NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ... · natural hazard mitigation plan of the university of mississippi, lafayette county, mississippi prepared by the center for

DRAFT COPYSUBJECT TO REVIEW AND REVISION

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI, LAFAYETTE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

PREPARED BY THE CENTER FOR COMMUNITY EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESSWITH THE GUIDANCE AND ASSISTANCE OF THE

DISASTER RESISTANT UNIVERSITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

July 3, 2006

ii

Table of ContentsList of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iiiList of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ivAdoption by The University of Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viExecutive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Introduction and Pertinent Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Description of the Planning Process - 44 CFR Parts 201.6(b) and 201.6 (c)1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Risk Assessment - 44 CFR Part 201.6 (c)(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Hazard Identification and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Tsunami / Coastal Erosion / Coastal Storm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Avalanche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Volcano . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Expansive Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Dam Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Land Subsidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Flood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Lightning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Hailstorm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Severe Winter Storm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Tornado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Wind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Extreme Temperatures / Drought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Wildfire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Hurricane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Earthquake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Profiles of Hazards of Concern to the University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Flood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Lightning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Hailstorm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Severe Winter Weather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Tornado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Wind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Wildfire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Earthquake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Summary of Hazard Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Assessing Vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Classification of Structures by the DRU Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Vulnerability from the Flood Hazard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Vulnerability from the Lightning Hazard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Vulnerability from the Hail Hazard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Vulnerability from the Severe Winter Weather Hazard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Vulnerability from the Tornado Hazard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Vulnerability from the Wind Hazard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Vulnerability from the Wildfire Hazard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

iii

Vulnerability from the Earthquake Hazard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Impact of Natural Hazards at the University of Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62Mitigation Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Prioritization of Hazards of Concern to the University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63Mitigation Goals and Objectives to Reduce Existing Vulnerabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64Cost-Benefit Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Prioritizing Action Measures For Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Implementation of Action Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82Plan Maintenance, Evaluation and Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

References Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86Appendix A - Agendas of DRU Committee Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92Appendix B - Information Regarding Pubic Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97Appendix C - Listing of Reference Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102Appendix D - Topographic Map of the University Campus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106Appendix E - Fujita-scale of Tornado Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108Appendix F - Flood Insurance Map for the University of Mississippi Campus . . . . . . . . . . . . 111Appendix G - Photographs of the University of Mississippi Campus During 1994 Severe Winter

Storm Event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113Appendix H - Map of Campus Buildings and Their Classification for Mitigation Action . . . . 115Appendix I - Selected Factors Considered In Vulnerability Analysis For Critical, High and

Medium Priority Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119Appendix J - Complete Listing of Suggested Action Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

List of Tables Table 1- DRU Advisory Members and Affiliations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Table 2 - Summary of Informational Meetings Regarding the DRU Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Table 3 - List of Natural Hazards Evaluated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Table 4 - Summary of Flood Events in Lafayette County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Table 5 - Lightning Events Recorded by the NCDC for Lafayette County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Table 6 - Hail Events Recorded by the NCDC for Lafayette County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Table 7 - Summary of Ice Storm / Winter Weather Events for Lafayette County . . . . . . . . . . . 26Table 8 - Tornados Recorded in Lafayette County Between 1950 and 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Table 9 - Summary of Windstorm Events in Lafayette County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Table 10 - University Buildings Damaged in Nov. 10, 2002 Wind Event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Table 11 - University Structures Damaged by the Remnants of Hurricane Katrina, August 29,

2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Table 12 - Summary of Wildfires in Lafayette County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Table 13 - Historic Earthquake Epicenters Located in Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Table 14 - Summary of Hazard Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Table 15 - List of Critical Structures for Priority Mitigation Action

(DRU Committee Listing) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Table 16 - List of High Priority Structures (DRU Committee Listing) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Table 17 - Medium Priority Structures (DRU Committee Listing) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

iv

Table 18 - List of Critical Structures included in Tornado Scenario Event (F3, 1000 yd.Swath)and Associated Risk Factor Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Table 19 - List of High Priority Structures included in Tornado Scenario Event (F3, 1000 yd.Swath)and Associated Risk Factor Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Table 20 - List of Medium Priority Structures included in Tornado Scenario Event (F3, 1000 yd. Swath)and Associated Risk Factor Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Table 21 - Summary of Estimated Wind Losses by Structure Class (100mph Wind Event) . . . 58Table 22 - Listing of Critical Structures and Result of Earthquake (M=8) Risk

Factor Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Table 23 - Listing of High Priority Structures and Result of Earthquake (M=8) Risk

Factor Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Table 24 - Listing of Medium Priority Structures and Result of Earthquake (M=8) Risk

Factor Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62Table 25 - Summary of Benefit - Cost Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77Table 26 - Prioritized Listing of Mitigation Actions by the DRU Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80Table 27 - Proposed Project Summary Document for DRU Committee Plan Monitoring

(contained data is fictitious and for illustrative purposes only) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

List of FiguresFigure 1 - The lighter colored brick indicate the area of facade damaged by a lightning strike to

the Old Chemistry Building near the center of campus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Figure 2 - Structures Damaged by Hurricane Katrina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Figure 3 - Note in this photograph that the houses appear to be functional. The electrical power

is not - demonstrated by the line of destroyed power poles. Debris has obviously closedthis street to vehicle traffic, hindering rescue efforts and slowing evaluations of damage. Restoration of damaged infrastructure will likely take significant amount of time and itsaffect will extend beyond this local area. The need for additional security such as theNational Guard represents significant emergency management costs. All of theseconcerns are likely at the University of Mississippi should a tornado track throughcampus. This photograph is part of the Ross Collection and was provided complimentsof the North Mississippi Herald (Water Valley, Mississippi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Figure 4 - Unlike in Figure 3, the destruction in this part of Water Valley was complete. Notethat the nature of the debris varies from small pieces of limb debris to cinder blocks,doors, large sections of walls, and pieces of steel framing to various equipment such assoft drink dispensers and an ice storage bin. All of this debris could have been wind-blown projectiles used by the tornado to damage other structures and cause casualties. The debris is scattered to such an extent that the lay out of the built environment prior tothe tornado cannot be determined. Heavy equipment would be required to gain access foremergency vehicles and rescue efforts. Emergency managers at the University couldencounter similar problems should a major tornado track through the campus. Thisphotograph is part of the Ross Collection and was provided compliments of the NorthMississippi Herald (Water Valley, Mississippi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

v

Figure 5 - Two potential tornado swaths through the campus were used to evaluatevulnerabilities for potential tornado damage. The tornado hazard is considered the primaryhazard for the campus and is likely to be the most costly in terms of money and casualties. . . . 54

vi

Adoption By The University Of Mississippi

Upon the recommendation of the University of Mississippi Disaster Resistant UniversityAdvisory Committee and subsequent approval by the Federal Emergency Management Agencyand the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency, I accept this Natural Hazard MitigationPlan and its content on the behalf of the University of Mississippi. Furthermore, it is my intentthat this plan become the functional guidance for the University in order to mitigate thedeleterious effects that accompany natural hazards.

__________________________________________Dr. Robert Khayat, Chancellor Date

Signed by Dr. Khayat on March 7, 2006

APPROVED PLANFEMA AND MEMA APPROVAL AS OF JULY 3, 2006

Page -1-

Executive SummaryThe Disaster Resistant University Project was begun on August 24, 2004, with $75,000

funding provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency through the MississippiEmergency Management Agency. The goal of the project was to produce a natural hazardsmitigation plan for the University of Mississippi. The plan is the first step in the task ofminimizing natural hazard vulnerabilities as it seeks to identify the hazards, estimate thepotential monetary losses the University could incur due to these hazards and finally proposemitigation actions that could begin the process of reducing the University’s vulnerability. Upona positive review by the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency and the FederalEmergency Management Agency, the University will qualify for pre-disaster financial assistanceto help initiate the mitigation actions described in the plan. The ultimate goal is a saferuniversity for students, faculty, and staff. Part of the goal is also that of protecting Mississippi’s1.8 billion dollar investment in the University of Mississippi and ensuring the University will becapable of fulfilling its mission during a disaster and afterward through the recovery period.

The mitigation plan was written by the members of the University’s Center ForCommunity Earthquake Preparedness (CCEP) under the guidance of the Disaster ResistantUniversity Advisory Committee (the DRU Committee). The DRU Committee is composed of across-section of University staff, two members representing Oxford city government, arepresentative from Three Rivers Planning and Development District and a member from theMississippi Emergency Management Agency. The DRU Committee has provided guidance andadvice to foster the completion of the plan, and will continue to provide the momentum to ensurecontinuing mitigation work into the future.

The plan describes eight natural hazards that are likely to be of concern to the Universityand the potential monetary losses that may be associated with these hazards. These hazards arelisted in order of decreasing importance. It is unlikely all vulnerable structures will be affectedsimultaneously by the lightning or hail hazard, so total vulnerability is listed.

1) Tornado - with monetary losses as high as $129,222,000;2) Earthquake - with monetary losses as high as $112,907,344;3) Straight-line Wind - with monetary losses as high as $30,077,000;4) Severe Winter Weather - with monetary losses as high as $705,000;5) Lightning - with a total vulnerability estimated at $9,754,112;6) Hail - with a total vulnerability estimated at $5,443,938;7)Wildfire - a hazard that is unlikely to cause significant losses and 8) Flood - another hazard that is unlikely to cause significant loss.

The DRU Committee has identified and prioritized 25 mitigation action measures thatwill reduce the University’s vulnerability to these hazards. The mitigation measures includeproposed changes to policy and operational procedure as well as structural evaluations andconstruction to address specific vulnerabilities.


Page -2-

Introduction and Pertinent BackgroundThe University of Mississippi (through the Center for Community Earthquake

Preparedness ( CCEP) applied for and received assistance through the Disaster ResistantUniversities Program (DRU) with the goal of preparing a hazard mitigation plan for theUniversity. The DRU program is sponsored by the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) and administered by the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency (MEMA). TheUniversity of Mississippi was notified of the DRU award and the performance period was set as August, 2004, to September 2006. The award consisted of $75,000 to be expended within twoyears (August, 2004 to September 2006). The DRU contract further stated that a draft plan mustbe submitted to MEMA / FEMA within 18 months and a final, approved plan is due bySeptember of 2006. The scope of the mitigation plan includes the University of Mississippimain campus, the University air port (Clegg Field), the University of Mississippi Field Station,and the Rowan Oak complex (the historic William Faulkner home and outbuildings).

Although the University of Mississippi has an active emergency management plan, itdoes not have a hazard mitigation plan. An initial activity was to obtain a copy of the currentcrisis management plan and interview the plan’s administrator, Mr. Roland Clark. The result ofthis interview, and other discussions, was that the final mitigation plan and the crisismanagement plan would be closely associated and mutually supportive. It was felt thatmitigation activities would significantly influence crisis management, so the most effective usefor both plans was to associate the two. If, for example, a significant change is made to themitigation plan, the co-mingling of the plans will easily allow the reviewer to identify thechanges required in the crisis management plan.

There are plentiful examples of how natural disasters have cost colleges and universitiesnot only in direct costs but also in indirect losses such as loss of time and research capabilities. California State University, for example, sustained damages estimated at $380,000,000 due tothe Northridge earthquake in January 1994 (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2003 (a)). Flooding of the Red River in April of 1997 cost the University of North Dakota an estimated$46,000,000 and a windstorm on Labor Day of 1998 cost Syracuse University more than$4,000,000 (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2003 (a)).

There are also examples of loss due to natural disasters in Mississippi. The one thatcomes immediately to mind involves the 1969 landfall of Hurricane Camille. The Gulf CoastResearch Laboratory, located in Ocean Springs, Mississippi, and a research facility of theUniversity of Southern Mississippi, was virtually destroyed by Camille’s wind and coastalflooding. Destroyed structures cost an estimated $1,500,000 while destroyed equipment andinstrumentation is estimated to have cost another $1,000,000 (Mississippi Academy of Sciences,2005). Hurricane Katrina in August of 2005 again virtually destroyed the Gulf Coast ResearchLab as well as other facilities owned by the University of Mississippi. At the time of writing(November, 2005) losses to the University of Southern Mississippi’s coastal facilities areestimated to be approximately $90,000,000. This interim estimate is expected to increase.Straight line winds and a tornado (November of 2002) have damaged the Mississippi University


Page -3-

for Women in Columbus, Mississippi. In November, 2004, a tornado destroyed the school’seducation building and damaged its Fine Arts Building (Stewart, 2004). On September 25, 2005,a tornado spawned by the remnants of Hurricane Rita tracked through the campus of MississippiState University doing significant damage to campus buildings. No serious injuries werereported (Ward, 2005).

The University of Mississippi incurred extensive losses due to the1994 ice storm, aregional event that did extensive damage at the University of Mississippi as well as to all ofNorth Mississippi. Straight line winds on November 10, 2002, damaged a number of Universityof Mississippi campus structures resulting in $110,971 of damage. In August of 2005 theremnants of Hurricane Katrina damaged 22 campus structures and resulted in $130, 027 ofdamage. In the aftermath of Katrina, the University opened the Tad Smith Coliseum as atemporary sheltering area while more long-term spaces were readied in some newly acquiredUniversity property in the former Oxford Mall. The Oxford Mall space (referred to as theKatrina Resource Center) was opened September 6 and closed September 21, 2005. During itsoperation, the Resource Center served 1,200 family units or approximately 3,600 individuals.

The University of Mississippi occupies approximately one square mile of area and hasover 200 structures on its campus. The city of Oxford is adjacent to the University and recentgrowth of Oxford has virtually surrounded the campus with urban development. This closeproximity to the Oxford jurisdiction necessitates close cooperation between the jurisdictions. Lafayette County contains both the University and Oxford. It has an area of 631 square mileswith a population density of 61.4 persons per square mile (from 2000 U.S. Census Bureau -http://factfinder.census.gov ).

The University has a student body of approximately 15,000 students (14,497 in fallsemester, 2004, and 14, 911 in fall semester of 2005 - data from Hiles, 2005) and has 2302faculty, staff, and temporary employees (as of November, 2005). The total population densityfor the University would be approximately 17,300 per square mile. The City of Oxford has apopulation of 11,756 (exclusive of University students, from 2000 U.S. Census Bureau -http://factfinder.census.gov ) spread across 12.38 square miles which translates into a density of950 per square mile. The 2000 census data also indicate that Oxford contains 6,137 totalhousing units whereas the University has a total of only approximately 200 structures for theentire campus, many of which are administrative and does not house large numbers of people. From these data, it is obvious the University is unique in its high degree of urbanization andpopulation density. These factors suggest 1) the occurrence of a natural hazard event couldeffect a large population concentrated in a small area, and 2) that mitigation should be anessential part of the campus’ standard operating procedure.


