nuclear accidents, to name just a few
(Orleans Parish Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2006). The University of New Orleans is currently
participating in the update process of the City’s current Plan.
Jefferson Parish’s Mitigation Plan was approved in 2005 and reflects similar vulnerabilities to
those identified by Orleans Parish. Those hazards identified as high priority include hurricanes,
floods, storm surge, thunderstorms, lightning and high winds. Unlike the Orleans Parish Plan,
Jefferson Parish focuses only on the natural hazards in its Plan.
Both plans include the University of New Orleans in listing “Critical Facilities” emphasizing the
importance of the University to both parishes.
1.2
THE PLANNING PROCESS
This Plan is the product of an organizational group thought process that reviews alternatives and
selects those that will work best for the situation. This process avoids the need to make quick
decisions based on inadequate information. Key officials from the University community
collaborated to develop the Plan.
The ability to build the capacity to conduct hazard mitigation planning, and have it remain
resident within the University community was an important goal of the project. It was also
recognized that a research methodology that included a high degree of collaboration by various
1-3
stakeholders was essential to the development of a user-focused, comprehensive mitigation plan.
This is exemplified by the various actors listed in section 1.3.
The DRU Advisory Committee followed the following phases of the Planning Process per
FEMA guidelines for component sections of a local hazard mitigation plan.
Step 1: Hazard Identification and Analysis
This step involved describing and analyzing the eleven natural and four human-caused hazards to
which the off-campus sites could be susceptible. Chapter 2 contains the results of this planning
step, including historical data on past hazard events, and establishes an individual hazard profile
and risk index for each hazard based on frequency, magnitude, and impact. The summary risk
assessment in section 2.16 of the plan serves as the foundation for concentrating and prioritizing
local mitigation efforts.
Step 2. Vulnerability Assessment
This step involved research and mapping, using best available data, to determine and assess
current conditions. Chapter 3 of the plan, which contains the results of this planning step,
includes descriptions of the off-campus sites, damage potential to each of those properties, and
potential impact on people and university operations for each of the 17 hazards reviewed in the
plan.
Step 3. Goals and Objectives
Next, the Advisory Committee worked to formulate and agree upon general goals and objectives
for the mitigation plan based on the hazard profile and vulnerability assessment. These goals
were set to guide the review of possible mitigation measures and can be found in Chapter 4.
Chapter 4 also provides a review of how the goals were set by the Advisory Committee.
Step 4. Mitigation Strategies
Based on the Goals and Objectives, the Advisory Committee formulated the mitigation strategies
summarized in Chapter 4. The recommended mitigation actions were deemed appropriate for the
University’s off-campus sites, reflective of school priorities, and consistent with other plans for
the main and East campuses.
Step 5. Action Plan
The Advisory Committee developed an Action Plan based on the mitigation strategies and goals.
Mitigation projects or action items were then developed. This step included designating
responsibility for implementation of each action. The committee also established a procedure for
review and revisions of the plan. The review process provides for the general public to have
input on plan review. Then a procedure was developed for a comprehensive review and update of
the plan on a 5-year schedule. The results of this planning step are found in Chapter 4 of the
mitigation plan.
1-4
Step 5. Adoption
The Chancellor of the University then adopted the Plan based on the recommendation by the
Advisory Committee. The adoption followed a public review period.
1.3
ORGANIZATION
1.3.1 The DRU Advisory Committee 3:
Members of the DRU Advisory Committee represented all areas of the University community.
Members included:
Joel Chatelain, Vice Chancellor, Campus Services
George Harker, Office of Technology and Economic Development (CERM)
Carl Drichta, Metro College/Academic Affairs
Monica Farris, Ph.D., UNO-CHART
Shirley Laska, Ph.D., UNO-CHART
John Kiefer, Ph.D., Political Science
Lee Robert, Facility Services
Nicole Toussel, Metro College, Jefferson Campus
Rick Gruber, Ogden Museum of Southern Art
Marco Perez, Lakefront Arena/Lindy Boggs Conference Center (next to CERM)
David Richardson, Environmental Health and Safety
Jeanie Deceurs, Campus Services
Michael Folse, Ph.D., Civil Engineering
In order to develop a comprehensive campus mitigation plan that addresses multiple hazards,
various planning activities were accomplished. These included a risk assessment, priority
profiling of potential hazards, a vulnerability assessment, and multiple interviews with key
stakeholders. Also, an interdisciplinary committee of resident experts from UNO was formed.
These committee members represented a wide range of offices and departments, including the
Center for Hazards Assessment Response and Technology (UNO-CHART), the Environmental
Health and Safety Office, Student Affairs, Student Housing, University Administration including
the Chancellor’s Office, Academic Affairs, Facility Services, University Computing and
Communications, Public Information, the Lakefront Arena/Lindy Boggs Conference Center, and
University Police.
These people were selected for this interdisciplinary advisory team to provide collaborative
input, identify and develop mitigation strategies, review and critique plan drafts, and to provide
diverse viewpoints in order to create a disaster-resistant university campus. Moreover, they were
a part of the already-established DRU Advisory Team established under the UNO Mitigation
Plan for the main campus. Many were also members of the UNO Emergency Preparedness
Committee created by the Chancellor to discuss emergency issues and strategies on campus.
These professionals have dealt with previous campus emergency situations.
3
Student Government leaders were invited to participate but did not attend any of the Advisory meetings.
1-5
1.3.2 The Research Team:
The Research Team that led the planning activities included eight members of UNO faculty and
staff, representing CHART, the Environmental Health and Safety Office, the College of
Engineering, the Political Science Department, two graduate students from the Planning
Department and one graduate student from the Urban Studies Department.
Table 1.1
Hazard Mitigation Research Team
Participant
Department
Title
Monica Farris
CHART
Principal Investigator
David Richardson
Environmental Health & Safety
Director
John Kiefer
Political Science, Public Administration
Associate Professor
Shirley Laska
CHART
Professor of Sociology
Mike Folse
Engineering
Associate Professor
Lauren Andrews
Planning
Graduate Research Assistant
Thomas Haysley
Planning
Graduate Research Assistant
Carrie Beth Lasley
Urban Studies
Graduate Research Assistant
Departments
CHART = Center for Hazards Assessment, Response and Technology
Political Science
Engineering
Public Administration
Planning
Urban Studies
Environmental Health & Safety
The Research Team followed a standard process, based on FEMA’s guidance and requirements.
Members worked with the Advisory Team members to assess the hazards facing the University’s
off-campus sites, set goals, and review a wide range of activities that can mitigate the adverse
affects of the hazards. The following sections of the chapter describe the tasks performed by the
Research Team.
1.4 MITIGATION PLANNING
The Research Team conducted a thorough risk assessment, identifying potential hazards that
may impact UNO’s off-campus sites. This information was gathered through newspaper articles
in the local newspaper, The Times-Picayune; the Lexis-Nexis database; Internet websites such as
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA); insurance claim files made available by the UNO Office of Risk
Management and the State of Louisiana Office of Risk Management; and hazard profiles
developed for the University’s main campus and those developed by the City of New Orleans,
Jefferson Parish and the State of Louisiana. The significant data collected from these sources
yielded a list of potential hazards that could affect UNO’s off-campus sites.
1-6
1.5
HAZARD PROFILE
Comprehensive maps of UNO’s off-campus locations were developed with details and
descriptions of each building, facility and infrastructure (when available). These data provide
information to the research team about campus facilities that could be affected by and/or that
may need to be closed due to a variety of hazards such as flooding or power outages. These maps
can be continually expanded and adapted for campus emergency personnel to use as an ongoing
planning tool and serves as part of the University’s geographic information system.
1.6
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
A detailed inventory was conducted of the off-campus locations during the organization phase.
This inventory went beyond the mapping of the asset locations and provided the value of assets
valued at over $1,000.00 at these University’s facilities. The vulnerability assessment was based
on the hazard profiles and the inventory of assets of the University as reported by the UNO
Office of Risk Management. This assessment helped determine what is actually at risk from an
identified hazard, and allowed the Research Team to estimate potential structural and monetary
losses, while at the same time prioritizing components of the mitigation plan.
The vulnerability assessment included a detailed description of each site in terms of its square
footage, construction make-up (i.e., number of floors, type of foundation, roof material and
construction, and building material), date of construction, and use.
1.7
INVOLVING STAKEHOLDERS
Based on information gathered by the initial hazard profiling and vulnerability assessment as
developed from secondary sources, a refinement of campus hazards was conducted for the
University’s first Hazard Mitigation Plan through discussions with a sample of subject matter
experts across the University (including the off-site locations. These discussions provided an
opportunity to clarify alternatives, develop additional strategies, and prioritize those strategies to
mitigate UNO against potential natural and human-caused hazards.
Participants in these focused discussions included staff members from the Ogden Museum, the
Jefferson Center, CERM and Facility Services. The questions asked were open-ended questions
that led to a series of informative discussions and past experiences. The participants offered
suggestions and recommendations for the Research Team.
The respondents were not only asked about the University’s susceptibility to potential hazards,
but were asked how his or her department or facility handles vulnerability to identified hazards.
Some additional interviews were conducted with faculty/staff at UNO throughout the drafting
process. These included interviews with David Richardson, Director of Environmental Safety,
1-7
and Denise Perez, Director of Student Health Services to gather information pertaining to
emergency operations and response to hazards.
1.8
COORDINATION
Existing plans and programs were reviewed during the planning process. Reviewed items include
all university emergency and evacuation plans including the Communications Plan, Extreme
Conditions Response Plan, Facility Services Building & Grounds Emergency Plan, Hurricane
Plan, Shelter In Place, and the university FY 2009-2010 Capital Outlay Plan. The Orleans Parish
Hazard Mitigation Plan (2006), the Jefferson Parish Mitigation Plan (2005) and the Louisiana
State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2008) were also reviewed.
These local planning mechanisms were reviewed and incorporated into the UNO Hazard
Mitigation Plan for its Off-Campus Locations. Please refer to Chapter 4 of the Plan for a
complete overview of the planning mechanisms.
The Hazard Mitigation Plan will be made available for incorporation into local planning
mechanisms through the following process:
• The Plan, including all Updates, will be distributed to all University departments charged
with developing and maintaining other University planning mechanisms
• The DRU Advisory Committee will be charged with reviewing other planning
mechanisms to ensure that the contents of each reflect and do not contradict this Plan
(See Chapter 4 for an overview of the Committee’s responsibilities)
During the planning process, contacts were made with various agencies and organizations (See
following list on pages 8-9 for names of agencies and organizations that were contacted). At the
end of the planning process, each of these agencies was sent a notice requesting their review of
the draft Plan. They were advised that the draft could be reviewed on the University’s website.
They were asked to provide any comments or relevant information regarding any plans,
programs, activities, or ideas that could help in the effort to identify the best ways to reduce the
dangers and damage from future hazards. The organizations and/or agencies were asked to
provide any information by contacting the research team.
Agencies/Organizations 4:
1. City of New Orleans, Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness,
Mitigation Division
2. Jefferson Parish Department of Emergency Management
3. East Jefferson Levee District
4. Orleans Levee District
5. Entergy
6. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
7. Gentilly Civic Improvement Association
8. Whitney Cecile Association
4
The Louisiana Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness as well as DHS-FEMA
Region VI also review the Plan as part of the approval process.
1-8
9. Ferran Place Courtland Heights Association
10. Edenborn-North Hullen Association
1.9
HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT
An extensive profile of potential hazards affecting the University’s off-campus locations was
created based on historical accounts, existing emergency plans, and knowledge of students,
faculty, and staff. The various hazards identified through the risk assessment were then
prioritized based on the likelihood of occurrence, severity of the hazard and cost of damage to
the University. This information provided a basis for mitigation planning efforts in terms of
focus and allocation of resources.
The hazards reviewed include those locally reported and all natural hazards listed in the State
Mitigation Plan as well as the Orleans Parish and Jefferson Parish Hazard Profiles. They are as
follows:
Natural Hazards
Floods*
Wind*
Hail
Lightning
Storm Surge
Winter Storms
Subsidence
Drought
Earthquakes
Termites
Epidemics
Mold
Dam Failure
Human-caused Hazards
Hazardous Materials Spills
Nuclear Accidents
Civil Unrest
Terrorism
*Hurricanes are included in these hazard descriptions.
The hazard data and the Advisory Committee’s findings and conclusions are covered in Chapter
2 of this Plan. Chapter 2 assesses each hazard – what causes it and the likelihood of occurrence.
Chapter 3 reviews the impact of these hazards on the University’s off-campus locations.
1.10 GOALS
After the Advisory Committee reviewed the hazards, it developed the goals to mitigate their
impacts. These are listed in Chapter 4. They were used to guide the selection of mitigation
measures.
1-9
1.11 MITIGATION STRATEGIES
The Research Team, in consultation with the Advisory Committee, considered a wide range of
strategies that could positively affect the impact of the hazards and developed alternatives. They
are organized under five general strategies for reaching the goals.
These strategies are the subject of Chapter 4 in this Plan.
4.2.1:
4.2.2:
4.2.3:
4.2.4:
4.2.5:
4.2.6:
Property protection – e.g., relocation out of harm’s way, retrofitting buildings
Preventive – e.g., restricted access to sensitive areas, securing power plant
Emergency services – e.g., warning, response, evacuation
Structural projects – e.g., drainage improvements
University operations
Public information – e.g., outreach projects
1.12 ACTION PLAN
After the alternatives were reviewed, an “action plan” was drafted that specifies recommended
projects, who is responsible for implementing them, and when they are to be done. The action
plan is included in Chapter 4 of this Hazard Mitigation Plan.
1.13 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
There are many ways that the public could participate in the drafting of this hazard mitigation
plan. The Research Team identified the most effective ways for public participation.
The campus community and the neighboring communities adjacent to UNO’s off-campus
locations, along with local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, were
provided with opportunities to comment on the action plan during the drafting stage and prior to
approval of the plan. The various agencies and organizations along with neighborhood
community associations are listed in section eight of this chapter.
During the development of the Plan, a news release was issued by The University of New
Orleans’ Public Relations staff announcing the plan, and it was posted on the University’s web
site for public review. A special link directed individuals to the hazard mitigation plan and
invited the submission of comments. The University’s radio station (WWNO) announced that
the plan was posted and available for review on the web site.
Prior to the approval of the Plan, a news release was again sent to the UNO community
announcing that revisions to the Plan were posted on the University’s website and were available
for review. A special link directed individuals to the revised plan.
1-10
1.14 DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA OF STUDY
The University of New Orleans was established by the Louisiana Legislature in 1956. In
September 1958, Louisiana State University in New Orleans opened. By 1962, the University
was operating as a four-year, degree-granting institution; it was later renamed the University of
New Orleans in 1974. The University was created to bring public-supported higher education to
the state’s largest urban community. The expansion of UNO’s campus beyond the Lakefront
began in 1970.
Today, The University of New Orleans is a major urban research university and is categorized as
an SREB Four-Year 2 institution, as a Carnegie Doctoral/Research University-Intensive, and as a
COC/SACS Level VI institution. Student enrollment at UNO steadily increased over the years
and had reached nearly 18,000 before the onset of Hurricane Katrina at the start of the Fall 2005
semester; the storm resulted in a decrease in student enrollment of more than fifty percent. As of
the Fall 2008 semester, the University’s enrollment has rebounded to nearly 11,500 students (75
percent of whom are undergraduate students), and the University has 2,160 full- and part-time
paid employees. This figure includes graduate assistants – who make up twenty percent of the
University’s workforce – but does not include undergraduate student workers. 5
TABLE 1. UNO Overall Student
Population (as of Fall 2008)
White
59%
African-American
17%
Latino
7%
International
7%
Asian
5%
Other
5%
The University of New Orleans sites that have been identified for the purposes of this mitigation
plan are (1) the Center for Energy Resources Management (CERM)/Lindy Boggs Conference
Center building; and (2) Goldring Hall at the Ogden Museum of Southern Art; and (3) the
Jefferson Center.
Both CERM and the Ogden Museum are located in Orleans Parish and their locations are
identified on the following map. Descriptions of each site also are included in this section.
5
UNO Office of Institutional Research and Data Management, Fall 2008
1-11
CERMThe Center for Energy
Resources Management
(CERM) complex, which shares
a common building with the
UNO Foundation’s Lindy Boggs
Conference Center, is located in
the UNO Research and
Technology Park on Lake
Pontchartrain at the end of
Elysian Fields Avenue. The
building was constructed with a
concrete foundation with a
fireproofed steel frame and brick
veneer; the facilities, built in
2002, encompass five floors and
104,506 square feet. CERM is a
1-12
multimillion dollar research facility that focuses on biotechnology, energy, environmental
research, geology, information technology, maritime, technology, and technology transfer.
The CERM building houses The University of New Orleans’ Office of Research and Sponsored
Programs (OSRP). ORSP has both a compliance monitoring role as well as a service role to
assist faculty in their acquisition of external funds that further academic pursuits. The
compliance role embodies the traditional components of academic research which guarantee its
higher level credibility; proper ethics and protection of human subjects; proper animal care and
use; scientific integrity; financial integrity; and avoidance of conflicts of interest. The service
component of ORSP entails more of a partnership with the faculty in furthering their various
research agendas.
In addition to ORSP, several UNO research centers and other entities are housed at CERM,
including:

Charter School Network

Conference Booking

Division of Business and Economic Research

Energy Conversion & Conservation Center (ECCC)

Gulf Coast Region Maritime Technology Center

Hospitality Research Center

Louisiana Urban Technical Assistance Center

Maritime Environmental Resources and Information Center (MERIC)

Nekton Research Laboratory

Pontchartrain Institute for Environmental Science

Technology & Economic Development Office

UNO - Northrop Grumman Maritime Center of Excellence

US Geological Survey – Northern Gulf of Mexico
The 22,000 square feet state-of-the-art, Lindy Claiborne Boggs International Conference
Center, occupying the first two floors of the CERM building, host academic conferences,
industry and trade shows, research presentations, and business gatherings.
1-13
Goldring Hall at the Ogden Museum of Southern
Art
The Ogden Museum of Southern Art, located in the
Warehouse District of New Orleans, opened its
doors to the public in August 2003. In addition to
housing and exhibiting various art collections,
Goldring Hall at the Ogden often serves as a venue
for various public and private social and
organizational functions.
The mission of The Ogden Museum of Southern
Art, University of New Orleans, is to broaden the
knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the
visual arts and culture of the American South
through its permanent collections, changing
exhibitions, educational programs, publications,
research center, and its Goldring-Woldenberg
Institute for the Advancement of Southern Art and
Culture. To that end, the museum will collect,
conserve, exhibit, study, and interpret the art of the
South within the context of the region’s history and
culture.
Jefferson Center
The Jefferson Center building is
located in Metairie, Louisiana in
Jefferson Parish. Its location is
found on the map found on page
15. Built in 1970, the facility
encompasses four floors and
57,373 square feet.
Because of its convenient location,
the Jefferson Campus serves
students from Metairie, New
Orleans, St. Tammany, Destrehan,
Jefferson and the Westbank.
This four story educational facility
houses a variety of undergraduate and graduate classes in business, education, liberal arts,
sciences and many more. Many of these classes are offered in the evening hours to give students
the opportunity to continue their education.
1-14
This campus also houses a number of research centers and community programs such as the
Center for Society, Law, and Justice (CSLJ); Connect.UNO, International Project for Nonprofit
Leadership; Louisiana Incumbent Worker Training Program; Louisiana International Trade
Center - The Small Business Development Center.
The Center rents out facilities (e.g., conference rooms and computer labs) as well as audiovisual
equipment by the day. The Jefferson Campus also leases space to a number of lessors, including:








Educational Broadcast Foundation (WLAE-TV)
First Planning District Workforce Investment Board
First Responder ID Management, Inc.
Jefferson Dollars for Scholars
Louisiana Small Business Development Center (LSBDC) for the Greater New Orleans
Region
New Orleans’ Jazz Centennial Celebration, Inc.
Security National Properties-Louisiana LP
Senator Julie Quinn
1-15
1.15 REFERENCES
New Orleans Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness. 2010 Orleans
Parish Hazard Mitigation Plan Update.
The City of New Orleans. Office of Emergency Preparedness. Orleans Parish
Hazard Mitigation Plan. New Orleans: OEP, 2006. Web.
The Parish of Jefferson. Emergency Operations Center. Jefferson Parish
Hazard Mitigation Plan. Jefferson Parish: EOC, 2005. Print.
University of New Orleans. The University of New Orleans Hazard Mitigation Plan.
New Orleans: Center for Hazards Assessment, Response and Technology, 2006.
Print.
University of New Orleans Office of Data Management, Analysis and Reporting.
University of New Orleans Office of Institutional Research and Data
Management, 2008. Web. January 2009.
University of New Orleans. University of New Orleans Office of Risk Management.
September 2008.
1-16
CHAPTER 2. HAZARD PROFILE
This chapter reviews the natural and human-caused hazards that face The University of New
Orleans’ (UNO) satellite locations, including the Center for Energy Resources Management
(CERM) / Lindy C. Boggs International Conference Center, the Jefferson Center, and
Goldring Hall at the Ogden Museum of Southern Art. The hazards described here are based
on the State of Louisiana Hazard Profile, the City of New Orleans Hazard Profile, the
Jefferson Parish Hazard Profile, the University of New Orleans Hazard Profile (main and
East campuses) and/or were identified by the Research Team as having affected the specified
locations in recent history.
Natural Hazards
Floods
Wind
Hail
Lightning
Storm surge
Winter storms
Subsidence
Drought
Earthquakes
Termites
Epidemics
Mold
Dam failure
Human-caused Hazards
Hazardous materials spills
Nuclear accidents
Civil unrest
Terrorism
This chapter has seventeen sections, one for each hazard identified in this Plan. The first two
natural hazards, floods and wind, are actually the result of a variety of occurrences such as
tropical storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, and levee failure. Rather than address each of the
aforementioned occurrences as separate hazards, this Plan examines these from their
potential impacts: flooding and high winds.
2.1
FLOODS
2.1.1 Description
Floods are caused by the presence of more water than the drainage system can convey.
There are a number of types of flood hazards facing UNO’s satellite locations: stormwater
flooding; groundwater flooding; riverine flooding (e.g., ‘overbank’ or ‘backwater’ flooding);
and extensive flooding resulting from levee failure. A number of natural events can bring
about flooding, including thunderstorms, heavy and/or prolonged rain events, and tropical
storms and hurricanes. Potential flooding from storm surge and dam failure is covered in
sections 2.5 and 2.13 respectively.
Stormwater Flooding:
Stormwater flooding typically follows local heavy rains. Stormwater drainage can be a
problem during heavy rainstorms, and thus surface flooding is common. Additionally, the
2-1
levees that protect the densely populated areas of Orleans and Jefferson parishes make it
more difficult for stormwater to flow out.
Groundwater Flooding:
Groundwater is sub-surface water, and the potential for groundwater flooding increases with
the proximity of a structure to the water table. The distance between the ground surface and
the water table varies from place to place, and the distance decreases in times of heavy
precipitation.
Groundwater flooding is a concern for all of UNO’s campus locations as locally heavy
precipitation may produce flooding in areas other than delineated floodplains or along
recognizable drainage channels. If local conditions cannot accommodate intense
precipitation through a combination of infiltration and surface runoff (“sheet flow”), water
may accumulate (“pond”) and cause flooding problems.
Drainage of floodwaters in Orleans and Jefferson Parishes is accomplished through a system
of subsurface drainage lines, canals and drainage pump stations. This system has proven in
the past to be inadequate to handle certain volumes of floodwater which has led to
groundwater flooding.
Riverine Flooding:
Flooding of rivers and their tributaries and floodplains may occur during periods of heavy
precipitation as a result of runoff. The Bonnet Carré Spillway serves as the primary flood
control system for the Lower Mississippi River Valley; located in nearby St. Charles Parish,
the floodway protects New Orleans and other nearby and downriver communities from major
Mississippi River flooding by diverting excess water into Lake Pontchartrain.
Levee Failure Flooding:
Levee failure flooding could result from a number of factors during a natural hazard event,
including surface or internal erosion, under-seepage, and overtopping. None of the three
satellite campuses suffered extensive flooding from the levee breaches caused by Hurricane
Katrina’s storm surge, despite the close proximity of both the CERM building and the
Jefferson Center’s proximities to Lake Pontchartrain.
2.1.2 Area Affected
The state of Louisiana is highly prone to flooding, and it is the state’s most prevalent natural
hazard. This is largely due to Louisiana’s location near the end of the Mississippi River
Basin and its proximity to the Gulf of Mexico, in addition to the number of rivers, streams,
and bayous throughout the state. Also, the climate throughout most of the state lends itself to
heavy rainfall. The delta area of southeastern Louisiana, including Jefferson and Orleans
Parishes where UNO’s various campuses are located, receives the highest rainfall of any
other part of the state. Hence, all University sites are susceptible to flood hazards.
The Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for UNO’s satellite campuses reveal that: (1) the
CERM building is located in Zone AO with a base (100-year) flood elevation of 1½ feet
above sea level; (2) Goldring Hall at the Ogden Museum is located in Zone B or the 500-year
floodplain; and (3) the Jefferson Center is located in Zone AE at a base (100-year) flood
elevation of 3½ feet below sea level.
2-2
In other words, per the FIRM, while the Ogden Museum faces a moderate to low risk of
flooding, the CERM building and the Jefferson Center are at a high risk of flooding. Zone
AE indicates areas with a 1% annual chance of flooding while Zone AO identifies river or
stream flood hazard areas, and areas with a 1% or greater chance of shallow flooding each
year, usually in the form of sheet flow, with an average depth ranging from 1 to 3 feet. Zone
B indicates an area outside the 1-percent annual chance floodplain.
Excerpt from Orleans Parish Flood Insurance Rate Map, Panel 40, March 1, 1984; Star
Indicates Approximate Location of Center for Energy Resources Management (CERM)
/ Lindy C. Boggs International Conference Center
Excerpt from Orleans Parish Flood Insurance Rate Map, Panel 60, March 1, 1984;
Star Indicates Approximate Location of Ogden Museum
2-3
Excerpt from Jefferson Parish Flood Insurance Rate Map, Panel 40, March 23, 1995;
Star Indicates Approximate Location of Jefferson Center
2.1.3 Historical Occurrences
Stormwater flooding typically follows heavy rains and thunderstorms; these events are often
a rapid-onset in nature, and the documentation is thus scant. Events of this nature are more
likely to occur in the spring and summer months in Louisiana when the average temperature
is higher, but these events can happen at any time of the year if conditions are right.
One example of a stormwater flooding event of considerable magnitude in recent history was
that which occurred over a two-day period in May 1995. Heavy rain storms enveloped the
Southeast Louisiana region, including New Orleans and the surrounding area, and some areas
experienced up to twenty inches of rain fall within a twelve-hour period, with Orleans Parish
receiving seventeen inches of rain over the extensive 48-hour event. In Jefferson Parish,
nearly 15,000 residences were flooded, and the damages to New Orleans and the surrounding
areas alone totaled $1 billion.
Groundwater flooding is brought on by heavy rains and thunderstorms, as well as tropical
storms and hurricanes. All thirteen Federally Declared Disasters for New Orleans since 1965
have involved rain events. Over the last twenty years, four of these events have entailed ten
inches or more falling in a 24-hour period.
The two major levee failure flooding events in New Orleans’ recent history have occurred as
a result of Hurricanes Betsy (1965) and Katrina (2005). During Betsy, the waters of Lake
Pontchartrain overtopped the levees, flooding some sections of the city. Betsy was the first
hurricane to result in $1 billion in damage, and 58 lives were lost. The flooding that resulted
2-4
from Hurricane Katrina was far more extensive, and multiple levee breaches around the city
caused the majority of the city of New Orleans to be inundated – in addition to widespread
flooding throughout parishes bordering Orleans Parish (e.g., Jefferson, Plaquemines, and St.
Bernard). The final costs wrought by Hurricane Katrina in southeast Louisiana remain
unknown; however, estimates are likely to be in the tens of billions of dollars.
The Center for Energy Resource Management (CERM) building is located adjacent to the
main Lakefront campus and in the same FIRM Zone (AO) as the majority of the main
campus. While the CERM building is subject to flooding, water intrusion has only been
known to occur during hurricanes and mostly as a result of wind.
The Jefferson Center building is located in an AE flood zone indicating it is at risk for
flooding in a 1 percent annual chance flood event. However, water intrusion at this satellite
campus has been reported only as a result of a failed roof or broken windows.
Goldring Hall at the Ogden Museum has taken steps to mitigate the effects of general
flooding by installing an eight-foot storm fence at the front of the building.
2.1.4 Frequency 1
Stormwater and Groundwater Flooding:
These two sources of flooding are connected. In Jefferson Parish, there have been 20 minor
flooding events over the last 13 years; in Orleans Parish, there have been 23 minor flooding
events over the last 14 years. 2
Frequency, Jefferson Parish: 1.54.
Frequency, Orleans Parish: 1.64.
Levee Failure Flooding:
A 1993 FEMA Flood Insurance Study for Orleans Parish recognizes that federally built
levees were considered to remain intact during the 100-year storm event. Proper maintenance
of the levees is essential in maintaining the level of protection from the levees. As the levees
consolidate and / or subside, the frequency and severity of surge overtopping could increase
and create higher hazards in the areas protected by the levees.
Congress authorized the Lake Pontchartrain project to protect New Orleans from flooding
caused by storm surge or rainfall associated with a hurricane that had the chance of occurring
once in 200 years. This was termed as the “standard project hurricane” and represented the
most severe combination of meteorological conditions considered reasonable for the region.
1
The data used to calculate the frequency of flood events – and the data used to calculate the frequency of all
the hazard events listed in this hazard mitigation plan – are drawn from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). The Storms Events database contains the following
sources: (1) all weather events from 1993 - 1995, as entered into Storm Data. (Except 6/93 - 7/93, which is
missing) (NO Latitude/Longitude); (2) all weather events from 1996 - Current, as entered into Storm Data.
(Including Latitude/Longitude); and (3) additional data from the Storm Prediction Center, including tornadoes
(1950-1992), Thunderstorm Winds (1955-1992), and Hail (1955-1992).
2
National Climatic Data Center website.
2-5
As hurricanes are currently characterized, the Corps’ standard project hurricane
approximately equals a fast-moving category 3 hurricane, according to the Corps.
Weaknesses in the levee system were revealed by Katrina. This plan estimates that deeper
flooding caused by levee failure could affect the campus locations once every 50 years.
Frequency, Jefferson Parish: 0.02.
Frequency, Orleans Parish: 0.02.
2.1.5 Threat to People
The risk presented to human life by floodwater varies depending on its depth. Aside from
the threat of drowning, a number of circumstances contribute to flood deaths, including:
imminent health issues (e.g., heart attack, stroke) prompted by exertion; electrocution; fires;
and secondary hazards like gas leaks. Direct deaths are those attributable to the direct effects
of winds, floods, and storm surges, while indirect deaths are those attributable to hurricanerelated accidents (e.g., auto accidents, sanitation issues). The human death toll from
Hurricane Katrina is still debated, but the number of deaths resulting directly from the storm
in Orleans Parish as of February 2006 was 1,101. More than 200 indirect deaths in Orleans
Parish were reported, and the death toll for the Gulf Coast as a whole was 1,836.
Floodwater is typically highly unsanitary, and that which is inundated (e.g., carpets,
furniture) should almost always be disposed of. Secondly, mildew and mold remain even
after the water on an inundated surface or object has dried, thus contributing to health issues.
Lastly, the psychological impact of experiencing and surviving a flood event can be dire; the
resulting stress may lead to serious mental health issues.
2.1.6 Property Damage
The extent of damages caused to property by flooding varies according to the depth and
duration of flooding.
Flood-insured damages in the state of Louisiana following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita alone
totaled nearly $13 billion. Roughly twenty percent of those damages reported were in
Jefferson Parish ($3.2 billion), and more than half the state’s damages reported were in
Orleans Parish, where flood-insured damages exceeded $7 billion.
There are no reports of property damage related to the UNO off-site locations due to levee
failure flooding.
2-6
Table 2.1 Recent Minor Flood Events, Jefferson Parish
Date
Number of
Deaths
Property Damage
05/09/1994
0
$500,000
05/08/1995
1
0
02/13/1997
0
0
02/21/1997
0
0
01/05/1998
0
$250,000
03/07/1998
0
0
04/29/1998
0
0
08/21/1998
0
0
09/11/1998
0
0
08/09/1999
0
0
06/06/2001
0
$25,000
06/08/2001
0
$25,000
08/08/2001
0
$5,000
09/25/2002
0
0
06/30/2003
0
$130,000
04/25/2004
0
$50,000
10/16/2006
0
0
12/21/2006
0
0
10/22/2007
0
0
06/15/2008
0
0
Source: National Climatic Data Center website.
2-7
Table 2.2 Recent Minor Flood Events, Orleans Parish
Date
Number of
Deaths
05/09/1994
0
$500,000
05/08/1995
4
0
05/19/1997
0
0
01/05/1998
0
0
03/07/1998
0
0
04/29/1998
0
0
08/21/1998
0
0
09/11/1998
0
0
08/09/1999
0
0
06/05/2001
0
0
06/07/2001
0
$25,000
06/11/2001
0
$50,000
06/21/2001
0
0
08/17/2002
0
0
08/22/2002
0
0
09/25/2002
0
0
06/19/2003
0
$150,000
06/30/2003
0
$130,000
12/21/2006
0
0
10/22/2007
0
0
04/26/2008
0
0
06/15/2008
0
0
06/29/2008
0
0
03/27/2009
0
0
Property Damage
Source: National Climatic Data Center website.
2-8
2.2 WIND
2.2.1 Description
High wind hazards are caused by a number of phenomena, including thunderstorms, tropical
storms, hurricanes, and tornadoes.
Thunderstorms:
Thunderstorms create downbursts and microbursts, which are strong, concentrated, straightline winds created by falling rain and sinking air. These storms are of a rapid-onset nature
and can reach speeds of 125 mph.
Tropical Storms and Hurricanes:
Tropical storms and hurricanes are large-scale systems of severe thunderstorms that develop
over tropical or subtropical waters and have a defined circulation. Also, tropical storms and
hurricanes have the potential to produce thunderstorms and tornadoes. Hurricane season runs
from June 1 until November 30; the storms that affect the Gulf region are the ones that form
over the Atlantic Ocean, moving from east to west.
Tropical storms and hurricanes are measured by their respective wind speeds, as is measured
according to the Saffir-Simpson Scale. The highest wind speed recorded in Orleans Parish
was 125 mph during Hurricane Camille in 1969. During Hurricane Betsy, wind speeds of up
to 140 mph were recorded in Jefferson Parish.
Table 2.3 Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale
SAFFIR-SIMPSON SCALE
CATEGORY
WIND SPEED (mph)
1
74-95
2
96-110
3
111-30
4
131-155
5
>155
Source: National Weather Service
Tornadoes:
Tornadoes are rotating funnels of air extending from storm clouds to the ground; their
magnitude is measured according to the Fujita Scale. Their size and scope vary; wind speeds
that accompany tornadoes range from 40 mph up to more than 300 mph. Tornadoes are
created during severe weather events like thunderstorms and hurricanes. For instance,
Hurricane Gustav (September 2008) is known to have produced 41 tornadoes, eleven of
which occurred in Louisiana.
Tornadoes are more likely to occur during the summer and fall months; however, they can
occur at any time of day during any season. Louisiana’s location renders the state more
prone to tornado activity than are the peripheral sides of the country because of the recurrent
collision of different weather fronts. The strength and wind speeds of tornadoes are
measured on the Fujita Scale, illustrated in Table 2.4.
2-9
Table 2.4 Fujita Tornado Measurement Scale
Fujita Tornado Measurement Scale and Occurrences in Louisiana Since 1950
Source: LOEP Hazard Profile
Category
Wind Speed
Examples of Possible Damage
Number in
Louisiana
F0
Gale
(40-72 mph)
Light damage. Some damage to chimneys; break branches off
trees; push over shallow-rooted trees; damage to sign boards.
321
F1
Moderate
(73-112 mph)
Moderate damage. Surface peeled off roofs; mobile homes
pushed off foundations or overturned; moving autos pushed off
roads.
698
F2
Significant
(113-157 mph)
Considerable damage. Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile
homes demolished; boxcars pushed over; large trees snapped
or uprooted; light-object missiles generated.
292
F3
Severe
(158-206 mph)
Severe damage. Roofs and some walls torn off wellconstructed houses; trains overturned; most trees in forest
uprooted; cars lifted off ground and thrown.
132
F4
Devastating
(207-260 mph)
Devastating damage. Well-constructed houses leveled;
structures with weak foundations blown off some distance;
cars thrown and large missiles generated.
18
F5
Incredible
(261-318 mph)
Incredible damage. Strong frame houses lifted off foundations
and carried considerable distance to disintegrate; automobilesized missiles fly through the air in excess of 100-yards; trees
debarked; incredible phenomena will occur.
2
Total tornadoes in Louisiana, 1950-2002
1,463
2.2.2 Area Affected
Thunderstorms, tropical storms, and hurricanes vary in scale, but can be so vast in scale that
they can affect all areas of southeast Louisiana.
Tropical storms and hurricanes gain their energy crossing over warm waters, and they lose
strength as their systems pass over land. However, because of the New Orleans metropolitan
region’s close proximity to the Gulf of Mexico, there is little to no time for the storms to
weaken before reaching the area.
Because of the recurrent collision of different weather fronts in the state of Louisiana, the
central and northern parts of the state are more likely to experience tornadoes than are the
southern areas of the state. However, no place is really safe from tornadoes outside of
mountainous areas.
All University locations are subject to thunderstorms, tropical storms, hurricanes, and
tornadoes.
2-10
2.2.3 Historical Occurrences
Orleans and Jefferson Parishes are extremely prone to high winds and damage brought on by
thunderstorms, tropical storms, and hurricanes.
Thunderstorms:
According to the National Climatic Data Center, between 1950 and late 2008, Orleans Parish
has had 129 instances of thunderstorms and high winds, resulting in $1,458,000 in property
damage. Over the same time period, Jefferson Parish has had 122 instances of thunderstorms
and high winds, resulting in $2,206,000 in property damage, as well as five deaths.
Tropical Storms and Hurricanes:
The National Climatic Data Center reports that, between 1995 and September 2009, Orleans
Parish has experienced 17 hurricanes and tropical storms. The resulting property damage
totaled $17,366,400,000. Only five hurricanes categorized at 4 or above have made landfall
in Louisiana since 1900: unnamed hurricanes in 1909 and 1915; Hurricane Audrey in 1957;
Hurricane Camille in 1969 (the only category 5 hurricane to hit the state since the 1850s);
and Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
National Climatic Data Center reports reveal that between 1995 and September 2009,
Jefferson Parish (which spans both sides of the Mississippi River) has experienced 23
hurricanes and tropical storms, resulting in $21,755,400,000 in property damage.
See Tables 2.5 and 2.6 for specific occurrences of tropical storms and hurricanes.
2-11
Table 2.5 Tropical Storms/Hurricanes - Jefferson Parish
Date
Type
Deaths Injuries Property Damage
10/4/1995
Hurricane Opal
0
0
$200,000
7/17/1997
Hurricane
0
0
$5,000,000
9/2/1998
Tropical Storm
0
0
$ 9/9/1998
Tropical Storm
0
3
$21,000,000
9/10/1998
Tropical Storm
0
0
$31,500,000
9/19/1998
Tropical Storm
0
0
$ 9/27/1998
Hurricane
0
0
$30,100,000
8/4/2002
Tropical Storm
0
0
$50,000
9/14/2002
Tropical Storm
0
0
$ 9/25/2002
Tropical Storm
0
0
$108,600,000
10/2/2002
Hurricane
0
0
$149,600,000
10/3/2002
Hurricane
0
3
$368,000,000
6/30/2003
Tropical Storm
0
0
$34,000,000
9/15/2004 Hurricane/Typhoon
0
0
$11,800,000
9/22/2004
Tropical Storm
0
0
$ 10/9/2004
Tropical Storm
0
0
$50,000
7/5/2005 Hurricane/Typhoon
0
0
$47,500,000
7/10/2005
Tropical Storm
0
0
$ 8/28/2005 Hurricane/Typhoon
0
0
$16,900,000,000
9/23/2005
Tropical Storm
0
0
$48,000,000
9/23/2005 Hurricane/Typhoon
1
0
$4,000,000,000
11/9/2009
Tropical Storm
0
0
$Totals
23
1
6
$21,755,400,000
Source: National Climatic Data Center website
2-12
Table 2.6 Tropical Storms/Hurricanes – Orleans Parish
Property
Date
Type
Death Injuries
Damages
10/4/1995
Hurricane Opal
0
0
$200,000
7/17/1997
Hurricane
0
0
$5,000,000
9/10/1998
Tropical Storm
0
0
$31,500,000
9/19/1998
Tropical Storm
0
0
$ 9/27/1998
Hurricane
0
0
$30,100,000
8/4/2002
Tropical Storm
0
0
$50,000
9/14/2002
Tropical Storm
0
0
$9/25/2002
Tropical Storm
0
0
$108,600,000
10/2/2002
Hurricane
0
0
$149,600,000
6/30/2003
Tropical Storm
0
0
$34,000,000
9/15/2004 Hurricane/Typhoon
0
0
$11,800,000
10/9/2004
Tropical Storm
0
0
$50,000
7/5/2005 Hurricane/Typhoon
0
0
$47,500,000
7/10/2005
Tropical Storm
0
0
$ 8/28/2005 Hurricane/Typhoon
0
0
$16,900,000,000
9/23/2005
Tropical Storm
0
0
$48,000,000
Totals
17
0
0
$17,366,400,000
Source: National Climatic Data Center website
Tornadoes:
The history of tornadoes, from 1953 to 2004, shows that the state of Louisiana averages 27
tornadoes per year. The majority of these have ranked as an F0 or an F1 on the Fujita Scale.
Over the past forty years, Louisiana has had six tornado-related federal disaster declarations;
the most recent instances occurred in November of 2004, February of 2006, and February of
2007.
The National Climatic Data Center reports that, between 1950 and 2008, Orleans Parish has
experienced 16 tornadoes, while Jefferson Parish has experienced 41 tornadoes in that time
span.
See Tables 2.7 and 2.8 for specific occurrences of tornadoes in Orleans and Jefferson
Parishes.
2-13
Table 2.7 Tornadoes Affecting Orleans Parish, 1951-2007
TORNADOES IN ORLEANS PARISH
Date
Magnitude # of Deaths # of Injuries Property Damage
11/1/1951
F1
0
0
$25,000
7/17/1953
F2
0
2
$250,000
6/27/1957
F0
0
0
$25,000
7/13/1957
F0
0
0
$3,000
3/31/1962
F1
0
0
$3,000
10/3/1964
F2
0
2
$2,500,000
3/10/1971
F2
0
0
$2,500,000
12/6/1971
F1
0
0
$25,000
7/29/1977
F1
0
3
$25,000
6/22/1981
F2
0
0
$25,000
4/19/1991
F1
0
0
$25,000
8/10/2000
F0
0
0
$0
6/30/2003
F0
0
0
$5,000
2/2/2006
F2
0
0
$500,000
2/13/2007
F2
0
15
$2,000,000
2/13/2007
F2
1
10
$1,000,000
Source: National Climatic Data Center website.
2-14
Table 2.8 Tornadoes Affecting Jefferson Parish, 1950-2008
Date
3/19/1950
9/27/1951
10/3/1964
7/14/1969
10/13/1970
3/10/1971
3/16/1972
11/18/1972
5/24/1973
2/21/1974
10/29/1974
2/21/1975
7/17/1975
7/29/1977
2/12/1978
9/3/1981
7/29/1982
4/22/1983
8/1/1985
8/15/1985
9/25/1988
1/29/1991
4/26/1991
6/16/1991
5/16/1992
4/8/1993
11/7/1996
1/24/1997
5/30/1999
6/13/2001
12/13/2001
11/18/2003
5/12/2004
11/24/2004
4/6/2005
2/2/2006
2/2/2006
12/21/2006
2/13/2007
3/19/2008
9/2/2008
TORNADOES IN JEFFERSON PARISH
Magnitude # of Deaths # of Injuries Property Damage
F0
0
0
$25,000
F2
0
0
$25,000
F2
0
3
$2,500,000
F1
0
1
$250,000
F2
0
0
$250,000
F2
1
7
$2,500,000
F2
0
2
$250,000
F1
0
0
$250,000
F0
0
0
$0
F1
0
0
$25,000
F2
0
0
$250,000
F1
0
2
$25,000
F0
0
0
$3,000
F1
0
0
$25,000
F1
0
1
$250,000
F0
0
0
$0
F0
0
0
$0
F2
0
3
$250,000
F1
0
0
$25,000
F1
0
0
$250,000
F0
0
0
$3,000
F1
0
0
$250,000
F1
0
0
$25,000
F0
0
0
$25,000
F0
0
0
$3,000
F2
3
39
$50,000,000
F0
0
0
$50,000
F1
0
1
$160,000
F0
0
0
$1,000
F0
0
0
$5,000
F0
0
0
$100,000
F1
0
0
$100,000
F0
0
0
$2,000
F1
0
0
$250,000
F0
0
0
$10,000
F1
0
1
$750,000
F1
0
0
$500,000
F0
0
0
$4,000
F2
0
9
$2,000,000
F1
0
0
$200,000
F0
0
0
$1,700,000
Source: National Climatic Data Center website.
2-15
2.2.4 Frequency
Thunderstorms:
During the years 1950 through 2008, there have been 129 instances of thunderstorms and
high winds in Orleans Parish and 122 instances in Jefferson Parish.
Frequency, Jefferson Parish: 2.10;
Frequency, Orleans Parish: 2.22.
Tropical Storms:
During the years 1950 through 2008, there
have been 13 tropical storms in Orleans Parish
and 9 instances in Jefferson Parish.
Frequency, Jefferson Parish: 0.93;
Frequency, Orleans Parish: 0.64.
Table 2.9
Frequency of Hurricanes Passing Within
80 Miles of New Orleans
Intensity
Occurrences
Frequency
0.13
Category 1
8 years
Category 2
19 years
0.05
Category 3
32 years
0.03
Category 4
70 years
0.01
Category 5
180 years
0.006
Source: USGS, “Environmental Atlas of Lake
Pontchartrain,” in LOEP Hazard Profiles
Hurricanes:
Frequencies for hurricanes (Categories 1-5)
were calculated by the US Geological Survey and are shown in Tables 2.7.
Tornadoes:
During the years, 1950 through 2008, there were 41 tornado events in Jefferson Parish.
During the years, 1951 through 2007, there were 16 tornado events in Orleans Parish 3;
fortunately, these tornadoes have only affected a relatively small area. Specific occurrences
are listed above in Tables 2.5 and 2.6.
Frequency, Jefferson Parish: 0.71;
Frequency, Orleans Parish: 0.29.
2.2.5 Threat to People
Storm tracking technology enhances our ability to predict the occurrence of events like
thunderstorms, tropical storms, and hurricanes, thus enabling people to take precautions
against the threat that these hazards may pose.
Nine out of ten deaths during hurricanes are caused by storm surge flooding. High winds
from thunderstorms and tropical storms are more likely to cause injuries than fatalities,
mainly due to falling tree limbs and airborne debris.
While most tornadoes in Louisiana and in the New Orleans region have been relatively
minor, there have been disastrous ones to hit the state. Between 1950 and 1994, tornadoes
across the state resulted in 134 deaths and over 2,000 injuries. Most deaths caused by
tornadoes occur indoors.
3
National Climatic Data Center website.
2-16
High winds themselves may pose a risk to humans. Downed trees and damaged buildings are
a potential hazard due to instability, electrical system damage, broken pipelines, and
chemical and gas leaks.
2.2.6 Property Damage
Structures can be damaged by high winds in three ways: wind forces, flying debris, and
pressure. Wind forces have the potential to down trees, break tree limbs, and destroy loose
items such as power lines. As winds increase, so does the pressure against stationary objects.
Pressure against a wall rises with the square of the wind speed. The potential for damage to
structures is increased when debris breaks the building envelope and allows the wind
pressures to impact all surfaces.
More recently, Hurricanes Katrina (2005) and
Gustav (2008) have resulted in considerable damage
to the University’s campuses, the former making
landfall as a strong category 3 storm, and the latter
making landfall as a category 2 storm. High winds
and heavy rainfall caused extensive roof damage at
the Center for Energy Resources Management
(CERM) building during Hurricane Katrina; also,
high winds damaged a dozen windows, allowing
water into the building. Content damages totaled
just under $80,000, and structural damages totaled
Wind Damage to CERM Building resulting
$254,000. Hurricane Gustav, though not as intense
from Hurricane Katrina, 2005
as Hurricane Katrina, brought heavy rainfall leading
to water seepage damaging ceiling and floor tiles in the CERM building.
During Hurricane Katrina, high winds caused the roof of the
building that houses UNO’s Metro College at the Jefferson
Center to be pulled back, allowing water to pour through the
building. The content damage at the Jefferson Center totaled
$140,758.56, and the structural damage at the Jefferson Center
totaled $437,097.76.
Wind-blown water also caused damage to Goldring Hall at the
Ogden Museum during Hurricane Katrina when water
permeated the interior. Goldring Hall at the Ogden Museum
has persistent issues with wind-driven rain, even during heavy
local thunderstorms. Water intrusion is visible in a number of
locations throughout the interior of the building.
Damage to Jefferson Center
During the tornadoes that occurred in the New Orleans region
resulting from high winds of
in February 2006, many structures in the Lakefront
Hurricane Katrina
neighborhood that had been damaged during Hurricane Katrina
were decimated, just four miles from the CERM building. Structural damage was also
reported in parts of Jefferson Parish. An F2 tornado that occurred on February 13, 2007
affected both Orleans and Jefferson Parishes and resulted in $2 million in damage. In
2-17
Orleans Parish, 32 houses were destroyed and 295 others were damaged. In Jefferson Parish,
23 houses were destroyed and 231 others were damaged.
2.3 HAIL
2.3.1 Description
Other than flooding and tornadoes, a major threat from strong storms to the University of
New Orleans campuses is hail. Hailstones are ice crystals that form within severe
thunderstorms when extreme temperature differences from the ground upward produce
strong updraft winds that cause ice formation. High velocity updraft winds keep hail in
suspension in thunderclouds. Frozen droplets gradually accumulate on the ice crystals until,
having amassed sufficient weight, they fall as precipitation.
The severity of hailstorms depends on the size of hailstones, the duration of the storm, and
the extent to which the storm affects developed areas. Hailstorms generally occur more
frequently during the late spring and early summer, which is a period of extreme variation
between ground surface temperatures and jet stream temperatures. The hotter the Earth’s
surface, the stronger the updraft will be. Higher temperatures relative to elevation result in
increased suspension time, allowing hailstones to grow in size.
2.3.2 Area Affected
Because hail accompanies thunderstorms, all of the University of New Orleans campuses are
at risk for hailstorms.
2.3.3 Historical Occurrences
The state of Louisiana experienced nearly 3,800 hailstorms between 1955 and 2005; the
maximum recorded hailstone size is that of a softball (which is roughly 4.5 inches in
diameter). Since 1962, Orleans Parish has experienced 28 hailstorms with hail of at least
0.75 inches in diameter. This includes hail events with golf-ball-sized hail (which is roughly
1.75 inches in diameter) on seven separate occasions. Since 1963, Jefferson Parish has
experienced 44 hailstorms with hail of at least 0.75 inches in diameter. This includes two
hail events with tennis-ball-sized hail (which is roughly 2.5 inches in diameter) in 1964 and
1975.
2.3.4 Frequency
The University of New Orleans is likely to experience several strong storms each year, with
the greatest risk coming in the summer months. Between 1950 and 2008, there have been 14
recorded hail events in Jefferson Parish; between 1962 and 2004, there have been 28 hail
events in Orleans Parish.
Frequency, Jefferson Parish: 0.31.
Frequency, Orleans Parish: 0.66.
2-18
2.3.5 Threat to People
Hailstorms rarely result in human fatalities, although large hailstones can cause bodily injury.
2.3.6 Property Damage
Hailstorms may result in damage to property (e.g., homes and automobiles), as well as
damage to crops. Small hail (which measures 0.25 to 0.5 inches) usually does minimal
damage to property. Large hail (which measures 0.75 inches or greater) can cause damage to
building roofs and exterior walls. It can also cause significant damage to automobiles.
Furthermore, hail can lead to leaks in roofs, which can result in water damage inside
buildings.
All buildings are vulnerable to hail damage in times of severe weather. Also, any automobile
or other uncovered property is at risk for hail damage. Buildings with older roofs are more
prone to this kind of damage. However, because the age of a roof does not necessarily
correlate to the age of its building, it is impossible to say that older buildings are necessarily
at greater risk than newer ones.
While little to no property damage resulting from hailstorms has been reported in Orleans
Parish, since 1962, hailstorms have caused an estimated $65,000,000 in property damage in
Jefferson Parish.
2.4 LIGHTNING
2.4.1 Description
Lightning typically occurs as a by-product of thunderstorms. The action of rising and
descending air in a thunderstorm separates positive and negative charges, with lightning
resulting from the buildup and discharge of the energy between positive and negative charge
areas.
2.4.2 Area Affected
Because lightning is a function of thunderstorms, every person and building on the
University of New Orleans campuses is vulnerable to a lightning strike. According to the
state hazard mitigation plan, those Louisiana parishes adjacent to Lake Pontchartrain seem to
experience a higher number of flashes per square mile than do other parishes.
2.4.3 Historical Occurrences
The state of Louisiana is second in the nation in terms of flash density, which measures the
annual number of lightning flashes per square kilometer. Louisiana ranks tenth in the nation
in terms of lightning-related fatalities, when factoring in population.
Since 1994, Orleans Parish has experienced 10 lightning events; in the same time span,
Jefferson Parish has experienced 14 lightning events. In May 2002, a lightning strike caused
a fire that resulted in $91,725 in property damage to the UNO Lakefront Arena marquee. In
August 2002, lightning caused $8,475.89 in damage to a university alumni center
2-19
construction site on the main campus. In September 2002, $1,425 in damage was caused by
lightning to the phone lines that service the pay parking lot computers on the main campus.
In May 2004, a lightning strike caused a fire that resulted in $275,000 in damage to the
Privateer Park scoreboard located on our East campus.
The Louisiana Office of Risk Management has made claims on behalf of The University of
New Orleans worth $35,186.38.4
2.4.4 Frequency
Regarding lightning strikes that are severe enough to warrant record, Jefferson Parish
experienced five such events between 1995 and 2005; Orleans Parish experienced 10 such
events between 1994 and 2007.
Frequency, Jefferson Parish: 0.50.
Frequency, Orleans Parish: 0.77.
2.4.5 Threat to People
Lightning strikes kill more people than do tornadoes. Statistics show that, on average,
lightning hazards result in injury or death fifty percent of the time. Most lightning fatalities
and injuries occur outdoors at recreation events and under or near trees. Nationwide, it is
estimated that 25 million cloud-to-ground lightning flashes occur each year, and that 52
people are killed and 1,000 are injured. Most of these deaths can be prevented through safe
practices. Much information has come out over the last 20 years regarding lightning safety.
For example, before 1990, on average, 89 people were killed each year by lightning; by
2000, this number had dropped to 52.
A UNO student was killed by lightning while on the University’s main campus in 1990 and
three other students were knocked to the ground by the lightning strike. Those three students
were treated at the university’s student health center and did not sustain major injuries.
Lightning strikes resulted in one death in New Orleans in 1996, as well as two deaths in the
city in 2000. In Jefferson Parish, lightning strikes led to one death in 1999, 2000, and 2005. 5
2.4.6 Property Damage
Lightning can cause direct damage to property. A major concern is damage to critical
infrastructure. Since 1994, lightning strikes have resulted in $270,000 in property damage in
Orleans Parish; in Jefferson Parish, lightning events have led to $331,000 in property
damage. There have been no reports of serious damage to – nor any serious reported human
injuries occurring at – the University’s off-campus locations.
4
5
Louisiana Office of Risk Management
National Climatic Data Center website.
2-20
2.5 STORM SURGE
2.5.1 Description
Storm surge events occur when water is pushed toward the shoreline by winds swirling
around a tropical event such as tropical storms or hurricanes. This push of water combines
with the normal tide levels to create storm surge, which can increase the water level by at
least fifteen feet 6.
When wind-driven waves overtop the storm tide, the rise in water level can cause severe
flooding in coastal areas. This affects much of the United States' densely populated Atlantic
and Gulf Coast coastlines because they largely lie less than ten feet above mean sea level.
Source: NOAA, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ssurge/index.shtml
2.5.2 Area Affected
Storm surge resulting from hurricanes and other severe storms is responsible for most coastal
flooding and coastal erosion along the Louisiana Gulf Coast. Storm surge can also impact
areas that are further inland, including lakes and rivers. Storm surge in Jefferson and Orleans
Parishes is primarily the result of hurricanes that approach land from the Gulf of Mexico.
While storm surge is most likely to impact the southern portion of Jefferson Parish, the
northern part is vulnerable to storm surge from Lake Pontchartrain. Orleans Parish is
6
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Hurricane Center. “Storm Surge.” Last accessed
on 23 July 23, 2010 at <http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/HAW2/english/storm_surge.shtml>.
2-21
vulnerable to storm surges from Lake Pontchartrain as well as Lake Borgne via the
Mississippi River Gulf Outlet shipping channel.
The National Hurricane Center estimates storm surge heights based on pressure, size,
forward speed, tracks, and the radius of maximum winds. These estimates are produced
utilizing SLOSH (Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes) modeling. The map
found on the next page is a result of the current SLOSH models available for southern
Louisiana. The map indicates the areas that may be impacted by storm surge due to
hurricanes. Please note that the map represents not just one single event but the cumulative
storm surges for hundreds of modeled hypothetical hurricane tracks.
Hence, all UNO buildings are vulnerable to the storm surge hazard.
2-22
Storm Surge Maximum Outputs 7
2.5.3 Historical Occurrences
Per the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center
(NCDC), there have been 11 storm surge events in Jefferson Parish (See Table 2-9) and 9
storm surge events in Orleans Parish (See Table 2-10) from 1998 through 2008.
In addition to the events included in this database, significant storm surge impacting both
parishes was recorded during Hurricanes Betsy (September 10, 1965), Camille (August 17,
7
Source of Map: State of Louisiana Hazard Mitigation Plan Update - Draft, August 31, 2010, Map 4-24 found
on page I-78.
2-23
1969), Carmen (September 23, 1974), Andrew (August 23, 1992) and Georges (September
23, 1998).
The greatest storm surge recorded in the United States resulted from Hurricane Katrina. The
hurricane produces a surge exceeding 27 feet and caused billions of dollars in damages to the
State of Louisiana.
As indicated in Section 2.1 on floods, reports of water intrusion at UNO’s satellite locations
have mostly resulted from wind driven rain.
Table 2-10
Storm Surge Events - Jefferson Parish
Location or County
Grand Isle
Countywide
Grand Isle
LAZ038 - 040 - 058 - 060>063 066>070
LAZ040 - 058 - 060>062 - 066>070
LAZ066>069
LAZ038 - 040 - 050 - 058 - 060>062 066>070
LAZ061>062 - 064 - 067>070
LAZ040 - 059 - 061>064 - 067>070
LAZ038 - 040 - 050 - 058>070
LAZ042
Date
Type
2/15/1998 Storm Surge
9/12/1998 Storm Surge
10/13/2001 Storm Surge
Death
0
0
0
Injuries
0
0
0
Property
Damage
0
0
0
6/30/2003 Storm Surge
9/15/2004 Storm Surge
9/22/2004 Storm Surge
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.1M
4.0M
15K
10/9/2004
7/5/2005
8/29/2005
9/23/2005
9/14/2008
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100K
2.5M
31.3B
432.0M
250K
Storm Surge
Storm Surge
Storm Surge
Storm Surge
Storm Surge/tide
Source: NOAA - NCDC
2-24
Table 2-11
Storm Surge Events - Orleans Parish
Location or County
Chef Menteur
Countywide
LAZ038 - 040 - 058 - 060>063 066>070
LAZ040 - 058 - 060>062 - 066>070
LAZ038 - 040 - 050 - 058 - 060>062 066>070
LAZ061>062 - 064 - 067>070
LAZ040 - 059 - 061>064 - 067>070
LAZ038 - 040 - 050 - 058>070
LAZ038 - 040 - 049 - 057>058 - 060 062 - 066
Date
Type
2/15/1998 Storm Surge
9/12/1998 Storm Surge
Death
0
0
Injuries
0
0
Property
Damage
0
0
6/30/2003 Storm Surge
9/15/2004 Storm Surge
0
0
0
0
4.1M
4.0M
10/9/2004
7/5/2005
8/29/2005
9/23/2005
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100K
2.5M
31.3B
432.0M
0
0
0
Storm Surge
Storm Surge
Storm Surge
Storm Surge
Storm
9/11/2008 Surge/tide
Source: NOAA - NCDC
2.5.4 Frequency
Based on the data provided by the National Climatic Data Center for the period 1998-2008,
the frequencies for this hazard are as follows:
Frequency, Jefferson Parish: 1.10
Frequency, Orleans Parish: 0.90.
2.5.5 Threat to People
As discussed in Section 2.1, flooding poses various risks to humans including the threat of
drowning, imminent health issues (e.g., heart attack, stroke) prompted by exertion;
electrocution; fires; and secondary hazards like gas leaks. Direct deaths storms are those
attributable to the direct effects of winds, floods, and storm surges, while indirect deaths are
those attributable to hurricane-related accidents (e.g., auto accidents, sanitation issues). The
human death toll from Hurricane Katrina is still debated, but the number of deaths resulting
directly from the storm in Orleans Parish as of February 2006 was 1,101. More than 200
indirect deaths in Orleans Parish were reported, and the death toll for the Gulf Coast as a
whole was 1,836.
Floodwater is typically highly unsanitary, and that which is inundated (e.g., carpets,
furniture) should almost always be disposed of. Secondly, mildew and mold remain even
after the water on an inundated surface or object has dried, thus contributing to health issues.
Lastly, the psychological impact of experiencing and surviving a flood event can be dire; the
resulting stress may lead to serious mental health issues.
Per the NCDC, there have been no deaths or injuries directly attributed to storm surge in
either Jefferson or Orleans Parishes.
2-25
2.5.6 Property Damage
Storm surge can be the most destructive part of a hurricane. Per the NCDC, storm surge
events in Jefferson and Orleans Parishes have led to billions of dollars in damages across
both parishes.
There are no reports of property damage to the UNO satellite locations directly attributable to
storm surge.
2.6 WINTER STORMS
2.6.1 Description
Winter storms can take the form of heavy snowfalls, ice
storms, or extreme cold temperatures. Winter storms can
occur as a single event, or they can occur in combinations,
which can make the events more severe. Severe winter
weather consists of freezing temperatures and heavy
precipitation, usually in the form of rain, freezing rain, or
sleet, and sometimes in the forms of snow. For example, a
moderate snowfall could create severe conditions if it were
followed by freezing rain and subsequent extremely cold
temperatures.
Falling snow in New Orleans, 12-1108; Photo by Eliot Kamenitz /The
Times-Picayune
An ice storm occurs when freezing rain falls from clouds
and freezes immediately upon impact. Freezing rain is
found in between sleet and rain. It occurs when the
precipitation falls into a large layer of warm air and does
not have time to refreeze in a cold layer (at or below 32
degrees Fahrenheit) before it comes in contact with the
surface which is also at or below freezing.
2.6.2 Area Affected
Despite the region’s mild winters, all of the University of New Orleans campuses are subject
to the effects of winter storms.
2.6.3 Historical Occurrences
Louisiana has, in recent history, experienced a number of ice storms, primarily affecting the
northern part of the state. Storms in February 1994 resulted in widespread power outages
and over $13,000,000 in damage. Storms in December 2000 resulted in a presidential
disaster declaration.
2-26
Winter months in Louisiana are generally
warmer than most parts of the continental
U.S., and thus the New Orleans region is
rarely affected by winter storms. The
average daily high temperature for New
Orleans in January is 62 degrees Fahrenheit,
and the average daily low temperature for
the month of January is 43 degrees
Fahrenheit. Only two winter storms have
hit the New Orleans area since 1950. Snow
fell in Orleans and Jefferson Parishes on
December 25, 2004, as well as on December
11, 2008. The last major freeze in the
region occurred in 1989, when temperatures
dropped below freezing for 64 consecutive
hours; the lowest temperature recorded
during that cold spell was 11 degrees
Fahrenheit. The greatest measurable
snowfall occurred in the region in 1963,
when up to three inches fell.
2.6.4 Frequency
View of UNO’s Research & Technology Park after snowfall
on December 11, 2008
Freeze warnings for farmers are not unusual,
but they do not signify a winter storm.
According to the National Climatic Data Center, the entire state of Louisiana is in the lowest
category of probable snow depth- 0 to 10 inches of snow depth with a 5% chance of being
equaled or exceeded in any given year. However, Southeastern Louisiana is less susceptible
to extreme cold conditions. Moreover, cold spells experienced in the state seldom have
duration of longer than one week. 8
An average high of 82.7 degrees Fahrenheit in July to an average low of 52.6 degrees is
found in Orleans Parish while Jefferson Parish experiences an average of 82 degrees in the
summer and 56 degrees in the winter. Both Jefferson Parish and Orleans Parish recently
experienced two snow storms, one occurring in 2004 and the other in 2008.
Frequency, Jefferson Parish: 0.50.
Frequency, Orleans Parish: 0.50.
2.6.5 Threat to People
Winter storms can cause injury or death to people. Extreme cold can result in people and
animals suffering from hypothermia and frostbite. Hypothermia is a condition whereby the
core body temperature is lowered below 95 degrees Fahrenheit; severe hypothermia is a
condition whereby the core body temperature is lowered below 85 degrees Fahrenheit,
resulting in unconsciousness (and subsequently death, if left untreated).
8
State of Louisiana Hazard Mitigation Plan.
2-27
People are most at-risk from cold temperatures, downed power lines due to falling tree limbs,
and unsafe driving conditions. Winter storms bring hazardous driving and walking
conditions; even small accumulations of ice can be dangerous to motorists and pedestrians.
Bridges and overpasses are particularly dangerous because they freeze faster than other
surfaces. Roughly 70% of the injuries caused by the effects of winter storms result from
vehicle accidents, and 25% of injuries to people occur when they are caught outdoors during
a storm. The ice storms that hit Louisiana in December 2000 resulted in one human fatality.
Additionally, the exertion brought on by shoveling can potentially lead to a heart attack.
A widespread ice storm that affected Jefferson Parish in January 1997 was responsible for
two deaths (both resulting from auto accidents) and fifteen injuries. Two deaths from
hypothermia resulted from extreme cold temperatures recorded in Orleans Parish in January
2008.
2.6.6 Property Damage
Property damage can occur from falling trees and broken water pipes. Most damage from
winter storms results from broken or frozen water pipes, as is evidenced by the winter storm
that hit the region in 1989. The ice storm that affected Jefferson Parish in January 1997
resulted in nearly $12,000,000 in property damage. 9
There have been no reports of significant damage or injuries at any of the University’s offcampus locations as a result of past winter storms.
2.7
SUBSIDENCE
2.7.1 Description
Subsidence refers to the gradual settling or sinking of the Earth’s surface due to removal or
movement of subsurface earth materials. Some principal causes of subsidence are
compaction, underground mining, and removal of groundwater. In coastal Louisiana, large
amounts of sediment were being deposited by the Mississippi River in a relatively short
amount of time, causing the crust to compensate for the extra weight of the sediment.
Geology and soil types do not have much effect on subsidence rates. Other causes like human
occupancy, buildings and infrastructure, oil and gas extraction, and lowering of the water
table due to groundwater extraction have much more of an effect. Human acceleration of
natural processes through leveeing rivers, draining wetlands, dredging channels, and cutting
canals through marshes exacerbates the subsidence problem.
Relative sea level rise is a term that describes the combined effects of eutrophic (ocean-wide)
sea-level rise and land subsidence. Both of these geologic processes impact Louisiana in a
similar manner, making it difficult to separate the effects of one from the other. The most
prominent cause of sea-level rise is the melting of the Earth’s glacial ice caps.
9
National Climatic Data Center website.
2-28
Because it is difficult to separate the effects of subsidence and sea-level rise, a new approach
to categorizing the hazard has been developed. A coastal vulnerability index (CVI) is
determined based on rate of sea-level rise, coastal erosion, wave height, tidal characteristics,
regional coastal slope, and coastal geomorphology. The CVI for the Louisiana coast is high
to very high. Some portions rank very high for every factor with the exception of wave
height. The main factors responsible for the high ranking, however, are geomorphology,
coastal slope, and rate of relative sea-level rise.
The US Geological Survey estimates that the rate of sea-level rise in Louisiana is
approximately 3.0 feet/century and the US EPA estimates that it is approximately 3.4
feet/century. There is little to suggest that these processes will cease to occur in the future,
indeed rates may increase due to the naturally occurring sediment deposition. The highest
rate of subsidence is occurring at the Mississippi River delta (3.5 feet/century). Subsidence
rates decrease away from the delta in a northeast, northwest, and western direction. A system
of subsidence faults in southern Louisiana developed due to the extra weight from rapid
sediment deposition from the Mississippi River. The system stretches across the southern
portion of the State of Louisiana from Beauregard Parish in the east to St. Tammany Parish
in the west, and includes every Parish to the south of this line.
2.7.2 Area Affected
All UNO campuses are subject to subsidence.
2.7.3 Historical Occurrences
Records show that the level of Lake Pontchartrain rose about 25 centimeters or 10 inches
since 1931. There are no single incidents or occurrences of subsidence. It is a process. An
acre of land along the coast disappears every 24 minutes.
Sea-level rise and land subsidence are increasingly identified as significant contributors to
direct disaster damages in Louisiana, especially the latter. However, because for the most
2-29
part, sea-level rise and subsidence are two processes that are slow acting, their effects have
not been as evident as sudden-occurrence hazards like earthquakes.
2.7.4 Frequency
As noted under historical occurrences, there is no recurrence interval. Subsidence is a
constant process. Some shoreline loss is accelerated during tropical storms and hurricanes.
The frequency for subsidence is continuous.
Frequency, Jefferson Parish: 1.0.
Frequency, Orleans Parish: 1.0.
2.7.5 Threat to People
Subsidence does present an immediate threat to life, safety and public health.
2.7.6 Property Damage
Sea level rise and subsidence along the Louisiana coast means that over time, there is less
land between developed areas and water. The process means development will be more
exposed to damage by storm surge and wetland vegetation will be more subject to saltwater
intrusion or submergence.
Land and wetlands act as cushions during tropical storms and hurricanes. Less cushion means
storm surges will reach farther inland and levees will have to be raised to maintain flood
protection levels.
2.8 DROUGHT
2.8.1 Description
Drought is a period during which precipitation is below average. Its duration and severity are
usually measured by deviation from norms of annual precipitation. Episodes of drought are
often tied to the El Niño/La Niña cycle. A La Niña period features colder than normal sea
surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific Ocean.
There are four classes of drought, based upon what is impacted by the shortage of water:




Meteorological Drought: less precipitation than average or normal amount based on
monthly, seasonal, or annual time scales
Hydrologic Drought: less stream flows and reservoir, lake, and groundwater levels
Agricultural Drought: a reduction in soil moisture enough to affect plant life, usually
crops
Socioeconomic Drought: a reduction in water supply to the extent that demand
exceeds supply
2-30
2.8.2 Area Affected
Although the New Orleans region typically has a rainy climate, it has been threatened by
drought conditions in the past. All of The University of New Orleans campuses can be
affected by drought.
2.8.3 Historical Occurrences
Despite Louisiana’s large number of major and lesser bodies of water, the state is still subject
to drought conditions. This is especially true in the northern half of the state, where adverse
conditions during periods of drought have been known to result in crop damage. Water
restrictions that other U.S. residents often face are rarely imposed in the state of Louisiana.
History shows a relationship between southern Louisiana precipitation and the establishment
of La Niña weather patterns. La Niña, characterized by unusually cold ocean temperatures in
the Pacific, can bring abnormally warm and dry weather conditions to Louisiana. In
approximately 80% of past significant La Niña occurrences, winter and spring rainfall has
been less than average.
This pattern was seen during the last dry spell in the state, which was 1998-2000; over this
time span, drought in the state of Louisiana resulted in almost $385,000,000 in crop damage.
The year 2000 had the driest winter in over a century.
2.8.4 Frequency
Per the NCDC, between 1998 and 2008 Jefferson Parish was affected by two droughts;
likewise, the NCDC reports that Orleans Parish has only been affected by two droughts over
the same time span. However, no federally declared disasters related to drought have
occurred in either parish.
Frequency, Jefferson Parish: 0.20.
Frequency, Orleans Parish: 0.20.
2.8.5 Threat to People
Unlike other hazards, drought does not happen quickly. Drought evolves over time as certain
conditions are met and are spread over a large geographical area. While these conditions do
not kill or injure people outright, they do have serious consequences, including:





Reduced capacity of hydroelectric power generators
Reduced stream flows for navigation, recreation, and community water supplies
Reduced water quality
Reduced crop production
Increased fire risk
2.8.6 Property Damage
Drought does not directly damage structures and other human development. It does,
however, increase the risk of damage by fire, especially in the urban-wild land interface.
2-31
In areas with expansive soils, drought can shrink the soils under foundations. The result may
crack walls and floors or even undermine supports. Out of the 250,000 homes built each year
on expansive soils, 10% sustain significant damage during their useful lives, some beyond
repair, and 60% sustain minor damage. Similar damage can occur to roads and bridges.
Such expansive soils are common in southeast Louisiana.
The effects of expansive soils are most prevalent when prolonged periods of drought are
followed by long periods of rainfall. Houses and small buildings are impacted more by
expansive soils than larger buildings. Large buildings are not so susceptible because their
weight counters pressures from soil swelling. The 2000 drought caused cracks in levees;
however, they were not considered threatening to the stability of the levees. The drought also
put the foundations of area house and apartment buildings at risk to cracking.
Drought conditions have had no significant impact on the University’s off-campus locations
to date.
2.9
EARTHQUAKES
2.9.1 Description
Earthquakes are one of nature’s most damaging hazards. Earthquakes are caused by the
release of strain between or within the Earth’s tectonic plates. The severity of an earthquake
depends on the amount of strain or energy that is released along a fault or at the epicenter of
an earthquake. The energy released by an earthquake is sent to the earth’s surface and
released.
Earthquakes in Louisiana have had two distinct sources: a system of subsidence faults (also
known as “growth faults”) in southern Louisiana, and the New Madrid seismic zone to the
north of Louisiana. The more severe earthquakes are related to the New Madrid seismic zone
to the north of Louisiana.
There are several common measures of earthquakes, including the Richter Scale and the
Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale. The Richter Scale is a measurement of the
magnitude or amount of energy released by an earthquake. Magnitude is measured by
seismographs. The Modified Mercalli Intensity is an observed measurement of the
earthquake’s intensity felt at the earth’s surface. The MMI varies, depending on the
observer’s location in relation to the earthquake’s epicenter.
2-32
Table 2.12 Earthquake Measurement Scales
Richter
0 – 4.3
Mercalli
Intensity Felt
I
Not felt except by very few people under special conditions.
Detected mostly by instruments.
Felt by a few people, especially those on upper floors of buildings.
Suspended objects may swing.
Felt noticeably indoors. Standing automobiles may rock slightly.
Felt by many people indoors, by a few outdoors. At night, some
people are awakened. Dishes, windows, and doors rattle.
Felt by nearly everyone. Many people are awakened. Some dishes
and windows are broken. Unstable objects are overturned.
Felt by everyone. Many people become frightened and run
outdoors. Some heavy furniture is moved. Some plaster falls.
Most people are alarmed and run outside. Damage is negligible in
buildings of good construction, considerable in buildings of poor
construction.
Damage is slight in specially designed structures, considerable is
ordinary buildings, great in poorly built structures. Heavy furniture
is overturned.
II
III
IV
4.3 – 4.8
V
4.8 – 6.2
VI
4.8 – 6.2
VII
VIII
6.2 – 7.3
IX
Damage is considerable in specially designed buildings. Buildings
shift from their foundations and partly collapse. Underground
pipes are broken.
X
Some well-built wooden structures are destroyed. Most masonry
structures are destroyed. The ground is badly cracked. Landslides
occur on steep slopes.
Few, if any, masonry structures remain standing. Rails are bent.
Broad fissures appear in the ground.
Virtually total destruction. Waves are seen on the ground surface.
Objects are thrown in the air.
XI
7.3 – 8.9
XII
An earthquake’s intensity depends on the geologic make-up of the area and the stability of
the underlying soils. The effects of earthquakes can be localized near its epicenter or felt
significant distances away. For example, a 6.8-magnitude earthquake in the New Madrid
Fault in Missouri would have a much wider impact than a comparable event on the California
Coast. The thick sandstone and limestone strata of the central United States behave as
“conductors” of the earthquake’s energy, and tremors can be felt hundreds of miles away.
By contrast, the geology of the West Coast allows the energy to be dissipated relatively
quickly which keeps the affects of the earthquake more localized.
Earthquakes can also trigger other types of ground failures which could contribute to the
damage. These include landslides, dam and levee failures, and liquefaction. In the last
situation, shaking can mix groundwater and soil, liquefying and weakening the ground that
2-33
supports buildings and severing utility lines. This is a special problem in floodplains where
the water table is relatively high and soils are more susceptible to liquefaction.
2.9.2 Area Affected
If an earthquake were to occur on the campus of the University of New Orleans, the entire
University would be affected.
There are no records of earthquakes directly striking the University of New Orleans;
however, there have been reports of earthquakes in the surrounding areas.
2.8.3 Historical
Occurrences
The earthquake closest to
the campuses of The
University of New Orleans
was on November 6, 1958.
This MMI IV earthquake
was confined to an area
within a five- to seven-mile
radius of downtown New
Orleans. The assigned MMI
IV is based on reports of
maximum effects as
windows shook and doors
rattled.
Depth is in kilometers.
Purple Triangles: Cities
Purple Star: Capital City
Circles: Earthquakes (color represents depth range)
Earthquake locations are from the USGS/NEIC PDE catalog
The largest earthquake to
have occurred in Louisiana
was centered at
Donaldsonville, about 60
miles west of New Orleans
on October 19, 1930.
Maximum intensity reached
MMI IV at Napoleonville.
Intensity V effects were
noticed at Des Allemands,
Donaldsonville, Franklin,
Morgan City, and White
Castle, where small objects
overturned, trees and bushes
were shaken, and plaster
cracked. The total area that
felt the effects of this
earthquake was 15,000
square miles.
The famous 1812 New Madrid quake was felt in New Orleans. A repeat of that severe an
incident is predicted to produce MMI of III or IV in southern Louisiana. The Louisiana
2-34
Geological Survey reports that the “New Madrid seismic zone remains the area most likely to
produce earthquakes that could affect Louisiana”.
Most recently, an earthquake occurred in Alaska that resulted in effects being felt at the
University of New Orleans’ main campus. Evidence of waves and overflow of water at the
UNO pool were the only effects felt on campus.
2.9.4 Frequency
Although University buildings lie in an area of low seismic risk, a number of earthquakes
have occurred in the State of Louisiana over the last 200 years. Most of these earthquakes
were of low magnitude and occurred infrequently. The chances of an earthquake occurring
are once every 20 years.
Frequency, Jefferson Parish: 0.05.
Frequency, Orleans Parish: 0.05.
2.9.5 Threat to People
The single most common cause of death during an earthquake is collapse of a building.
Other threats to people include collapsing roads and bridges, flooding from dam and levee
breaches, fires from ruptured gas lines, and release of hazardous chemicals from broken
storage tanks or trucks.
2.9.6 Property Damage
All of the earthquakes that occurred in Louisiana since 1843 were of low magnitude,
resulting mostly in limited property damage, such as broken windows, damaged chimneys,
and cracked plaster.
2.10 TERMITES
2.10.1 Description
Termites are small pale colored insects that live off of wood
and wooden structures at or near the ground. These creatures
are similar to ants as they both live in colonies, they both
have workers that gather and collect food, and they both
have a queen that is in charge of the colony. Queen termites
can lay upwards of 10,000 eggs per year and the worker
termites are responsible for maintaining and caring for these
eggs.
Formosan Termite
Termites tend to live close to the ground and near areas of
Source: LSU AgCenter
moisture and sources of food or wood. Their role in nature is
to recycle wood. They can cause significant damage to any
wooden structure if the conditions are favorable for a termite colony’s development.
2-35
There are two types of termites that live in southeastern Louisiana: drywood termites and
subterranean termites. Drywood termites live in the wood that they are ingesting and do not
require soil and moisture. Subterranean termites require soil and moisture in order to survive.
They will bring the soil and moisture with them into the wood that they are infesting. Mud
tubes are created and lead from the colony’s home to the infested wood in order to supply the
area with moisture and soil.
The Formosan termite is a species of the subterranean termite. Formosans are very
aggressive. They have the largest colonies of any termites in North American and can cause
extensive damage in a short time. To reach food and water, Formosan termites can chew
through materials such as thin sheets of soft metals, rubber, stucco, and seals on water lines.
2.10.2 Area Affected
The main concentration of termites occurs in
southeastern Louisiana. Most of Orleans Parish is
affected. The termite problem is expected to continue
to spread.
2.10.3 Historical Occurrences
The Formosan termite was originally introduced into the
New Orleans area and other coastal areas just after World
War II. By the time it was identified in 1966, the insect
was firmly entrenched into the local environment.
Because this termite has no natural predators in the area,
it is free to breed and spread without control. Termite
infections of structures have been devastating. The
national estimates dealing with termite damage has
risen from $750 million in 1988, to $2 billion by
1993. The estimate of losses for the state of
Louisiana on a yearly basis is around $500 million,
with $300 million of this being in the New Orleans
area. The University has been affected by termites,
particularly in the University Center.
Signs of subterranean termites
Indoors
– Earthen masses on door frames, edges
of walls, floors, ceiling, stairs, skirting
or other areas of the house
– Blistering of paint on windows, door
frames and skirting
– Damp areas on walls
– Distortion of floor, window or door
frames
Outdoors
– Large number of alates (winged
termites) either inside or outside the
house
– Mud tubes over foundation walls, piers
and edges of concrete slabs
– Trees with earthen material near the
base and on the bark
– Damaged fences, utility poles and
landscaping timbers
Source: LSU AgCenter
2.10.4 Frequency
The termite threat is a year-round issue. There is an annual peak of swarms between the
months of April and June, with the heaviest concentration in May. The number of termites is
dependent on the weather that occurs in the spring. Since 1989, there has been an increase in
the number of swarms in the New Orleans metro area almost every year between 1989 and
1998. The frequency for damage from termites is on-going.
Frequency, Jefferson Parish: 1.00
Frequency, Orleans Parish: 1.00.
2-36
2.10.5 Threat to People
The greatest risk to people is safety around and in a structure or object that may have been
damaged by a termite infestation. Termites can reduce the load bearing weight of support
beams in houses and businesses, putting them at greater risk of having part or all of the
structure collapse when force is applied. If termites have weakened a tree or pole, a slight
wind could prove to be enough to push the pole over or remove a branch from the tree.
2.10.6 Property Damage
According to Louisiana State University’s Agricultural Center, Formosan termites “can cause
major structural damage to a home in six months and almost complete destruction in two
years.”
Termites, especially Formosan termites, will often infiltrate the building through a weakness
in the foundation or at a location where the building comes into contact with soil. There have
been recorded instances where a termite infestation has caused a house to split in half.
Recently an apartment complex was demolished 14 years after its construction due to the
damage it had suffered.
2.11 EPIDEMICS
2.11.1 Description
Epidemics are outbreaks of disease that affect a disproportionate percentage of the population
within a region. They can develop through a variety of mechanisms. In the modern world,
international travel and shipping allow pathogens to travel from region to region and country
to country easily. An example of a disease being spread by travel is the outbreak of SARS in
East Asia and Toronto. Epidemics can also be caused by pathogens transmitted as insects
and animals migrate. An example of this type of transmission can be found in the recent
outbreak of the West Nile Virus in Louisiana.
The West Nile virus outbreak is one epidemic to have affected the New Orleans metropolitan
area in recent years. West Nile fever is usually a mild disease in people, characterized by
flu-like symptoms. West Nile fever typically lasts only a few days and does not appear to
cause any long-term health effects. The virus can cause a more severe disease in humans,
“West Nile encephalitis,” West Nile meningitis or West Nile meningoencephalitis.
Encephalitis refers to an inflammation of the brain, meningitis is an inflammation of the
membrane around the brain and the spinal cord, and meningoencephalitis refers to
inflammation of the brain and the membrane surrounding it.
A current epidemic impacting Louisiana is H1N1 (also referred to as “swine flu”). Per the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, H1N1 is a new influenza virus first detected in
people in the United States in April 2009. It is spreading much like the seasonal flue spreads
worldwide. As of September 18, 2009, there have been 991 confirmed cases of this virus and
2-37
8 deaths in Louisiana 10. Cases have been confirmed in the New Orleans area. The
University is especially concerned with the idea that students, faculty, and staff at any
location can get sick with flu, and institutions may act as a “point of spread.” Students,
faculty, and staff can easily spread flu to others in their institutions as well as in the larger
community. Per the CDC, the highest number of cases of 2009 H1N1 flu have been
confirmed among people 5–24 years old. They are also at risk of getting seasonal
influenza 11.
2.11.2 Area Affected
The threat from any epidemic depends in part on how the disease is spread and how easily it
can be prevented and controlled. Diseases that are spread from person to person require
different control measures and may be harder to manage than diseases that spread from insect
to person. Another factor that will determine how vulnerable The University of New Orleans
is to any given epidemic is the length and severity of the illness caused by the disease.
2.11.3 Historical Occurrences
According to the Director of the Student Health Office, there have been no known deaths
related to any epidemic on any UNO campus. However, two Tulane students in separate
incidents died of meningococcal septicemia (meningitis) in the year of 2001 resulting in a
majority of students receiving vaccines. Meningitis is a rare blood infection that initially
begins with minor-like cold symptoms and then proceeds rapidly causing high fever, rapid
heart rate, low blood pressure and death. It is spread through close contact with an infected
individual, for example, drinking after another individual, sneezes, coughs, and kissing. 12
2.11.4 Frequency:
Considering the flu pandemic following World War I and the more recent incidents of the
West Nile and H1N1 viruses, chances of the occurrence of an epidemic are two or three
every 100 years.
Frequency, Jefferson Parish: 0.03
Frequency, Orleans Parish: 0.03
2.11.5 Threat to People
If an epidemic were to break out on campus, any susceptible person could be contaminated
with the illness. It could easily spread to faculty, staff, and students.
2.11.6 Property Damage
No direct property damage is caused by an epidemic. However, particular buildings may
have to be quarantined and disinfected, which could result in temporary or long-term closure
of facilities and the potential cancellation of campus activities.
10
http://www.dhh.louisiana.gov/offices/default-145.asp?ID=145
Questions and Answers about the CDC’s Guidance for Responses to Influenza for Institutions of
Higher Education during the 2009-2010 Academic Year, www.flu.gov
12
Thevenot, Brian. (2001). “Tulane Student dies of meningitis-Cold-like symptoms quickly
worsened,” The Times-Picayune, Section: Metro, p. 1.
2-38
11
2.12 MOLD
2.12.1 Description
Molds are fungi that can form both indoors and outdoors; their growth is spurred by the
presence of excess moisture, as well as the presence of standing water. Continued humid and
damp conditions contribute to further growth of molds; this is likely to occur as the result of
the effects of natural hazards such as tropical storms, hurricanes, and floods. However, once
mold spores are formed, they have the ability to thrive in the absence of moist and humid
conditions.
Mold in its early stages is known as mildew. Outdoors, mold tends to grow in shady or damp
areas or places where leaves and other vegetation are decomposing. Indoors, mold tends to
grow where humidity levels are the highest, such as basements and showers. Molds digest
organic material, and they usually grow on surfaces such as wood, ceiling tiles, cardboard,
wallpaper, carpets, drywall, fabric, plants, food, and insulation.
2.12.2 Area Affected
Based on the number of surfaces on which mold is able to grow (and subsequently
reproduce), the threat of the mold hazard affects all buildings on each of the UNO campuses.
2.12.3 Historical Occurrences
Mold posed a huge problem to UNO’s campuses following Hurricane Katrina, mostly due to
stormwater intrusion. According to UNO Vice-Chancellor Joel Chatelain, “100% of the
buildings on [the main] campus were damaged by molds after Hurricane Katrina” (personal
interview, February 22, 2006). This also included the satellite locations. Campus records do
not include detailed reports on instances of mold as they would report other hazard events.
2.12.4 Frequency
Mildew and molds continue to grow and reproduce until measures are taken to eliminate the
source of the problem (typically moisture). On a university campus with maintenance staff,
the sources of mold problems can be dealt with swiftly and efficiently. However, if there is
no electricity and thus no ability to ventilate building, which is what occurred following
Hurricane Katrina, molds will continue to grow and cause damage to the surfaces on which
they have formed.
Frequency, Jefferson Parish: 0.02.
Frequency, Orleans Parish: 0.02.
2.12.5 Threat to People
Thousands of molds exist, and mildew and molds can grow and reproduce on a number of
surfaces and in a number of environments. Under the right conditions, and when found in
high concentration, all molds can be hazardous to human health. People who are allergic to
mold may exhibit a number of mild symptoms, including nasal stuffiness, eye irritation,
wheezing, or skin irritation. More serious side effects of exposure to mold include fever and
shortness of breath.
2-39
People at higher risk for adverse health effects from mold are infants, children, immunecompromised patients, pregnant women, individuals with pre-existing respiratory illnesses,
and the elderly.
2.12.16 Property Damage
Seeing and smelling mold is a good indication of a mold problem. There may be hidden
molds if a building smells moldy, or if you know there has been water damage. Molds may
be hidden in places such as the back side of drywall, wallpaper, or paneling; the top side of
ceiling panels; or the underside of carpets and pads. Other possible locations of hidden mold
include areas inside walls around pipes (with leaking or condensing pipes), the surface of
walls behind furniture (where condensation forms), inside ductwork, and in roof materials
above ceiling tiles (due to roof leaks or insufficient insulation). Cleaning must remove – not
just kill – the molds, because dead spores can still lead to health problems.
The CERM building experienced water intrusion through the roof, and thus subsequent mold
issues, following Hurricane Katrina. Due to the persistent presence of water and moisture,
many of the building’s walls, as well as the contents of the building, were covered in mold.
UNO personnel were prohibited from entering the CERM building until March 2007, some
18 months after the storm. The mold remediation cost estimates for damage sustained by the
CERM building during Hurricane Gustav in September 2008 alone totaled $50,000.00.
The first four-foot section of the walls of the first floor of the Jefferson Center required total
replacement following Hurricane Katrina; the mold remediation costs totaled $230,000.00.
Also, the window blinds at the Jefferson Center had to be replaced due to mold and water
damage, the cost of which totaled approximately $20,000.00.
Goldring Hall at the Ogden Museum has persistent issues with wind-driven rain, even during
heavy local thunderstorms. Water intrusion is visible in a number of locations throughout the
interior of the building, thus increasing the potential for mildew and mold growth (where
mold growth is not already present).
2.13 DAM FAILURE
2.13.1 Description
Generally defined, dams are artificial barriers that impound or divert water. Dams can fail
for a variety of reasons to include: overtopping caused by floods, acts of sabotage, structural
failure, movement/failure of supporting foundation, settlement and cracking of concrete or
embankment, piping and internal erosion of soil, and inadequate maintenance (FEMA). Dam
failure can of course result in flooding.
2.13.2 Area Affected
There are more than 80,000 dams across the United States with 557 located in the State of
Louisiana. Per the 2010 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update for Orleans Parish, there is one dam
located in Orleans Parish at the Carrollton Water Purification Plant. This dam is classified as
one of 71 “significant” dams located in our State. There are no dams located in Jefferson
2-40
Parish. Accordingly, there are no dams located in the immediate vicinities of the UNO
satellite locations.
2.13.3 Historical Occurrences
There have been no reports of flooding caused by dam failure in Orleans or Jefferson
Parishes.
2.13.4 Frequency
Jefferson Parish, 0.00
Orleans Parish, 0.00
2.13.5 Threat to People
As there are no dams located in Jefferson Parish, there is no threat to people in that Parish.
The one dam located in Orleans Parish is rates as a significant hazard dam; a rating given to
those dams where potential failure results in “no probable loss of human life” (FEMA 2004).
Due to its location, the UNO Satellite Locations are not threatened by the potential failure of
this dam.
2.13.6 Property Damage
There have been no reports of property damage as a result of dam failures in Jefferson or
Orleans Parishes.
2.14 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPILLS
2.14.1 Description
A hazardous material is anything that may cause damage to persons, property, or the
environment when substances are released into soil, water, or air. As many as 700,000
products pose physical or health hazards that can be defined as hazardous chemicals. Each
year, over 1,000 new synthetic chemicals are introduced. Hazardous substances are
categorized as toxic, corrosive, flammable, irritant, or explosive.
2.14.2 Area Affected
The University of New Orleans could experience hazardous chemical fallout of some kind
due to the presence of science labs on the main campus and the CERM Building, campus
proximity to railroad lines, the Interstate and the Mississippi River, and the variety of
chemical plants within the Greater New Orleans area.
Typical chemicals used in area plants include hydrochloric acid, ammonia, chlorine,
chromium, manganese, nickel, propane, methyl isobutyl ketone, and styrene. A leak at one
of these plants could cause health problems for persons on campus, property damage, and
losses due to cancelled classes and research.
2-41
UNO campuses also face threats from chemicals that
are transported through the metropolitan area on
highways, railways, and waterways. Interstate 10, a
major east-west corridor, runs through Orleans and
Jefferson Parishes and is within three miles or less of
each of UNO’s campuses. Because of its proximity to
several major ports (including Jacksonville, New
Orleans, Houston, Los Angeles), I-10 serves as a
major transportation route for many freight trucks. Six
major freight rail companies operate in the New
Orleans area, including Illinois Central, CSX, Norfolk
Southern, Kansas City Southern, BNSF, and Union
Pacific. Many toxic chemicals are transported by rail
Technicians in HAZMAT suits
through New Orleans routinely. While transportation
recovering material from a
incidents attract larger media attention, statistics show
chemical spill
that almost 75% of all acute hazardous material
events, excluding fuel spills, occur in the fixed locations where they are used or stored.
Hazardous chemical incidents in the UNO laboratories would be localized to the labs and
their immediate environs, however incidents from a transportation or plant accidental
release may put the entire campus at risk due to wind variations.
2.14.3 Historical Occurrences
Per the State Hazard Mitigation Plan, the State of Louisiana receives an average of 5,000
reports of accidental hazardous materials releases annually. Most accidental releases occur
while chemicals are being transported along major highways.
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety
Administration has a specification for what are referred to as “serious incidents." This
classification entails one or more of the following conditions: (1) a fatality or major injury
caused by the release of a hazardous material; (2) the evacuation of 25 or more persons as a
result of release of a hazardous material or exposure to fire; (3) a release or exposure to fire
which results in the closure of a major transportation artery; (4) the alteration of an aircraft
flight plan or operation; (5) the release of radioactive materials from Type B packaging; the
release of over 11.9 gallons or 88.2 pounds of a severe marine pollutant; or (6) the release
of a bulk quantity (over 119 gallons or 882 pounds) of a hazardous material.
Since 1999, a number of hazardous materials serious incidents 13 have occurred in Orleans
and Jefferson Parishes. The City of New Orleans has experienced twelve serious incidents
over the past ten years totaling nearly $100,000 in damages; one of these events resulted in
the hospitalization of two persons. 14 In October 2000, a sulfuric acid spill occurred on the
part of carrier Choctaw Transport, Inc., resulting in over $22,000 in damages. In June
2002, a Wes-Pet, Inc. carrier vehicle spill involving combustible liquid caused nearly
13
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) Serious Incidents database only
contains data dating back to 1999.
14
U.S. Department of Transportation. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
2-42
$50,000 in damages. In July 2000, one such serious HAZMAT event occurred in Jefferson
Parish in Metairie, resulting in negligible damages.
The overall probability for exposure at a UNO campus to a hazardous material is relatively
low. People most likely to encounter hazardous material exposure are professors and
students working in the science labs (CERM), and emergency personnel that respond to
emergency calls without being forewarned that hazardous materials may be involved.
2.14.4 Frequency
Near campus:
Jefferson Parish: 0.60
Orleans Parish: 1.20
2.14.5 Threat to People
Hazardous chemicals released into the environment can penetrate water, food, and human
processes. It is important to recognize that exposure to chemical compounds that are
categorized as hazardous have the potential to develop adverse effects when exposed to
vulnerable populations and environments.
Toxic chemicals often produce injuries to communities, people, environments, and to almost
any part of the body they come into contact with, typically the skin and the mucous
membranes of the eyes, nose, mouth, or respiratory tract.
Corrosive substances can cause severe damage by chemical action to living tissue, other
freight, or the means of transport.
Flammable substances are materials which are liable to cause fire by friction, absorption of
water, spontaneous chemical changes, or retained heat from manufacturing or processing, or
which can be readily ignited and burn vigorously.
Irritant means a substance that will produce local irritation or inflammation such as on skin
or eyes, or that will, after inhalation, produce local irritation or inflammation of nasal or
lung tissue.
An explosive means a solid or liquid material, or a mixture of materials, which is in itself
capable by chemical reaction of producing gas at such a temperature and pressure and at
such a speed as to cause damage to its surroundings.
A hazardous materials accident can occur almost anywhere on campus or the surrounding
area, depending on the processes, for example: storage, shipping, development, etc.,
associated to the hazardous materials. In a severe event, there is potential for closure of
public buildings, widespread interruption of classes and research, and economic losses while
cleanup is completed.
There is a low, medium, and high range that can be associated to the severity that again is
dependent on the type of chemical, the amount, location, and affected environments.
2-43
Hazardous material incidents can range anywhere from small releases at a campus laboratory
to rapidly expanding events that can endanger communities and environments.
People in close proximity to facilities producing, storing, or transporting hazardous substances
are at higher risk. Populations further downstream and in the periphery of released substances
are particularly vulnerable depending on the substance and Emergency Management's
attempts to contain the hazardous material leakage.
2.12.6 Property Damage
In the worst case, there could be injuries or death to the individuals affected by a hazmat
incident. Yet buildings and
other facilities may also be
affected. Facilities may have
to evacuate depending on the
quantity and type of chemical
released, or campus officials
might close a building or area
for hours, possibly days until a
substance is properly cleaned
up.
Buildings and facilities located
near the site of a hazardous
materials spill or release are
likely to be unaffected unless
the substance is airborne and
poses a threat to areas outside
the accident site. In that case, campus and other local emergency officials would order an
immediate evacuation of areas that could potentially be affected. Depending on the type of
hazardous substance, it could take hours or days for campus officials to deem the area safe
for return. In some cases, special equipment might be used to decontaminate people, objects
or buildings affected. Workers might need medical attention. In the meantime, productivity
losses are likely.
2.15 NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS
2.15.1 Description
Nuclear accidents generally refer to events involving the release of significant
levels of radioactivity or exposure of workers or the general public to radiation.
Nuclear accidents are classified in three categories:
1. Criticality accidents involve loss of control of nuclear assemblies or power reactors.
2. Loss-of-coolant accidents result whenever a reactor coolant system experiences a break
or opening large enough so that the coolant inventory in the system cannot be maintained
by the normally operating makeup system.
2-44
3. Loss-of-containment accidents involve the release of radioactivity and have involved
materials such as tritium, fission products, plutonium, and natural, depleted, or enriched
uranium. Points of release have been containment vessels at fixed facilities or damaged
packages during transportation accidents.
2.15.2 Area Affected
The nuclear plant within Southeast Louisiana, designated Waterford Unit 3, is in St. Charles
Parish, 25 miles WNW of New Orleans and 50 miles SSE of Baton Rouge. It is located on the
Mississippi River near Taft, LA., 13 miles from the City of Kenner. See map below to
identify UNO’s satellite locations in relation to Waterford 3.
Map of Waterford 3 Nuclear Plant in relation to UNO's Satellite Campuses
2-45
2.15.3 Historical Occurrences
There has only been one nuclear incident above the “Alert” classification in the United
States, at the TMI nuclear facility, which is located approximately nine miles southeast of the
boundary of Cumberland County, along the Susquehanna River near Harrisburg.
Pennsylvania. In March 1979, a “Site Area Emergency” classification event occurred at the
TMI Unit 2 that came to be known as the most serious commercial nuclear accident in U.S.
history.
The resulting contamination and state of the reactor core led to the development of a ten-year
cleanup and scientific effort. Despite the severity of the damage, no injuries due to radiation
exposure occurred. There were however, significant health effects reported due to the
psychological stress on the individuals living in the area.
There have been no major incidents related to Waterford 3 reported to this date.
2.15.4 Frequency
Across the United States, a number of “Unusual Event” and “Alert” classification level events
occur each year at the 100+ nuclear facilities that warrant notification of local emergency
managers. Of these, Alert-level emergencies occur less frequently. For example, in 1997,
there were 40 notifications of Unusual Events and three Alert-level emergencies nationwide.
However, per the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 15, statistics show that the
number of significant events has dropped from an industry average of 0.9 per year in 1989 to
0.01 per year in 2006. A significant event affects the performance of a plant, increases the
probability of damage to its core or causes an abnormal occurrence in plant operations.
The frequency for significant nuclear accidents is .01.
2.15.5 Threat to People
Exposure to radiation can have a dramatic and immediate effect on the human body. The
gastrointestinal system is very sensitive to radiation, leading to nausea and vomiting
immediately after exposure. The blood system is often the hardest hit, although antibiotics and
transfusions may allow a recovery. But severe radiation damage to the immune system can
cause overwhelming infections. And although nerves and the brain are most resistant to
radiation, acute exposure usually results in damage to the central nervous system. High doses
can kill outright.
The long-term effects of radiation exposure can include sterility, cancer and genetic damage
that can be passed to children. There are three ways to minimize the risk of radiation exposure:
15
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, http://www.nrc.gov/.
2-46
•
Time: Radioactive materials decompose and lose strength over time. For some
materials, the process is quick, but for others, it takes centuries.
•
Distance: The further away from the source of radiation, the better.
•
Shielding: In an exposed area, heavy, dense materials such as lead offer protection.
The duration of primary exposure could range in length from hours to months; however, the
University of New Orleans campuses are located outside of the 10 mile Plume Exposure
Pathway. Therefore the impact of a nuclear incident is determined to likely be moderate
on UNO campuses. UNO campuses are located inside the Ingestion Exposure Pathway
defined as a radius of 50 miles surrounding Waterford 3 where resources could be
contaminated because of a release of radioactive materials into the atmosphere. The risk
lies in possible ingestion of contaminated water or foods.
2.15.6 Property Damage
The environmental consequences from exposure to radiation levels can have serious long-term
effects on buildings and property. Radiological contamination can render affected areas
unusable for significant periods of time.
The main campus of the University of New Orleans is a Reception Center for Orleans
Parish in the event of an emergency at Waterford 3, and participates in a drill with
Waterford personnel every three years.
2.16 CIVIL UNREST
2.16.1 Description
Civil unrest is an individual or collective action causing serious interference with the
peace, security, and/or functioning of a community (e.g., riot).
Our country’s history has many examples of civil unrest. The modern civil disturbance has
become increasingly associated with sports events and issues unrelated to political positions.
Civil disorders have become a part of the urban environment. “Riots” can now generally be
classified as either being politically motivated or spontaneously erupting around an incident.
The most important characteristic of civil disorders is an association with property damage
and clashes with law enforcement and authorities. In some cases injuries and deaths occur.
In recent years, civil disorder typically begins as nonviolent gatherings. Injuries are usually
restricted to police and individuals observed to be breaking the law. Crowds throwing
bottles, rocks, and other projectiles are usually responsible for the majority of law
enforcement injuries. Injuries to protestors, demonstrators, or law breakers are often the
result of efforts to resist arrest, exposure to tear gas or mace, attempts to strike a police
officer or from other civilians and law breakers.
2-47
Of particular concern on a university campus are celebrations resulting from outcomes of
sporting events and annual holiday celebrations that may evolve into violence. The central
characteristic of these “riots” have been related to substance abuse and consumption of
alcohol. Incidents of this type are common in other parts of the world following soccer
matches.
In the United States, civil disturbances have come to be anticipated following basketball
championships (Chicago Bulls, 1991 and 1992; Detroit Pistons, 1990; Boston Celtics, 2008;
the LA Lakers, 2001 and 2009; Michigan State University, 1999).
There has been an evolution of tactics used by demonstrators and agitators that has resulted
in an increasingly complex confrontation/interface between officials and civilians.
Sophisticated communications capabilities are now available for retail purchase. Radios and
“police scanners” have made it possible for demonstrators to organize their efforts and
counter law enforcement tactics. This was seen during the World Trade Organization (WTO)
disturbances in Seattle, 1999. Members of one group intercepted police tactical
communications and broadcast the information over the Internet. One group transmitted over
an illegal FM station. The result has been an increase in the integration of efforts between
federal agency officials from the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation with local law enforcement.
There are several types of riots:
•
•
•
•
Communal riot (“race riot”): people targeted because of ethnic group, language or
religion,
Commodity riot: property is destroyed regardless of ownership,
Celebratory riot: violence to celebrate sports victory or other occasion or
Other types not typically found in contemporary U.S. -- soccer riots, food riots.
2.16.2 Area Affected
Places of public gathering are generally potential areas of greatest risk.
2.16.3 Historical Occurrences
When large groups or organizations take action all at once, the results can be disastrous and
disruptive. There has been a long history of campus unrest in the U.S.:
•
•
•
•
•
Students protested in favor of the U.S. Revolution,
In the late 18th Century Harvard students rioted against bad food,
In the 19th Century there were riots against in loco parentis and other institutional
policies; students protested against mandatory military training,
In the 1960s-70s there was widespread protest regarding the Vietnam War and civil
rights, and
In the 1990s-2000 riots unrelated to protest became common; these are called
“celebratory riots,” “mixed issue campus disturbances,” or “convivial disorders.”
2-48
At the University of New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, storm evacuees were
evacuated from area rooftops by helicopter to open ground at UNO. Subsequently, many of
these evacuees broke into a number of the campus buildings and spent several days on
campus, with the bulk of them, 1,500 or more, sleeping at Kirschman Hall, the brand new
multi-story College of Business building. According to University Chancellor Timothy Ryan,
"Apparently there was some miscommunication, because they were left there for several
days," adding there was "some substantial damage done, but reparable damage." This
occurrence did not affect UNO’s off-campus sites.
2-49
2.16.4 Frequency
The potential exists on the UNO campus for civil unrest that exceeds the capabilities of the
campus police to handle. However, the university campus has no history of civil instability.
The estimated frequency of civil unrest is once every fifty years. Frequency: 0.05.
2.16.5 Threat to People
The effects of civil unrest are typically felt by the population. The greatest risk is to human
lives during times of unrest.
2.16.6 Property Damage
Looting can be commonly found in association with these types of events. During Hurricane
Katrina, several University buildings, including CERM were looted and significant property
was destroyed.
2.17 TERRORISM
2.17.1 Description
Officially, terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “...the unlawful use of
force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the
civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
(28 CFR §0.85).
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) further characterizes terrorism as either domestic
or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization.
•
Domestic Terrorism: The unlawful use or threat of force or violence by a
group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States and
without foreign direction.
•
International Terrorism: The unlawful use of force or violence committed by a
group or individual who has some connection to a foreign power.
However, the origin of the terrorist or person causing the hazard is far less relevant to