Page -4-

Description of the Planning Process - 44 CFR Parts 201.6(b) and 201.6 (c)1

The DRU Advisory Committee served as the overall guiding organization for theconstruction of the mitigation plan. The committee is composed of representatives from theUniversity of Mississippi, the City of Oxford, Lafayette County, Three Rivers Planning andDevelopment District (TRPDD), and the State of Mississippi. Three Rivers Planning andDevelopment District was responsible for formulating the regional mitigation plan, whichincludes the University. The MEMA is the State representative to the DRU Committee so theplan construction was carried out in cooperation and coordination with the MEMA. As membersof the committee, these other jurisdictions had direct input into the process of plan construction. They also enjoyed the privilege of reviewing the University plan in any phase of constructionand offering their suggestions and comments. As the plan was completed it also offered therepresentatives knowledge of the logic guiding the completion of the University plan, so theycould amend these other jurisdictional plans as they felt appropriate. Table 1, below, lists thespecific members of the DRU Committee and their affiliation. Visitors and other interestedparties would attend the DRU Committee meetings from time to time. Appendix A contains theagendas from the DRU Committee meetings.

Table 1 - DRU Advisory Committee Members and Affiliations

Name Organization Affiliation / Comments

Dr. Chris Mullen University of Mississippi UM / Director of CCEP

Dr. Terry Panhorst University of Mississippi UM / Member of CCEP

Mr. Charles Swann University of Mississippi UM / Member of CCEP

Mr. Roland Clark (chair) University of Mississippi UM / Telecommunications

Dr. Lee Tyner University of Mississippi UM / Office of the Chancellor

Mr. Patrick Brown University of Mississippi UM / Office of Research andSponsored Programs

Ms. Barbara Lago University of Mississippi UM / University Media and PublicRelations

Mr. Terron Jones University of Mississippi UM / Director of Physical Plant

Mr. Ed Movitz University of Mississippi UM / Director, EnvironmentalHealth and Safety

Ms. Linda Christian University of Mississippi UM / University Police

Ms. Lorinda Krhut University of Mississippi UM / Student Housing andResidence Life

Mr. Jim Windham University of Mississippi UM / Procurement Services

Ms. Kathy Tidwell University of Mississippi UM / Contractual Services


Table 1 - DRU Advisory Committee Members and Affiliations

Name Organization Affiliation / Comments

Page -5-

Mr. Robin Miller University of Mississippi UM / Technical Services

Dr. Gregg Easson University of Mississippi UM / Faculty Committee onBuildings, Grounds andRenovations

Mr. Tim Akers City of Oxford City of Oxford / Director, Planningand Development

Mr. Jerry Johnson City of Oxford City of Oxford / Fire Chief

Mr. Jimmy Allgood Lafayette County / City of Oxford City of Oxford and LafayetteCounty / Director of EmergencyManagement

Mr. Kurk Brummett Three Rivers Planning andDevelopment District

Three Rivers Planning andDevelopment District / Regionalmitigation plan administrator

Mr. Bob Boteler Mississippi EmergencyManagement Agency

Mississippi EmergencyManagement Agency / StateHazard Mitigation Officer - StateMitigation Plan administrator

Mr. Ian Banner University of Mississippi Director, Facilities Planning Dept.,U.M. Architect

The primary responsibility for construction of the narrative contained herein, rested withthe Center for Community Earthquake Preparedness (CCEP), headquartered at the University ofMississippi. The CCEP was responsible for data gathering, analysis, and interpretation. Theinterpretation of these data were then organized into the mitigation plan narrative and reviewedinternally by the CCEP staff. Sources of information, both technical and nontechnical arereferenced in the text and bibliographic information appears at the end of the text in the“References Cited” section. Revisions were made as necessary, and submitted to the DRUAdvisory Committee for their review and approval. The approved plan was then submitted tothe MEMA and ultimately to the FEMA, for their agency review and comment. Changes andrefinements were made to the plan as appropriate.

As the narrative was being written, the DRU Advisory Committee was advised ofprogress at scheduled committee meetings. The DRU Committee also provided overall guidanceand helped in the location of data specific to the University. Individual members of the DRUCommittee were involved throughout the planning process and were engaged until itscompletion. Mr. Roland Clark served as chair of the DRU Advisory Committee throughout theprocess of plan completion.

The public was initially informed of the project via a news release by the MEMA. ThisMEMA release resulted in a front page article appearing in the Oxford Eagle on November 15,


Page -6-

2004, (Stewart, 2004) and served to inform the public of the planning effort. The public, cityand county government were offered the opportunity to participate at the August 10, 2005, City /County Briefing held at the Oxford Conference Center in the adjoining jurisdiction of Oxford. This initial public forum was focused on informing the local governments (Board of Supervisorsand City Aldermen) of the project, invite their participation and input. This meeting was alsoopen to the general public and the public was provided an opportunity to provide comment. Appendix B provides additional detail regarding the public meetings. Notice of the meetingappeared in the Clarion-Ledger on August 8, 2005 (Clarion-Ledger, 2005), The Oxford Eagle onAugust 8, and 10th, 2005 (Atkins, 2005; Oxford Eagle, 2005), the Daily Journal, August 9, 2005(Daily Journal, 2005), and the university employees were informed of the meeting by e-mail onAugust 8 (see ppendix B for text of e-mail message). The newspaper articles are on file and canbe viewed upon request. A total of 34 attended the meeting with 31 signing the roster. Of these31, one was from state government, six from city / county government, two from North DeltaPlanning and Development District, one citizen without a business affiliation, two from thenonprofit sector, five from the private enterprise sector, and 14 from the University ofMississippi. Questions and comments from those attending are paraphrased below.

1) Should biological hazards, such as West Nile, be included in the plan?Answer: The FEMA documents regarding DRU do not include naturally-occurring biological concerns. These concerns are, however, in keeping with theidea of natural hazards. Ultimately, the decision was made that biologicalhazards, such as West Nile were better handled under the University’s crisismanagement plan rather than as a mitigation issue.

2) The Oxford hospital (Baptist Memorial Hospital, North Mississippi) has conductedvulnerability studies. Could the DRU results be made available to the hospital?

Answer: Yes

3) What was the starting point for developing the list of hazards used in the DRUevaluations?

Answer: The FEMA documentation (FEMA 386-2, and FEMA 443) was used asa starting point for the hazard identification. The lightning hazard was added tothe original list.

4) During the 1994 ice storm public water supplies were a major problem. Will the DRUinclude public water supply mitigation measures?

Answer: The DRU will include lifelines in its list of potential mitigationmeasures. Presently the DRU is in draft stage so mitigation measures, in finalform, have not been formulated.

5) The Civil Air Patrol is often utilized in post-disaster evaluations. Will the DRUinclude any post-disaster reconnaissance plans?


Page -7-

Answer: The DRU is concerned with pre-disaster mitigation issues rather thanpost-disaster. Contact information was passed to Mr. Roland Clarke, whoadministers the University’s crisis management plan.

6) Pictures from the 1971 tornado in the western edge of Oxford (the closest tornadoevent to the University) were made available for use by the DRU. They were taken byMr. Don Gerrend in 1971.

7) Has the CCEP analyzed the city / University water towers for seismic response? Answer: Only one water tank on the campus has been analyzed for seismicresponse. The city tanks have not.

8) Can the older water towers (those with three or four legs) be retrofitted to make themmore seismically resistant?

Answer: The older tanks have not been analyzed for seismic response, so it isdifficult to judge their ability to resist seismic motion. The tank modeled oncampus is of the type without the legs, only a central support column.

A second public meeting was held at the University of Mississippi, on February 15, 2006,as the plan was submitted for MEMA / FEMA review and comment. The draft plan wasavailable for public review and comment prior to and during the public meeting and during thereview and approval process at the web sites of both the Mississippi Mineral Resources Institute(MMRI) and the CCEP web site. Notice of the proposed meeting appeared in Tupelo,Mississippi’s newspaper, the Daily Journal (Daily Journal, 2006), the University’s newspaper,the Daily Mississippian (Daily Mississippian, 2006; Gunn, 2006) and the Oxford newspaper theOxford Eagle (Smith, 2006). A notice of the meeting and an invitation for public participationalso appeared on the “Newsdesk” (www.olemiss.edu/newsdesk) ,the University’s on-line sourcefor news and news releases. A post-meeting summary appeared in the Oxford Eagle onFebruary 16 (Waterman, 2006). These newspaper articles are on file and are available for review upon request. To accommodate the public who may not be able to attend the meetings, a copy ofthe plan was be made available to the public at the J.D. Williams Library on the University ofMississippi campus. Public comment was accepted by voice, written or electronic media.

The second meeting had 26 in attendance with 20 registering. Fourteen of the 20 werefrom the University of Mississippi, two from private industry, one from a non-profit institution,two represented city and / or county government, and one was from Mississippi stategovernment. Questions and comments offered at the meeting are summarized below as well asthe response to the comment or question.

1) The wastewater treatment plant is critical to campus operations and could causecampus shut down. It should be listed as a critical facility.

Answer: The importance of the wastewater treatment plant is recognized and hasbeen placed in the High Priority Class by the DRU committee (see Table 23). Itis also recognized that the wastewater treatment plant is a significant monetary


Page -8-

investment and is worthy of mitigation protection measures (see complete listingof proposed measures in Appendix J). Reassignment of the wastewater treatmentplant to the Critical class will be considered by the DRU Committee in a futuremeeting.

2) The physical plant complex is essential to campus operations and should be listed as acritical facility.

Answer: The new physical plant complex is also listed in the High Priority class(see Table 23). Although not a not a set of structures with high potential dollarloss, they do play an important part of campus operations. Reassignment of thePhysical Plant Complex to the Critical class will be considered by the DRUCommittee in a future meeting.

3) There are numerous above ground electrical power lines on the campus and theyshould be put underground to protect them from hazards such as ice storms.

Answer: Placing electrical power lines underground is listed among the 25 initialproposed mitigation actions listed in Table 26 (listed as number 25 of 25). Placing all electrical utility lines underground on campus will be a major projectand will likely have to be done in phases. The DRU Committee Chair made aspecial request that the committee allow this action measure to move upward inthe priority ratings to number two. The Committee agreed to the change, which isreflected herein.

4) Does the plan emphasize long-term or short-term losses?Answer: The mitigation actions, particularly the initial set, are a mixture of short-and long-term mitigation. It is foreseen that as more short-term actions arecompleted the focus will shift to the more long-term mitigation.

5) Why does the plan include only natural hazards, why not man-made hazards and civilunrest.

Answer: The Federal Emergency Management Agency separate man-made andnatural hazards. This proposal was written to address only the natural hazards.

Mr. Clark also informed Mr. Cliff Tucker (e-mail dated April 8, 2005, from Roland Clarkto Cliff Tucker) of the Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning (the governing bodyoverseeing Mississippi’s eight, four year, public universities) of the DRU project at theUniversity of Mississippi and solicited his input as the plan was constructed. Information wasexchanged between the two units of the educational system.

As indicated earlier, the University of Mississippi has an emergency management planthat is guided by a Crisis Management Team (CMT). A subset of the CMT is also part of theDRU Advisory Committee, so there is commonality between the two organizations. Themembers with common membership will ensure that results from investigations or changes from


Page -9-

one plan can be reflected, if appropriate, in the other. The U.M. Emergency Management Plan(former Crisis Management Plan) and the Mitigation Plan will also be linked to furtherencourage users to consider the plans as one working unit.

In the course of developing the mitigation plan, interviews regarding natural hazardswere held with a number of current University employees, former employees as well as theOxford/Lafayette County emergency manager (included on DRU Advisory Committee), officialsfrom the adjoining City of Oxford jurisdiction, and members of the public. Often theseinterviews lead to additional information regarding natural hazards at the University that was notin the official records or the records are no longer extant. Appendix C contains a listing of theseresource people and the nature of the interview.

During the completion of the project there have been meetings aimed more at informationtransfer rather than characterization of hazards or data gathering. These meetings aresummarized in Table 2, below. In the table below, meetings with members of the DRUCommittee are not recorded unless the subject matter is not related to data gathering for themitigation plan.

Table 2 - Summary of Informational Meetings Regarding the DRU Project

Date Met with whom? Remarks

June 24, 2005 Dr. Darrel Schmitz D.S. is chair of Miss. State University’s GeosciencesDepartment - interested in mitigation work at Miss. StateUniversity

July 11, 2005 Mayor Richard Howorth Mayor Howorth (Oxford) was informed of project and invitedto participate as appropriate

July 11, 2005 Mr. Colbert Jones Oxford Director of Planning and Development - discussedresults of flood profile work

July 19, 2005 CCEP Board Briefed the CCEP Board of status of the DRU project anddiscussed implications for other universities.

August 10, 2005 City / County Briefing Briefed City and County officials regarding DRU project andprovided public an opportunity to participate

August 22, 2005 Dr. Darrel Schmitz andfaculty - Miss. StateUniversity

Detailed discussion of DRU work and how MSU mayparticipate - Meeting attended by Mr. Bob Boteler, StateHazard Mitigation Officer, MEMA

Risk Assessment

Hazard Identification and EvaluationThe initial step leading to the mitigation of damage caused by natural hazards is to

identify the hazards that apply to the jurisdiction and evaluate the significance of the hazard. The listing of potential natural hazards found in FEMA (2001) served as the initial starting point. A worksheet was developed based on the FEMA (2001) document as a first step in the


Page -10-

systematic analysis of potential hazards. The list was then compared to the list of hazardscontained in the regional hazard mitigation plan (TRPDD ,2005) and presented to the DRUAdvisory Committee for their comments. The CCEP staff considered the worksheet hazards,ranked them and added lightning as a hazard not listed in FEMA (2001). The final listingresulting from the worksheet and its review is reproduced below as Table 3. The potentialhazards appear in the order as they do in FEMA (2001), so there is no significance to the order oftheir appearance in the following list. Nineteen hazards were considered and nine were rejected.

Table 3 - List of Natural Hazards Evaluated

Hazard Accept AsHazard?

Likely Occurrence Mitigation Priority

Avalanche No N/A N/A

Coastal Erosion No N/A N/A

Coastal Storm No N/A N/A

Dam Failure No N/A N/A

Extreme Temperature / Drought No N/A N/A

Earthquake Yes Medium High

Expansive Soils No N/A N/A

Flood Yes Low Low

Hailstorm Yes Medium Medium

Hurricane No N/A N/A

Land Subsidence No N/A N/A

Severe Winter Storm Yes Medium Medium

Tornado Yes Medium High

Tsunami No N/A N/A

Volcano No N/A N/A

Wildfire Yes Low Low

Windstorm Yes High High

Lightning Yes Low Medium

Table 3 also contains a column with an estimate of the likelihood of occurrence. Thisranking is relative among the viable hazards and was determined by the judgement of the CCEPprofessional staff and the DRU Advisory Committee. More precise measurements of recurrenceare contained in the following section on hazard profiles. The fourth column ranks the


Page -11-

mitigation priority. This ranking is also a relative measure and is also derived from thejudgement of the CCEP staff and the Advisory Committee.

Tsunami / Coastal Erosion / Coastal StormSome of the hazards listed above can be quickly rejected based on the geographic

location of the University of Mississippi. The tsunami hazard, for example, was rejected due tothe University’s location over three hundred miles north of the Gulf of Mexico coastline. Thecoastal erosion, and coastal storm hazards can also be eliminated for the same reason.

AvalancheBloom (2004, p.184) defines avalanches as “Any large, catastrophic landslide ... They

can include broken rock, ice, and snow ...” . Major factors controlling the avalanche hazard iselevation, slope, and the geology of the materials involved. The University of Mississippi, andthe entire state of Mississippi, is located in the low relief coastal plain providence, and so lacksthe steep slopes and differences in topographic relief necessary to generate avalanches. Basedon the lack of these basic requirements, we assign no probability for the avalanche hazardoccurring within the study area.

VolcanoThe volcano hazard is associated with eruptions which may occur and subsequently

destroy property. Examination of the map of surface geology of Mississippi (Bicker, 1969)reveal no igneous rocks at the surface in Mississippi. We, therefore, assign no probability for thevolcano hazard occurring in Mississippi and reject the hazard from further consideration.

Expansive SoilsExpansive soils result from the presence of certain clay minerals which have the

capability to add or lose water from their crystal structure. This varying amount of watercontained in the clay mineral results in expansion or contraction. If the soil has an abundance ofthese clays, structures founded on the soil will move (if not specifically designed for expansiveclays) as the soil expands and contacts. The result is often severe damage to the structure and itsfoundation. Although Mississippi has geological units containing highly expansive soils, theseunits are not present on the University campus (Bicker, 1969; Attaya, 1951). Examination ofwell borings on campus indicates that the shallow subsurface is composed mostly of sand (notsusceptible to expansion and contraction) with only minor clay beds. We assign no probabilityfor the expansive soil hazard on campus and reject the hazard from further consideration.

Dam FailureThe University of Mississippi is situated on some of the highest elevations in Lafayette

County. The topographic map (see Appendix D) of the campus indicates no permanent streamson campus and no impoundments of surface water. There is, however, a small impoundment onprivate land adjacent to the University’s property, but since the impoundment’s drainage basin isthe campus area, any failure of the dam would not impact the campus, but rather the City ofOxford. This hazard is rejected and is considered no further.


Page -12-

Land Subsidence Land subsidence is defined as “Sinking or downward settling of the earth’s surface...” (AmericanGeological Society, 1984, p.503). The definition also states that it can be a result of both man-made and natural processes. Menard (1974) points out several factors that influence theoccurrence of subsidence and its severity. A primary factor is the withdrawal of fluids such asliquid hydrocarbons or groundwater. The University produces its public water supply from a setof on-campus water supply wells. As the wells produce water from the aquifer, it removes waterfrom the aquifer adjacent to the wells meeting a factor discussed by Menard. The type ofgeological material from which the fluid is being removed is another primary factor. Menardstated the clay-rich soils are much more likely to undergo subsidence because groundwater tendsto separate clay particles and when the water is removed the clay particles are allowed tocompact. The University derives its groundwater from the Upper Wilcox - Meridian aquifer,which is composed largely of sand. This aquifer’s sand, unlike clay particles, is alreadyconsolidated and water is not holding the sand grains apart. Subsidence should, therefore, bevery minimal. Examination of water well logs kept by the University verify the sand content ofthe aquifer and shallow engineering borings indicate that standard penetration tests yield blowcounts often in excess of 100. This high count suggests the sands are well consolidated. Basedon these data we believe subsidence is not a viable hazard at the University of Mississippi.

Another form of subsidence hazard is associated with the dissolution of water solublerock, such as limestone or dolostone. As these rock types dissolve, sinkholes (a surfacedepression representing the collapse of rock / soil into dissolved underground space, such as acave) may form beneath structures causing severe damage of collapse. The well data availableon campus demonstrates the lack of limestone or dolostone, so lacking a soluble rock type thissubsidence hazard is given no probability of occurring on campus.

FloodThe flood hazard is of particular importance as they are the “most prevalent hazard in the

United States” (FEMA, 2001, p. 1-6). The University is located in areas of high elevation andno perennial streams are mapped on the campus. The University is included in the Oxford FloodRate Insurance Map (FIRM) produced by FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program. Oxfordis a member of the National Flood Insurance Program (TRPDD, 2005). The campus maintains ahigh level of coordination with Oxford in flood-related matters. Only a few examples of floodingwere identified on campus and these examples were not associated with construction on riverineflood plains. It was considered possible that local conditions (such as debris blockage of acampus drainage during a storm event) could lead to localized flooding events. Blockage orinadequate storm sewers could also cause street and parking lot flooding. Flooding is, therefore,retained as a hazard with low likelihood of occurring and a low mitigation priority ranking (seeTable 3).

LightningLightning is defined as a “...natural electric discharge in the atmosphere” (American

Heritage Dictionary, p. 730). Curran and Holle, 1997, ( p. 2) state that “lightning is the mostconstant and widespread threat to people and property during the thunderstorm season.” They


Page -13-

also rank individual states in the U.S. as to the amount of damage caused by lightning -Mississippi is ranked as number 33. Mississippi ranks 13 in the number of lightning-relatedfatalities and 18 in lightning-related injuries. Recreation is the activity most people are involvedin when struck by lightning.

Thunderstorms are common in Mississippi, particularly during the spring and summermonths, and lightning damage is not uncommon. There are examples of damage caused bylightning to buildings on the University campus. For these reasons, lightning is included as anatural hazard of importance (see Table 3).

HailstormHail consists of precipitation that has become frozen within the atmosphere and falls to

the earth’s surface as spherical ice varying from the size of peas to the size of baseballs. Hail isoften associated with thunderstorms and is not an uncommon occurrence in North Mississippi. Although hail seldom causes death, it can cause extensive property damage. The NationalClimatic Data Center (NCDC), administered by the National Atmospheric and OceanographicAdministration (NOAA), records a Lafayette County hail event in May of 1995 that resulted in$5,000 of property damage. The National Climatic Data Center’s record of hail events inLafayette County goes back to 1962 with as many as four recorded hail events in a given year(2002). Since hail is a common occurrence in Lafayette County, it is retained as a natural hazardworth consideration at the University.

Severe Winter Storm Winter storms can cause severe damage in North Mississippi and to the University. The

most vivid example is the 1994 ice storm that caused over $3,000,000,000 in damage nationwideand $2,000,000,000 in Mississippi alone. The University was closed several days because of alack of electrical power and public water supply. The city of Oxford also experienced a loss ofelectrical power and public water supply due to ice accumulations on power lines and trees. Iceaccumulations of the streets and highways made vehicular travel difficult and dangerous. Thisevent brought business in the city of Oxford to a standstill and significantly disrupted the classscheduling for the University.

Winter storms have been problematic for Lafayette County and the University onmultiple occasions in addition to the 1994 event - the two winter storm events of 1998, forexample. There is no doubt this natural hazard should be included in Table 3 as a natural hazard.

TornadoA tornado is defined as “a violently rotating column of air, pendant from a cumuliform

cloud or underneath a cumuliform cloud, and often (but not always) visible as a funnel cloud.”(AMS, 2000). Damage to structures and estimated wind speeds within the rotating column of airare used as the basis of classification for tornados (NOAA, 2005). The Fujita Tornado DamageScale is most often quoted. The Fujita scale (Appendix E) is divided into six categories (from F0to F5) representing increasing damage and wind speed. The F5 category is the most intense with


Page -14-

wind speeds ranging from 261 to 318 miles per hour with severe damage to structures includinghouses being lifted completely off of their foundations.

The NCDC records ( http://www.ncdc.noaa..noa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent-storms ) indicate that there have been 14 recorded tornados in Lafayette County between 1950and 2005 (March 31, 2005). The most severe tornados (all F3 events) were recorded on June 22,1970, April 21, 1984, and March 01, 1997. The most recent Lafayette County tornado occurredon January 03, 2000, and did an estimated $100,000 of property damage. Although a tornadohas not caused damage at the University, it is obvious it is a natural hazard that must beconsidered.

WindWindstorms are defined here as straight-line winds typically associated with

thunderstorms. The NCDC ( http://www.ncdc.noaa.noa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent-storms) records indicate 84 recorded high-speed wind events in Lafayette County between 1950 andMarch 31, 2005. The highest wind speed in the NCDC records were of approximately 80 knots(92 miles per hour) and resulted from a thunderstorm on April 28, 1966. Straight-line winds hasalso caused damage to the main campus as well as to outlying facilities such as the University’sairport (Clegg Field). From an examination of the records it is clear that winds should beconsidered a hazard to consider for the University.

Extreme Temperature / DroughtExtreme heat and drought are typically linked and to some extent wildfire is also linked

to these hazards. The NOAA National Climatic Center (NCC) lists two heat / drought disastersthat included the state - in 1986 and 1998. These disasters had associated costs of$2,300,000,000 and $8,300,000,000 respectively (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/special/billion2004.pdf) . The NCC also lists heat / droughtevents (nationally) as having a frequency of 16.2 percent and normalized damages of$144,000,000,000. Much of the costs for heat /drought events are centered on agriculturaldamage, not applicable to the University. The NCDC storm event records also indicate that oneLafayette County death resulted from an extreme heat event June 13, 2000. Because of the feweffective mitigation measures that can be put into place for these hazards, and a lack ofcompelling information that demonstrate they have a significant affect on the University, it hasbeen rejected from further consideration. Wildfire

Wildfire is often associated with high air temperatures and dry conditions, although notexclusively. Wildfire differs from controlled burns in that they are destructive to the woodland /grasslands habitat in which they occur and lack the controlling factors which make controlledburns beneficial. Wildfire is most often a hazard in woodlands or grasslands during dry, hotweather. Often wildfire has man-made origins such as burning trash in dry, windy conditions butnatural origins such as lightning can also start wildfires. Although most often associated withthe more arid west, they can also pose hazards in Mississippi.


Page -15-

The wildfire hazard was retained in the list of hazards for the University because of thewoodlands bordering the campus on the west. Since wildfire is most likely to spread in this typeof woodland environment, it is considered to be a hazard to the University. The small size of theadjoining woodlands, however, limit the potential impact of the hazard to the campus

HurricaneHurricanes are typically considered coastal hazards, but these large storms move inland

generating large amounts of rainfall and may spawn tornados and damaging straight-line winds. The NCDC records show no damage in Lafayette County due to hurricane or tropical stormsmoving through the state. The closest reported damage is in Lee County resulting in one deathdue to downed electrical power lines from Hurricane Ivan. Hurricane Ivan made landfall onSeptember 16, 2004. Using the Hazards United States (HAZUS) computer code (multihazardversion) the wind speeds recorded for Lafayette County during the Hurricane Camille eventdidn’t exceed 68 miles per hour.

Although hurricanes are included in the list of hazards, the university’s inland locationseveral hundred miles from the Mississippi coast, means that the major hazards posed byhurricanes are not problematic for the university. Storm surge and storm waves, for example, arenot a concern. Hurricanes rapidly degrade once landfall is made and so wind speed typicallydiminishes rapidly as the storm moves inland. The major concerns regarding hurricanes at theUniversity of Mississippi are the winds, tornados and large rainfall amounts, which are considered as separate hazards. Hurricanes are here considered more of stimulus for flooding,wind and tornado events rather than a hazard unto itself. The landfall of hurricanes and tropicalstorms are considered here a harbinger of increased likelihood of other hazards becomingimportant in the near future. Since flooding, straight-line winds, and tornados are covered asseparate hazards, retaining hurricanes as a separate hazard would be redundant. It was thereforerejected as a hazard unto itself.

EarthquakeA map of earthquake epicenters produced by the Mississippi Office of Geology contains

42 epicenters throughout Mississippi (Bograd, 2005). The map illustrates seven epicenters inadjoining Tate, Panola, Yalobusha, Calhoun, and Pontotoc Counties. Six of these sevenearthquakes were large enough in magnitude to be felt at the surface. These data suggest thatlocal i.e. earthquakes with epicenters in North Mississippi, pose a hazard to the builtenvironment. The other earthquake hazard has its origin in the New Madrid Seismic Zone(NMSZ) which produced the largest set of earthquakes on which we have historical record in thelower 48 states (in 1811 and 1812). Although the southern end of the NMSZ is located north ofMississippi, in Arkansas, earthquakes originating from this area are likely to be felt inMississippi and if of sufficient magnitude, may cause extensive damage. The present state ofknowledge suggests the NMSZ is most likely to produce large magnitude earthquakes that havethe greater potential for damage.

Recent earthquake activity from the NMSZ has been felt in Oxford and the University.Having felt the seismic vibrations from these low magnitude earthquakes at the University it is a


Page -16-

forewarning of the potential danger originating from a larger magnitude event in the NMSZ or alocal event. Earthquakes are retained as a natural hazard that should be considered by theUniversity.

Profiles of Hazards of Concern to the UniversityThe hazards described below represent those considered to be of concern to the

University of Mississippi. An introduction to the particular hazard and the reason(s) foraccepting or rejecting the hazard from consideration is described in the preceding section. Theintent of this section is to further develop characteristics of the hazards that will have thepotential to damage structures on campus or inflict injuries to the students, faculty or staff. Studyof the damage caused by the hazard has acted as a guide to the type of mitigation goals andstrategies discussed later.

Many of the hazards discussed below have relied heavily on the information produced bythe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. These data typically extend from 1950to early 2005. Examination of these data, however, indicate that some records are clearly (froma historic view point) incomplete - these data sets have been supplemented, as much as possible,by independently derived information such as contained in local newspapers or from the recordsmaintained by the University of Mississippi. Hazard profiles have used University ofMississippi records as much as possible, but where this information is not available, eventinformation from Oxford and Lafayette County have been used. These profiles have usednumerous technical and nontechnical information. These sources of this information are listed inthe References Cited section and contains enough bibliographic information for the reader toreturn to the original source and evaluate the primary information.

FloodFlooding is a very prevalent hazard in the United States. An examination of the Oxford

FIRM indicates there are no mapped flood hazard zones on the campus. A search of records andinterviews with UM Physical Plant employees, failed to identify any campus flood events thatresulted from construction on a flood plain. The annual review of facilities by the MississippiDepartment of Finance and Administration (Mississippi Department of Finance andAdministration, 2005) lists any major facilities located on a campus flood plain. The Universityof Mississippi portion of the report lists no facilities on a flood plain. An examination of thecampus topography (see Appendix D) reveals few perennial streams and the intermittent streamson campus have small flood plains. Flood plains are considered as a siting criteria in for newconstruction on campus. A portion of the Oxford FIRM (a “FIRMette”), centered on theUniversity campus is included as Appendix F. This “FIRMette” was derived from the floodhazard map contained in the FEMA mitigation website ( http://www.fema.gov/fima/ ).