mitigation planning than the hazard itself and its consequences. Following several serious
international and domestic terrorist incidents during the 1990's and early 2000's, citizens
across the United States paid increased attention to the potential for deliberate, harmful actions
of individuals or groups.
Terrorism refers to the use of WMD, including, biological, chemical, nuclear, and
radiological weapons; arson, incendiary, explosive, and armed attacks; industrial sabotage
and intentional hazardous materials releases; and “cyber-terrorism”. Within these general
categories, however, there are many variations.
2-50
Cyberterrorism: This is the deliberate destruction, disruption or distortion of digital data or
information flows with widespread effect for political, religious or ideological reasons.
Worms and viruses are spread through shared documents and through the use of email. They
self-replicate and send themselves to other users in found in the infected computer. Per the
Cyberterrorism Defense Initiative 16, “computers and servers in the United States are the most
aggressively targeted information systems in the world, with attacks increasing in severity,
frequency, and sophistication each year”. The University has no control over these external
risks, i.e., viruses from external sources and national cyber terrorism, except to restrict email
and/or entrance of data into the university’s cyber system.
2.17.2 Area Affected
An important consideration in estimating the likelihood of a terrorist incident is the existence
of facilities, landmarks, or other buildings of major importance. The Greater New Orleans
area has many notable landmarks from a local historic perspective as well as several sites with
national symbolism (i.e., the Superdome, French Quarter, etc.). It also has several sites of
critical national infrastructure (e.g., Huey P. Long Bridge), and the Mississippi River is a
major national trade corridor.
2.17.3 Historical Occurrences
The campuses of the University of New Orleans could become a target for terrorism. Al
Qaeda has already listed America’s universities as potential targets. It is conceivable that a
domestic or international terrorist attack could happen on one of UNO’s campuses.
Cyberterrorism: There has never been a cyber-terrorism incident on a UNO campus. However
the accidental compromise of the campus cyber system may leave the University vulnerable to
terrorist or criminal activity.
In 2007, it was discovered that the records of students and staff were unintentionally exposed
on the Internet by the Louisiana Board of Regents (BOR). Names, addresses, Social Security
numbers, and other personal data on some 80,000 students and employees in the state’s
university system were accessible through the internet 17. UNO is part of that system.
Following this incident, the BOR enhanced its IT security to prevent similar occurrences.
UNO already uses student ID numbers that are not related to Social Security numbers. The
University is made aware of threats and vulnerabilities through several FBI-sponsored
programs such as U.S. CERT and INFRAGUARD.
In addition to domestic, international, and cyber terrorist attacks, there is the threat of terrorism
from random individuals who wish to harm, injure, or kill other people for various reasons.
There is the threat of individual attacks performed by a student, a group of students, and/or
individuals on one of the university’s campuses. For example, it is possible that an incident
such as the shootings that occurred on the campus of Virginia Tech could occur at UNO. On
April 16, 2007, a Virginia Tech student shot 21 fellow students on campus. It is the deadliest
16
17
http://cyberterrorismcenter.org/
Louisiana Board of Regents Identity Protection Information Page
2-51
campus shooting in US history 18. Closer to home, a student at Louisiana Technical College in
Baton Rouge, Louisiana shot two fellow students before shooting herself on February 16,
200819.
2.17.4 Frequency
There is no known record or documentation of terrorist activities on any of UNO satellite
campuses. However, the type of research conducted in the CERM building in addition to
certain tenants located in the Jeff Center could make these locations potential targets. The
most probable type of terrorist activity that has potential relevance to a UNO campus is an
intentional hazardous material release. A major rail transportation route is located near the
campus, as is Interstate 10 and the Mississippi River, making intentional hazardous materials
release a potential threat to the UNO community and the environment. The probability of
terrorism occurring cannot be quantified with as great a level of accuracy as that of many
natural hazards. For instance, these incidents generally occur at a specific location, such as a
building, rather than encompassing an area such as a floodplain. While the likelihood of a
terrorist attack is possible within the area, it is estimated to be less than one percent or 0.01.
The likelihood that a UNO campus building would be impacted by cyber-terrorism is very
low, estimated also to be less than one percent.
2.17.5 Threat to People
Acts of terrorism can range from threats to actual assassinations, kidnappings, hijackings,
bomb scares, car bombs, building explosions, mailings of dangerous materials, computer-based
attacks, and the use of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons — weapons of mass
destruction (WMD). People are particularly vulnerable to biological and chemical weapons.
2.17.6 Property Damage
Damage to campus locations could vary from potential destruction of buildings to disruption
on events.
2.18 Risk Summary
This chapter provides information on the natural hazards in addition to the human-caused
hazards that can impact the University of New Orleans’ off-campus locations. In this
chapter, data on the hazards are provided in terms of descriptions of the hazard, areas
affected, historical occurrences, frequency of the hazard, and the threats presented to people
and property by each hazard.
While it is hard to compare different phenomena, a general summary shows their relative
importance to the University. This is done in Table 2.10 on the following page.
18
Gunman killed 21, at Virginia Tech shooting before being killed, The Associated Press, April 16,
2007 Monday 5:06 PM GMT, DOMESTIC NEWS, 520 words, By SUE LINDSEY, Associated Press
Writer
19
Student Kills 2 and Herself at a Louisiana College, The New York Times, February 9, 2008
Saturday, Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 12, 359 words, By JEREMY ALFORD
2-52
Table 2.13 Hazard Risk Summary
Hazard
2.1 Floods
Stormwater/Groundwater
Levee Failure
2.2 Wind
Thunderstorms
Tropical storms
Hurricanes
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Category 5
Tornadoes
2.3 Hail
2.4 Lightning
2.5 Storm Surge
2.6 Winter storms
2.7 Subsidence
2.8 Drought
2.9 Earthquakes
2.10 Termites
2.11 Epidemics
2.12 Mold
2.13 Dam Failure
2.14 Hazardous Materials Spills
2.15 Nuclear Accidents
2.16 Civil Unrest
2.17 Terrorism
Annual Chance, Jefferson
Parish
Annual Chance, Orleans
Parish
1.54
0.02
1.64
0.02
2.10
0.93
2.22
0.64
0.13
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.006
0.71
0.31
0.50
1.10
0.50
1.00
0.20
0.05
1.00
0.03
0.02
0.00
0.60
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.13
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.006
0.29
0.66
0.77
0.90
0.50
1.00
0.20
0.05
1.00
0.03
0.02
0.00
1.20
0.01
0.05
0.01
2-53
2.19 REFERENCES
Abelson, Philip H. “Need for Enhanced Nuclear Safeguards.” Science 263. 1994: 1543.
Anderson, Christopher. “Countering Nuclear Terrorism.” Science 264. 1994: 337.
Arnst, Catherine, and Williams Symonds. “The Nuclear Nightmare Just Got More Real.”
Business Week 3751. 2001: 60-61.
Badey, Thomas J. “Nuclear Terrorism: Actor-Based Threat Assessment.”Intelligence and
National Security 16. 2001: 39-54.
Baldwin, David M. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. 1980. Regulation of
the Movement of Hazardous Cargoes. Transportation Research Board/National
Research Council. Washington, DC.
Battelle Memorial Research Laboratories, Battelle Human Affairs Research Center. 1985.
Assessment of State and Local Notification Requirements for Transportation of
Radioactive and Other Hazardous Materials. Columbus, OH.
Barber, E.J., Hildebrand, L. K., Peat, Marwick, Mitchell, & Co., U.S Department of
Transportation. 1980. Guidelines for Applying Criteria to Designate Routes for
Transporting Hazardous Materials, Implementation Package. FHWA-IP-80-20.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. ND. Digest of Federal Training Programs in
Hazardous Materials. Emmitsburg, MD.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1985. Interim Guide for Development of State and
Local Emergency Operations Plans. CPG 1-8. Washington, DC.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1985. Interim Guide for the Review of State and
Local Emergency Operations Plans. CPG 1-8A. Washington, DC.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1985. Hazard Identification, Capability
Assessment, and Multi-Year Development Plan for Local Governments. CPG 1-35.
Washington, DC.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2004. Mold & Mildew: Cleaning up Your flood
damaged home. Washington, DC.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1997. Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessment. Washington, DC.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1981. Planning Guide and Checklist for
Hazardous Materials Contingency Plans. Washington, DC.
2-54
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2001. Understanding Your Risks? Identifying
Hazards and Estimating Losses. Publication 386-2. Washington, DC.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Insurance Institute for Property Loss Reduction.
1995. Hail Loss Potential in the U.S. Washington, DC.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. “Why Dams Fail.” Last accessed from
http://www.fema.gov/hazard/damfailure/why.shtm on January 28, 2011.
Interagency Committee on Dam Safety. “Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety. Hazard
Potential Classification System for Dams (FEMA 333).” (October 1998, reprinted
January 2004).
Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. 2008 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, July, 2008
Louisiana Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, 2010.
State of Louisiana Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Draft. Baton Rouge, LA.
Louisiana Office of Emergency Preparedness. 2003. Hazard Mitigation Plan: Hazard
Profiles. Baton Rouge, LA.
Minnesota Department of Health. “Mold in Homes.” Last Accessed from
http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/indoorair/mold/ on March 2, 2006.
National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Center. “NCDC
Storm Event Database,” U.S. Department of Commerce. Last accessed from
http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms
on June 24, 2009.
New Orleans Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness. 2010 Orleans
Parish Hazard Mitigation Plan Update.
OMB Watch. “Guide for All-Hazard Emergency Operations Planning.” Last
accessed from http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3088/1/97 on January
18, 2006, SLG 101.
Poniewozik, James. "TV Makes a Too-Close Call." Time 20 Nov. 2000: 70-71. Print.
Silverman, Sheryl. “Famous Worms and Viruses”. Last accessed from
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/computer_worms/famous.html on July 7, 2006.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. “CorpsMap: National Inventory of Dams.” Last Accessed
from http://geo.usace.army.mil/pgis/f?p=397:3:4019517468154293::NO::P3
_STATES:LA on December 17, 2011.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control. “Facts about
Avian Influenza and Avian Influenza A.” Last accessed from
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/avian/gen-info/facts.htm on July 3, 2006.
2-55
U.S. Dept of Transportation. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA). Office of Hazardous Materials Safety. “Internet Reports Database
Search.” Last accessed from http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/library/datastats/incidents in October 2009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “A Brief Guide to Mold, Moisture, and Your
Home.” Last accessed from http://www.epa.gov/iaq/molds/moldbasics.html on March
2, 2006.
U.S. Governmental Accounting Office. 2005. Hurricane Protection: Statutory and Regulatory
Framework for Levee Maintenance and Emergency Response for the Lake
Pontchartrain Project. Publication GAO-06-322T. Washington, DC.
Washington State Department of Health, Division of Environment Health. Got Mold?
Frequently Asked Questions About Mold. Last accessed from
http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/ts/IAQ/Got_Mold.html. on March 2, 2006.
2-56
CHAPTER 3. VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Chapter 2 reviewed the hazards that face The University of New Orleans’ off-campus locations.
If these hazards struck vacant land, there would not be much cause for concern, but because the
University sees a high number of students and visitors daily, and because University buildings
contain many critical facilities, the potential for damage, injury and deaths can be high.
Chapter 3 reviews how vulnerable the satellite campuses are to property damage, threats to
public health and safety, and adverse impacts on University operations from each hazard. The
potential for property damage is measured in dollars. It accounts for how much is exposed to
damage and the likelihood of damage occurring.
This vulnerability assessment follows a nine step procedure. The steps consist of the following:
1. Inventory property subject to damage
2. Obtain values of damage-prone properties
3. Determine categories of property based on damage potential
4. Determine the level of damage to each category by hazard
5. Calculate the cost of damage by each hazard
6. Calculate the average annual cost of damage by each hazard
7. Determine the impact of the hazard on people
8. Determine the impact of the hazard on University operations
9. Summarize the findings to compare the relative impact of each hazard
Section 3.1 reviews steps 1 – 4, 3.2 - 3.3 observes that there are other impacts of hazards such as
impact on people and on University operations and sections 3.4 – 3.18 describe the exposure for
different scenarios for each hazard. Tables are then presented with the resulting summary data
for each hazard, followed by a narrative discussion of the estimated loss of life, injuries, and
impact on University operations from each hazard. Section 3.19 summarizes the findings.
Tables 3.22-3.26 detail the property damage caused by each hazard, the frequency of each
hazard, and the impact of each hazard on people and University operations in both Jefferson and
Orleans Parishes.
3-1
3.1 PROPERTY DAMAGE
Steps 1-4 of the vulnerability
assessment involve obtaining a
property inventory and values of
damage-prone properties for UNO’s
three satellite locations, and then
categorizing the properties based on
damage potential.
3.1.1 Building Inventory
UNO Facility Construction and Design Director
observes wind damages to roof of CERM/Lindy
Inventories for the Center for
Energy Resources Management (CERM) building, Jefferson Center, and Goldring Hall at the
Ogden Museum were obtained from UNO’s Department of Facility Services. The inventory
does not include small structures such as bus stops and picnic shelters.
The properties in the building inventory were categorized into three building types based on their
exposure to damage: Type A, Type B, or Type C. Type A buildings are expected to be the most
resistant to structural damage and are composed of concrete and steel. The building materials for
Type B buildings include cinderblock and brick structures, and properties classified as a Type C
building are composed of metal and wood. Type B buildings are expected to be resistant to
water damage but not to shaking, while Type C buildings are resistant to shaking but less
resistant to high winds.
Table 3.1 found below displays the building inventory of UNO’s satellite locations. The first
category provides the building name followed by the second and third categories which show the
building structures and classification of Type A, B, or C.
Table 3.1. Building inventory of UNO’s Satellite Locations
Building Name
Building Material Building Type
CERM
Reinforced Concrete
A
Jefferson Center
Steel Frame
C
Goldring Hall at the Ogden Museum Reinforced Concrete
A
3-2
3.1.2 Contents Values
Contents values also were obtained from Facility Services. 1 However, the reported values did
not appear to be realistic for two of the three buildings; hence, FEMA HAZ-US guidance was
used to calculate more realistic contents values for CERM and the Jefferson Center.
Contents values as a percentage of building replacement value are: Residential, 50%, Commercial, 100%, and Education (colleges/universities), 150%. Because of the delicate nature of its
contents, Goldring Hall at the Ogden Museum is given a HAZ-US Contents Multiplier of 150%.
The results for contents values are shown in Table 3.2. They are shown in four columns: HAZUS occupancy class, structure value, HAZ-US contents multiplier, and HAZ-US contents value.
Table 3.2 Contents values as reported by Facility Services and as calculated by FEMA
HAZ-US guidance
Building Name
CERM
Jefferson Center
Goldring Hall at
the Ogden
Museum
HAZ-US
Occupancy
Class
Education
Education
Structure
Value
$13,606,940.00
$3,929,962.00
HAZ-US
Contents
Multiplier
150%
150%
Education
$9,946,692.00
150%
HAZ-US Contents
Value
$20,410,410.00
$5,894,943.00
$14,920,038.00 2
Sections 3.4 – 3.18 review the exposure of the properties described to each of the 15 hazards
indentified in Chapter 2. The levels of damage to each property are assessed along with the cost
of damage and the average annual cost of damage by each hazard. The impacts on people and on
University operations are discussed followed by a summary of the findings to compare the
relative impact of each hazard.
3.2 IMPACT ON PEOPLE
The impact of each hazard on individual people is described in terms of a hazard’s impact on
safety, health, and mental health. The safety of individuals is jeopardized by potential hazards,
with some hazards presenting a higher threat than others. Hazards also affect a person’s health
and well-being, not only physical health, but also mental health.
–
1
Values originated from the State of Louisiana Office of Risk Management and were obtained by UNO’s
department of Facility Services.
2
For the purposes of more accurately estimating the potential cost of contents replacement, the reported contents
value for Goldring Hall at the Ogden Museum – rather than the approximated HAZ-US contents value – is given
preference.
3-3
Individuals experience mental health affects in different ways. Not all individuals may need
treatment after the occurrence of a disaster while others do. Natural and human-caused hazards
present threats to mental health. The terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, had
multiple effects on mental health. Some include the norm of living in fear and an increased level
of caution and awareness. Americans and the increased fear among them in turn affected the
economy, way of living, and well-being of communities. 3 Natural or human-caused hazards also
may result in the development of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and other anxiety
disorders in some individuals. Some symptoms of PTSD include increased anxiety, loss of
appetite, disorientation, and difficulty in decision making. Other symptoms of trauma related
stress or anxiety disorders may include migraines, difficulty sleeping, increased anger and
suspicion, and / or depression. PTSD as well as other impacts on mental health as a result of
disasters can affect an individuals’ ability to function effectively at work or school, in relationships, or in other areas of their lives.
One cannot put dollar figures on these impacts. Therefore, four subjective measures of nil, low,
moderate, and high are used in this chapter. At the end of the chapter, these subjective measures
are converted to numbers to facilitate comparison between hazards.
3.3 UNIVERSITY OPERATIONS
“University operations” is a term that represents a combination of teaching, research, administration, information technology, and student, tenant and visitor services – daily activities that take
place at a university and the entities that facilitate those activities. Loss or delay in implementation of these activities prevents the university from fulfilling its mission. Loss or delay of some
operations, such as contracted research, may potentially result in loss of income to the university
as well.
UNO has had a particularly bad experience with loss of operations. Following Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita, the City of New Orleans as well as Jefferson and other surrounding parishes
were left without power for weeks. Restoration of electrical service to the university’s main
campus, including the CERM building, did not occur until early October.
By this time, the extent of the damage was massive: water entered many of the campus buildings
as roofs were blown off, windows were broken and window seals compromised due to high
winds, rising flood waters inundated many first-floor and basement levels of the facilities.
Floodwaters, high humidity, and high temperatures in September and October, combined with
lack of air conditioning and humidity control, enabled or promoted extensive mold growth in
flooded buildings and in buildings that had lost large portions of their roofs. The mold growth
–
3
Blueprint for Responding to Mental Health Needs in Times of Crisis.
3-4
required removal and discarding of extensive amounts of drywall, insulation, flooring, equipment
and furniture in the majority of the buildings.
The State of Louisiana Department of Health and Human Services halted the needed repairs to
the buildings until a certified health inspector issued facilities a “clean bill of health”. The
resulting damage to 60 of the university’s buildings and to its infrastructure necessitated the
closure of the main campus until January 2006.
The effects of the two storms on University operations were multi-fold:
-
Interruption of the University’s teaching, research and public-service mission;
-
A negative impact of $600 million on the regional economy;
-
Loss of housing for students, especially foreign students;
-
Faculty and student departures;
-
Decreases in research investments;
-
Reduction of state and federal funding.
Because so much of the impact cannot be measured in dollars, the impact of a hazard on
University operations is also described in the subjective terms of nil, low, moderate, and high.
3.4 FLOODS
There are two levels of floods used to calculate the impact of flooding - minor and major. Minor
floods include the frequent, shallow flooding caused by heavy storms whereas major floods are
the rarer, deeper, floods that accompany pumping failure or a levee break or overtopping.
3.4.1 Minor
Minor flooding includes stormwater and groundwater flooding. As discusssed in Chapter 2,
stormwater flooding and groundwater flooding are both the result of an overflow of water in the
drainage system or the water table.
Property
Although a single storm will not flood the entire metropolitan area, all properties listed in the
building inventory are exposed to the hazard.
3-5
The cost of damage by a minor flood to each building was calculated by a formula that multiplies
the contents values by the “percent damage” figure. Because the damage only reaches the first
floor, the value of first floor damage is calculated by dividing the damage figure by the number
of stories. Because the first floor has more valuable equipment on it than the higher floors, the
result is multiplied by 1.25. The “percent damage” multiplier was adjusted so that the results
approximate the estimated dollar damage reported for those buildings that were flooded by
Hurricane Katrina. This formula to calculate minor flood damage works for most buildings.
Buildings with basements are more susceptible to this type of minor flooding. Buildings located
on UNO’s main campus have had problems in the past during stormwater and high groundwater
flooding when water enters the basements and damages the electrical service, heating and air
conditioning equipment. None of the buildings housing UNO’s satellite locations has a
basement.
When the frequency of the hazard is included in the vulnerability analyses, the aggregate costs
will accurately reflect the annual risk. The same applies to the remaining hazards in Chapter 3.
Table 3.3. Property damage from minor flooding
Building
Name(s)
CERM,
Goldring Hall
Jefferson
Center
Frequency –
Jefferson
Parish
Frequency –
Orleans Parish
Building Type
Percent
Damage
Damage from
One Event
Average
Annual
$ Damage
A − Concrete
0.01%
$918.62
$1,506.53
C − Frame
0.01%
$1,369
$21.09
1.54
1.64
People
A minor flood usually does not kill or harm anyone. No shelters are opened as a result of minor
flooding. If the need arises, anyone who is affected by minor flooding or whose homes sustain
damage from minor flooding usually find friends or relatives to house them temporarily. There
are no reported health problems.
Safety: low, Health: nil, Mental Health: nil
3-6
University operations
Minor flooding will not significantly disrupt University operations. Stormwater and/or
groundwater flooding may delay attendance to classes and result in early closure of a particular
location but will not prevent teaching, research, or administrative activities for more than a day
or two. The impact of minor flooding is low on University operations.
Impact: nil
3.4.2 Major Flooding
This type of flooding involves severe damage to the metropolitan area’s pumping system or
levee failure. Like UNO’s main campus, the CERM building, is protected from Lake Pontchartrain by a levee system that has two main parts: the levee to the north of UNO’s main campus
and other levee/floodwall combinations along the canals that drain into the lake. One of these
protects the western boundary of the University from flooding of the London Canal. The
Jefferson Center and Goldring Hall at the Ogden Museum are protected by levees on Lake
Pontchartrain and the Mississippi, respectively, both located less than one mile away from the
university’s satellite locations.
As a result of multiple breaches in the levee system during Hurricane Katrina, the influx of water
from Lake Pontchartrain overwhelmed Orleans and Jefferson Parish pumping stations in effect
causing them to fail when these pumping stations would usually keep surrounding neighborhoods dry. Failures in the levee system resulted in flooding approximately 80% of the city with
waters as much as 20 feet high.
Property
Levee failure is a rare occurrence with the frequency of 0.02 or odds of once in 50 years. Levee
failures cause deep flooding which causes major damage to property. Although there has been
no property damage due to major flooding from levee failure, all UNO off-campus locations are
vulnerable to property damage from major flooding.
Unlike the minor flooding calculations, structural value is included in the formula along with
contents value. Even though major flooding is deep, it is not expected to go higher than the first
floor, so the total building value is divided by the number of stories and multiplied times 1.25.
Table 3.4 shows the percent damage and the annual and average costs for property damage from
major flooding.
3-7
Table 3.4 Property damage from levee failure
Building Name
CERM,
Goldring Hall
Jefferson Center
Frequency –
Jefferson Parish
Frequency –
Orleans Parish
Building Type
Percent
Damage
Dollar
Damage
Average
Annual $
Damage
A – Concrete
25.00%
$3,924,064
$78,481
C – Frame
25.00%
$341,263
$6,825
0.02
0.02
People
When a levee fails, it can be sudden. Because people were killed by the flooding after Hurricane
Katrina, it is expected that the local emergency managers will be even more diligent when flood
levels reach a height where there is a potential for failure, to ensure that the area is evacuated and
that patrols will monitor and respond to any threat, thus minimizing the life safety threat.
A major flood has a moderate impact on people’s safety and health. The impact from a major
flood on people’s mental health is high. People who live through major floods experience a
tremendous amount of stress and trauma. This was exemplified by Hurricane Katrina.
Safety: moderate, Health: moderate, Mental Health: high
University operations
Major flooding, such as that from a levee failure, has a high impact on University operations.
This was exemplified following Hurricane Katrina. Classes on the main campus came to a halt,
and teaching and other services were suspended until the university was able to get more
distance learning available for students. However, some classes did resume in the Jefferson
Center during the Fall of 2005 following needed repairs.
All other University operations such as research, administration, housing, and information
technology were severely disrupted until the main campus opened in Spring 2006.
However, not all of the disruptions were directly from the major flooding; some could be
attributed to other hazards that the storm brought with it, particularly mold and civil unrest.
Structures were damaged as a result of mold and civil unrest from looters during the storm which
delayed or prevented classes and activities. After approximately four months, classes and other
University operations were able to resume on campus.
Impact: high
3-8
3.5 WIND
There are four levels of wind
that are used to determine the
impact of damage by wind on
each property and the average
costs of damage. These levels
include thunderstorms, tropical
storms, hurricanes of categories
2-5, and tornadoes. The SaffirSimpson Scale is used as a
reference for the levels of wind.
Of course, some structures may
be more susceptible to damage
from wind than the other
Wind damage to roof of CERM
structures. This holds true for
“arenas” or other buildings with
wide spans and large open areas. Per an assessment of UNO’s satellite locations, it was
concluded that the main risk posed by high winds to the UNO satellite locations relates to water
infiltration from failed roof or broken windows.
3.5.1 Thunderstorms
Thunderstorms include winds that are less than 39 mph. They occur frequently but cause little or
no damage and are a minimal threat to people.
Property
Most recently constructed buildings are built to withstand winds up to 120 mph. There is no
property damage from the first level of wind or thunderstorms.
People
Thunderstorms do not present much danger to people. The threat to life varies by the cause of
death. Thunderstorms can bring flash floods, wind, and lightning. The safety impact of these
hazards is picked up in their sections. No special health problems are attributable to thunderstorms.
Safety: nil, Health: nil, Mental Health: nil
University operations
Winds from thunderstorms have practically no impact on University operations. Occasionally,
higher winds may knock out power lines which cause some disruptions to classes and informa3-9
tion technology. Downed servers may prevent faculty/staff/students from gaining access to
University websites, project files, email and Blackboard.
Impact: nil
3.5.2 Tropical Storms
Tropical storms have winds ranging
from 39 mph to 73 mph. The impact of
storm-related winds can be more severe
depending on the location of structures.
For instance, storm related winds may
be more severe for CERM due to its
location along Lake Pontchartrain.
Property
Damage from wind affects properties
throughout the campus. Recall that the
percent damage figure is the expected
percent of damage that would be done
to each building type.
Location of CERM along Lake Pontchartrain indicated
by arrow
The following columns in Table 3.5 include the expected costs in dollar damage for one event or
one occurrence of the specified hazard and the expected average costs spent annually on the
amount of damage for the specified hazard, in the case below, tropical storms.
The “percent damage” multiplier was adjusted so that the results approximate the estimated
dollar damage reported for those buildings that suffered wind damage from recent storms, such
as Tropical Storm Cindy.
The “dollar damage” figures are the contents and structure values (from Table 3.2) multiplied
times the “percent damage” figures. This provides the total estimated dollar damage to each
building type and for the whole campus. The “average annual dollar damage” accounts for how
often the hazard is expected to strike. It is the dollar damage figure multiplied times the
frequency. While a single occurrence of a hazard incident may cause a lot of dollar damage, the
campus’ vulnerability must reflect the likelihood of occurrence and the exposure of the buildings
to damage over the years.
3-10
Table 3.5 Property damage from tropical storms
Building
Name
CERM,
Goldring Hall
Jefferson
Center
Frequency –
Jefferson
Parish
Frequency –
Orleans Parish
Building Type
Percent
Damage
Dollar
Damage
Average
Annual $
Damage
A – Concrete
1.00%
$536,215
$343,177
C – Frame
1.00%
$43,682
$40,624
0.93
0.64
People
Under the tropical storm scenario, there are no deaths and only a few minor injuries from falling
limbs or flying debris. Many individuals evacuate the area, and most of them find friends or
relatives to house them if they feel the need to leave the area. As for faculty/staff/students at
university campuses regarding tropical storms, evacuations are their responsibility.
Safety: moderate, Health: moderate, Mental Health: low
University operations
The impact of wind from tropical storms for University operations is a little greater than it is for
thunderstorms.
Wind may disrupt some teaching and perhaps information technology, but other operations such
as research, administration, and student, tenant and visitor services are likely to continue unless
the storm was predicted to be of a higher category and campus closure was undertaken to insure
safety.
Impact: low
3.5.3 Hurricanes (Categories 1-5)
Hurricanes bring winds up to 155 mph. A Category 5 hurricane, the “worst case” hurricane
scenario, would bring winds exceeding 150 miles per hour and a storm surge up to 18 feet along
the Lake Pontchartrain shore.
3-11
Property
Wind damage can be spread
evenly throughout the
campus; however in
instances, depending on the
locations, some buildings
may serve to buffer other
structures preventing or
lessening damage to them.
There will be significant
wind damage to roofs, street
lights, transformers, and
buildings. The “percent
damage” multiplier was
Debris disposal after Hurricane Katrina, Jefferson Center
adjusted so that the results
approximate the estimated
dollar damage reported for those buildings that suffered wind damage from Hurricane Katrina.
Given the preoccupation of hurricanes and the extent of the threat to property from hurricanes,
the property damage from hurricanes has been calculated separately for each category hurricane,
1-5.
Table 3.6 Property damage from Category 1 hurricanes
Building Name Building Type
CERM,
A − Concrete
Goldring Hall
Jefferson Center
C – Frame
Frequency –
0.13
Jefferson Parish
Frequency –
0.13
Orleans Parish
Percent
Damage
Dollar
Damage
Average
Annual $
Damage
2.00%
$1,072,429
$139,416
4.00%
$174,727
$22,714
3-12
Table 3.7 Property damage from Category 2 hurricanes
Building Name
CERM,
Goldring Hall
Jefferson
Center
Frequency –
Jefferson Parish
Frequency –
Orleans Parish
Building Type
Percent
Damage
Damage
from One
Event
Average
Annual $
Damage
A – Concrete
3.00%
$1,608,644
$80,432
C − Frame
6.00%
$262,090
$13,104
0.05
0.05
Table 3.8 Property damage from Category 3 hurricanes
Building Name
CERM,
Goldring Hall
Jefferson
Center
Frequency –
Jefferson Parish
Frequency –
Orleans Parish
Building Type
Percent
Damage
Dollar
Damage
Average
Annual $
Damage
A – Concrete
5.00%
$2,681,073
$80,432
C – Frame
10.00%
$436,816
$13,104
0.03
0.03
Table 3.9 Property damage from Category 4 hurricanes
Building Name
CERM,
Goldring Hall
Jefferson Center
Frequency –
Jefferson Parish
Frequency –
Orleans Parish
Percent
Damage
Dollar
Damage
Average
Annual $
Damage
A – Concrete
7.00%
$3,753,502
$37,535
C – Frame
15.00%
$6,564,250
$65,643
Building Type
0.01
0.01
3-13
Table 3.10 Property damage from Category 5 hurricanes
Building Name
CERM,
Goldring Hall
Jefferson Center
Frequency –
Jefferson Parish
Frequency –
Orleans Parish
Percent
Damage
Dollar
Damage
Average
Annual $
Damage
A – Concrete
9.00%
$4,825,931
$28,956
C – Frame
20.00%
$873,633
$5,242
Building Type
0.006
0.006
People
The safety hazard is considered high because not everyone evacuates, in part because they expect
the roads to be too crowded, they want to stay with their pets or protect their property, or they
just do not have the transportation. Some people will likely be killed or severely injured from
the wind if their homes are destroyed by the tornadoes embedded within the hurricanes or if tree
limbs fall on them.
Delays in obtaining help to repair and rebuild keep thousands of families and students in
temporary housing away from the area and for those nearby, adding greatly to commuting and
travel times. Those waiting for a decision on whether they will be allowed to rebuild are
particularly hard hit. The destruction, the costs, the delays, and the uncertainty take their toll and
there is an increase in family interpersonal crises and reported mental health problems.
Safety: high, Health: moderate, Mental Health: high
University operations
Winds from hurricanes are much stronger than winds from a thunderstorm or a tropical storm
and have a moderate impact on University operations. Electrical wire and posts may go down
causing the systems to go down. Classes on the university’s campuses are usually cancelled and
teaching is suspended; likewise, buildings such as the Goldring Hall may be closed to visitors.
The University will be closed, thus administration and student, tenant and visitor services are
negatively affected.
Impact: high
3-14
3.5.4 Tornadoes
Tornadoes have winds greater than 155 mph, up to 300 mph. While 13 tornadoes have struck
somewhere in Orleans Parish since 1950, the odds of a tornado striking a particular property are
very low. Between 1971 and 2006, the Jefferson Parish study area has experienced 11 tornadoes.
Property
Damage to property by wind from tornadoes will not affect every building in a particular area as
it will from a hurricane. Unlike the path of a hurricane, the path of a tornado is much narrower.
The path can be as narrow as 100 feet.
Table 3.11 Property damage from tornadoes
Building
Name
CERM,
Goldring Hall
Jefferson
Center
Frequency –
Jefferson
Parish
Frequency –
Orleans Parish
Building Type
Percent
Damage
Dollar
Damage
Average
Annual $
Damage
A − Concrete
12.50%
$6,702,683
$1,943,778
C − Frame
25.00%
$1,092,041
$775,349
0.71
0.29
People
Tornadoes strike with only a few minutes’ warning. In an average year, 800 tornadoes are
reported across the United States, resulting in 80 deaths and over 1,500 injuries 4. Alternate
locations for classes, research activities, etc., may need to be located in the instance a tornado
strikes and destroys a University building.
Safety: high, Health: moderate, Mental Health: high
University operations
Tornadoes have a moderate impact on University operations. Winds from a tornado are greater
than thunderstorms, tropical storms, and hurricanes, yet these winds have a narrow path and will
likely not affect every area on campus. However, those areas affected by the winds will have
–
4
http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/edu/safety/tornadoguide.html
3-15
severe structural damage, affecting operations such as on-site teaching, research, and any other
operations occurring in those buildings. Those disrupted operations in most cases may be
resumed at another University location although certain research facilities are so specific to that
activity that research operations may not be relocated.
Impact: high
3.6 HAIL
Property
Hail damage is limited to roofs, windows, and vehicles. However, a hail storm can affect a large
area and many structures. There is no differentiation by structure type. In the table below, the
figures only represent damage to structures, not to contents.
Table 3.12 Property damage from hail
Building
Name
CERM,
Goldring Hall
Jefferson
Center
Frequency –
Jefferson
Parish
Frequency –
Orleans Parish
Building Type
Percent
Damage
Dollar
Damage
Average
Annual $
Damage
A − Concrete
0.05%
$11,777
$7,773
C − Frame
0.05%
$1,965
$609
0.31
0.66
People
Hail is not considered a threat to life and limb. Once a storm begins, people can quickly seek
shelter.
Safety: nil, Health: nil, Mental health: nil
University operations
Hail has a low impact on University operations. It will not disrupt the majority of operations on
campus.
Impact: nil
3-16
3.7 LIGHTNING
Property
There is no differentiation by structure type. Lightning damage figures assume that all types of
structures would be affected similarly. Experience has shown that the damage from a strike
equals about 10% of the building’s value. The table below factors in the fact that only one out of
100 buildings will be struck by lightning during an occurrence, so the percent damage figure is
one-tenth of one percent of the value of all UNO buildings.
Table 3.13 Property damage from lightning
Building
Name
CERM,
Goldring Hall
Jefferson
Center
Frequency –
Jefferson
Parish
Frequency –
Orleans Parish
Building
Type
Percent Damage
Dollar
Damage
Average
Annual $
Damage
A − Concrete
0.10%
$53,621
$41,283
C − Frame
0.10%
$4,368
$2,184
0.50
0.77
People
Lighting kills more people than tornadoes. A student was killed by lightning while on the
University’s main campus in 1990 and three other students were knocked to the ground by the
lightning strike. These students were treated at the University’s student health service and did not
sustain major injuries. Most lightning fatalities and injuries occur outdoors at recreation events
and under or near trees.
Nationwide it is estimated that 25 million cloud-to-ground lightning flashes occur each year,
1,000 people are injured, 52 are killed.
Safety: high, Health: nil, Mental Health: nil
University operations
Lightning does not have a major affect on the majority of operations on campus, although
electrical supplies may be interrupted. However, lightning may strike a building or transformer
causing a fire or electrical outage, potentially resulting in cancelled classes and student activities
or any activities occurring within the university’s facilities.
Impact: low
3-17
3.8 STORM SURGE
As discussed in Chapter 2, both Orleans and Jefferson Parishes are vulnerable to storm surge.