The examples of flooding identified on campus include street flooding in the area of WeirHall during unusually heavy rain events. The cause of the flooding is attributed to inadequatestorm sewer capacity for the rain event. Flooding has also occurred in the parking lot at Martin-Stockard Hall. This flooding event caused damage to cars in the parking lot. The incident


Page -17-

occurred during an unusually heavy rain event and is attributed to storm sewers with inadequatecapacity. As a result of this event, the University has posted signs in the parking lot areawarning of the flood potential (Kahler, 2005).

The NCDC records indicate that flooding in Oxford has also been limited. The May 10,1970, event is the most notable. According to Oxford Eagle (May 14, 1970 issue) reports, thisstorm resulted in heavy rain, high wind, and spawned a tornado. The rain event consisted of aseven inches of precipitation associated with a spring thunderstorm (Oxford Eagle, 1970a). Therain resulted in flooding of Burney Branch which caused damage along Park, and BramlettBoulevards and South 18th Street. Flooding also caused damage in the area of the Country Cluband Club View Road, in the Midtown Shopping Center, and near Ewing’s Trailer Park. Apartments were reported flooded when Toby Tubby Creek exceeded its bank capacity.

The damage consisted of bridge damage on Burney Branch (in front of Oxford HighSchool), and at Ewing’s Trailer Park. Other damage consisted of homes and apartments beingflooded, roads washed out by flood waters, in other places the flood waters deposited sand andmud across roads requiring its removal. At Ewing’s Trailer Park, a car was caught in the floodwaters and was washed downstream, and cars were flooded at Country Club Terracesapartments. The City of Oxford estimated damages at $750,000 and speculated that damageswould ultimately reach $1,000,000. There was similar damage in Lafayette County and damagewas estimated to be $177,000 (Oxford Eagle, 1970(b)). The Oxford Eagle (1970(a)) reportedthat the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Soil Sedimentation Laboratory reported that the eventwas equivalent to the 100-year flood.

Table 4, below, summarizes the NCDC information as well as information derived fromthe Oxford Eagle.

Table 4 - Summary of Flood Events in Lafayette County

Location Date Resulting Damage Estimated PropertyDamage

Oxford *1 5/10/70 Culverts washed out, bridges damaged, homesand apartments flooded

$750,000

Oxford 7/09/97 Culverts washed out, roads flooded $1,000

Oxford 2/09/99 Mobile home flooded, mud slide blocked road $1,000

10 County Area 11/28/01 flooding of roads, homes $955,000

Oxford 5/03/02 few streets flooded $1,000

Oxford 10/10/02 few streets flooded $1,000

Oxford 10/19/04 roads and parking lots flooded, water damageto cars

$10,000

Note: *1 - This information derived from the May 14, 1970, issue of the Oxford Eagle.


Page -18-

These data suggest that flooded parking lots and streets are the most commonconsequence of flood events both in Oxford and at the UM campus. The data above suggest thatstreet flooding is not uncommon, but flooding from a perennial stream reaching flood stageappears to be a rare event both in Oxford and the University campus. The reason for this is thatOxford and the University are largely situated on high elevations which do not have largestreams and associated flood plains that are typically flood-prone areas. Flooding can often bepredicted and warnings are regularly issued by the National Weather Service. The NCDC database extends from 1950 and only six events are listed. The 1970 event was identified during thecourse of the study by the CCEP. With an average of 0.12 flood events per year (12% chanceper year), the probability of flooding due to overflow of stream waters in the next five years isconsidered low. Localized flooding due to inadequate storm sewers or blocked sewers areconsidered to be a medium probability within the next five years.

The University of Mississippi Field Station is located in Lafayette County, approximately11 miles northeast of the main campus. The Field Station is a 740 acre, research-based facilityfocusing on wetlands research. With wetlands being the research focus, the facility containssignificant amounts of flood plain associated with several small streams. The facility alsocontains over 200 experimental ponds within the flood plain area. With the exception of theponds there are presently no significant structures in the flood plain.

Although Lafayette County has not joined the National Flood Insurance Program, theField Station has recommended that there be no construction on the flood plain areas. Hollandand others (1997) document projected plans for new field station construction and state that theconstruction is limited to the area in and around the existing complex – well outside of the floodplain area (see page 38 for written recommendation, also see included maps). Although “noflood plain construction” is in the form of a recommendation, it is adhered to much as if it wereaccepted policy. There has been no identified flood damage at the Field Station, although it issubject to heavy rain events similar to the main campus.

LightningThe lightning hazard is present every year and during every thunderstorm event. Curran

and Holle (1997) note that nationally lightning casualties are the least variable year-by-year forany natural hazard and deaths by lightning ranks only behind floods. The damage posed by thehazard includes physical damage to buildings, electrical shock to persons in the vicinity of alightning strike, lightning can cause fires and nonstructural damage to equipment due to theelectrical surge generated by the lightning bolt. A lightning strike is a localized event affectingonly a small area. A lightning strike will, for example, only damage one building leavingadjacent structures unscathed.

University records and / or institutional memory often notes structural damage caused bylightning, but damage due to electrical surges are not typically recorded. Curran and Holle(1997) note that records of damage costs from the NOAA Storm Data entries were between$5,000 and $50,000 suggesting the more expensive events were reported but not the smaller


Page -19-

losses. This trend may also function at the University as lightning events at the University arenot reported separately (Kahler, 2005), but are included as normal operating expenses. There isno record or memory of death or injury caused by lightning at the University.

There is historic record of damage due to lightning at the University. Lightning causeddamage to the brick facade on the Old Chemistry Building located on “the circle” in the middleof campus. A lightning strike destroyed the southeastern corner of the building requiring repair. The damage was limited to the facade and there was no equipment damage or injuries. Since theOld Chemistry Building is of concrete construction, there is little combustible material to cause afire hazard resulting from the lightning strike. No records specific to this event were retained bythe University, but it is estimated that the event occurred in 1988 and several occupants of thebuilding at the time recall the event.

Kinard Hall (presently contains offices) was also struck by lightning, sustaining physicaldamage to the equipment penthouse on the second wing of the structure. No specific recordswere retained documenting specific repairs and their costs. An exact date of the event could notbe established. Kinard is listed in the UM Building Inventory as concrete construction type -minimizing the fire hazard. The National Food Service Management Institute building wasstruck by lightning on June 6, 2005 . The damage consisted of dislodged brick and cement onthe facade. The structure is of masonry construction so no fire resulted from the event and noother damage was reported.

The NCDC records five lightning events for Lafayette County. These events areincluded as Table 5, below, along with one lightning event at the University of Mississippiwhere the details of the event were recorded by the University. No injuries are recorded as aresult of any of the events listed below.

Table 5 - Lightning Events Recorded by the NCDC for Lafayette County

Location Date Resulting Damage Estimated PropertyDamage

Oxford 7/09/1997 fire - house destroyed by fire $50,000

Oxford 7/23/1998 fire - 2 fires started caused evacuations $50,000

Oxford 4/12/2001 fire - home destroyed by fire $75,000

Oxford 10/19/2004 fire - destroyed mobile home $25,000

Taylor 11/23/2004 fire - destroyed barn $5,000

*1University ofMississippi

6/6/2005 damage to facade - Food Management InstituteBuilding

*1 - Information provided by the University of Mississippi Physical Plant.


Page -20-

There are two important conclusions that can be drawn from the information in Table 5. The first is that fire appears to be the most common result of the lightning strikes and haveresulted in the most monetary loss. The second conclusion is that a single thunderstorm canresult in multiple lightning strikes and multiple, simultaneous fires - taxing the fire andemergency services. The 7/23/1998 event illustrates this conclusion very well. Thisthunderstorm started two fires within one block of each other and within 40 minutes of eachother. In addition to the damage to property it resulted in the evacuation of 20 apartments andthree businesses. Discussions with firemen that responded to this event indicate that the samestorm started both fires. The 40 minute delay was due to the fact the first fire caused a naturalgas line fire and was evident. The second event started in the roof area and it was 40 minutesbefore the fire was large enough to be detected. This event might be considered a worst casescenario for mitigation planning on the University campus. Examination of the cases oflightning damage on campus suggest that lightning does little damage to the masonry andconcrete structures on campus. Figure 1 is a photograph of repaired lightning damage to the OldChemistry Building near the center of campus. This damage is typical of a lightning strike on thenon-wood structures. There is, however, no record of lightning striking the wood framestructures on campus, so this class of buildings may react differently. These structures may bemore similar to the cases in Oxford, described above, with an increased fire hazard.

The above data suggests that any mitigation efforts should be focused on campusbuildings made of combustible materials such as wood construction. The campus inventoryidentifies 53 buildings of predominately wood construction. These structures include historicalhomes (Rowan Oak), sorority houses, fraternity houses, faculty residences, warehouses, and thefield station manager’s residence.

The University of Mississippi presently has contractual arrangements with the City ofOxford to provide fire fighting services. The closest fire station is Oxford Fire Station No. 2,located adjacent to the north boundary of the campus on Washington Avenue. This fire stationhas one engine and an emergency response vehicle.

The records suggest that lightning is not uncommon during the warmer months whenthunderstorms are present. Thunderstorms are typically monitored and so the lighteningcontained within them can be predicted, but not to a precise location. The probability oflightning occurring within the next five years is considered high.

HailstormHail is not an uncommon occurrence during summer thunderstorms in North Mississippi.

Seldom does hail cause deaths or injury (although deaths and injuries have been recorded fromhail). Hail most often causes damage to roofs, vehicles, and can cause extensive damage totrees. Schaefer and others (2005), points out that most non-severe hail is one half inch indiameter or smaller. They did note that hail stones have been reported as large as 10 inches indiameter (Burr Oak, Noble County, Indiana, on May 6, 1961). Maps contained in Schaefer andothers’s indicate that most reported hail events are centered in central Texas and Oklahoma andthe most intense activity remains west of Mississippi throughout the year. Only in April does


Page -21-

Mississippi see increased hail activity (based on records from 1955 to 2002). Another importantpoint made by Schaefer and others is that storms occurring before 1996, the hail damage wascoded from “0" to

“9". The “0" code represents damage less that $50 and the “9" indicates damage >$500,000,000. After 1996 the hail damage is reported in dollars, without the coding.

Table 6, below, documents the hail events in the NCDC records for Lafayette County. Particularly notable, is the April 10, 1962, hail event in which the hail stones were reported to befive inches in diameter (Oxford Eagle, 1962(a)). Hail of this size is capable of extensivedamage. The April 12, 1951, issue of the Oxford Eagle reports that this hail event occurred “shortly after 9:30 Tuesday night” and caused considerable damage in Oxford. The damagelisted includes extensive damage to greenhouses used to grow plants for the floral industry anddamage to new cars in Rebel Chevrolet’s car lot. The front page article also stated the hail was

Figure 1 - The lighter colored brick indicate the area of facade damaged by a lightning strike tothe Old Chemistry Building near the center of campus.


Page -22-

large enough to break skylights and was reported to have “knocked a hole” through five layers ofasphalt shingles. A picture caption states that the hail was 11 inches in circumference (3.5inches in diameter). The article states this event is the worst hailstorm in Oxford’s history.

Table 6 - Hail Events Recorded by the NCDC for Lafayette County

Location Date Size(in inches)

Estimated Property Damage

Lafayette County 4/10/62 5.00 0


























Table 6 - Hail Events Recorded by the NCDC for Lafayette County

Location Date Size(in inches)

Estimated Property Damage

Page -23-


Thacker Mountain 4/30/94 0.75 0

Oxford 6/29/94 1.75 0

Keel 5/18/95 1.75 $5,000

Lafayette Springs 5/18/95 0.75 0

Harmontown 5/18/95 1.00 $1,000

Taylor 1/24/97 1.75 $1,000

Oxford 4/21/97 0.75 0

Dogtown 4/21/97 1.75 $1,000

Oxford 4/03/98 1.50 $1,000

Denmark 4/08/98 1.25 $1,000

Splinter 1/22/99 1.75 $1,000

Oxford 3/02/99 1.00 0

Oxford 5/05/99 1.75 $1,000

Abbeville 4/07/00 0.75 0

Oxford 3/15/02 1.00 0

Tula 4/30/02 1.00 0

Oxford 4/30/02 0.75 0

Oxford 7/22/02 0.75 0

Tula 5/06/03 0.75 0

Oxford 7/13/03 1.00 0

Oxford 7/14/04 0.88 0

Oxford 7/14/04 0.75 0

Paris 3/27/05 0.88 $1,000

Thunderstorms that are likely to produce hail can be predicted, although the time forreaction is short. Note that Table 6 lists one or more hail events yearly since 1997, with theexception of 2001. The NCDC records extend from 1950. During this 55 year period 25 hailevents have been recorded yielding an average of 0.45 hail events per year. The probability of a


Page -24-

hail event occurring within the next five years is considered high. Although hail occursfrequently in the University / Oxford area, is seldom does extensive damage. The damage istypically confined to vulnerable roof materials, such as asphalt shingles. Many of the roofs atthe University are of less vulnerable material such as tile or metal. We feel that hail canpotentially cause damage to University property, but it is likely to be limited and is unlikely tointerrupt operations. We retain hail as a natural hazard, but it is not considered to be a majorhazard to the University.

Severe Winter WeatherWinter weather resulting in significant accumulations of ice and to a lessor extent snow,

is a recurring natural hazard in northern Mississippi. Although ice storms and snow occur everyfew years, the ice storms of 1948, 1951 and 1994 were of note because of their severity. Damage resulting from these ice accumulations included extensive damage to the electricalpower infrastructure, loss of electrical power resulted in loss of public water supply and theability to conduct commerce. Travel on streets and roads was dangerous and resulted invehicular accidents. Ice accumulation on trees resulted in limbs breaking and in turn damagingstructures and any vehicles beneath. Many private businesses and public agencies suspendedactivity because employees could not reach the work place. Public schools and the University ofMississippi suspended classes until staff, faculty, and students could safely reach their workplace. Unlike local events such as tornados, the damage was widespread across northernMississippi and developed into a regional event of national importance.

The 1948 ice storm is reported in the Oxford Eagle and appears to be more of a set ofcontinuous weather events rather than a single ice event. The January 22 issue of the OxfordEagle (Oxford Eagle, 1948(a)) first reports four inches of snow, and temperatures as low as -10

F. The last mention of these events was published in the February 19 (Oxford Eagle, 1948(b))issue. Damage and conditions were discussed in the January 29 article (Oxford Eagle, 1948 (c),d)), reports sleet, freezing rain and a covering of ice. This issue described damage to propertyand trees, closing of schools, commercial business in Oxford is “at a standstill”, icy roads anddangerous travel, damaged telephone lines, and a shortage of fuel oil for heating at theUniversity (Oxford Eagle, 1948 (e)). The February 5 (Oxford Eagle, 1948(c)) issue notes thatdamage to the telephone system is significant, noting 424 phones are out of service, 22 linesdown north to Holly Springs, and a broken pole on the line to Tula.

The 1951 ice storm is similar to the 1948 event, particularly the damage caused by theevent. The event is first reported in two articles in the February 1 issue of the Oxford Eagle(Oxford Eagle, 1951 (a), (b)). This issue reports that it started on Monday night with coldtemperatures, rain, sleet, and slush with some ice covering wires. By Wednesday it was a mix ofsleet and rain with local street flooding reported because of a lack of carrying capacity of thestorm sewers. By Thursday it was freezing rain that turned to snow. The February 8 issue(Oxford Eagle, 1951(c)) focused on the ice damage and the temperatures. The temperature hadreached a maximum low of -8 0 F. The damage consisted of downed power and telephone lines,damage to trees and property, icy roads and dangerous travel, commerce at a minimum, injuries


Page -25-

due to icy conditions and death of livestock due to falling through ice into water bodies (Mathis,1951). Lin (2005) estimated that the 1951 ice storm cost Mississippi $50,000,000 in damages.

The February 9, 1994, ice storm was the worst natural disaster in Mississippi sinceHurricane Camille in 1969 (WLBT, 2004). The University of Mississippi (and the State as awhole) incurred significant damage during the 1994 ice storm. The ice storm cost an estimated$3,000,000,000 in damage nation-wide, but the cost to Mississippi alone is estimated to benearly $2,000,000,000 or approximately two thirds of the national total (Lott and Ross, 1994). The NCDC lists the 1994 event as costing the state $5,000,000,000 in crop damage (trees andnut crops) and $500,000 in property damage.

The event began on February 9 as rain and became freezing rain and sleet. Like theprevious ice events, up to two inches of ice covered tree limbs, electrical power lines, and streetsbecame dangerously slick (Magee, 1994). The coating of ice resulted in downed electricalpower lines, property damage due to falling limbs, extensive damage to trees, icy, dangerousroads resulting in accidents, no commerce due to lack of electricity, loss of public water supply,and closing of the University of Mississippi and the public and private schools. The Universityof Mississippi incurred direct losses of $1,078,750. A significant amount of these monies (over$530,000) were to clean up debris from trees and tree limbs broken during the ice storm and thedamage caused to structures by broken trees and limbs( from records housed at the UniversityPhysical Plant). An outbuilding at Rowan Oak was damaged by a falling tree. Downed powerlines resulted in a lack of water supply and heating for a short period of time. Broken trees andtree limbs, along with ice on the roads made campus travel difficult until they were cleared. Shelters set up on campus included the Student Union, Law Center, and the Turner Complex(Oxford Eagle, 1994).

The February 1996 ice storm had similar, but less severe consequences. The 1996 icestorm began on February 1 as drizzling rain and became sleet and then freezing rain as thetemperature dropped below 32 degrees. The result was about three inches of sleet covering aone-third inch layer of ice (University of Mississippi, 1996). Travel by road was verydangerous. The University closed from February 2 through February 6, with only essentialemployees reporting to work. Food service employees worked to supply students with meals. As with the 1994 ice storm debris had to be removed from streets and sidewalks before classescould resume. The direct costs to the University for the 1996 ice storm included $41,700 forroof repair, $3,250 for plumbing repair, $62, 600 for repair of interior spaces due to waterdamage, $2,620 to repair lights and electrical items, $5,140 for replacement of chill water coilsin three buildings, and $9,430 was required to repair sidewalks, storm sewer drains and inletsand replace ornamental shrubbery( University of Mississippi,1996). Streets were damaged onthe campus as in all of northern Mississippi by the ice and the freeze-thaw cycles. TheUniversity estimated that it would cost approximately $680, 000 to overlay as much as one halfof the campus streets and parking lots. Note that the NCDC data indicate only $500,000 indamage for the entire county.


Page -26-

Table 7, below, contains the ice storm / winter weather events for Lafayette County asrecorded by the NCDC. The Lafayette County data base and the NCDC state data base havebeen combined. These data have been supplemented by events derived (this study) fromnewspaper and other sources. The Information Source column indicates the origin of theinformation.

Table 7 - Summary of Ice Storm / Winter Weather Events for Lafayette County

Date Type of Weather Damage to crops (Crp)and property (Pty)

Information Source

January 22, 1948*1 ice, snow, sleet, freezing rain,low temperatures

unknown Oxford Eagle, 1948

January 29, 1951*1 ice, snow, sleet, freezing rain $50,000,000 state-wide; type of damage unknown

Oxford Eagle; Lin(2005)

March 22 & 23, 1968*1 14 inches of snow damage to awnings -costs unknown

Oxford Eagle, 1968

January 20, 1983*1 ice, snow, freezing rain unknown Stead, 1983

January 16, 1984*1 ice, snow 0 Oxford Eagle, 1984(a)

February 17, 1984*1 freezing rain, sleet, rain unknown Oxford Eagle, 1984(b)

March 12, 1993 heavy snow (4 -6 inches) 0 NCDC

February 9, 1994 freezing rain $500,000 (Pty);$5,000,000,000 (Crp)

NCDC

February 1, 1996 snow, sleet, freezing rain $500,000 (Pty) NCDC

January 15, 1998 sleet, snow, freezing rain 0 NCDC

December 22, 1998 ice $16,600,000 (Pty) state-wide; $99,000 (Pty)Lafayette Co.

NCDC

January 27, 2000 heavy snow $1,100,000 (Pty) state-wide: 0 Lafayette County

NCDC

December 20, 2000 sleet, freezing rain $10,000 state-wide, 0Lafayette County

NCDC

February 17, 2006 sleet, freezing rain

Notes: *1 - information added to NCDC data from Oxford Eagle

Present technology allows the prediction of conditions suitable for the production offreezing rain, sleet and snow. Unlike the 1948 event, which appears to have taken Oxford bysurprise, winter storm predictions now allow for preparation time ahead of the event. From the57 years of record included in Table 7, above, 0.22 winter storms occur per year. Although the


Page -27-

NCDC record is obviously incomplete, the acquired information suggest winter storms are notuncommon and the probability of a winter storm within the next five years is consideredprobable. Appendix G contains photographs from the University campus taken near the end ofthe 1994 ice storm and prior to clean-up.

Winter storms occur irregularly and can be associated with significant costs to theUniversity. These events are not expected to do structural damage, but may cause extensivedamage to lifelines and debris clean-up costs can be significant. The University may beexpected to be closed one to several days due to an event such as the 1994 ice storm. Severewinter storms are retained as a major hazard to the University, but is not likely to pose the threatto the well-being of the University as posed by earthquakes and tornados. We consider thishazard to be of medium severity to the University.

TornadoTornados are local weather events that are capable extensive damage and casualties in a

very short period of time. The NCDC records 14 tornados in Lafayette County. Records andinterviews at the University of Mississippi has not produced any record or memory of a tornadooccurring on campus. The recorded tornados in Lafayette County vary from a F1 to a F3 on the Fujita Tornado Damage Scale. The NCDC records indicate that the Lafayette County tornados(from 1950 to 2005) have cause no deaths, 11 injuries and $25,268,000 in property damage. Review of local newspaper records have identified additional tornados within Lafayette County.Table 8, below summarizes both the NCDC data and the newspaper data.

Table 8 - Tornados Recorded in Lafayette County Between 1950 and 2005

Location Date Fujita Scale Class*1 Injuries Property Damage

Lafayette Co. August 3, 1952 F2 0 $25,000

Lafayette Co. February 23, 1962 F2 1 $3,000

Harmontown*2 April 25, 1962 F2 1 $75,000

Lafayette Co. May 10, 1970 F2 0 0

Lafayette Co. June 20, 1970 F1 0 0

Oxford / CollegeHill*2

February 21, 1971 F2 36 $500,000

Lafayette Co. February 22, 1975 F3 2 $3,000

Lafayette Co. March 28, 1975 F1 0 $25,000



Lafayette Co. April 24, 1976 F2 2 $25,000


Table 8 - Tornados Recorded in Lafayette County Between 1950 and 2005

Location Date Fujita Scale Class*1 Injuries Property Damage

Page -28-

Lafayette Co. April 21, 1984 Fl 0 $3,000

Lafayette Co. April 21, 1984 F3 3 $25,000,000

Lafayette Co. November 26, 1988 F1 0 $25,000

Tula March 1, 1997 F3 0 $10,000

Paris January 3, 2000 F2 3 $100,000

Note: *1 - See appendix D for explanation of Fujita Scale. *2 - Information derived from Oxford Eagle, March 1, 1962, and Feb. 25, 1971, issues. Fujita-scale class assignment derived by CCEP staff.

A tornado event was noted in the March 1, 1962, issue of the Oxford Eagle (Speakes,1962) as having occurred in Harmontown on Friday afternoon (April 25, 1962). The tornadodamaged stores and homes in Harmontown and electricity was out for 11 hours and telephoneswere out until “mid-day Monday”. Hales Store, a brick structure, was considered a total loss. Mr. Luther DeShazo’s home was knocked from its foundation with only a single room left intact. The only injury was Mr. DeShazo’s wife. She was hit by a door that blew off its hinges andbecame airborne (Oxford Eagle, 1962(b)). Mr. DeShazo’s truck was totally destroyed withpieces being found three miles away. Other damage was similar, including other housesremoved from their foundation, roof damage, tree damage and damage by trees to nearbystructures. Speakes (1962) reported the damage totaled $75,000. Another tornado is reported tohave tracked through Harmontown in 1893 and destroyed the Baptist Church (Speakes, 1962).

The tornado of February 21, 1972, tracked closest to the University of Mississippi. Thistornado tracked through what is presently the western edge of Oxford and within approximatelya mile of the University campus. Although the tornado is here estimated to be only a F2 tornado,it caused considerable damage when the track carried it through the Mobile City mobile homepark. A total of 31 mobile homes were destroyed at Mobile City, two were destroyed at S & SMobile Home Park and another at the Ewing Mobile Home Park. There was also considerabledamage to the electrical power system (power lines and poles), telephone system, cars, anddamage to roofs of near-by houses. Damage was estimated to be $500,000 (Phillips, 1971).

Perhaps the April 21, 1984, F3 tornado that tracked from Yalobusha County intoLafayette is the most educational as it tracked through the City of Water Valley. The WaterValley business district, like the University campus, has a high concentration of people in arelatively small area and there also a concentration of structures which are vulnerable todamage. This tornado killed seven and injured 65 (only three injuries in Lafayette County). Damage was estimated to be $21,000,000 (Sweate, 1984). The tornado damage to structureswere extensive and Sweate notes that leaking natural gas was a major concern. Ten search andrescue teams were employed in the aftermath of the tornado. The citizens had but a few minutes


Page -29-

warning of likely tornado conditions (the tornado went through Water Valley at 5:30 and initialwarning to the Chief of Police was at 4:50). The tornado sirens sounded prior to the arrival of thetornado, and is credited with saving lives.

In Lafayette County, this tornado and a smaller one generated by the same storm trackedthrough more rural and less densely populated areas, but still caused an estimated $80,000 to$100,000 in damage. There was an estimated 360 acres of woodland destroyed, 22 homesdamaged or destroyed, six mobile homes, nine barns, six outbuildings, four garages, 12 vehicles,one combine, one water well, one church, one horse, and a cemetery (Phillips, 1984). The 1971and the 1984 tornado through Water Valley both demonstrate the broad and varied damage thatcan be generated by tornados in urbanized areas.

Tornados may cross multiple counties and so the damage and injuries described in onecounty may not be a complete picture of the event. An example of a multi-county tornado eventis the March 1 tornado. The March 1, 1997, tornado developed in Calhoun County and trackedthrough Lafayette and into Union County. Although only $10,000 was listed for LafayetteCounty, the tornado throughout its course damaged 91 homes with 49 of these considered toodamaged to be lived in (NCDC, 2005). Another example is the January 3, 2000, F2 tornadowhich crossed parts of three counties Yalobusha, Lafayette and Union.

Damage from tornados are a result of the high velocity, tornadic winds and the debristhese winds may be carrying. The winds from the January 3, 2000, tornado lifted a frame housecompletely off of its foundation (NCDC, 2005) destroying the structure while leaving only thewest wall standing. This damage is similar to the damage described from the April 25, 1962,Harmontown tornado. The only injury from the Harmontown tornado was from an airbornedoor.

Averaging over the 55 years of records, above, 0.29 tornados occur per year in LafayetteCounty. This number would suggest that over the next five years we would have a highlikelihood of a tornado within the county. A prediction of the likelihood of a tornado trackingacross the University of Mississippi campus would be difficult as tornado tracks are randomwithin the path of the thunderstorm and the path of the thunderstorm is also somewhat random. Tornados, like earthquakes, have a low probability striking any specific geographic area such asthe University campus, but the consequences of a tornado event can be catastrophic, particularlyto a densely populated area. We consider tornados not only a major hazard, but the primaryhazard at the University. Wind

The NCDC records for wind events appears to be the most complete of any of thehazards. There are 85 Thunderstorm and High Wind events listed between 1950 and May of2005. One death and two injuries have been recorded over the course of the 55 years of record. Table 9, below, summarizes these events as contained in the NCDC record.