The level of vulnerability or risk is very similar to flooding as storm surge often leads to flooding
or levee failure (that may lead to flooding); flooding that significantly affects people, structures,
and operations. Of course, storm surge is also related to coastal erosion and increased risk to
damage from tropical storms and hurricanes.
Regarding Jefferson Parish specifically, storm surge poses the greatest risk to the southern region
located outside of the levee protection system. Orleans Parish is most at risk from storm surge in
the southeast area of the city where the expanded Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO)
shipping channel leads directly into the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) from the open
sea of Lake Borgne. Orleans Parish city is also vulnerable to surges from Lake Pontchartrain to
the north.
The impact (level of flooding) from storm surge to the UNO Satellite locations is dependent on
the level of the storm surge event. For instance, storm surge led to the overtopping of levees as
well as the multiple breaches in the levee system during Hurricane Katrina. Failures in the levee
system resulted in flooding approximately 80% of New Orleans with waters as much as 20 feet
high.
Like UNO’s main campus, the CERM building, is protected from Lake Pontchartrain by a levee
system that has two main parts: the levee to the north of UNO’s main campus and other
levee/floodwall combinations along the canals that drain into the lake. One of these protects the
western boundary of the University from flooding of the London Canal. The Jefferson Center
and Goldring Hall at the Ogden Museum are protected by levees on Lake Pontchartrain and the
Mississippi, respectively, both located less than one mile away from the university’s satellite
locations.
Property
Although protected by the levees, flooding caused by storm surge can lead to major damage to
property. All UNO campuses are vulnerable to property damage from storm surge.
Similar to levee failures, structural value is included in the formula along with contents value.
Even though major flooding is deep, it is not expected to go higher than the first floor, so the
total building value is divided by the number of stories and multiplied times 1.25. Table 3.14
shows the percent damage and the annual and average costs for property damage from storm
surge.
3-18
Table 3.14 Property damage from storm surge
Building Name
CERM,
Goldring Hall
Jefferson Center
Frequency –
Jefferson Parish
Frequency –
Orleans Parish
Building Type
Percent
Damage
Dollar
Damage
Average
Annual $
Damage
A – Concrete
25.00%
$3,924,064
$78,481
C – Frame
25.00%
$341,263
$6,825
1.10
0.90
People
Storm surge may have a moderate impact on people’s safety and health. The impact from a
storm surge on people’s mental health is high. People who experience the impacts of storm surge
may feel a tremendous amount of stress and trauma. This was exemplified by Hurricane Katrina.
Safety: moderate, Health: moderate, Mental Health: high
University operations
Major flooding resulting from storm surge has a high impact on University operations.
As was exemplified following Hurricane Katrina. Classes on the main campus came to a halt,
and teaching and other services were suspended until the university was able to increase the
opportunity for distance learning available for students. However, some classes did resume in
the Jefferson Center during the Fall of 2005 following needed repairs.
All other University operations such as research, administration, housing, and information
technology were severely disrupted until the main campus opened in Spring 2006.
However, not all of the disruptions were directly from the major flooding; some could be
attributed to other hazards that the storm brought with it, particularly mold and civil unrest.
Structures were damaged as a result of mold and civil unrest from looters during the storm which
delayed or prevented classes and activities. After approximately four months, classes and other
University operations were able to resume on campus.
Impact: high
3-19
3.9 WINTER STORMS
Property
Winter storms bring cold temperatures, snow and ice. Of these, ice causes the most problems to
property. Freezing rain that accumulates on tree branches and utility lines can create a very
heavy weight. When the overloaded tree branches come down, they damage roofs and vehicles.
When utility lines are lost, so is the utility service.
Table 3.15 Property damage from winter storms
Building Name
CERM,
Goldring Hall
Jefferson
Center
Frequency –
Jefferson Parish
Frequency –
Orleans Parish
Average
Annual $
Damage
Building Type
Percent Damage
Dollar
Damage
A − Concrete
0.10%
$53,621
$26,811
C − Frame
0.10%
$4,368
$2,184
0.50
0.50
People
Winter storms can cause injury or death to people. Extreme cold can result in people and animals
suffering from frostbite and hypothermia. A record ice storm that impacted Louisiana January 12
through January 14, 1997 resulted in two fatalities. 5
Safety: moderate, Health: low, Mental Health: nil
University operations
At the most, a winter storm may freeze water pipes or disrupt utility services due to ice and
fallen tree limbs. In these cases, some operations may be disrupted.
Impact: low
–
5
National Climatic Data Center website.
3-20
3.10 SUBSIDENCE
Property
There is no single occurrence of subsidence, it is an ongoing activity. The damage incurred by
subsidence in any one year is relatively low. Damage over time is greatest to cinderblock
buildings that can crack when there is even a minor settling of the ground.
Table 3.16 Property damage from subsidence
Building Name
CERM, Goldring
Hall
Jefferson Center
Frequency –
Jefferson Parish
Frequency –
Orleans Parish
Building Type
Percent
Damage
Dollar
Damage
Average
Annual $
Damage
A – Concrete
0.01%
$5,362
$5,362
C – Frame
0.01%
$437
$437
1.00
1.00
People
There is relatively no impact on people from subsidence on campus.
Safety: nil, Health: nil, Mental Health: nil
University operations
There is relatively no impact on University operations from subsidence.
Impact: nil
3.11 DROUGHT
Property
There is no property damage caused by drought. There may be some cracking of foundations or
settling of roads during an extended dry period, but repairing such damage is considered a
normal maintenance expense.
3-21
People
The effects of drought are not likely to be threatening to human health or safety. However,
because Orleans and Jefferson Parishes take its water supply from the Mississippi River, a
drought which reduces the river’s level may cause the salt water wedge to move up the river
from the Gulf of Mexico and threaten the city’s water, and thus the university’s water supply.
This occurred during the drought of 1987-1989. More recently, record conditions resulted in
back-to-back months of drought for East Central and Southeast Louisiana in July and August
1998.6
Safety: nil, Health: nil, Mental Health: nil
University operations
There is relatively no impact on University operations from drought. While there may be
restrictions on watering lawns, the result would not affect the University’s ability to operate.
Impact: nil
3.12 EARTHQUAKES
Property
The level of damage expected from an earthquake in southern Louisiana is quite low. It would
be no worse than a Modified Mercali Intensity level of V, where some dishes and windows are
broken. Cinderblock buildings are rated as more subject to damage because they are less
resistant to ground shaking.
–
6
National Climatic Data Center.
3-22
Table 3.17 Property damage from earthquakes
Building Name
CERM,
Goldring Hall
Jefferson
Center
Frequency –
Jefferson Parish
Frequency –
Orleans Parish
Building Type
Percent Damage
Dollar
Damage
Average
Annual $
Damage
A − Concrete
1.00%
$536,215
$26,811
C − Frame
1.00%
$43,682
$2,184
0.05
0.05
People
The level of an expected earthquake in southeast Louisiana is not considered life threatening.
Some minor injuries may result from falling objects. Because the likelihood of an earthquake
occurring is low, no long-term mental health affects are expected.
Safety: moderate, Health: low, Mental Health: low
University operations
There is a relatively low impact on University operations from the type of earthquakes expected
in the area. Shaking of buildings and loss of some loose contents may disrupt teaching, research
and other activities on campus on a very small scale.
Impact: low
3.13 TERMITES
Property
Any structure can have a termite problem, even brick structures on slab foundations. If there is
wood in the building, termites can find it. However, none of the University’s three off-campus
buildings in this mitigation plan are particularly susceptible to termite infestation. The CERM
building is constructed of brick with metal and glass; the Jefferson Center is a framed building
3-23
constructed of brick veneer and cement block steel; and Goldring Hall at the Ogden Museum of
Southern Art is constructed of sandstone, cement, and stucco with a glass exterior. 7
Property damage from termite activity is on-going. However, termites are one of the few natural
hazards that can be controlled. This can be done by implementing effective preventive measures
and extermination work.
Therefore, the cost of termite damage is equated with the cost of preventing it plus the average
annual cost of recent damage. The University spends $67,000 each year on its pest control
contract for termites. Over the last five years, the University has spent $785,900 in either
replacing items damaged by termites or in repairing building damage. This equates to $157,000
per year. Added to the cost of the pest control contract produces an average annual damage
figure of $ 224,000.
People
There is practically no life safety or mental health threat from termites.
Safety: nil, Health: low, Mental health: nil
University operations
There is no major impact on University operations caused by termites, just the additional costs of
repairs to, and protection of, properties on the campuses and lack of use of the part of the
building under repair
Impact: nil
3.14 EPIDEMIC
Property
Epidemics are not considered to cause property damage.
People
Epidemics have a low impact on the safety of individuals, but a high impact on health and mental
health of individuals. By definition, an epidemic is a high health hazard.
Safety: low, Health: high, Mental Health: high
–
7
GCR & Associates, Inc.
3-24
University operations
Epidemics present a moderate impact on University operations. Unhealthy individuals do not
attend classes to teach or to learn, and they do not go to work. In addition university faculty, staff
and students may remain home to avoid contamination. Therefore, some teaching, research,
administration, and student services would be affected. Some buildings may have to be
quarantined and disinfected, which could result in temporary or long-term closure of a facility.
Impact: moderate
3.15 MOLD
Property
Damage by mold is not so much
related to the value of the building
because almost all of the buildings
have similar sheetrock and insulation
construction. The preliminary
estimated costs to remediate the
mold that followed Hurricane
Katrina varied greatly from building
to building.
A figure of $1.25 per square foot of
floor space resulted in a total cost
Mold spores multiplied and covered walls of the CERM
that approximates the total estimated
building following Hurricane Katrina
cost of the post-Katrina mold, but
does not produce an accurate representation of the cost for each building. However, this
approach is used to provide an aggregate figure for this plan.
Table 3.18 Property damage from mold
Building Name
CERM,
Goldring Hall
Jefferson Center
Frequency –
Jefferson Parish
Frequency –
Orleans Parish
Building
Type
A − Concrete
Damage
per square
foot
$1.25
Damage
from One
Event
$201,257
Average
Annual $
Damage
$4,025
C − Frame
$1.25
$71,716
$1,434
0.02
0.02
3-25
People
Mold has a low impact on the safety of individuals and a moderate impact on health and mental
health of individuals. For some people, even a relatively small number of mold spores can cause
health problems. Those at higher risks for adverse health effects from molds include infants,
children, immune-compromised patients, pregnant women, individuals with existing respiratory
conditions and the elderly.
Safety; low, Health: high, Mental Health:
moderate
University operations
Damage from mold has a moderate impact
on University operations. Mold will disrupt
all University operations except for
information technology, but disrupted
operations may resume in other buildings on
campus that do not contain mold.
Impact: moderate
Water damage to ceiling tiles in a Jefferson Center
classroom
3.16 DAM FAILURE
Dam failure is not addressed in this chapter as it has been determined that this hazard poses no
real risk to the University’s off-site locations.
3.17 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPILLS
Property
It is unlikely that a hazardous materials spill would affect all University buildings. Although the
fumes from a spill might affect a large area and a liquid would follow the drainage ways, a spill
3-26
would be concentrated in one area and only one satellite location would be subjected to property
damage.
Table 3.19 Property damage from hazardous materials spills
Building Name
CERM,
Goldring Hall
Jefferson Center
Frequency –
Jefferson Parish
Frequency –
Orleans Parish
Building Type
A − Concrete
C − Frame
Percent
Damage
0.25%
0.25%
Dollar
Damage
$134,054
Average
Annual $
Damage
$160,864
$10,920
$6,552
0.60
1.20
People
As with epidemics, by definition a “hazardous” material spill is hazardous to people’s safety and
health.
Safety: high, Health: moderate, Mental Health: moderate
University operations
There is a low impact on University operations since hazardous material spills should not affect
all University buildings simultaneously, and they can be cleaned up relatively quickly.
University operations can be continued with minimal disruption.
Impact: low
3.18 NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS
Property
As with hazardous materials spills, the impact on buildings from nuclear accidents is low. While
radiological contamination can render affected buildings unusable for significant periods of time,
UNO campuses are located at a sufficient distance from Waterford 3 to make long-term
contamination unlikely.
3-27
Table 3.20 Property damage from nuclear accidents
Building Name
CERM,
Goldring Hall
Jefferson Center
Frequency –
Jefferson Parish
Frequency –
Orleans Parish
Building Type
A − Concrete
Percent
Damage
1.00%
Dollar
Damage
$536,215
Average
Annual $
Damage
$5,362
C − Frame
1.00%
$43,682
$437
0.01
0.01
People
The impact on people’s safety, health, and mental health from nuclear accidents are high.
Exposure to radiation can affect the gastrointestinal, blood, immune and nervous systems. High
doses can kill outright. The long-term effects of radiation exposure can include sterility, cancer
and genetic damage that can be passed to children.
Safety: high, Health: high, Mental Health: high
University operations
If an accident and its resulting radiation affected a significant number of people and/or closed
buildings because of contamination, the University’s operations would be affected.
Impact: moderate
3.19 CIVIL UNREST
Property
Looting, vandalism, and other destruction to property occur in times of civil unrest. This was
demonstrated recently during Hurricane Katrina, when damage caused by stranded flood victims
included broken windows, stolen property, and vandalism.
3-28
Table 3.21 Property damage from civil unrest
Building Name
CERM,
Goldring Hall
Jefferson Center
Frequency –
Jefferson Parish
Frequency –
Orleans Parish
Building Type
A − Concrete
Percent
Damage
2.00%
Dollar
Damage
$1,072,429
Average
Annual $
Damage
$53,621
C − Frame
2.00%
$87,363
$4,368
0.05
0.05
People
People may or may not be injured in incidents of civil unrest, and there is a low impact on health.
However, civil unrest has a moderate impact on mental health. It can cause frustration, fear,
stress, and aggravation to those who experienced the hazard and those worried about it
happening again.
Safety: moderate, Health: low, Mental Health: moderate
University operations
Civil unrest on the campus has a moderate impact on University operations. Depending on the
circumstances, teaching, student services, and other operations can be disrupted due to property
damage or offices closed due to strikes or sit-ins.
Impact: moderate
3.20 TERRORISM
Property
As with hail and lightning, not every building will be hit. Only major buildings will be a target
for terrorism. A preliminary list of “target buildings” is identified, and they are the only ones
with damage figures. The Center for Energy Resources Management (CERM) building would
like also constitute a “target” building, as it houses a good deal of homeland security-related
research.
3-29
It is assumed that during a single occurrence of a terrorist attack, one building would be 50%
damaged. The table below uses a factor of 50%/1 or 50.00% of the single off-campus target
building for the percent damaged multiplier.
Table 3.22 Property damage from terrorism
Building Type
A – Concrete
B – Cinderblock
C – Frame
Target
Frequency
Percent
Damage
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
50.00%
Dollar
Damage
$0
$0
$0
$8,483,590
$8,483,590
Average
Annual $
Damage
$0
$0
$0
$84,836
$84,836
0.01
People
People may be harmed or even killed in incidents of terrorism. Terrorist attacks make individuals vulnerable, they cause stress, frustration, worry, and bodily harm. Whether it is a cyber attack
or a physical attack, the impact on safety, health, and mental health are high.
Safety: high, Health: high, Mental Health: high
University operations
A terrorist attack is likely intended to have a high impact on University operations. Whether it is
a cyber attack or a terrorist attack targeted to important structures, the impact will be high.
Teaching, research, administration, information technology, and student services will be
disrupted.
Impact: high
3-30
3.21 SUMMARY OF VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
This chapter provides information on how natural and human-caused hazards affect The
University of New Orleans satellite locations in terms of property damage, the threat to people,
and the impact on University operations.
Property damage is measured in dollars while the impacts on people and University operations
are summarized in subjective terms of “nil”, “low”, “moderate”, and “high”.
These impacts vary from nil to destruction and death from a category 5 hurricane, nuclear
accident, or terrorist incident. However, the severity of these impacts needs to be tempered with
their likelihood of occurrence. The odds of an occurrence in any given year or the annual chance
of the hazard occurring is listed as the frequency in Chapter 2.
3.21.1 Property Damage
Table 3.23 on the following page displays the impacts of hazards on property. The property
damage figures are multiplied times the annual chance of occurrence to produce a dollar figure
that represents average annual damage from that hazard.
The hazard causing the greatest amount of destruction in a single event is terrorism, followed by
a tornado, hurricanes, levee break flooding, and storm surge.
When the dollar damage from a single event is multiplied by the frequency of occurrence, the
hazards that are likely to cause the most property damage over the long run are tornadoes and
tropical storms.
3-31
Table 3.23 Property damage summary and frequencies
Hazard
Floods – Stormwater
Floods - Levee Break
Wind - Thunderstorms
Wind - Tropical Storm
Wind – Cat I Hurricane
Wind – Cat 2 Hurricane
Wind – Cat 3 Hurricane
Wind – Cat 4 Hurricane
Wind – Cat 5 Hurricane
Wind – Tornado
Hail
Lightning
Storm Surge
Winter Storms
Subsidence
Drought
Earthquakes
Termites
Epidemic
Mold
Haz Mat Spills
Nuclear Accidents
Civil Unrest
Terrorism
Frequency,
Jefferson
Parish
1.54
0.02
2.10
0.93
0.13
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.006
0.71
0.31
0.50
1.10
0.50
1.00
0.20
0.05
1.00
0.03
0.02
0.60
0.01
0.05
0.01
Frequency,
Total
Orleans Parish Dollar Damage*
1.64
$932
0.02
$4,265,327
2.22
$0
0.64
$579,896
0.13
$1,247,156
0.05
$1,870,734
0.03
$3,117,889
0.01
$4,408,727
0.006
$5,669,564
0.29
$7,794,723
0.66
$13,742
0.77
$57,990
0.90
$4,265,327
0.50
$57,990
1.00
N/A
0.20
$0
0.05
$579,896
1.00
N/A
0.03
$0
0.02
$272,974
1.20
$144,974
0.01
$579,896
0.05
$1,159,792
0.01
$8,483,590
Total
Average
Annual $
Damage*
$1,528
$85,307
$0
$383,801
$162,130
$93,537
$93,537
$44,087
$34,197
$2,719,127
$8,382
$47,404
$85,307
$28,995
$5,799
$0
$28,995
$6,236
$0
$5,459
$167,417
$5,799
$57,990
$84,836
*This amount is equal to the damage recorded for all three University satellite locations.
3.21.2 Impact on People
Tables 3.24 and 3.25 summarize the impact on people by each hazard in Jefferson and Orleans
Parishes. The impact on people is summarized with subjective statements, nil, low, moderate,
high. Each subjective term is assigned a number score. High is 100, moderate is 40, low is 10,
and nil is 1. The number score of each subjective term is calculated for each hazard. The number
scores for safety, mental health, and health are added and displayed in the “single event” column.
The “single event” figures are multiplied times the frequency to facilitate comparison of the
“average annual” threat or “people score” for each hazard.
3-32
The resulting “people score” is a numerical representation of the relative impact each hazard has
on safety, health, and mental health. Unlike the dollars used for property damage, these numbers
have no discrete meaning. They are used to compare the listed subjective values between
hazards.
Table 3.24 Summary of the impact on people, Jefferson Parish
Hazard
Safety Health
Floods – Stormwater
Low
Nil
Floods - Levee Break
Mod.
Mod.
Wind – Thunderstorms
Nil
Nil
Wind - Tropical Storm
Mod.
Mod.
Wind – Cat 1 Hurricane Mod.
Mod.
Wind – Cat 2 Hurricane High
Mod.
Wind – Cat 3 Hurricane High
Mod.
Wind – Cat 4 Hurricane High
Mod.
Wind – Cat 5 Hurricane High
Mod.
Wind – Tornado
High
Mod.
Hail
Nil
Nil
Lightning
High
Nil
Storm Surge
Mod
Mod
Winter Storms
Mod.
Low
Subsidence
Nil
Nil
Drought
Nil
Nil
Earthquakes
Mod.
Low
Termites
Nil
Low
Epidemic
Low
High
Mold
Low
High
Haz Mat Spills
High
Mod.
Nuclear Accidents
High
High
Civil Unrest
Mod.
Low
Terrorism
High
High
Mental
Health
Nil
High
Nil
Low
Low
High
High
High
High
High
Nil
Nil
High
Nil
Nil
Nil
Low
Nil
High
Mod.
Mod.
High
Mod.
High
Single
Event Frequency
12
1.54
180
0.02
3
2.10
90
0.93
90
0.13
240
0.05
240
0.03
240
0.01
240
0.006
240
0.71
3
0.31
102
0.50
180
1.10
51
0.50
3
1.00
3
0.20
60
0.05
12
1.00
210
0.03
150
0.02
180
0.60
300
0.01
90
0.05
300
0.01
People
Score
18.48
3.60
6.30
83.70
11.70
12.00
7.20
2.40
1.44
170.40
0.93
51.00
198.00
25.50
3.00
0.60
3.00
12.00
6.30
3.00
108.00
3.00
4.50
3.00
3-33
Table 3.25 Summary of the impact on people, Orleans Parish
Hazard
Safety Health
Floods - Stormwater
Low
Nil
Floods - Levee Break
Mod.
Mod.
Wind - Thunderstorms
Nil
Nil
Wind - Tropical Storm
Mod.
Mod.
Wind – Cat 1 Hurricane Mod.
Mod.
Wind – Cat 2 Hurricane High
Mod.
Wind – Cat 3 Hurricane High
Mod.
Wind – Cat 4 Hurricane High
Mod.
Wind – Cat 5 Hurricane High
Mod.
Wind - Tornado
High
Mod.
Hail
Nil
Nil
Lightning
High
Nil
Storm Surge
Mod.
Mod.
Winter Storms
Mod.
Low
Subsidence
Nil
Nil
Drought
Nil
Nil
Earthquakes
Mod.
Low
Termites
Nil
Low
Epidemic
Low
High
Mold
Low
High
Haz Mat Spills
High
Mod.
Nuclear Accidents
High
High
Civil Unrest
Mod.
Low
Terrorism
High
High
Mental
Health
Nil
High
Nil
Low
Low
High
High
High
High
High
Nil
Nil
High
Nil
Nil
Nil
Low
Nil
High
Mod.
Mod.
High
Mod.
High
Single
Event Frequency
12
1.64
180
0.02
3
2.22
90
0.64
90
0.13
240
0.05
240
0.03
240
0.01
240
0.006
240
0.29
3
0.66
102
0.77
180
0.90
51
0.50
3
1.00
3
0.20
60
0.05
12
1.00
210
0.03
150
0.02
180
1.20
300
0.01
90
0.05
300
0.01
People
Score
19.68
3.60
6.66
57.60
11.70
12.00
7.20
2.40
1.44
69.60
1.98
78.54
162.00
25.50
3.00
0.60
3.00
12.00
6.30
3.00
216.00
3.00
4.50
3.00
The greatest threats to people during a single event are nuclear accidents, terrorism, hurricanes,
tornadoes, and epidemics. However, over the long run, the “people score” shows that greatest
continuous threats are hazmat spills, storm surge, wind from tropical storms, lightning, and storm
surge.
3.21.3 Impact on University operations
Similar calculations were done to determine which hazards have the most affect on University
operations. The subjective statements of nil, low, moderate, and high impact were converted to
numerical values of 1, 10, 40, and 100 to produce a single event value. These scores are
multiplied times the frequency of occurrence to produce an “impact” score. The “impact” scores
have no discrete meaning. They are used to compare the listed subjective values between
hazards.
3-34
Tables 3.26 and 3.27 below display that levee break and storm surge flooding, hurricanes,
tornadoes, and terrorist attacks will have the greatest impact on University operations. However,
when factoring in the likelihood of occurrence, over the long run, the greatest threats to
University operations are tornadoes and storm surge.
Table 3.26 Summary of impact on University operations, Jefferson Parish
Hazard
Floods – Stormwater
Floods - Levee Break
Wind – Thunderstorms
Wind - Tropical Storm
Wind- Cat 1 Hurricane
Wind- Cat 2 Hurricane
Wind- Cat 3 Hurricane
Wind- Cat 4 Hurricane
Wind- Cat 5 Hurricane
Wind – Tornado
Hail
Lightning
Storm Surge
Winter Storms
Subsidence
Drought
Earthquakes
Termites
Epidemic
Mold
Haz Mat Spills
Nuclear Accidents
Civil Unrest
Terrorism
Impact on
University
operations
nil
high
nil
low
moderate
moderate
high
high
high
high
nil
low
high
low
nil
nil
low
nil
moderate
moderate
low
moderate
moderate
high
Number
Score
1
100
1
10
40
40
100
100
100
100
1
10
100
10
1
1
10
1
40
40
10
40
40
100
Frequency
1.54
0.02
2.10
0.93
0.13
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.006
0.71
0.31
0.50
1.10
0.50
1.00
0.20
0.05
1.00
0.03
0.02
0.60
0.01
0.05
0.01
Impact
Score
1.54
2.00
2.10
9.30
5.20
2.00
3.00
1.00
0.60
71.00
0.31
5.00
110.00
5.00
1.00
0.20
0.50
1.00
1.20
0.80
6.00
0.40
2.00
1.00
3-35
Table 3.27 Summary of impact on University operations, Orleans Parish
Hazard
Floods – Stormwater
Floods - Levee Break
Wind – Thunderstorms
Wind - Tropical Storm
Wind- Cat 1 Hurricane
Wind- Cat 2 Hurricane
Wind- Cat 3 Hurricane
Wind- Cat 4 Hurricane
Wind- Cat 5 Hurricane
Wind - Tornado
Hail
Lightning
Storm Surge
Winter Storms
Subsidence
Drought
Earthquakes
Termites
Epidemic
Mold
Haz Mat Spills
Nuclear Accidents
Civil Unrest
Terrorism
Impact on
University
operations
nil
high
nil
low
moderate
moderate
high
high
high
high
nil
low
high
low
nil
nil
low
nil
moderate
moderate
low
moderate
moderate
high
Number
Score
1
100
1
10
40
40
100
100
100
100
1
10
100
10
1
1
10
1
40
40
10
40
40
100
Frequency
1.64
0.02
2.22
0.64
0.13
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.006
0.29
0.66
0.77
0.90
0.50
1
0.20
0.05
1
0.03
0.02
1.20
0.01
0.05
0.01
Impact
Score
1.64
2.00
2.22
6.40
5.20
2.00
3.00
1.00
0.60
29.00
0.66
7.70
90.00
5.00
1.00
0.20
0.50
1.00
1.20
0.80
12.00
0.40
2.00
1.00
3-36
3.21.4 Conclusion
The tables and the earlier facts and figures presented in this chapter help prioritize the relative
severity of the natural hazards on property and people at the University’s off-campus facilities.
The Committee concluded the following:
1. Some types of property and areas are more vulnerable than others. Buildings constructed
of cinderblock are more resistant to water damage by flooding, yet are more vulnerable to
earthquakes than are structures of metal, wooden frame; none of the University’s three
off-campus buildings is constructed of metal wooden frame. Frame structures in general
are more vulnerable to wind damage, whereas concrete and steel structures are expected
to be the most resistant to structural damage from wind, water, earthquakes, and termites.
2. The hazard causing the greatest amount of destruction in a single event is terrorism,
followed by a tornado, hurricanes, and flooding from a levee break or storm surge. The
hazards that are likely to cause the most property damage over the long run are tornadoes
and tropical storms.
3. The greatest threats to people during a single event are nuclear accidents, terrorism,
hurricanes, tornadoes, and epidemics. However, over the long run, the “people score”
shows that greatest continuous threats are hazmat spills, storm surge, wind from tropical
storms, lightning, and storm surge.
4. Hazards that have high impacts on university and tenant operations include levee break
and storm surge flooding, hurricanes, tornadoes, and terrorist attacks. Over the long run,
the greatest threats to University operations are storm surge and tornadoes.
3-37
3.22 References
1. American Psychological Association. The Effects of Trauma Do Not Have to Last a
Lifetime, 2006. Web. Last accessed from
http://www.psychologymatters.org/ptsd.html June 26, 2006.
2. Bennet, Dan. “UNO Student is critically injured by lightning,” New Orleans TimesPicayune 1990, Section AA, p. A-1. Print.
3. CNN, U.S. Hurricane Katrina Special Report. “Pumps begin to drain New Orleans, Work
expected to take months, Army Corps of Engineers says” Last accessed from
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/05/neworleans.levees.
4. David Baldwin’s Trauma Information Pages. “Disaster Mental Health”. Last accessed
from http://www.trauma-pages.com/disaster.php on June 24, 2006.
5. Enarson E., Morgan, O. Manitoba Health & National Mental Health Association. “Blueprint for Responding to Mental Health Needs in Times of Crisis”, S03-32. Annual
Hazards Research and Applications Workshop (2003). Last accessed from
http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/workshop/2003/S03-32.hrml June 30, 2006.
6. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Center,
(1989). “The Public Health Consequences of Disasters”, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Public Health Service.
7. National Institute of Mental Health. “Relieving Trauma: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder”
Last accessed from http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/reliving.cfm on June 24, 2006.
8. The State of Louisiana. Office of Emergency Preparedness. Louisiana State Hazard
Mitigation Plan. Baton Rouge: OEP, 2003. Web.
9. Seydlitz, Ruth, J. W. Spencer, Shirley Laska and Elizabeth Triche. 1991. “The Effects of
Newspaper Reports on the Public’s Response to a Natural Event.” International
Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 9 1991: 5-29.
3-38
CHAPTER 4. MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
For the planning process to be successful, goals are necessary to guide the review of possible
mitigation measures. Recommended mitigation actions must be deemed appropriate for all
University campuses, reflective of University priorities, and consistent with all other plans. This
chapter provides a review of how mitigation goals were set for this Plan, a list of those goals, and
recommended mitigation actions that might achieve those goals.
The culmination of this Mitigation Plan is the action plan. The general direction of the overall
program is also outlined in this chapter. Specific activities pursuant to the general direction are
detailed in Section 4.4, which assigns recommended projects and deadlines to the appropriate
offices.
4.1 GOALS AND STRATEGIES
During a meeting held on March 31, 2009, the
DRU Advisory Committee reviewed the goals
and strategies of the original UNO Mitigation
Plan. It was decided that those goals would
remain, with some editing to accommodate
unique aspects of the University’s off-campus
sites.
Three general goal statements followed by six
general strategies to implement them were
used to guide the planning and implementation
of mitigation activities and projects. They are
as follows:
DRU Advisory Team Meeting in March 2009
Goals:
Goal 1. Protect the lives and health of the students, faculty and staff, tenants and visitors.
Goal 2. Protect all University buildings, contents, utilities, and infrastructure from damage
by natural and human caused hazards.
Goal 3. Ensure that disruption to the University and tenants’ operations during and following an event will be minimal.
Strategies:
1. Protect, strengthen, or retrofit University buildings and facilities so they will suffer little
or no damage during an incident and their occupants and contents will be protected.
4-1
2. Educate the faculty and staff as well as students and tenants, on ways to protect themselves and their property from damage by natural and human-caused hazards.
3. Have the necessary emergency response facilities, equipment, staff, and procedures in
place to minimize the danger and damage to people, University property, and the surrounding community during an incident.
4. Have the disaster recovery facilities, equipment, staff, and procedures in place to allow
University facilities to reopen immediately after an incident, with minimal reliance on
outside sources of assistance.
5. Pay special attention to certain special University resources, including the Library,
student housing, records, and art collections.
6. Invest resources needed to reach the goals at a level appropriate to the hazard and its
impacts on property, people, and University operations.
Coordinating Committee
A plan is of little value if there is no vehicle for ensuring that it is implemented. Therefore, a key
long-range strategy is to maintain a permanent Disaster Resistant University (DRU) Advisory
Committee to monitor the implementation of the Plan, report to the Chancellor on its progress,
and recommend revisions to this Plan as needed. This is explained in action item 1.
4. 2 POTENTIAL MITIGATION ACTIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS
The DRU Research Team along with members of the DRU Advisory Committee identified
several hazard mitigation actions that would benefit the off-campus sites. These recommendations were based on the range of potential mitigation actions which are described throughout this
section and are later converted into specific actions in Section 4.4.
4.2.1 Flood Protection
Much of the New Orleans metropolitan area is built on land that is near or below sea level. Most
of Orleans and Jefferson Parishes are ringed with a system of levees. These levees were built to
keep the water from the Mississippi River to the south and Lake Pontchartrain to the north out of
the densely populated areas. However, these same levees effectively hold rainwater making the
metro area susceptible to flooding. Rainwater must be pumped out and over these levees. This is
accomplished through the use of a network of surface drainage pipes, open and closed canals,
and pumping stations.
The CERM Building is located adjacent to the main campus of The University of New Orleans
that sits on the edge of the southern shore of Lake Pontchartrain on the east bank of the
Mississippi River in New Orleans on land that was created in the 1930s by dredging it from Lake
Pontchartrain. Located at the northern boundary is Lake Pontchartrain’s levee. On the western
4-2
boundary is the London Canal, which has levees constructed after Katrina supplemented with
floodwalls on both of its banks. Farther into the city on the London Canal levees, embedded with
floodwalls, form the protection. These levees and floodwalls are part of the city’s hurricane
protection system. Because of the location of the Lakefront campus, including the CERM
Building, on the artificial land, it is higher in elevation than the neighborhood proximate to it that
is on the original lakeshore.
The Ogden Museum also is located in Orleans Parish and shares the same protection of the
City’s hurricane protection system. The Museum, however, is located in the Warehouse District,
within a mile of the Mississippi River levee. The Jefferson Center is located in Jefferson Parish,
in close proximity to Lake Pontchartrain.
Flooding can be deep and long-term, affecting many areas of the metropolitan area. Deep
flooding may be caused by storm surge overtopping or breaching the hurricane protection levee
system, such as what happened for the Katrina flooding on the main campus. Levee failure
flooding is projected to occur in the metro area a couple of times each century. On the other
hand, shallow flooding can impact localized areas near the off-campus sites for a few hours
during and immediately after a heavy rainstorm. High groundwater flooding due to heavy rainfall
that temporarily overwhelms the local drainage system can occur more often, with the risk of this
type of flooding estimated as once every three years.
• National Flood Insurance Program
Floodplain management practices to include land use, zoning, and enforcement of local
ordinances can mitigate flood damages for new construction as well as existing buildings. The
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), managed by FEMA, plays an important role in the
reduction of flood damage in communities across the United States. The NFIP is made up of
three components to include flood insurance, floodplain management, and flood hazard mapping.
Participation in the NFIP is voluntary and is based upon a community’s commitment to adopt
and enforce a floodplain management ordinance to reduce future flood risks. This commitment
by the community allows the Federal Government to make flood insurance available within the
community as a financial protection against flood losses. Both Jefferson and Orleans Parishes are
participants in the NFIP.
• Levees and Floodwalls
The East Jefferson Levee District, the Orleans Levee District and the US Army Corps of
Engineers are responsible for the hurricane protection system: the series of levees that ring the
metropolitan area and protect off-campus sites from storm surge referred to in the introduction of
this chapter.
The Orleans Levee District 1 was established by Act 93 of the 1890 General Assembly (Legislature) of the State of Louisiana and is primarily responsible for the operation and maintenance of
levees, embankments, seawalls, jetties, breakwaters, water basins, and other hurricane and flood
protection improvements surrounding the City of New Orleans, including the southern shores of
Lake Pontchartrain and along the Mississippi River.
1
http://www.orleanslevee.com/
4-3
The East Jefferson Levee District 2 is under the authority of the Southeast Louisiana Flood
Protection Authority which oversees the flood and hurricane protection systems of St. Bernard
Parish, the east bank of Orleans, Jefferson, St. John and St. Charles Parishes and areas of St.
Tammany and Tangipahoa Parishes below Interstate 12. The East Jefferson Levee District
maintains and operates the flood protection levee system around the east bank portion of
Jefferson Parish to protect the citizens of East Jefferson from tidal flooding of Lake Pontchartrain and the Mississippi River. The East Jefferson Levee District insures the integrity of the
levee system throughout the year and maintains a high state of readiness with adequately trained
personnel and sufficient operational equipment.
The US Army Corps of Engineers - Team New Orleans 3 provides comprehensive water
resources management to include navigation, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and
environmental stewardship for south Louisiana to ensure public safety and benefit the nation.
The Protection Restoration Office (PRO) executes the Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk
Reduction System (HSDRRS) levee and floodwall projects in Jefferson and St. Charles Parishes
and the West Bank while the Hurricane Protection Office (HPO) executes the floodgate and
pump station projects, along with levee and floodwall projects on the East Bank in Orleans, St.
Bernard and Plaquemines Parishes.
• Drainage Improvements
The Sewerage and Water Board (S&WB) of New Orleans has been serving citizens and
protecting the environment since 1899. The S&WB is charged with providing drinking water,
sanitary sewer and drainage services for the residents of Orleans Parish. Major improvements to
the drainage system made by the S&WB in the last 10 years have primarily been in partnership
with the Corps of Engineers. The S&WB is responsible for the stormwater drainage system,
including the canals, surface drainage pipe network and the pumping stations.
In Jefferson Parish, the Department of Drainage is responsible for the administration, direction,
coordination and implementation of major drainage and flood control programs and direct
operation, construction and maintenance of drainage canals, drainage ditches, street subsurface
drainage systems, and operation and maintenance of drainage pump stations.
As a result of the extensive flooding in May 1995, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana
(SELA) Project with enactment of Section 108 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996 and Section 533 of the Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA) of 1996. This was done to provide for flood control and improvements to rainfall
drainage systems in Jefferson, Orleans, and St. Tammany Parishes. Post Katrina the full SELA
funding request of $62.5 million was approved by Congress in the third Supplemental Bill.
The SELA project includes channel and pump station improvements in the three parishes. The
channel and pumping station improvements in Orleans and Jefferson Parishes support the
parishes’ master drainage plans and generally provide flood protection on a level associated with
a 10 year rainfall event, while also reducing damage from larger events.
2
3
http://www.ejld.com/
http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/aboutus/abt_mission.asp
4-4
Many other drainage projects have been funded and/or completed since Katrina in the metropolitan area. Many were funded through Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and
the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program implemented following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
• Recommendations
Flood protection from storm surge should be left to reliance on the hurricane protection system
already in place and maintained by the various levee districts and the US army Corps of
Engineers. The possibility of individual flood control projects for the off-campus sites were
deemed inappropriate. Small scale projects (e.g., street and parking lot sweeping) can be
undertaken by the off-campus sites to avoid minor flooding.
4.2.2 Retrofitting
Modifications can be made to the University’s off-campus buildings that can reduce damage
from future storms and other incidents. Chapters 2 and 3 have identified many potential future
events which may negatively impact UNO’s mission. Of these, the potential for flooding, high
winds, destruction of property by individuals such as terrorists or hurricane victims, and the
spreading of mold during extended periods of power outage, have been identified as the greatest