Page -30-

Table 9 - Summary of Windstorm Events in Lafayette County

Location Date Deaths Injuries Wind Speed(knots)

Damage (dollars)

Lafayette Co. 06/11/1964 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 04/28/1966 0 0 80 0

Lafayette Co. 05/16/1966 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 05/24/1966 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 06/29/1966 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 12/21/1967 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 06/11/1968 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 04/19/1970 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 05/10/1970 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 07/06/1971 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 03/16/1972 0 0 50 0

Lafayette Co. 05/19/1973 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 11/26/1973 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 03/12/1975 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 03/12/1975 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 06/06/1975 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 07/10/1975 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 03/20/1976 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 07/15/1977 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 07/15/1977 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 09/13/1977 0 0 52 0

Lafayette Co. 04/30/1978 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 08/29/1978 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 08/29/1978 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 12/03/1978 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 04/11/1979 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 05/03/1979 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 07/10/1981 0 0 54 0




Damage (dollars)

Page -31-

Lafayette Co. 04/26/1982 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 10/20/1984 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 05/07/1085 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 05/23/1987 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 09/10/1987 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 11/16/1987 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 12/14/1987 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 04/18/1988 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 11/19/1988 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 03/30/1989 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 07/30/1989 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 06/09/1990 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 03/22/1991 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 04/13/1991 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 05/05/1991 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 03/09/1992 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 06/06/1992 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 08/10/1992 0 0 0

Lafayette Co. 09/02/1992 0 0 0

Oxford 04/30/1994 N/A 0 0

Lafayette Co. 06/09/1994 N/A 0 0

Oxford 06/26/1994 N/A 0 0

Abbeville 11/05/1994 0 0 N/A 1,000

Lafayette Co. *1 04/11/1995 0 0 60 mph 100,000

Paris 05/18/1995 0 0 2,000

Oxford 02/21/1997 0 0 12, 000

Oxford 06/23/1997 0 0 2,000

Oxford 07/09/1997 0 0 5,000




Damage (dollars)

Page -32-

Oxford 02/10/1998 0 0 1,000

Lafayette Co. 03/17/1998 0 0 10,000

Lafayette Springs 04/08/1998 0 0 5,000

Oxford 05/07/1998 0 0 5,000

Oxford 06/05/1998 0 0 50,000

Oxford 01/22/1999 0 0 5,000

Oxford 02/09/1999 0 0 1,000

Oxford 05/05/1999 0 0 63 10,000

Lafayette Co. 11/02/1999 0 0 10,000

Oxford 05/13/2000 0 0 5,000

Oxford 07/20/2000 1 2 10,000

Oxford 08/10/2000 0 0 10,000

Harmontown 05/20/2000 0 0 10,000

Abbeville 10/24/2001 0 0 10,000

Oxford 10/24/2001 0 0 10,000

Oxford 04/30/2002 0 0 10,000

Oxford 07/22/2002 0 0 10,000

Cambridge 07/23/2002 0 0 10,000

Lafayette Springs 07/23/2002 0 0 5,000

Lafayette County*2 10/04/2002 0 0 55,000

Lafayette County 11/10/2002 0 0 100,000

Oxford 05/05/2003 0 0 55 10,000

Oxford 06/11/2003 0 0 55 10,000

Paris 06/11/2003 0 0 60 15,000

Oxford 05/30/2004 0 0 50 10,000

Taylor 07/07/2004 0 0 55 5,000

Oxford 10/19/2004 0 0 55 60,000

Paris 11/23/2004 0 0 60 10,000




Damage (dollars)

Page -33-

Oxford 04/06/2005 0 0 50 15,000

University*3 08/29/2005 0 0 61 130,027

Notes:*1 - A regional wind event not associated with thunderstorms - destroyed mobile homes, downed power lines,and damaged trees.*2 - This event was a regional event and represented the remnants of Tropical Storm Lilly. Heavy rain andwinds caused tree damage and power line damage.*3 - This event represented the remnants of Hurricane Katrina. Heavy winds caused tree damage on campus andminor damage to structures. Information from University of Mississippi Physical Plant Department.

The typical damage resulting from these wind events consists of downed trees and powerlines. Trees being blown on to structures and power lines are also a common type of damagenoted in the records along with roof damage. The only death and injuries recorded, occurred onJuly 20, 2000, in the same event. A wall that was being constructed collapsed because of windsduring a thunderstorm. This event also knocked down trees and power lines. In addition to onedeath and two injuries, the event cost $10,000 in property damage. The November 10, 2002,wind event resulted in damage in both Oxford and the University of Mississippi. In Oxford ahouse was destroyed when the wind blew over a tree on to a natural gas line and caused a rupturein the line. Then a near-by downed power line caused a spark and ignited the natural gas. Theresulting fire destroyed the house. The NCDC records indicate that the wind hazard has costLafayette County a total of $604,000.

The University of Mississippi is specifically mentioned in the NCDC record of the windevent of November 10, 2004, but additional detail was located in the records of the University’sPhysical Plant Department. The damage covered a wide spectrum. The event downed electricaland telecommunications wires and poles. A total of 3300 linear feet of electrical wire wasrequired to repair damage and 500 linear feet of telecommunications cable. Replacement of tenutility poles were also required. These repairs cost approximately $17,883. Damage tostructures included roof damage, broken windows, damage to air conditioning units, damagedguttering, decking, and a parapet was significantly damaged and required replacement. Much ofthe damage was to housing units which required the temporary relocation of the tenants ($1,037)while the repairs were being made. Debris removal - limbs and entire trees was also a significantcost. The damage also created the need to secure certain areas of campus for safetyconsiderations which cost $2,005. Table 10, below lists individual buildings damaged in theevent and type of damage sustained. The University sustained $101,398 in uninsured damageand $9,573 in insured damage. A tree limb also fell on a car near Guess Hall and did extensivedamage.


Page -34-

Table 10 - University Buildings Damaged in Nov. 10, 2002 Wind Event

Building Type of Damage

Faculty / Staff House 31 roof damage, power line damage

Faculty / Staff House 12 broken window glass

Hefley Hall roof flashing damaged

Leavell Hall broken window glass

Bishop Hall roof damage, leak - interior clean-up and repair

Bondurant Hall roof damage, leak - interior clean-up and repair

Student Health Center roof damage

Brown Hall damaged metal coping

Faculty / Staff House 19 roof damage, leak

University of Mississippi Museum roof damage, leak

Rowan Oak roof damage

Rowan Oak outbuildings roof damage

Old Chemistry broken window glass

Student Union roof damage, parapet replacement

George Hall roof damage

Faculty / Staff House 7 damage to power lines entering house

Another wind event on October 19, 2004, also did damage to the University as well asOxford. The damage at the University airport consisted of aircraft that were overturned as aresult of the wind.

On August 29 and 30, 2005, the remnants of Hurricane Katrina passed through NorthMississippi. Winds were measured at 53.2 miles per hour in Oxford, however, winds as high as60 miles per hour were reported in the Oxford Eagle (Schultz and Waterman, 2005). Thesewinds resulted in significant damage to trees at the university, in Oxford, and in LafayetteCounty. As many as 3,500 Oxford households were without electricity (Schultz and Waterman,2005) and in Lafayette County electricity was lost for a number of households and would not berestored for everyone for an extended period of time. The lack of electricity to run pumps inpublic water supply wells and maintain pipeline pressures resulted in boil water notices issuedby Mississippi State Health Board to several county water associations.

On campus there were several trees either broken or blown over with one landing acrossa parked vehicle and onto Faculty House #33. Small limbs and leaves covered the wooded areasof campus and required significant clean-up. The event caused nonstructural wind damage at 22


Page -35-

locations, some power outages due to tree limbs falling across power lines. The details ofstructures damaged by the August 29 storm event is summarized in Table 11 below. Totaldamages resulting from Katrina (including security costs of $4373) was $130,027, representingthe most costly wind event that the University has record of.

Table 11 - University Structures Damaged by the Remnants of Hurricane Katrina August 29, 2005

Building Type of Damage

Bryant Hall Broken window

Tad Smith Coliseum Roof damage, metal curled from winds

Conner Hall Water damage from roof leaks

Faculty Staff House #33 Damage from fallen tree / interior water damage

Faser Hall Roof damage / water damage

Hume Hall Roof damage / water damage

Lenoir Hall Roof damage / water damage

Lester Hall Roof damage / water damage

J. D. Williams Library Roof damage / water damage

Martin-Stockard Towers (Martin Hall) Roof and window leaks / water damage

Martindale Roof damage / water damage

Meek Hall - Nusery Roof damage / water damage

Natural Products Center Roof damage / water damage

P.B. Johnson Commons Roof damage

Peabody Hall Roof damage / water damage

Scruggs Hall Roof damage / water damage

Shoemaker Hall Roof and window leaks / water damage

Small Business Development Center Damaged trailer skirting

Student Union Window blown out and destroyed

The Inn at Ole Miss Roof damage / water damage

Turner Center Roof damage / water damage

UM Airport Terminal Building Water in building

Vardeman Hall Roof damage / water damage


Page -36-

Figure 2 maps the distribution of damaged structures on campus. Although some damage wasdistributed throughout campus most was near the center of campus and along an east - west axisoriented parallel to University Avenue.

WildfireThere are no data to indicate that the University of Mississippi campus has been effected

by wildfire. But areas adjoining the campus are forested, providing potential fuel for a wildfire. For this reason this hazard was included in the listing of hazards.

Wildfire typically becomes problematic when dry windy weather prevails for an extendedperiod of time. These conditions result in dry vegetation (fuel) and make ideal conditions forsmall man-made or natural fires to expand rapidly, burn intensely, and become uncontrollable. Wildfire, as opposed to controlled or prescribed burns, damages the woodland environment andpotentially destroys the built environment.

The NCDC lists no wild or forest fire events for Lafayette County or Mississippi. ThreeRivers Planning and Development District (TRPDD, 2005), however, lists 16 wildfires inLafayette County in 2004 and two in 2005. None of these fires occurred in or near theUniversity or Oxford. Records of the Mississippi Forestry Commission, however, suggest amuch different view of wildfires in Lafayette County. Table 12, below, summarizes these datafor Lafayette County from 2000. These data were derived from Burned Acreage Reportsgenerated for this project by the District Office (in Tupelo, Mississippi) of the MississippiForestry Commission.


Page -37-


Page -38-

Table 12 - Summary of Wildfires in Lafayette County

Year Number ofFires

Burned AcresState & PrivateForest

Burned Acres State& Private Non-forest

Burned AcresFederal Land

Total Acres

2000 52 638 129 2,701 3,468

2001 3 16 0 0 16

2002 5 20 25 5 50

2003 16 87 106 0 193

2004 13 140 140 35 315

Perhaps a worst case scenario of a local wildfire is the 1987 “Thacker Mountain Fire”. This fire began on May 11, 1987, with fire units being dispatched at 9:00a..m. (MississippiForestry Commission, 1987). This initial fire burned a total of 200 acres and required 110firefighters to control. Later, at 1:45 p. m., another fire, thought to be spawned the 9:00 o’clockfire was reported. This fire rapidly spread into one of the largest in the area in recent history. Mississippi Forestry Commission records indicate that this second fire burned a total of 1493acres of state or private forest and 45 acres of state or private non-forest land. The fire required24 state firefighters and 200 other firefighters from the Federal Government (U.S. Department ofAgriculture and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), City and County firefighters as well as firefighting personnel from private industry. These two fires burned 1,738 acres. Fortunately, thisarea of the county was not heavily populated and damage to the built environment was small. This fire does indicate that wildfires of significant size can develop under the right conditionsand considerable resources are required to control them. From the five years of data in Table 11,Lafayette County averages 17.8 fires per year. The 52 fires in 2000 is a result of prolonged drought conditions and skews the yearly average. It does, however, indicate the number of firesthat are possible in the county during drought conditions. Without considering the fires of 2000,the average is 9.25 fires per year.

EarthquakeThere is no recorded damage to the University of Mississippi due to earthquakes. The

earthquake hazard in the Central United States is, however, unusual in that the area is capable oflarge earthquakes, but they occur only sporadically. The earthquake hazard is considered here tobe present but may occur only infrequently.

The source of the earthquake hazard at the University of Mississippi is from the NewMadrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ) and from faulting located within Mississippi. A series ofearthquakes in 1811 and 1812 demonstrate that the NMSZ is capable of producing devastating,high magnitude seismic events. The largest of the 1811 - 1812 earthquakes were of magnitudesbetween 7.5 and 8.0, were felt from Canada to the east Coast and represent the largest historicalearthquakes in the 48 contemporaneous states, including California. There is clearly a hazard


Page -39-

from earthquakes originating in the NMSZ. The other source of earthquake hazard is from faultslocated within the political boundaries of Mississippi, but not associated with the NMFZ. Bograd (2005) lists 42 known earthquakes within Mississippi. Mississippi’s largest historicalearthquake occurred on December 16, 1931, with an epicenter believed to be near the town ofCharleston, Mississippi (Tallahatchie County). This earthquake was a magnitude 4.6 event, wasfelt over 65,000 square miles in three states (Bograd, 2005), and resulted in damage as for awayas Corinth, Mississippi, in Alcorn County (Oxford Eagle, 1931). This 1931 earthquake as wellas several NMSZ earthquakes this year, have been felt in Oxford as well as the universitycampus (Swann, 2005).

Table 13, below summarizes the earthquakes known to have occurred in historic times inMississippi. The shaded entries represent earthquake epicenters that are located in countiesadjacent to Lafayette. There is no record of an earthquake occurring within Lafayette County.

Table 13 - Historic Earthquake Epicenters Located in Mississippi

Date County Intensity(MMI)

Magnitude Felt? Damage?

Sept. 11, 1853 Harrison ? Yes

March 27, 1923 Tate IV Yes

November 13,1927 Jackson IV Yes

December 16, 1931 Panola VI-VII 4.7 Yes Yes

June 28, 1941 Warren III - IV Yes

February 1, 1955 Harrison V Yes

June 4, 1967 Washington VI 3.8 Yes

January 8, 1973 Sunflower 3.5 No No

May 25, 1975 Bolivar Yes

September 9, 1975 Hancock IV 2.9 Yes

October 23, 1976 Clarke 3.0 No No

May 3, 1977 Clarke V 3.6 Yes

November 4, 1977 Calhoun V 3.4 Yes

January 8, 1978 Kemper 3.0 No No

June 9, 1978 Clarke 3.3 No No

December 10, 1978 Clarke V 3.5 Yes

October 12, 1980 Pontotoc 2.1 No No

February 15, 1981 Clarke 2.4 No No


Table 13 - Historic Earthquake Epicenters Located in Mississippi

Date County Intensity(MMI)

Magnitude Felt? Damage?

Page -40-

January 29, 1983 Prentiss 2.4 No No

February 5, 1983 Prentiss V 2.9 Yes

April 25, 1983 Tunica 1.6 No No

May 30, 1983 Clarke 2.4 No No

March 23, 1984 Tishomingo 2.0 No No

September 24, 1984 Yalobusha 2.5 Yes

May 11, 1986 Tunica 1.6 No No

August 1, 1988 Quitman 2.1 No No

August 23, 1989 Clark Yes



November 26, 1989 Clark Yes

November 26, 1989 Clark Yes

February 11, 1991 Coahoma 2.7 No No

December 11, 1992 Humphreys 2.4 Yes

December 11, 1992 Humphreys Yes

March 25, 1996 Clarke 3.5 Yes

March 25, 1996 Clarke 2.5 Yes

May 13, 1996 Tishmoingo 2.7 No No

August 11, 1996 Bolivar 3.1 No No

February 24, 1999 Panola IV 2.8 Yes

January 28, 2000 Clarke 2.7 No

October 10, 2000 Lauderdale 2.3 No No

January 6, 2002 Noxubee 2.2 No No

August 11, 2002 Panola 2.8 Yes No

October 26, 2002 Bolivar 3.1 Yes

February 26, 2003 Panola Yes


Page -41-

Predicting the recurrence of earthquakes in the NMSZ is problematic because they occurirregularly, and the state of scientific knowledge regarding the origin of earthquakes in themiddle of a plate is not as well known as at plate boundaries (California, for example). Theproblem of prediction is, however, a continuing focus of research. In the mid-1990's a set ofpapers were published suggesting a downgrading of the seismic risk in the NMSZ and calling fora reduction in building code requirements. These studies sparked intense discussion, as the U.S.Geological Survey and others pointed out that this geographic positioning system (GPS) data didnot match the geological data of the region. Recently the U.S. Geological Survey has publishedthe results of its new GPS data (Smalley and others, 2005 and Tuttle, 2005) that clearly refutesthe earlier work with better information over a longer period of time. As this research continuesthe predictions of recurrence change. In June of 2005 O’Driscoll reported in USA Today that inthe Central U.S., the U.S. Geological Survey predicts that there is a 40% chance of a majorearthquake (magnitude six or greater) within the next 35 years and a 10% chance of a 7.6magnitude or greater earthquake (on the same scale as the 1811 - 1812 events).

Damage near the epicenter of the 1931 earthquake consisted of damaged or destroyedchimneys, cracked plaster walls, and broken window panes. Unlike the localized tornadohazard, the damage from earthquakes will likely be wide-spread over a region of the state. Theamount of damage will be dependent on the magnitude of the earthquake, epicentral location,depth, building type and soil conditions. Damage will be greater at the epicenter and becomeless outwards as the seismic waves attenuate. There is no reliable method to accurately predictearthquake occurrence, other than identify faults that appear to have had recent movement. Rarely will there be any warning of an impending earthquake event.

Summary of Hazard CharacteristicsTable 14, below, summarizes the characteristics of the hazards expected to be

encountered at the University of Mississippi. The typical damage column describes the damagemost often associated with the hazard - other damage may also occur.

Table 14 - Summary of Hazard Characteristics

Hazard Scope ofHazard

Warning Period *1 Location Typical Damage

Flood local Medium nearhydrography

structure damage, roads, utilities,loss of life and personal property

Lightning local None anywhere structure damage, fire, loss of life

Hail local None anywhere roof damage

Severe WinterWeather

regional Long anywhere utilities, tree, structural, roads,personal property

Tornado local None anywhere structural, utilities, loss of life,personal property

Wind local Short to None anywhere roof damage and tree damage


Table 14 - Summary of Hazard Characteristics

Hazard Scope ofHazard

Warning Period *1 Location Typical Damage

Page -42-

ExtremeTemperature /Drought

regional Long anywhere groundwater supplies, loss of life,personal property damage

Wildfire local Short anywhere structural, utilities, tree damage

Earthquake regional None Northern 1/3 ofMiss.

structural damage, bridges, utilities,loss of life, personal property

*1 - Long = 2 or more days warning, Medium = 1 to 2 days warning, Short = less than l day warning, None = lessthat 2 hours warning

Assessing VulnerabilityThe University of Mississippi campus includes 214 structures with an estimated value of

$1,621,741,863. These numbers include the University’s airport structures, Vaught-HemingwayStadium (football), Tad Smith Coliseum (basketball), Swayze Stadium (baseball) and structuresat the University of Mississippi Field Station. Equally important is the equipment containedwithin these facilities. The equipment category may include, for example, furniture indormitories, analytical equipment in science laboratories, the power generation equipment in thepower plant, and computers in the supercomputer center. The total acquired value of thisequipment is $101,331,349. The J.D. Williams Library also has an estimated $112 millioninventory of books, compact disks, microfiche, journals and special collections. In addition tothe J.D. Williams Library, the University / Mary Buie Museum and the Lamar Law Center havespecial collections and inventories of significant value. Adding the value of the structures, thevalue of the contained equipment and the library collections and special inventories yields a totaldollar exposure for the structures and equipment of $1,881,789,066.

The methodology for assessing vulnerability is similar to the methodology used in themulti-hazard Standard Hazard Mitigation Plan for Mississippi (Mississippi EmergencyManagement Agency, 2004) to evaluate the earthquake risk. A set of risk factors were used toassess various aspects of risk. These factors were then considered collectively to determineoverall vulnerability to a given hazard as required by FEMA guidelines.

Parts of the vulnerability assessment used the HAZUS - MH (Hazards United States -multi-hazard version) loss estimation code developed by the Federal Emergency ManagementAgency. The HAZUS-MH code was used most intensely to evaluate earthquake loss and windloss. Some hazard assessments, such as wildfire, were not suitable for analysis by HAZUS. Insuch cases, alternative methods of vulnerability evaluation were used. Regardless of hazard, thegeographic information system (GIS) developed for the HAZUS analysis was extensively. Themethodology used in each hazard vulnerability evaluation is described under the discussion ofthe specific hazard. In some cases, two analysis levels were used, one that modeled the


Page -43-

University as a whole to determine overall projected losses, and then at a more site-specific levelto evaluate potential losses of a subset of university structures. Classification of Structures by the DRU Committee

The 214 campus structures were classified by the DRU Committee according to theirimportance and criticality to the campus operations. The campus structures were classed intoeither Critical Structures, High, Medium and Low Priority Structures. The criteria used in theDRU Committee classification included, 1) usefulness to the continuance of campus operationsand response during a crisis event, 2) usefulness to recovery operations after a natural disaster, 3)was the structure included in previous campus earthquake modeling studies, 4) amount of dollarexposure due to the structure and / or its contents, 5) does the structure contain unique records orresearch data, 6) are there known concerns regarding potential affects from natural hazards, 7)does the structure contain particularly expensive equipment, research, or cultural material thatwarrants special consideration, 8) does the structure house large numbers of students or staffrepresenting a concentration of people.

The Critical Structures class included those structures which were deemed critical tooperations and recovery in the event of a natural disaster. Ten structures were included into theCritical class. The structure containing the campus emergency operations center, for example, isincluded in the Critical Structures class. High Priority structures were considered importantbecause they contain high concentrations of people, they contain important records orequipment, the structure contains high potential dollar loss because of cultural or scientificmaterials, or the structure may be of use in a crisis management / recovery event. Seventeenstructures are included in this class. The medium priority structures also contain significantinvestment of research funds, a significant concentration of people, or is a structure of historicvalue. Fifteen structures were included in the Medium Priority class. Low priority buildingswere considered to be of lesser importance to the functioning of the University during or after anevent. Campus family housing units, for example, are classed as Low Priority because only onefamily lives in each dwelling and the structure is not likely to contribute significantly to themanagement or recovery from a natural hazard event. Specific structures in the Critical, Highand Medium classes are listed in Tables 15, 16, and 17. A map of these structures can be foundin Appendix H and Appendix I contains additional information such as replacement value andvalue of building contents.

This classification also results in a reduction in the number structures that require thedevelopment of detailed information for the HAZUS loss estimation modeling and the othervulnerability evaluations. The classification is also a prioritization of structures that serves as aguide to where mitigation projects should be focused. Many of these structures are also includedin the University’s crisis management plan (University of Mississippi, 2003).


Page -44-

Table 15 - Listing of Critical Structures for Priority Mitigation Action (DRU Committee Listing)

Structure Function Concerns Comments

Kinard Hall Emergency OperationsCenter, Communications

Not evaluated forearthquake effects

Campus policeheadquarters here,communications cntr.

Memory House &Communication Cntr.

Alternate EmergencyOperation Center


Wood construction -lightning hazard

Water Tower A Water Supply Preliminary earthquakemodeling complete

Water Tower B Water Supply Not evaluated forearthquake effects

Different design fromWater Tower A

New Power GenerationPlant (Central HeatingPlant)

Power Supply Not evaluated forearthquake effects

Student Health Cntr. Campus Medical ResponseCenter, potential triage area

Wood structure - notevaluated forearthquake effects

Wood constructionsusceptible to lightninghazard

Johnson Commons Primary Food DistributionCntr.


one story, limited glass

Student Union Secondary Food DistributionCntr.

Extensive glass (notfilmed) may notperform well inearthquake or windevent

Evaluated for earthquakeeffects - glass damaged in8/29/2005 wind event

Tad Smith Coliseum Shelter Evaluated for earthquakeaffects

Airport Terminal transportation

Electrical GeneratingPlant

Electrical Power

The DRU Committee identified the High Priority class as those structures (includinglifelines) that may be useful in recovery efforts, but less of a factor in helping the Universitysurvive and recover from a natural disaster than the Critical facilities, or it represents asignificant investment in monies or in research or would represent a high potential loss structure. The J.D. Williams Library, with its total dollar exposure of approximately $135,000,000 is anexample of a structure with a significant, high potential loss value that is included in this class. The Natural Products Center is also a structure with high dollar exposure - $35,000,000 for thestructure alone. Also included are the largest dormitories on campus. These dormitories wereincluded because of the concentration of people that could be contained in one structure. TheStockard-Martin Towers could contain as many as 931 students and Crosby Hall could containas many as 697. Table 16 contains the list of high priority structures.


Page -45-

Table 16 - List of High Priority Structures (DRU Committee Listing)


Turner Center student / staff health facilities potential shelter /distribution area

Martindale Hall student / staff records

Powers Hall Computer Technology /Services

Faser Hall pharmaceuticals research /teaching

structural discontinuitiesdue to boiler explosion

not modeled in previousearthquake study

J.D. Williams Library research support, teachingsupport, special collections

a high value structure /content unit

Procurement Services records and administrativeoffices

Baxter Hall Telecommunications Center

Miller Hall dormitory / offices Offices of HousingDirector and dorm

Carrier Hall engineering research /teaching

Supercomputer Cntr. Computational Resources /Research

New Physical PlantComplex

headquarters for campusmaintenance / repair /communication facilities

Anderson Hall research/offices /teaching

Sewage TreatmentPlant

sanitation

Martin-StockardTowers

dormitory large amount of glass inlobby

largest dorm on campus /included in previousearthquake study

University Museum cultural resources / teaching a high value structure /content unit

Crosby Hall dormitory second largest dorm oncampus / included inprevious earthquake study

Thad Cochran NaturalProducts Center

Federal Research high dollar value structure

A.B. Lewis PhysicsBuilding

teaching / research high dollar value structure


Table 16 - List of High Priority Structures (DRU Committee Listing)


Page -46-

Ventress Hall administration, historicstructure

1887 structure historic, high dollar valuestructure

Old ChemistryBuilding

Office of Research, geologyresearch, teaching

scheduled for renovation

The Medium Priority Structures class consists of research facilities, dormitories, andadministrative buildings that are important to the continuity of the university, particularly duringthe recovery phase of a disaster event. The majority of buildings in this class are dormitoriesthat contain a concentration of people, but not to the extent of the major dormitories such asStockard-Martin Towers. Kincannon Hall could contain as many as 510 students while HoweryHall may contain only 29. Faser and Coulter Halls contain significant amounts of researchequipment and research data. Table 17 contains a listing of the Medium Priority structures.

Table 17 - Medium Priority Structures (DRU Committee Listing)


National Center forPhysical Acoustics

Federally-funded research

Coulter Hall research / chemistry/teaching

Lamar Law Center teaching extensive glass,structural concerns

Stewart Hall dormitory

Kincannon Hall dormitory third largest dormitory oncampus

Brown Hall dormitory

Deaton Hall dormitory

Hefley Hall dormitory

Faulkner Hall dormitory

Guess Hall dormitory

Lyceum administrative 1848 structure historical structure / recentrenovation with someseismic resistance included

Ford Performing ArtsCenter

cultural resources High dollar value structure


Page -47-

Vulnerability from the Flood HazardThere are no recorded losses from riverine floods on the University campus and no

structures have been built on flood plains. Some campus structures have flooded, but theseoccurrences are a result design flaws in drainage systems. There are also cases of flooding ofcars in the parking lot of the Martin-Stockard Towers dormitory, but again, this flooding is aresult of poorly designed storm drainage systems and / or blockages within the storm drains. The University Field Station does contain significant flood plains, but there are no significantbuildings located within the flood plain and policy dictates that new structures are not to belocated in flood-prone areas. Based on the campus being located in high ground near the head ofdrainage basins and the lack of recorded loss due to flooding, we feel the vulnerability from thishazard at the University is considered minimal.

Vulnerability from the Lightning HazardReview of the hazard profiles suggest that structures of masonry construction are seldom

significantly damaged from lightning. Wood frame structures, however, are vulnerable fromlightning-generated fires. This difference in vulnerability of building material lends itself to aninitial method of assessment. Identification of campus structures of wood construction wereconsidered vulnerable whereas those of other construction material are not consideredvulnerable. The initial evaluation identified 40 campus structures of wood constructionrepresenting $38,928,564 of exposure to the hazard including a significant amount of faculty andstudent housing. The George Street House is the dominant value item with a replacement valueof $28,349,613. The University feels this value is in error, but it is retained here until theMississippi Department of Finance and Administration evaluates its data base.

The hazard profiling indicated that no lightning-generated fires could be identified at theUniversity. The City of Oxford, however, has had several lightning-generated fires with whichto deal with. Discussions with the Oxford / Lafayette County fire fighting personnel suggest thatsince lightning-generated fires originate in attics and crawl-spaces, they often go undetected untilthey are well established. This delay in detection results in additional fire damage as well inadditional water damage from the fire fighting effort. Although many variables will effect theloss from these fires, an average loss of approximately 20% to 30% of the value of the structurewas suggested (Allgood, 2005). Most of the costs of damage results from roof repair andreplacement, repair to the attic space, in addition to associated water damage.

To estimate potential losses, an average of 25% loss was applied to the total exposure. The potential loss to lightning-generated fire was estimated at $9,732,141. Damage to thecontents of the structures was estimated at 10 percent of the content value. This potential lossamounted to $21,971. Total potential loss from damage to the structure and its content valuetotals to $9,754,112. As lightning would not be expected to generate fires in all vulnerablestructures in any given time frame, the potential loss figure represents a long-term vulnerabilityand not a vulnerability likely to be realized within seconds or minutes, such as may result fromearthquakes and tornados. All of the structures considered vulnerable to lightning-generatedfires were classed by the DRU Advisory Committee in the Low Priority Class. Should the value


Page -48-

of the George Street House remain as stated in the Department of Finance and Administrationdata base, it could be moved to a higher priority due to its high replacement value.

Vulnerability from the Hail HazardThe damage resulting from large hail is to roofs. Hail large enough to cause personal

injury has been recorded, but is a rare occurrence and is not considered here. Roof damage islikely to occur only if the roofing material is of a vulnerable type, such as asphalt shingles, andthe hail itself is of sufficient size. “Marble-sized” hail is usually considered the minimal sizelikely to result in roof damage. As discussed in the hazards profile section, hail of damaging sizehas been recorded in Oxford, so the hazard should apply to the campus equally well.