concerns. This section discusses types of retrofitting that address each of these hazards.
• Flooding
There are several types of retrofitting projects that can protect buildings from damage by
flooding. However, most of these measures are more appropriate for low-level stormwater
flooding than for the deeper flooding that would be caused by levee failure or storm surge.
Some buildings, especially heavily damaged or repetitively flooded ones, are not worth the
expense to protect them from future damage. It is cheaper to demolish them and either replace
them with new, flood protected structures, or relocate the university activities to a safer site.
All UNO buildings must remain where they are now located, so the campus, including its offcampus sites, will not be cleared. Removing individual buildings should only be considered if the
building has been substantially damaged or is otherwise not in a sound condition. If a building is
replaced, it needs to meet all current codes and be protected from the local flood hazard.
Elevating a building above the flood level can be almost as effective as moving it out of the
floodplain. Due to the size and structural nature of the off-campus sites, it is not cost-effective to
raise them.
Dry floodproofing is also a consideration. A building is dry floodproofed by making the walls
watertight and ensuring that all openings will be closed when the flood arrives. It is generally
only feasible when the following conditions are met: the building is in good shape; shallow
flooding; slab-on-grade foundation; and short duration flooding. The most appropriate dry
floodproofing design calls for an application of plastic sheeting on the walls. The plastic is
covered by facing brick or other material that protects the plastic from puncture or deterioration
by sunlight. Such projects have been built in Louisiana.
4-5
Another concern is the sanitary sewer. Through infiltration and inflow, the sewer lines can
become flooded. The line from the building can become a conduit for water in the sewer system.
Therefore a backflow valve or other system is needed to prevent overloaded sewers from backing
up into the structure.
As with many retrofitting measures, dry floodproofing has shortcomings. The most important
concern is duration of flooding. There are many ways and places where a waterproofing
application can leak. The longer the floodwaters are up and putting pressure on the application,
the greater the chance of a leak.
Masonry walls in the New Orleans metropolitan area have weep holes to prevent moisture from
building up in the wall cavities. Sealing the walls with plastic sheeting will block these holes.
The design must accommodate the need for ventilation within the walls through new, higher
weep holes or piping behind the plastic sheeting.
The dry floodproofing approach recommended here requires human intervention, i.e., someone
must be present at the site to install the retrofitting measure. This requires warning time before
floodwaters reach the structure and someone capable of installing the closures. Because the UNO
Facility Services staff is spread thin in the hours before a flood, this can be an important
shortcoming, and the number of openings that need to be closed should be kept to a minimum.
Wet floodproofing is also a consideration. Under this approach, electrical components,
machinery, insulation, wallboard, paneling, carpeting and valuable contents are raised above the
flood protection level. The flooded area is remodeled with materials that are not subject to water
damage. For masonry buildings, with cinderblock interior walls, the key costs are replacing the
floor and doors with flood-resistant materials and coating the walls with epoxy-based paint.
A wet floodproofed structure should have little or no contents subject to damage, or such
contents should be kept in spaces above the flood protection level. Therefore, wet floodproofing
is not appropriate for residence halls or buildings with valuable equipment on the first floor.
A floodwall is a barrier around the building, usually constructed of concrete. As with dry
floodproofing, all doorways and sewer lines must be closed before the floodwaters arrive. The
effectiveness of a floodwall is dependent on the underlying soil. If the ground is too porous,
water will seep under the wall and flood the area. The design must also handle rain that falls
within the wall. Both concerns can be addressed with interior drainage improvements.
These include installing subsurface drain tiles (perforated pipes that collect ground water) that
drain to a pump. A pump (with a backup power source) pumps the water from the sump to
outside the wall.
• Wind
Like most UNO buildings, CERM and the Ogden Museum are fully engineered, reinforced
concrete low-rise structures. The wind levels required for complete destruction are so improbable
that retrofitting to reduce the probability of collapse even further are not likely to be economical.
However, window breakage, window seal failure and roof failures, leading to extensive water
4-6
damage from rain, have been experienced at these locations and they are not improbable in the
future. Water infiltration at the Ogden Museum is also due to problems with the wall system and
the difficulties in maintaining appropriate wall sealant and caulking. The Jefferson Center is a
four-story, steel-framed building and is subject to the same issues facing the other sites – water
infiltration from window seal failure, window breakage, roof failures and the need for continual
maintenance of wall sealant and caulking.
Most of the existing windows found in these off-campus sites are made of 0.25 inch thick
tempered glass. This type of glass is not considered impact resistant and will shatter and fall out
if struck by debris during a storm event. Loss of windows has led to destruction of the interior of
many UNO buildings including CERM. Recent revisions to US building codes require shatterresistant “laminated” glass in buildings in hurricane-prone areas. It may prove economical to
replace the windows and install improved seals, or perhaps apply a film to the windows which
will keep them from shattering when hit by “missiles” to reduce the probabilities of these
failures.
The roof coverings of CERM and the Jefferson Center are “modified bitumen” systems. The
roof coverings of both buildings were heavily damaged during Hurricane Katrina and have since
been replaced. The roof of the Ogden Museum has a somewhat irregular geometry and
penetrations for skylights. During high wind and rain events, water infiltration occurs around
these skylights as well as the door to the roof terrace. Potential solutions include constructing an
air lock structure at the entrance to the roof terrace and replacing or repairing skylights.
It probably will not prove economical to remove an otherwise effective roof in order to replace it
with a more wind-resistant one. However, as roofs are replaced over time due to normal
degradation, it would be feasible to spend a little extra to get a more wind-resistant system. In
addition, when new buildings are constructed, significant attention should be paid to roof
construction and window materials and installation. Annual inspections should also occur to
ensure there are no loose parts or appendages which could initiate failure during high winds.
While all experts concur that the largest threat to the New Orleans area from a hurricane is the
flooding, it must be emphasized that the damage caused by roof and window failure has been
significant.
One strategy to protect people from high winds has been applied widely in tornado areas. A
selected area of a structure is reinforced to resist very high winds. Such a safe room can protect
the occupants of the building while a safe building could serve as a means for housing essential
campus staff after the area is evacuated.
• People
The threat of attack by a terrorist, criminal, or disgruntled employee/student is always a
possibility. The threat of break-ins by hungry and thirsty people displaced by a flood or other
disaster has been experienced by the University. More than 1,000 evacuees sought protection on
the UNO Main Campus after Hurricane Katrina. They entered locked buildings and caused
extensive damage. There is also the potential of a riot (or even a victory celebration) that may
result in masses of people moving toward or into a University building.
4-7
Possible retrofitting measures for the hazards that include people are similar to the measure taken
to minimize break-ins by criminals. These include fences, extra locks, and strengthened doors
and windows. As with a floodproofing measure, these often require “human intervention,” i.e.,
someone has to put them in place after the alarm is sounded for them to work.
University buildings have measures considered adequate for a typical individual. However,
retrofitting for a determined and heavily armed terrorist or a large mob would be worthwhile
only for selected buildings that have a high potential of being a target. Although a list of “target
buildings” does not currently exist for the University, the UNO Hazard Mitigation Plan for the
main campus does list properties that could potentially be classified as “target buildings”. Per
discussions in Chapter 2 and 3 of this Plan, the CERM building and the Jefferson Center may be
added to this list, especially considering the tenants of these buildings.
Chapter 3 and the vulnerability assessment indicated that the likelihood of a terrorist attack is
very remote for University buildings. However, from time to time, threats may change and
terrorists will state that they are targeting university campuses.
• Mold
Mold grows on many different materials in high-humidity environments which are not airconditioned for a long period of time, such as the closed spaces of buildings following Hurricane
Katrina. Because some people may be negatively affected by high concentrations of mold spores
in the air, mold problems in public facilities are regarded very seriously, generally requiring
specialized personnel and equipment for treatment. Further, as noted in Chapter 3, removing
mold from University property can prove to be very expensive.
The probability of future mold growth interfering with UNO operations can be reduced by
improving back-up power sources to insure continuous air-conditioning. It may also be possible
to reduce the use of “mold friendly” materials such as traditional paper-backed sheetrock and
particle board in favor of “mold unfriendly materials such a concrete block, concrete board,
treated wood and new “sheet rock” materials.
It probably will not prove economical to remove otherwise functional materials simply to reduce
the probability of future mold problems. However, some extra expense to utilize mold unfriendly
materials in new construction or to replace materials removed for other reasons will likely be
justified.
• Recommendations
University officials should further evaluate off-site locations for potential flood retrofitting
measures designed to address low level flooding.
A water proofing specialist should inspect the exterior of each site to identify all possible sources
of water infiltration. Evaluate benefits/costs of replacing windows and installing improved seals,
or perhaps applying a film to the windows which will keep them from shattering when hit by
large debris during an event.
4-8
Building maintenance and replacement procedures should include replacing “mold-friendly”
materials with “mold-unfriendly” materials.
University officials should still pursue funding for a safe building or safe area on the main
campus which could potentially serve the entire University community.
University officials should consider adding the off-campus sites to the “Target List” to be
evaluated to determine potential needs for retrofitting to prevent intentional damage by people.
4.2.3 Development and Construction Policies
Development policies are designed to keep future buildings and landscaping up to code. Their
objective is to ensure that future development is not exposed to damage and does not increase the
likelihood of damage to other properties. Those policies affecting all University of New Orleans’
campuses include the following: building codes, capital improvements, landscaping procedures,
and stormwater management rules.
• Building Codes
Since all UNO buildings are state-owned, state building codes are applicable to all future and
pre-existing construction. RS 40:1722 establishes the Louisiana Building Code and directs that
the following codes be established as the standards as minimum standards for this code: the
Life Safety Code, Standard 101, 2006 Edition as published by the National Fire Protection
Association; XIV (Plumbing) of the State Sanitary Code as promulgated by the secretary of the
Department of Health and Hospitals; the International Building Code, 2006 Edition as published
by the International Code Council; the International Mechanical Code, 2006 Edition as published
by the International Code Council; and the National Electric Code (NFPA No. 70) 2005 Edition
as published by the National Fire Protection Association.
Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) is encouraging building back stronger and safer after major disasters in communities
nationwide. FEMA-funded mitigation and public infrastructure recovery projects — including
those in heavily impacted areas of the Gulf Coast region, such as The University of New
Orleans, are to be tied to new, higher floodplain elevations updated by FEMA using the most
accurate flood risk data available.
Communities recovering from disasters are required to use the new elevations when available.
Called Advisory Base Flood Elevations (ABFEs), the height at which there is a one percent or
greater chance of flooding in a given year, the rebuilding standards are required for all FEMAfunded mitigation and public infrastructure grant-based recovery program projects. This includes
the Public Assistance program, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant
program, Flood Mitigation Assistance program, and through the implementation of Executive
Order 11988 Floodplain Management.
4-9
For areas in Orleans and Jefferson Parishes located within existing levees, FEMA has determined
that eventual levee certification is likely. In the levee areas, FEMA recommends the following:
new construction and substantially damaged homes and businesses within a designated FEMA
floodplain should be elevated to either the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) shown on the current
effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) or at least 3 feet above the highest adjacent existing
ground elevation at the building site, whichever is higher; and new construction and substantially
damaged homes and businesses not located in a designated FEMA floodplain should be elevated
at least 3 feet above the highest adjacent existing ground elevation at the building site.
A Base Flood Elevation (BFE) is the height at which there is a one percent or greater chance of
flooding in a given year. It is the minimum building standard of the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP). Advisory Base Flood Elevations are produced to assist state and local officials
and those rebuilding in making decisions on how to reconstruct to help minimize vulnerability to
future flood events.
The Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for UNO’s off campus sites reveal that: (1) the CERM
building is located in Zone AO with a base (100-year) flood elevation of 1½ feet above sea level;
(2) Goldring Hall at the Ogden Museum is located in Zone B or the 500-year floodplain; and (3)
the Jefferson Center is located in Zone AE at a base (100-year) flood elevation of 3½ feet below
sea level. The FIRM assumes that the levees will hold during a 100-year flood. If they fail, all
three sites could be inundated by water.
New construction on campus also follows the Life Safety Code (NFPA 101), the American with
Disabilities Act, and applicable ordinances in the City of New Orleans or Jefferson Parish (in the
case of the Jefferson Center).
• Capital Improvements
A capital improvement plan will guide a community’s major public expenditures for the next 5
to 20 years. Capital expenditures may include acquisition of open space within the hazardous
areas, extension (or withholding) of public services into hazardous areas or retrofitting existing
public structures to withstand a hazard. UNO’s current Capital Outlay Plan for 2010-2011
includes projects for the Jefferson Center such as replacing the HVAC system, replacing the
main electrical switchboard, and replacing power and lighting distribution panels and feeders.
• Landscaping Procedures
Although there is no significant landscaping at the satellite locations examined in this plan,
landscaping procedures should still be considered. Falling trees or limbs cause hundreds of
millions of dollars of damage each year, as well as personal injury or death in the most extreme
cases. Since trees are particularly subject to damage by wind, ice, and snow storms, downed
trees and branches break utility lines and damage buildings, parked vehicles and anything else
under them. An urban forestry program can reduce the damage potential of trees.
4-10
Urban foresters or arborists can select hardier trees which can better withstand high wind and ice
accumulation. Lack of proper maintenance, particularly pruning, is a contributing factor in
massive damage caused to the region’s urban forest and power interruptions and threats to public
safety. Individual species are also a major factor in the amount of storm damage. The older and
larger the species of tree, the more brittle the wood and limbs tend to fail with less external stress
than younger more pliant trees.
By having stronger and more native trees, programs of proper pruning, and on-going evaluation
of the trees, universities can prevent serious damage to their tree populations. A properly written
and enforced urban forestry plan can reduce liability, alleviate the extent of fallen trees and limbs
caused by wind and ice build-up, and provide guidance on repairs and pruning after a storm.
University plant selection has been based on the hardiest, most drought tolerant plants available
to survive the University’s lack of overall irrigation. This is a collective decision formulated by
the University Grounds Manager, Campus Master Planner/Landscape Architect, and Facility
Services. Tree selection is different from plant selection. Before Hurricane Katrina, the above
offices had to re-think guidelines for the survivability of trees that would be replaced on campus.
Trees such as Bradford Pear, Mimosa, Drake’s Chinese Elm, and Southern Magnolia trees did
not survive the extreme winds from Hurricane Katrina nor the salt content of the flood waters.
Trees that were able to weather the storm with little or no damage were Bald Cypress, Pine
Cypress, Crepe Myrtle (depending on duration of submersion), Live Oak, Savannah Holly,
Water Oaks, and tropical palm trees.
The basic University stormwater management guidelines for its main campus are simple: terrace
and slope to the street whenever possible. UNO has a swale that extends ½ the perimeter around
its main campus. Water is sloped to this swale, and it carries the runoff to an underground
culvert. It then enters a City storm drain. The remaining stormwater runoff enters area drains,
located throughout the campus, which are also tied to the City of New Orleans’ storm drain
system. This is, of course, the case of the CERM building and the Ogden Museum. Regarding
the Jefferson Center, located in Jefferson Parish, storm water enters drains tied to the Jefferson
parish drainage system.
New construction in floodplains can be protected from overbank and coastal flooding by
floodplain regulations. The University of New Orleans sites are subject to stormwater flooding,
as well as flooding from potential levee breaks.
There are three main ways to prevent flooding problems caused by stormwater runoff:
- Ensure that new developments have adequate storm sewers and/or drainageways to carry
the water away;
- Require new developments to hold their excess runoff on site, so it will not overload the
existing drainageways; and
- Set construction standards so buildings are protected from shallow water.
Because most of New Orleans metropolitan area is flat and surrounded by levees protecting it
from Lake Pontchartrain and the Mississippi River, rainwater cannot flow out by gravity. It has
to be pumped out. The City of New Orleans has 22 drainage pumping stations and 13 underpass
4-11
pumping stations that pump water out of the city and into Lake Pontchartrain or canals; Jefferson
Parish operates a system of 47 drainage pumping stations. Flooding will occur if there is more
rainfall than the City’s or the Parish’s drains and pumps can handle. Generally, the pumps can
handle about one-half inch to one inch of water per hour for the first few hours. A tropical storm
or hurricane may drop several inches per hour, quickly overloading the man-made drainage
system.
Another factor contributing to the vulnerability of University buildings to shallow surface floods
are clogged storm drains. The inlets become clogged with leaves, grass clippings, mud, trash
and other debris, preventing stormwater from flowing into the large, underground collection
boxes that are part of the surface water drainage system.
Currently, UNO Facilities Services is charged with the maintenance of these drains on the main
campus as well the Jefferson Center. A private contractor is called when necessary to maintain
inlets surrounding the CERM Building.
• Recommendations
University-wide development policies should be reassessed in light of the lessons learned from
recent storm events. These policies should ensure that future development is not exposed to
damage from a storm at least as strong as Katrina and does not increase damage to other
properties.
In the next annual review, University staff should reassess all master planning documents such as
the Capital Outlay and the Strategic Plans and refine these plans to reflect the post-Katrina
environment and that includes mitigation projects.
Any additional or replacement landscaping should be limited to those species of plants and trees
that are able to withstand damaging effects of high winds and flooding. Selection of the hardiest,
most tolerant greenery should continue to be planted on all campus sites to act as a buffer where
possible.
4.2.4 Emergency Operations
Threats to university sites requiring an emergency response can be divided into two basic
categories: lead time events and rapid onset events. Lead time events are those for which there is
advance warning and consequent time for thorough preparations. Rapid onset events, in contrast,
are more difficult to respond to and prepare for due to their “surprise” nature. A third category of
hazards is not related to events that require emergency operations. These include subsidence,
drought and termites.
• Lead Time Events
Hazards that fall into this category include major meteorological events such as tropical storms,
winter storms, and hurricanes. Storms of this magnitude present the greatest material threat to the
University under most circumstances and a potential for loss of life in the absence of adequate
preparation. Events such as these affect the entire university and require the coordinated action
4-12
of all relevant entities. The following hazards are considered lead time events: hurricanes and
tropical storms that cause flood and wind damage, winter storms, epidemics and mold.
Since hurricanes are the most significant lead time event requiring emergency response that the
university is likely to face, much effort has been made, in light of recent experience, to assemble
the appropriate leadership team. To this end, the Chancellor of the University New Orleans has
designated the Vice Chancellor for Campus Services as the Plan Coordinator of the UNO
Hurricane Emergency Plan.
During the emergency period, the Plan Coordinator has supervisory responsibility over
departments and personnel who comprise the Hurricane Emergency Preparedness Team (HEPT)
and Hurricane Emergency Implementation Team (HEIT). All recommendations of the HEPT
and HEIT must be relayed by the Plan Coordinator to the University Chancellor for his approval.
The following positions comprise UNO’s Hurricane Emergency Preparedness Team (HEPT)
and are responsible for making recommendations during the pre-season preparation, threat
assessment, class cancellation, and university closure stages.
-
Vice Chancellor for Campus Services
Vice Chancellor for Research and Sponsored Programs
Dean of Library Services
Dean of Student Affairs
Assistant Vice Chancellor for Computer Services
Assistant Vice Chancellor for Public Safety
Associate Vice Chancellor for Campus Services
Associate Vice Chancellor for Enrollment Management and Dean of Admissions
Associate Vice Chancellor for Facility Services
Director, Accounting Services
Director, ARAMARK Food Services
Director, Auxiliary Services
Director, Environmental Health and Safety
Director, Human Resources
Director, Privateer Place
Director, Purchasing Department
Director, Student Housing
The following positions comprise the Hurricane Emergency Implementation Team (HEIT)
and are responsible for implementing specific detailed procedures for their area of responsibility.
Each team member may require additional staff under his/her supervision to assist in the
implementation of the Hurricane Emergency Plan.
- Vice Chancellor for Campus Services, Plan Coordinator. In charge of overall plan coordination and implementation. Updates Emergency Hotline number with information for
Essential Personnel.
4-13
-
Vice Chancellor for University Advancement 4. Updates Emergency Information Center
with information for Essential Personnel. Provides information dissemination to the local
media and updates the 504-280-6000 number with information for the general public.
-
Assistant Vice Chancellor for Computer Services. Manages all aspects of the University
Computing and Communications system. Manages and maintains the UNO website. Activates the Emergency Information Center when asked to do so. Provides support to the
Vice Chancellor for University Advancement and the Plan Coordinator as needed.
-
Assistant Vice Chancellor for Public Safety. Manages all aspects of University of New
Orleans Police Department (UNOPD) response. Provides for the protection of personnel
and campus assets. Communicates with Plan Coordinator and keeps him briefed on the
status of the campus. Coordinates communication and planning with outside police and
emergency personnel.
-
Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Fiscal Administration. Provides
information dissemination to the different campus departments and buildings. Reminds
all departments about disseminating this information to all off campus locations.
-
Associate Vice Chancellor for Facility Services. Manages all efforts of Facility Services
as the campus deals with storm preparation and storm recovery issues. Provides radios for
the administration for communication purposes.
-
Director, Auxiliary Services (Food Services, Housing). Manages all efforts for food
services and housing units as the campus deals with storm preparation and storm recovery issues.
-
Director, Environmental Health and Safety. Liaison between the University and emergency agencies such as Red Cross and New Orleans Office of Emergency Preparedness.
Provides weather, evacuation, and other emergency information as it becomes available.
-
Director, International Students and Scholars. Oversees contact with and evacuation plans
of International Students in all departments. Provides dissemination of information to this
group.
-
Dean of Student Affairs. Oversees contacts with Disabled Students, Health Services and
Judicial Affairs as necessary. Provides for information dissemination to these groups.
These groups of decision-makers are responsible for guiding the university through the range of
actions required to protect the lives of students, faculty and staff; to physically prepare the
university and to bring it back to full function in the least amount of time.
In order to disseminate the necessary information to all concerned parties, the Chancellor has
designated the Office of University Advancement 5 as the official source of university
4
This position no longer exists at the University due to recent restructuring. This will be updated as soon as a
replacement is designated in the UNO Hurricane Emergency Plan.
5
This will also be updated as the replacement for this office is designated.
4-14
announcements. This office will post official information on the UNO switchboard 504-2806000 make announcements via campus-wide email, and communicated with local TV and radio
news programs. Current information will also be available at WWNO, UNO’s public radio
station.
Emergency and essential personnel are required to monitor the University’s Emergency
Information Hotline as well as the Emergency Information Center (EIC) found on UNO’s
Sharepoint site.
The University of New Orleans has developed a Hurricane Emergency Plan that includes general
guidelines for all students, faculty and staff, in the event of a tropical storm or hurricane.
The Plan is divided into five stages. The action steps indicated in the stages may or may not be
taken within the stages listed, depending on the circumstances of the storm and time of day in
which the storm occurs. In addition, the Plan Coordinator may declare a change in stage at any
time due to the unpredictable nature of hurricanes.
Stage 1. Pre-Season Preparation
This stage is focused primarily on having students, faculty and staff devise their own Personal
Emergency Plan. It also includes a list of sources of information to help individuals develop their
plans and remain informed of the progress of events.
Stage 2. Threat Assessment
Stage 2 begins when the Director of Environmental Health & Safety sees that a weather pattern
is elevated to tropical storm status and poses possible danger to Louisiana. This stage marks the
beginning of the implementation of the hurricane plan and consists of various levels of
information gathering and sharing. It is also during this stage that the HEPT makes a decision
regarding class cancellation and/or evacuation, generally some 72 hours before predicted
landfall.
Stage 3. Class Cancellation
At this point non-resident students are instructed to initiate their evacuation plan. All required
employees are likewise instructed to remain on campus until discharged by their supervisor.
Once it has been verified that all buildings have been evacuated and secured, the university
moves to Stage 4.
Stage 4. University Closure
During Stage 4 all faculty and staff (with the exception of critical emergency personnel
specifically designated by the Chancellor to maintain campus security and physical plant
operations) are required to leave campus after discharging their responsibilities under the plan.
The Student Housing Campus Evacuation Plan is initiated during this stage.
Stage 5. Aftermath
4-15
The final stage of the plan deals with damage assessment, recovery, reopening, and return to
classes. This stage is divided into four phases: In the Damage Assessment stage, post-emergency
response teams will come to the campus and inspect the facilities to make sure it is safe for other
employees and resident students to return to the UNO Campus. In the Recovery stage, the
essential university personnel are allowed back onto the campus to begin cleaning up and
preparing their areas to be open to the public. In the Reopening stage, all other University
Personnel and resident students are allowed on campus to finalize cleanup and prepare for the
opening of the university. In the Return to Classes stage, the University resumes its normal
operations.
• Rapid Onset Events
Rapid onset events include both natural and man-made disasters. These events can affect the
entire university or a smaller part thereof. All pose a greater threat to life than storms or other
hazards that provide advance warning. Rapid onset events include: thunderstorms that cause
stormwater flooding, minor wind damage, hail and lightning; tornadoes; earthquakes; hazardous
materials spills; nuclear accidents; civil unrest and terrorism.
Building coordinators are the main contact point for information dissemination in each building.
They also keep an eye out for safety deficiencies in their buildings. In the case of an evacuation
building coordinators are the designated person to ensure that the building is evacuated. They are
also the point person in an evacuation, i.e., fire or bomb threat, that receives the reports from the
different offices in the building on the conditions of those other offices and transmits that
information to the authorities as required. Pre-storm preparations require building coordinators to
walk around the exterior of their building and identify dangerous situations then report them to
Facility Services or take care of it them themselves.
Building coordinators are appointed by the administration. Usually it is one of the highest
ranking persons in that building. The building coordinators receive no extra compensation for
their extra duties thus people are not eager to become building coordinators. There are some
building coordinators that take their duties seriously thus their buildings are usually in better
shape than those who do not take their jobs seriously.
Tornadoes. At present, the university has no means of protection against tornadoes other than
the general instruction to seek safety in an interior room of a significant structure. The Weather
Service does issue tornado advisories that can provide up to 15 minutes warning time in which
many people can get to safety in that amount of time. Although there is a campus-wide
emergency warning system comprised of the e2campus text messaging system and an emergency
warning siren, the system only targets the main campus in terms of tornadoes. A new siren to be
installed in the near future on the main campus also will reach the CERM Building but will, of
course, not serve as a warning to the Jefferson Campus or to the Ogden Museum. Hence, for
these two off-campus sites, the main problem is lack of effective means of advance warning to
faculty/staff, students, tenants and visitors. A simple solution to this challenge is for the building
managers to have weather alert radios set to initiate a warning if the localized area is threatened
by a tornado. These radios are very inexpensive and effective. It is also advisable for the
4-16
building managers, as well as tenants, at these off-campus sites to register with the Orleans
Parish or Jefferson Parish emergency text message system. WWNO also monitors the National
Weather Service’s severe weather warnings.
Hazardous Materials Spills. A threat from hazardous materials can take three basic forms:
accidental release of materials, release of larger quantities of toxic material on nearby railway
lines or by a truck on adjacent roadways, or the intentional release of materials due to a terrorist
attack.
Given the small quantities of such materials present at the off-site locations, an accidental release
at one of these sites would likely be a localized event affecting one or two buildings. Response
to a spill at one of these locations would be handled by the New Orleans Fire Department or the
Jefferson Parish East Bank Consolidated Fire Department.
If toxic chemicals were released by a train derailment or a truck on the Interstate near an offsite
location, the University has to rely on the City of New Orleans or Jefferson Parish to inform
them of the incident. It is unknown how quickly this notification would occur. However,
University officials can receive alerts via text message from Jefferson Parish Emergency Alert
System, NOLAReady, the New Orleans Community Alert System and/or UNO’s e2Campus. In
addition, review by University officials of the notification plan that currently exists for the City
of New Orleans/ Jefferson Parish and the railroad system would give the University more
awareness of the most effective way for the building to respond.
In instances where sudden evacuation is not possible due to the rapid arrival of the chemical
cloud, there is the need to alert the building to “shelter in place.” As mentioned, there is a
campus-wide alert system that will soon include the CERM Building with the addition of second
siren on campus. UNO’s e2Campus could be used to alert the University community including
those located in the Jefferson Center and the Ogden Museum. However, only University
faculty/staff and students are allowed to register with e2Campus. Tenants and visitors will have
to rely on building managers communicating message throughout their respective buildings.
Civil Unrest. Perhaps the biggest unforeseen issue in the Katrina experience involved the
appearance on campus of large numbers of people from the surrounding flooded neighborhoods.
As UNO sits on higher ground, this was a natural occurrence. However, these survivors broke
into campus buildings and not only took what they needed to survive, but some engaged in
looting and vandalism.
Per reports, this was not an issue for the off-campus sites post-Katrina. However, as mentioned
in earlier chapters, it is not improbable that acts of civil unrest could occur in the future at offcampus sites. However, there is full-time security employed by the Ogden Museum. The
CERM Building has a key card system for after hours and does employ security patrols on the
outside of the building but lacks control of access to the building during normal business hours.
The Jefferson Center has various issues that need further review including open access to
multiple building entrances, lack of perimeter fence, and proximity of parking to the building.
4-17
Terrorism. Terrorism can come in many forms. Explosive devices, toxic chemicals or
biological compounds and firearms can cause massive loss of life if employed by a determined
individual or group.
Bomb “threats” are an unfortunately common occurrence on many University campuses, often
called in by individuals with a grievance or simply by those wishing to avoid a deadline of some
sort. However, since the detonation of a bomb in a building has the potential to cause great loss
of life, all bomb threats must be treated seriously. The University has detailed bomb threat
procedures for both those receiving the phone threat as well as for safety personnel.
As discussed above, terrorist attacks can come in many forms. It may not be feasible for the
university to fully protect itself from every possible type of attack. In the case of a bomb threat,
the university is relatively well prepared. In the case of a Columbine type incident or a sniper
lodged on the roof of a tall building, the university police rely on city or parish SWAT teams.
Some members of the UNO Campus Police department have been trained in SWAT and would
most likely be first on the scene in response to an event at CERM.
• Recommendations
Use GIS (Geographic Information Systems) to provide location (including photos, video, etc.)
data to assist firefighters and HAZMAT personnel. First responders could have at their
fingertips the location of any hazardous materials as well as the locations of critical infrastructure
such as electrical shutoffs, water valves, etc.
Prior coordination between the off-site campus building managers and outside first response
agencies such as the NOPD and Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office should lead to more effective
emergency response.
Once the second emergency siren that will reach CERM occupants is installed, ensure that there
is adequate training/information dissemination such that, when the alarm sounds, people know
what to do. Coordinate with Ogden Museum and the Jefferson Center to ensure there is a plan in
place to communicate any rapid onset events to all building occupants including tenants and
visitors.
Encourage faculty/staff and students to register cell phones and email addresses on E2Campus
(http://ucc.uno.edu/notification/) for the emergency text messaging system. This system allows
you to receive immediate notification of emergency situations such as school closures, etc.
Review the possibility of allowing tenants of off-campus sites to register. Encourage building
coordinators to also register with Jefferson Parish and/or Orleans Parish emergency alert systems
as well.
Conduct further review of security measures at off-campus sites including CERM and the
Jefferson Center (cameras, motion-activated lights, open access to building during the day; open
parking lot and parking too close to building, lack of perimeter fencing). Also, review current
emergency plans for inclusion of potential act of campus violence. Additionally, violence
prevention programs should be investigated.
4-18
Extend all emergency-related training and outreach efforts offered to the main University
campus to all off-site locations. Identify ways in which to reach out to tenants and visitors as
well.
4.2.5 University Operations
All major operational components of the University must be examined in order to develop a
comprehensive mitigation program. Teaching, both in a classroom and online, research,
management functions, information technology, and student services are all vital to the
University in fulfilling its mission.
The University also relies on the continuity of utilities such as electricity and water. The loss of
such services can completely shut down University services and must be prevented. Even in the
case of a disruption to operations, such as an evacuation for a storm, continuously functioning
utilities are vital for short-term recovery and resumption of University business processes. The
guaranteed presence of electricity allows buildings to be maintained at an optimum temperature
and prevents the loss of property which is vital to both education and research.
Continuity of University operations should be carefully planned, and such planning usually takes
the form of a Business Continuity Plan. A Business Continuity Plan (BCP) is a tool used by the
various departments in an organization to ensure the swift resumption of normal operations
following a disaster event. Some universities have elected to purchase software or hire a
consulting firm to create their BCP. A BCP might include any of the following: identification of
mission critical functions, a Business Impact Analysis, a Risk Reduction Survey, Maximum
Acceptable Outage for business processes, and a prioritization of functions.
Post Emergency Response teams perform a damage assessment on University buildings as soon
it is feasible to return after an emergency event. They inspect the facilities (all buildings,
grounds, and utilities) to determine a timeframe for other employees and resident students to
safely return to the affected UNO site. The Post Emergency Response Teams report any unsafe
campus conditions to the Highest Ranking Officer of UNO Police. This officer communicates
with the Chancellor of the university to inform him of the status of that campus. If the campus is
deemed safe, a decision is made on proceeding with reopening the campus. Essential personnel
are allowed onto the campus for clean up and preparation of the area to be opened to the public.
All remaining individuals such as university personnel, tenants and resident students return to the
area for reopening.
Since Hurricane Katrina, many improvements are under way to assist in improving the
resumption of university operations after a disaster. Plans for some improvements were under
way pre-Katrina, whereas others began in light of Hurricane Katrina. For example, the
University Computing and Communications has developed a “mirror” site or “hot” swappable
center for mission critical computer systems. The site is located on the LSU Baton Rouge
campus at the Frey Computer Center. This backup location has hardware and software identical
to that used on the main campus. Using synchronization software we will keep these systems
updated in real time so that at a moment’s notice the university can switch computing functions
4-19
from the main campus to the backup site. The switching process can take anywhere from 5-30
minutes to complete. Approximately 25 backup servers are being maintained at the Frey
Computer Center. The following systems have been identified as mission critical functions:
Domain Controller, DNS Server, Web (UNO Home Page), E-mail (MS Exchange for faculty,
staff and students), PeopleSoft Learning Solutions (HR/Payroll/Student Administration), and
PeopleSoft Financials (General Ledger, Purchasing, Payables).
In addition to improving redundancy of computer systems, UCC has also established redundant
network links to the servers located in Baton Rouge and the main campus. These links have
been established with two independent communication providers and therefore take two different
paths from campus to Baton Rouge. Additionally, the university has two Internet service
providers and has increased communications bandwidth to the off campus servers from 45
megabits to 100megabits.
The university also has a natural gas generator in the computer center capable of running all
servers, network equipment and air conditioning units located in our computer room. This will
allow for survival through intermittent power outages and provide for the ability to run computer
systems without depending on the city’s electric service provider.
Other plans for improvements being discussed involve administrators and critical staff having
one satellite phone and additional cell phone numbers with outside area codes so that if an
instance such as Katrina occurs, where cell phones in the retrospective area did not work, the
person could still be contacted through additional contact numbers. Wireless cards, in addition
to other software, and notebooks/laptops are being considered for staff so that they may bring
their work with them in the event of an evacuation. In addition, University Computing and
Communication is working towards having two toll-free telephone numbers to allow students,
faculty, and staff to call the university. The additional telephone line will be for essential
personnel to retrieve information.
These improvements, both those still in the process of discussion and those that are in the
process of implementation, will increase business continuity of the university, and in turn help to
fulfill the University’s mission.
• Recommendations
Develop a university-wide Business Continuity Plan that includes the identification of mission
critical functions and related resources, a Business Impact Analysis that includes a list of each
University business function along with its priority level its impact on the University and related
costs.
The University should designate a temporary operations center for each campus in the event of a
disaster that leads to an evacuation. Related plans should be developed including who will be
required to go to the Center, what they will need to bring, when they need to arrive, etc.
4-20
4.2.6 Information and Education
Developing Public Information projects is the first step in the process of orienting students,
faculty and staff to the hazards they face and the concept of mitigation. Projects should be
designed to encourage people to seek out more information in order to take steps to protect
themselves, the University, and their property.
Research has proven that outreach projects are effective. Information can bring about voluntary
mitigation activities at little or no cost to the University. However, awareness of the hazard is
not enough; people must also be told what they can do to protect themselves from the hazard.
Projects should include information on safety, health, and property protection measures.
Research has also shown that local programs are more effective than national advertising or
publicity campaigns. Therefore, outreach projects should be locally designed and tailored to the
University community.
Messages used as part of Public Information projects may be tailored to the target audience. The
types of messages appropriate for students depend on the student’s particular situation (e.g.,
disabled students, students residing in campus housing, students from outside of the New
Orleans metropolitan area, international students, students without transportation, etc.).
Faculty and staff are charged with the protection of the University’s property. They must be
trained on how to back up information systems, protect valuable items, and safeguard their own
belongings. Currently, faculty and staff do not receive much guidance from the University.
Some departments may have policies in place for faculty, but the University, as a whole does
not. Certain critical staff members are tasked with protection measures prior to a storm event,
such as clearing debris. These tasks are outlined in the Hurricane Action Plan found on the
university web site. However, this plan appears to only be used by Facilities Services.
Visitors from outside of the area may be without transportation and be unfamiliar with the
evacuation process. These individuals should be advised to alter their travel arrangements, if
possible, to exit the area prior to a mandatory evacuation. Visitors may require transportation to
the airport, or information on evacuation routes if they will be driving out of the area. At the
present time, no information is available specifically for visitors.
Public information campaigns can include various forms of media including handouts,
newsletters/mailings, websites, news media, WWNO, campus presentations, signs, etc.
Brochures can be made available in administrative buildings and the library, or in other hightraffic areas where students, faculty/staff, tenants and visitors are likely to notice the materials.
Signs, located around campus in high traffic areas, can also serve to inform those individuals
who both notice and read them. Signs providing evacuation and hazard information are not
currently in place on the campus.
The most effective types of outreach projects are mailed or distributed to everyone in the
community. A school paper, like UNO’s Driftwood, may reach the entire University community. A website, such as the University’s website, can also be an effective means of providing
4-21
information to all University stakeholders. One advantage of providing information over the
Internet is that it can be easily accessed by anyone with a computer and a connection. Parents
outside of the New Orleans metropolitan area can easily look for updates and access the same
information as the students themselves. However, it is critical that the information on the
website is easy to locate and access. Faculty/staff and students can currently access some
disaster preparedness information on the UNO website. This information can be found on the
UNO Environmental Health & Safety website. A Hurricane Preparedness / Action Plan, and a
guide to protecting personal information are both available.
Local newspapers can be strong allies in efforts to inform the public. Press releases and story
ideas may be all that is needed for their interest. After a tornado in another community, people
and the media became interested in their tornado hazard and how to protect themselves and their
property. Local radio stations and cable TV channels can also be helpful. These media offer
interview formats and cable TV and may be willing to broadcast videos on the hazards.
WWNO, the local radio station operated by The University of New Orleans is implementing a
plan to continue broadcasting during a disaster event. This radio station will be able to deliver
important information to students, and other individuals, within the Greater New Orleans Area.
Presentations at meetings of University groups, particularly around orientation, also can be an
effective form of outreach. At the present time, few such presentations are made. Some
information is given during both Freshman Orientation and the International Student Orientation.
Overall, there are many ways that public information can be used so that students, faculty/staff,
tenants and visitors will be more aware of the hazards they face and how they can protect
themselves. University staff can implement many of the proposed public information activities.
By formalizing its activities, a University can ensure that all individuals receive proper and
adequate information.
• Recommendations
Safety workshops should be held during student orientation. All student, faculty, and staff
should be provided with wallet-sized cards containing safety information as well as a detailed
evacuation list. Work with Student Government to develop activities during National Preparedness Month, September, to engage students and provide them with important information.
The University’s website should include mitigation information in addition to the emergency
plans already listed.
4.3
PRIORITIES
The Research Team, along with the members of the Advisory Team reviewed and discussed
many things that can be done to protect people and property from the 17 hazards introduced in
Chapter 2. It was recognized that priorities must be set so the University’s resources can focus on
those activities that will do the most good. Accordingly, five factors were used to prioritize what
should be pursued:
4-22
1. The greatest threats
Efforts should focus on those hazards that present the greatest threats to the University.
Chapter 3 reviewed the University’s vulnerability to the 17 hazards and concluded in
Section 3.18.4:
-
Some types of property and areas are more vulnerable than others.
-
The hazards that are likely to cause the most property damage over the long
run are tropical storms and tornadoes.
-
The greatest threats to people over the long run are hazmat accidents, storm
surge, and tropical storms.
-
Hazards that have high impacts on university operations over the long run are
wind, flooding, lightning, and civil unrest.
2. Appropriate measures
The recommended action items need to be appropriate for the type of threat presented.
For example, Chapter 3’s analysis notes that the major threat presented by hazardous materials spills and nuclear accidents is to people, not property, so emergency operations
and public information measures should be directed toward those hazards. Property protection measures can protect existing buildings from lower scale hazards, such as
stormwater flooding and tropical storm winds.
3. Costs and benefits
The Research Team considered the costs and relative benefits of alternative measures.
These factors are listed in the description of each action item. Costs can usually be listed
in terms of dollars, although most of the recommendations involve staff time rather than
the purchase of equipment or services that can be readily measured in dollars.
In many cases, benefits, such as lives saved or future damage prevented, are hard to
measure in dollars, so narrative discussions are provided. In all cases, the Team concluded that the benefits (in terms of reduced property damage, lives saved, health and
mental health problems averted and/or continuation of University operations) outweighed
the costs for the recommended action items.
4. Affordability
Not only must the benefits exceed the costs, the projects must be affordable given the
University’s available resources and staffing. Projects such as relocating a campus or
clearing existing buildings and replacing them with flood and wind resistant structures
were discarded because they did not meet these criteria. Other activities, such as retrofitting existing buildings, are dependent on outside or additional funding.
4-23
5. Environmental impact
The impact of a project on both the natural and human environment was also considered.
The Advisory Committee reviewed and prioritized the possible mitigation activities that could be
pursued by the University. The result is a list of 14 action items that address the major hazards,
are appropriate for those hazards, are cost-effective, are affordable and have minimal negative
impacts on the human and natural environment.
4.4 ACTION ITEMS
Each action item recommended in this plan is related to one or more of the goals set for this plan
and to recommendations found in Section 4.2. Fifteen action items are recommended in the
following pages. Each action item starts with a short description.
The next five subheadings identify:
− the office responsible for implementing the action item,
− the deadline for accomplishing the action item,
− the cost of implementation,
− the benefits of implementing the action item, and
− the hazards addressed by that action item.
All of the action items can be tied to the above listed goals and strategies and the recommendations in section 4.2. These relationships are shown in Table 4-1. The recommendations
and the discussions in section 4.2 provide more background and direction on each action item.
4-24
Table 4-1 Action Item Summary
Action Item 1.
5. Attention to special resources
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
4.2.6
x
4.2.6
x
4.2.4, 4.2.6
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Recommendations
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
6. Invest appropriate resources
4. Disaster recovery capabilities
x
x
x
x
3. Emergency response capabilities
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
2. Educate faculty, staff and students
x
x
x
x
1. Strengthen buildings and facilities
1. DRU Advisory Committee
2. Flood retrofitting measures
3. Safe floor/area
4. Target building evaluation
5. Development policies evaluation
6. Master Plan reassessment
7. Building and GIS data
8. Emergency operations procedures
9. Emergency warning system
10. Business continuity plan
11. Hazard protection education
12. Hazard protection information
projects
13. Increased Use of Online Learning
14. Violence Prevention/Mental
Health
3. Continuity of University operations
Action Item
Strategies
2. Protect buildings and infrastructure
1. Protect lives and health
Goals
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
4.1
4.2.2
4.2.2
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.2.4
4.2.4
4.2.5
4.2.4, 4.2.6
Permanent DRU Advisory Committee
In May 2007, members of the original DRU Advisory Team agreed to participate in the DRU
Advisory Committee on a permanent basis. This Committee has recently been expanded to
include representatives of the off-campus sites. Duties of this Team include:
─ act as a forum for hazard mitigation issues,
─ disseminate hazard mitigation ideas and activities to all participants,
4-25
─ monitor the incorporation of this Plan into other planning mechanisms,
─ monitor implementation of this Plan and
─ report on progress and recommended changes to the Chancellor.
The Committee does not have any powers over University offices or staff. It is a purely an
advisory body. Its primary duty is to collect information and report to the participating offices
and the Chancellor on how well this Plan is being implemented. The DRU Advisory Committee
is, in effect, UNO’s hazard mitigation conscience, reminding the offices and staff that they are all
stakeholders in the Plan’s success. While it has no formal powers, its work should act as a strong
incentive for the offices responsible for the action items to meet their deadlines. Members of the
Committee include:
─
─
─
─
─
─
─
─
─
─
─
─
─
─
─
─
─
Auxiliary Services
University Computing and Communication
CHART, Ad hoc and staff support
Student Affairs
University Police
Environmental Health and Safety Office
Public Safety
Academic Affairs & Fiscal Administration
University Relations & Campus Services
Lakefront Arena/CERM
Facility Services
University Student Housing
Technology and Economic Development
University Advancement
Campus Services
Ogden Museum
Jefferson Center
In addition to the above listed duties, the Committee should continue to consider whether other
individuals or groups should be invited to participate and to nominate new committee members
when appropriate. The Committee should also continue attempts to include student leaders in
the Mitigation Planning Process.
Deadline: Annual progress reports are due on the anniversary of the date the Plan is adopted by
the Board of Supervisors. A five-year update is required for continuing credit of this Plan under
FEMA’s mitigation funding programs.
Cost: Staff time.
Benefits: Those responsible for implementing the various recommendations have many other
jobs to do. A monitoring system helps ensure that they don’t forget their assignments or fall
behind in working on them. The Plan should be evaluated in light of progress, changed
4-26
conditions, and new opportunities. The end result will be an up-to-date and effective collection
of mitigation activities that will reduce the University’s exposure to the hazards.
Hazards Addressed: All 17 hazards, natural and human-caused listed in the hazard identification
and analysis.
Action Item 2.
Retrofitting Measures that Address Flood and Wind
Off site locations that were damaged by recent storms will be (1) retrofitted with appropriate
floodproofing measures and/or (2) retrofitted with appropriate wind retrofitting measures. The
retrofitting projects may be funded as mitigation actions under various FEMA programs.
Responsible agency: Facility Services
Deadline: When the applications for FEMA programs are due.
Cost: To be determined when the applications are completed.
Benefits: Each building will be protected from the type of damage caused by Hurricanes
Katrina/Rita/Gustav.
The actual benefits of each project will vary, but at a minimum, FEMA’s benefit/cost software
will be used to demonstrate that the benefits exceed the costs over time.
Hazards Addressed: Floods, Wind, Storm Surge.
Action Item 3.
Safe Floor/Area
The University is currently scoping a “safe floor/area” that will function as the “University
Disaster Management Center” on the main campus. It will perform multiple functions. It will:
─ Be retrofitted t to withstand Category 5 winds and the 500-year flood,
─ House an emergency operations and communications center, and
─ Provide shelter to a cadre of University emergency management and public safety staff
during extreme events.
If community residents come onto campus to seek safety, the University will facilitate the flow
of evacuees to a designated area for temporary shelter. The designated area will serve as a pickup point for public authorities to evacuate these residents to a safer location out of the area.
In addition, increased collaboration between the city, these public authorities, and UNO officials
will be required. Collaboration should involve discussions that include these public authorities
possibly residing in the Campus Disaster Management Center at UNO.
4-27
Responsible agency: Facility Services.
Deadline: When the applications for Hazard Mitigation Grants are due.
Cost: To be determined when the application is completed.
Benefits: The Campus Disaster Management Center will provide protection to the Campus from
the type of damage that interrupted university operations after Hurricane Katrina.
Adequate staff available during and after an event, may prevent problems created by evacuees or
intruders and post-disaster clean up can proceed faster. The Campus Disaster Management
Center will have a secure source of power, which will allow for the control of temperature and
humidity in buildings. This may help to avoid or reduce the tremendous expense of mold
remediation. FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program requires that the University demonstrate that the benefits of the project exceed the costs over time.
Although this Center will be housed on the main campus, it will also serve the CERM Building
as it is adjacent to the campus. Of course, its ultimate goal is related to the continuity of the
entire University which benefits all campus sites.
Hazards Addressed: Floods, Wind, Hail, Lightning, Storm Surge, Mold, Earthquakes, Civil
Unrest.
Action Item 4.
Target Building Evaluation – all buildings
Chapters 3 and 8 of the original University of New Orleans Hazard Mitigation Plan identify eight
buildings on UNO’s main campus that would be likely targets for terrorists, vandals, protesters,
and others wanting to do damage to campus structures and operations. Earlier sections of this
plan identify additional buildings that may be considered targets as well. Each of these performs
a different function and would offer a different opportunity for an attacker.
All University buildings (including off-site locations) should be prioritized to identify an order in
which buildings should be evaluated based on the types of hazards to which each may be
vulnerable. Each will be evaluated separately to determine where they are vulnerable and to
identify appropriate retrofitting or other protective actions.
Members of UNO Police have received training related to construction/landscaping techniques
and homeland security. Facility Services should coordinate with these individuals to assist
identifying/scoping future retrofitting projects.
Responsible agency: University Police in conjunction with the Environmental Health and Safety
Office and Facility Services.
Deadline: Two years from adoption of this Plan.
4-28
Cost: Staff time.
Benefits: University buildings offer attackers opportunities to do great damage to the University
and its operations. The evaluations will identify the best way(s) to defend against such attacks.
Individual recommended retrofitting projects will be reviewed to ensure that they are costeffective.
Hazards Addressed: Civil Unrest, Terrorism.
Action Item 5.
Future Development and Construction Policies Evaluation
The University has a variety of development and construction policies and procedures that
govern how sites are developed and improved. DRU Advisory Team members involved in policy
development should review/recommend to incorporate the following:
─ Building maintenance and replacement procedures to include: provisions for replacing
windows and roofs with appropriate wind and mold resistant materials and technology, or
to provide for the stability of structures in the instance of an earthquake,
─ Standards for construction of new buildings to include stronger wind, hail, and water
standards than required by current state codes, and standards for construction considering
subsidence of the land,
─ Landscaping guidance to focus on those species of plants and trees that are able to withstand the damaging effects high winds, flooding, and drought, and
─ Landscaping guidance to identify the best locations for trees and plants to act as buffers
against wind.
Responsible agency: Facility Services
Deadline: Two years from adoption of this Plan.
Cost: Staff time.
Benefits: The measures listed above are relatively inexpensive approaches to mitigate lowintensity hazards. They can be incorporated into ongoing programs and policies to ensure that
only cost-effective approaches are included. The result will be better protection of all University
buildings and facilities at minimal additional cost.
Hazards Addressed: Floods, Wind, Hail, Lightning, Storm Surge, Winter Storms, Subsidence,
Earthquakes
4-29
Action Item 6.
Master Plan Reassessment
All University plans including the Capital Outlay Plan, the Strategic Plan, and the Institutional
Effectiveness Plan, will be reviewed every year in light of the annual report by DRU Advisory
Committee members to reflect the current environment.
Responsible agency: Facility Services
Deadline: Before the next annual review.
Cost: Staff time.
Benefits: Close coordination of the University’s master planning initiatives with its mitigation
objectives will ensure that future projects will be appropriately protected from hazards.
By having a flexible and responsive capital outlay program, the University can better react to its
immediate needs and opportunities that arise from recent disasters. Before large amounts of
funds are spent, each project will be reviewed to ensure that the construction will be disaster
resistant.
Hazards Addressed: Floods, Wind, Hail, Storm Surge, Subsidence, Earthquakes, Terrorism.
Action Item 7.
Building and GIS Data
There is a wealth of information on all University buildings, facilities and infrastructure.
However, a majority of the information is not in a format readily usable by police, fire and other
emergency personnel. Some building floor prints have been collected and put into GIS, in
addition to basic attributes of those buildings. Under this project, this work will continue and
information will be collected, catalogued, organized, and provided in formats that first responders need. The data will include:
─ Ground and rooftop entries and exits,
─ Electrical and gas shutoffs,
─ Water valves,
─ Ductwork and utility corridors,
─ Valuable and abnormal contents, such as computers and animal colonies,
─ Hazardous materials and chemicals,
─ GIS locational data of these components, and
─ Photos and videos to assist first responders in navigating a dangerous situation.
Responsible agency: CHART in coordination with Facility Services.
4-30
Deadline: One year after completion of the target building evaluations (Action Item 4)
Cost: Staff time. A grant would need to be obtained.
Benefits: The Building and GIS data will provide information on structural aspects, infrastructure, and contents, in effect addressing all natural hazards except drought. The target building
evaluations (Action item 5) will identify the key features of campus buildings and facilities that
are of interest to first responders. After these key buildings are evaluated, the remaining
buildings will be inventoried. The result will be very useful data that can facilitate response to a
variety of hazard events, especially fires, power outages, hazardous materials accidents,
terrorists, snipers and other people threatening lives or property. The benefits in lives, property
and University down time could be immense. The completion of this task will also benefit
Facilities Management’s Spatial Plan.
Hazards Addressed: Floods, Wind, Hail, Lightning, Storm Surge, Winter Storms, Subsidence,
Earthquakes, Termites, Epidemics, Mold, Hazardous Materials Spills, Nuclear Accidents, Civil
Unrest, and Terrorism.
Action Item 8.
Emergency Operations Procedures
The University has several different plans for different hazards, emergencies, and contingencies.
Under this action item, they will be reviewed, coordinated, and augmented as appropriate to
include the following:
─ Improved coordination with City and State emergency management offices,
─ Improved coordination with/participation of representatives of off-campus sites,
─ Monitoring NOAA Weather Radio and local police frequencies in addition to agency
alerts to provide early warning of an incident or weather event,
─ Specific response actions for different hazards,
─ Improved evacuation instructions,
─ Identification of additional equipment and supplies that may be needed by campus first
responders, such as radiation detectors, and night vision devices,
─ Operating procedures for an emergency operations center,
─ Training and exercises for all affected personnel, and
─ Distribution of the procedures to all appropriate parties on and off campus.
Responsible agency: University Police and Environmental and Health Safety Office under the
Department of Public Safety
Deadline: One year from adoption of this Plan.
4-31
Cost: Staff time.
Benefits: Emergency operations procedures that have been carefully prepared, that are based on
all available data on the hazards and their potential impact, that utilize the latest planning and
management tools, and that are regularly exercised will greatly improve the University’s disaster
response capabilities.
Better disaster response means less loss of life, injury to people, damage to property, and/or
disruption of university operations.
Hazards Addressed: All 17 hazards, natural and human-caused, listed in the hazard identification
and analysis.
Action Item 9.
Emergency Warning System
The University has established a text-message based system to identify an impending hazard and
to issue warnings appropriate to the situation. Monitoring and warning procedures should be
incorporated into current emergency response procedures. An outdoor system of sirens is also
being implemented with one siren already located on the roof of the library and another siren to
be installed closer to the UNO R&T Park (which includes the CERM Building). The siren will
be operated by university police and will be used in the event of a tornado, a shooter/violence on
campus, or a hazardous chemical release.
As part of the implementation process, the University will provide training for use and
interpretation of warning systems. Training methods should be developed under this action item.
Responsible agency: University Police and Environmental and Health Safety Office under the
Department of Public Safety
Deadline: Design the system within two years of adoption of this Plan.
Cost: Staff time to design the system and cost of additional siren.
Benefits: Early recognition of a tornado, hazardous materials spill plume, nuclear accident, civil
unrest, or other rapid onset hazard can save lives and prevent property damage. For example, five
minutes of warning of a tornado or lightning would give authorities time to issue an order for
everyone to seek shelter indoors. This will augment the fire alarm system which is only indoors
and which instructs everyone to go outside.
Hazards Addressed: Tornadoes, Hazardous Materials Spill, Nuclear Accident, Civil Unrest,
Terrorism, Winter Storms, Wind (Hurricane), Flood (levee failure), Storm Surge, Hailstorms,
and Lightning.
.
4-32
Action Item 10. Business Continuity Plan
The University will create a University wide Business Continuity Plan (BCP) to ensure that the
University can continue mission critical functions. The creation of the BCP will require (1) the
identification of mission critical functions along with the resources and costs it will take for their
continued execution (2) the creation of a Business Impact Analysis (BIA), and (3) the creation of
a Risk Reduction Survey (RRS).
The BCP will also involve the designation of key officials to a designated temporary operations
center. Officials will know what they need to bring with them to the center in the event of a
disaster. Copies of the BCP will be kept by key department members and at the designated
temporary operations center. Representatives of UNO’s off-campus sites may play an integral
role in this effort as the Jefferson Center served as the only functioning site in the New Orleans
Metropolitan Area following Hurricane Katrina.
Responsible agency for development: CHART
Responsible agency for implementation: Academic Affairs/Administration
Deadline: Develop the BCP within one year after the adoption of this Plan.
Cost: A grant will be necessary for CHART to assist in the development of the Plan. Staff time
for implementation.
Benefits: A BCP will assist in short-term recovery and help to ensure that the mission critical
functions of the university are allowed to continue in the event of a hazard. It will also help to
ensure the long-term viability of the University as an institution.
Hazards Addressed: All 17 hazards, natural and human-caused listed in the hazard identification
and analysis.
Action Item 11. Hazard Protection Education
A short training course on the hazards faced by UNO and the appropriate safety and property
protection measures will be developed. Students will be encouraged to take the course either in a
classroom, on Blackboard, UNO’s web-based learning tool, or SharePoint. There will be a test at
the end to verify that the person understands the key points. Faculty and staff may be required to
take the course.
All new faculty and staff, regardless of work location, should receive information at their
orientations, in addition to students, who should receive information at new student orientations.
CHART in partnership with Academic affairs will continue to work together to distribute
emergency management information at orientations.
4-33
Responsible agency for content development: CHART
Responsible agency for implementation: Academic Affairs
Deadline: The course will be drafted within one year of adoption of this Plan.
Cost: Staff time.
Benefits: An educated student body will be a safer student body. Students (and participating
faculty and staff) will know how to protect their computers, vehicles, and homes from damage
and what they can do to prevent or minimize problems on campus (e.g., keep storm drain inlets
cleared). The end result will be a knowledgeable population who will take steps to protect
themselves, their belongings, and campus property at minimal cost to the University.
Hazards Addressed: All 17 hazards, natural and human-caused listed in the hazard identification
and analysis.
Action Item 12. Hazard Protection Information Projects
Each year, the DRU Advisory Committee will institute a series of projects to advise faculty,
staff, and students about hazard safety and property protection. These will be reminders for those
who have taken the hazard protection course. Examples of such projects include:
─ Providing all faculty, staff, and students with a small wallet card with safety information,
─ Providing all faculty, staff, and students with an evacuation checklist,
─ Providing hazard and mitigation information on the University’s website, along with
links to related sites,
─ Selling pre-packaged disaster supply kits and weather radios in the University bookstore,
and
─ Observing National Preparedness Month (September) with special activities, such as a
remembrance of Hurricane Katrina and the launching of new public information projects.
Responsible agency: PIO in conjunction with the Department of Public Safety, CHART, and
Human Resources.
Deadline: The first projects will be drafted within one year of adoption of this Plan.
Cost: Staff time.
Benefits: The projects will reinforce other campus, city, state, and federal efforts to inform
people about the hazards and ways to protect people and property. The end result will be a
knowledgeable population who will take steps to protect themselves, their belongings, and
campus property at minimal cost to the University.
4-34
Hazards Addressed: All 17 hazards, natural and human-caused listed in the hazard identification
and analysis.
Action Item 13. Increased Use of On-line Learning
The University will develop a plan to increase the continuity of university operations, particularly the continuance of classes in the event of a hazard. This plan will encourage more faculty and
students to learn how to use UNO’s web-based learning tool, Blackboard and Sharepoint.
Responsible Agency: Academic Affairs in conjunction with University Computing and
Communication.
Deadline: This plan will be developed within one year of the adoption of this Plan.
Cost: Staff time.
Hazards Addressed: All 17 hazards, natural and human-caused listed in the hazard identification
and analysis.
Action Item 14. Violence Prevention / Mental Health
It is recommended that current policies and procedures should be reviewed in an interdisciplinary, collaborative fashion that includes all pertinent University participants, including
representatives of the off-campus sites. After review, an integrated, comprehensive Action Plan
should be developed by the participants and distributed to the entire university community
through all available communication systems. It should be emphasized that current resources for
student and staff services are limited and strained, and costs for implementing new and/or
expanded programs must be considered.
Other suggestions for further discussion include:
-
developing a hotline for immediate assistance;
-
establishing a committee/team to review all known information about the individual
of concern and to assess the risk for the individual and the campus;
-
developing a training program for faculty/staff/student in the identification of potential warning signs, “red flag” behavior, and related procedures;
-
establish a university-wide protocol to communicate and share information regarding
individuals who exhibit behaviors of concern;
4-35
-
promote information about the UNO Employee Assistance Program and other referral
resources to faculty and staff;
-
re-establish the UNO Workplace Violence Committee;
-
work with other state institutions to establish a state-wide campus security task force
(see http://www.dps.mo.gov/CampusSafety/index.htm );
-
provision of specialized threat assessment training (e.g.,
https://www.gavindebecker.com/aboutourFirm.cfm);
-
joint training for all departments involved in implementing the system; and
-
ensure that handling incidents of campus violence is addressed in campus emergency
response plans.
Responsible Agency: Student Affairs, Student Counseling Services, Student Health Services,
University Police, University Counsel, Judicial Affairs
Deadline: A comprehensive review of the current policies, procedures, and programs designed
to address mental health and campus safety should be conducted by the second annual review of
this Plan. A review of the Emergency Plan should also be conducted to ensure that acts of
campus violence are addressed.
Benefits: To better identify and get help for those members of our University community who
may pose a danger to themselves or to others in hopes of preventing acts of violence.
Cost: Staff time to evaluate current system and make recommendations.
Hazards Addressed: Civil Unrest, Terrorism (to include Campus Violence)
4.5
IMPLEMENTATION
This Plan will be implemented upon its adoption by the Chancellor. The action items will be
implemented by the designated responsible agencies. Representative of these agencies have
reviewed this Plan and have agreed to take on the work. They will report their progress to the
DRU Advisory Committee.
The designated responsible agencies will each develop criteria upon which the respective action
item will be implemented. Based on the set criteria, a progress report will be developed to
evaluate the implementation that action item on a regular basis. From the time of adoption of the
plan until the Committee meets, the responsible party for each action item shall coordinate with
others, as necessary, in implementing their assigned action items.
4-36
The DRU Advisory Committee will meet annually following adoption of this Plan. At each
meeting, the participants will review University, City and State mitigation developments and
report on the progress toward implementing their assigned action items. Each of the participants
will present his or her individual progress report for each action item.
On the anniversary date of adoption of this Plan, the Chair of the DRU Advisory Committee will
submit a progress report to the Chancellor. This report will review:
─ Any hazard events or incidents that occurred during the year,
─ A review of the action items, including how much was accomplished during the previous
year,
─ A discussion of why any action items were not completed or why implementation is
behind schedule, and
─ Recommendations for new projects or revised action items.
The annual progress report will be provided to all DRU Advisory Committee members and
posted on the University’s website. Offices responsible for implementing affected plans, policies
and procedures, such as the Capital Outlay Plan, will ensure that their work is consistent with
the University’s mitigation efforts.
The DRU Advisory Committee will assign a schedule for updating the plan within the five-year
cycle. Within the five-year cycle, the DRU Advisory Committee will prepare a Mitigation Plan
Update. The Plan Update will include
─ A review of the Plan, the original planning process, and how the Update was prepared,
─ A review of new studies, reports, and technical information and of the University’s needs,
goals, and plans that have been published since this Plan was prepared,
─ An integration of the original UNO Mitigation Plan and the UNO Mitigation Plan for the
Satellite Locations,
─ Revisions to Chapters 2 and 3 that account for:
•
New floodplain maps or hazard information,
•
New construction,
•
Major incidents or disasters that occurred since this Plan was adopted,
•
New flood control or property protection projects, and
•
Any other change in conditions and/or development exposed to the hazards covered in this Plan.
─ Recommended revisions to the Plan to account for projects that have been completed,
dropped, or changed and for changes in the hazard and vulnerability assessments, as appropriate.
Upon completion of the draft Update, it will be distributed for public review and comment in the
same manner followed for the public review of this Plan. Upon approval by Advisory Commit4-37
tee, the Update will be submitted to the Chancellor for adoption by the University. The Update
will then be resubmitted to FEMA through the State for approval.
4-38
4. 6 References
Association of American Universities, August 2007, “Survey on Safety on AAU Campuses after
the Virginia Tech Shootings.” Retrieved from
http://www.aau.edu/publications/reports.aspx?id=6900
Association for University and College Counseling Center Directors (AUCCCD), 2007,
“Statement on State Governors Task Force”.
Langford, Linda, The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence
Prevention. “Preventing Violence and Promoting Safety in Higher Education Settings:
Overview of a Comprehensive approach.” U.S. Department of Education. 2004. Retrieved from http://www.higheredcenter.org/services/publications/preventing-violenceand-promoting-safety-higher-education-settings-overview-co.
4-39