To evaluate the vulnerability of the University to hail damage, the type of roof materialswas the primary consideration. Structures with roofs such as tile shingles or metal roofing wereexcluded. A discussion with representatives from the insurance industry (Perkins, 2005)suggested that hail damage in Lafayette County is typically a small percentage of the total valueof the structure. Five percent of the total value of the structure was suggested as a reasonablefigure to estimate vulnerability. This procedure was applied to the campus structures to evaluatethe hazard. A total of 53 structures were identified with asphalt shingle roofs. Some minorstructures were excluded as well as one structure with a shangle roof, and structures with roofsconsisting only partly of shingles were also excluded. One structure with a shingle roof wasexcluded (Farley Hall) because it was under renovation and its roof is to be replaced with more hail-resistant materials.

The 54 campus structures have an estimated replacement value of $99,118,992. Fivepercent of the replacement value yields a total potential loss due to hail damage of $4,966,209.Contents value of these structures was estimated to be $9,759,771. A five percent loss was alsocalculated to cover water damage to interior contents. This five percent loss amounts to $487,988. The total vulnerability is estimated to be $5,443,938 (including the structure andcontents loss). The potential loss, like the lightning hazard, is unlikely to occur during a singleevent, but is a long-term vulnerability. This potential loss is over three and one half times theone and a half million dollar loss threshold that causes serious budgetary complications.

Vulnerability from the Severe Winter Weather HazardA review of the severe winter storm hazard profile reveals that much of the damage

caused by these events are not structural, but rather is associated with lifelines, andinfrastructure. Debris removal costs were considerable. Damage to power lines due to icingresulted in damage to power connections into structures and damage to power poles. The resultwas a lack of power to a considerable portion of the University. Since the damage is notstructural, it is more difficult to estimate potential loss from such events.

To estimate potential loss we have reviewed University records containing the actuallosses associated with the 1994 ice storm and compared these losses to the present condition ofthe university. The 1994 ice storm resulted in direct losses of $1,078,750 to the University. Debris removal was a major cost item in 1994 and would likely continue to contribute significant


Page -49-

costs in the event of a major ice storm recurrence. Interviews with the Director ofTelecommunications (Clark, 2006) indicate that lessons learned from the 1994 event has beenapplied. Many of the telecommunication lines have since been placed underground. Present dayvulnerability to ice storm damage is estimated to be approximately 25% of the 1994vulnerability. Changes have also been made to the power line network on campus. Some lineshave been placed underground, new poles are now concrete, rather than wood. Unfortunately,many lines remain above ground and susceptible to damage. We estimate that the campus powerinfrastructure is 75% as vulnerable now as in 1994 and costs would be approximately 75% ofwhat they were in the 1994 ice storm. Debris removal is likely to remain a major cost factor,since trees, at least at present, play a major role in the University landscape.

We estimate that debris removal costs would remain at levels similar to the 1994 event($500,000 estimated for present vulnerability verses $530,000 in costs in 1994). The combinedcosts associated with infrastructure damage would be approximately one half of the costsincurred in 1994. Combining these potential cost items, the vulnerability of University to icestorm damage is estimated to be $705, 000.

Vulnerability from the Tornado HazardUnlike an earthquake, the destructive effect of a tornado does not radiate from a source

such as a point along a fault, but rather follows the direction of the tornados’ path. Unlike ahurricane this path does not cover an area about the center of the vortex that can be measured inmiles, but rather feet or yards. Nonetheless the wind speeds of an F3 tornado (see Appendix D)are comparable or higher to those of the most intense hurricane, and consequently the destructivecapacity for individual structures and facilities that lie in the path is thus comparable or higher.

A review of the tornado hazard profile suggests that the likelihood of an F3 tornado issignificant enough to consider it as a possibility in both the near and long term. The potentialdamage that tornados can cause in urbanized areas (or a densely populated university campus) isillustrated by the destruction caused by the 1984 tornado that tracked through Water Valley,Mississippi, (in adjoining Yalobusha County)and in the 2001 tornado that tracked through thecity of Pontotoc (in adjoining Pontotoc County). These tornados caused an estimated$25,000,000 and $28,000,000 worth of damage, respectively. Both of these tornados trackedthrough developed urban areas with a substantial density of population and structures. Asituation that has several similarities to a university campus. Photographs of the destructioncaused by the 1984 Water Valley tornado were provided by Mrs. Mary Shearer, publisher of theNorth Mississippi Herald in Water Valley, Mississippi. Figures 3 and 4 are color photographsfrom the North Mississippi Herald collection that illustrate several of the points of concern thatwould apply to the University of Mississippi should such an event occur in the future. Listedbelow are four of the most important conclusions that could apply to the University that was drawn from the review of this set of photographs.

1) The debris caused by the event was significant and was an impediment to search andrescue efforts as well as recovery efforts. Debris consisted not only of broken andfragmented trees, but also debris (wood and masonry) resulting from the structures in the


Page -50-

path of the tornado. The University of Mississippi has an abundance of both structuresand trees.

2) The Water Valley tornado was an F3 class tornado and caused significant damage torelatively new structures, multiple story, brick, buildings. The University campus alsocommonly contains multi-story, brick structures.

3) There was extensive damage to utilities. Although the tornado track covered only aportion of Water Valley, the destruction of the infrastructure (particularly electricalpower) affected a much larger area and for extended lengths of time (Shearer, 2006). Asimilar tornado tracking through the University campus would likely have seriousconsequences to the ability of the city of Oxford to meet the needs of its citizens andperhaps aid the University.

4) Damaged and destroyed vehicles are common in the Water Valley photograph set. Destroyed vehicles are not only cost items not commonly included in loss estimates, butduring a tornado event can themselves become wind-drive projectiles causing damage.The University commonly has large numbers of vehicles concentrated near dormitories,but during peak class periods large number of vehicles are throughout campus.

A tornado’s width of damage or swath may vary from 10 to as much as 1000 yards. Thelatter has been chosen for establishing the upper bound on vulnerability and 100 yards for anevaluation of a more moderate event. To evaluate a “worst case” tornado event on campus, atornado with the characteristics of the 2001 Pontotoc tornado were used. The theoretical eventwas an F3 class tornado with a width of 1000 yards extending through the center of campus. Figure 3, below, indicates that most of the campus structures would be within the 1000 yardswath including nearly all critical, high priority, and low priority structures and facilities.

No guidance on estimating losses from tornados has been found in the literature providedby FEMA. A FEMA-sponsored Building Performance Assessment Report, FEMA-342, (FEMA,


Page -51-

Figure 3 - Note in this photograph that the houses appear to be functional. The electrical poweris not - demonstrated by the line of destroyed power poles. Debris has obviously closed thisstreet to vehicle traffic, hindering rescue efforts and slowing evaluations of damage. Restorationof damaged infrastructure will likely take a significant amount of time and its affect will extendbeyond this local area. The need for additional security such as the National Guard representssignificant emergency management costs. All of these concerns are likely at the University ofMississippi should a tornado track through campus. This photograph is part of the RossCollection and was provided compliments of the North Mississippi Herald (Water Valley,Mississippi).


Page -52-

Figure 4 - Unlike in Figure 3, the destruction in this part of Water Valley was complete. Notethat the nature of the debris varies from small pieces of tree limbs to cinder blocks, doors, largesections of walls, and pieces of steel framing to various equipment such as soft drink dispensersand an ice storage bin. All of this debris could have been wind-blown projectiles used by thetornado to damage other structures and cause casualties. The debris is scattered to such an extentthat the lay out of the built environment prior to the tornado cannot be determined. Heavyequipment would be required to gain access for emergency vehicles and rescue efforts. Emergency managers at the University could encounter similar problems should a major tornadotrack through the campus. This photograph is part of the Ross Collection and was providedcompliments of the North Mississippi Herald (Water Valley, Mississippi).


Page -53-

1999) has, however, been published by a team of experts following destructive tornados inOklahoma and Kansas. This document describes the extent of damage to different types ofconstruction with damage severity increasing from concrete frames (least damage- mostlynonstructural) to light steel frames to unreinforced masonry wall systems to wood frames (mostdamage-near total). Based on FEMA-342, a risk analysis calculation has been performedassuming loss ratios that are related to construction class. Specifically, all buildings in the swathconstructed with concrete framing have been assumed to incur losses equivalent to 10 percent ofthe replacement value of the building and its contents to allow for mostly nonstructural damageto infill walls and roofs (including windborne debris). Those constructed with steel framing areassumed to incur 25 percent loss allowing for some structural damage and significant damage toparts of the building envelope. Masonry construction is assumed to incur 50 percent loss with significant structural and nonstructural damage to walls, roofs, and interiors. Finally, 70 percentlosses are assumed to occur to wood frame construction with near complete destruction in thecentral part of the swath. Loss ratios allow for some averaging with highest intensity of damageincurred in the central part of the swath diminishing somewhat out toward the fringes.

The vulnerability evaluation for the Critical Structures class of buildings is summarizedin Table 18, below. These 11 structures are considered essential for the campus to manage adisaster and then to recover from the disaster. This table represents the result of the risk factorevaluation, but does not consider the importance of functionality - a more important factor forthis class of buildings. The ability to provide power and potable water, for example, may nothave high dollar values, but have high value for crisis management and recovery (water supplyfor fire fighting and electrical power to maintain essential functions).

The worst case tornado swath encompasses all the Critical Structures except BrandtMemory House, and the airport with a direct impact of $7,003,000 or a 12 percent loss ratio (seeFigure 5). Significant losses are suggested for Tad Smith Coliseum, the New Power Plant,Kinard Hall, and the Student Union. Should the steel construction predominate, the New PowerPlant would not be considered to have such a high loss ratio.

The High Priority Structures and their vulnerabilities are listed below in Table 19. Thisclass consists of 20 structures and includes the structures with the highest total dollar value andhighest potential dollar loss. This class also includes the two largest dormitories on campus,each consisting of 10 story structures housing over 1600 students.


Page -54-

Figure 5 - Two potential tornado swaths through the campus were used to evaluatevulnerabilities for potential tornado damage. The tornado hazard is considered the primaryhazard for the campus and is likely to be the most costly in terms of money and casualties.


Page -55-

Table 18 – List of Critical Structures included in Tornado Scenario Event (F3, 1000 yd. Swath) and AssociatedRisk Factor Evaluations Structure Total Dollar Value

(Structure,equipment, special

collection and inventory) in millions of $

Total Dollar Loss,in millions of $

Rankingin Dollar

Loss

AssumedLoss Ratio

Date Built(Renovated)

Stories

Kinard Hall 13.289 1.329 3 10 1975(2004) 2

Water Tower A 0.980 0.245 6 25 1976

Water Tower B 0.850 0.213 9 25

Student HealthCenter

2.144 0.214 810

1992 2

JohnsonCommonsComplex

3.913 0.391 5 10 1929(2004) 1

Student Union 12.615 1.262 4 10 1975(2002) 3

Tad SmithColiseum

16.607 1.661 1 10 1967(2002) 3

New Power Plant(Central HeatingPlant)

2.919 1.460 2 50 1987 1

ElectricalGenerating Plant

2.296 0.230 7 10 2002(2003) 1

The worst case tornado swath encompasses all the High Priority Structures except theBuie-Skipwith Museum, the Thad Cochran Natural Products Center, the Supercomputing Center,and the Wastewater Treatment Plant with a potential direct loss of $78,436,000. Significantlosses are projected for the J.D. Williams Library, Lewis Physics Building, Ventress Hall,Martin-Stockard Towers, Baxter Hall, Old Chemistry Building, Faser Hall, Martindale Hall,Powers Hall, Turner HEPR Complex, Crosby Hall, and Carrier Hall. The highly valuable J.D.Williams Library and the un-reinforced brick masonry Ventress Hall alone account for two-thirds of the loss.

The Medium Priority Structures and their vulnerabilities are listed below in Table 20. This class consists of 12 structures in addition to the George Street House and includes most ofthe larger dormitories on campus excluding the two largest (included in the High Priority class,above) and several historic and high value structures. The George Street House is included inthis class because of the high replacement value.


Page -56-

Table 19 - List of High Priority Structures included in Tornado Scenario Event (F3, 1000 yd Swath) andAssociated Risk Factor Evaluations

Structure Total Dollar Value (Structure,equipment, specialcollections andinventories) inmillions of $

TotalPotentialDollar Loss(in millionsof $)

RankinginPotentialDollarLoss

AssumedLossRatio

Date Built Stories

J.D. WilliamsLibrary

270.41 27.041 2 10 1951 3

Ventress Hall 60.896 30.448 1 50 1887 3

Powers Hall 15.50 1.550 8 10 1969 3

Faser Hall 17.65 1.765 6 10 1969 3

Turner Center 15.41 1.541 9 10 1983 3

ProcurementServices

3.66 0.366 15 10 1999 1

Baxter Hall 20.96 2.096 5 10 1948 2

Miller Hall 4.41 0.441 13 10 1960 3

Carrier Hall 10.28 1.028 11 10 1954 2


4.67 0.467 12 10 2004 1

Anderson Hall 4.23 0.423 14 10 1974 3


21.59 2.159 4 10 1969 10

Martindale Hall 16.94 1.694 7 10 1929 3

Crosby Hall 11.932 1.193 10 10 1973 10


62.238 6.224 3 10 1939 2

The “worst case” tornado swath encompasses the George Street House and nine of the 12 the Medium Priority Structures. The direct losses estimated for this scenario is $43,783,000. Significant losses are noted to the George Street House, the Lyceum, National Center forPhysical Acoustics, Lamar Law Center, and Stewart Hall. The wood frame George Street Houseand the un-reinforced brick masonry Lyceum alone account for a significant amount of thepotential loss.


Page -57-

Table 20 - List of Medium Priority Structures Included in Tornado Scenario Event (F3, 1000 yd. Swath) andAssociated Risk Factor Evaluations

Structure Total Dollar Value (Structure, equipment,special collections andinventories) in millionsof $

Total PotentialDollar Loss(in millions of$)

RankinginPotentialDollarLoss

AssumedLossRatio

DateBuilt

Stories

Stewart Hall 10.179 1.018 5 10 1963 2

Lamar Law Center 16.955 1.696 4 10 1975 3

Kincannon Hall 9.285 0.928 6 10 1963 2

Brown Hall 5.365 0.536 8 10 1962 2

Deaton Hall 5.135 0.514 9 10 1952 2

Hefley Hall 7.483 0.748 7 10 1959 2

Lyceum 28.027 14.013 2 50 1848 3

Faulkner Hall 1.529 0.153 11 10 1920 2

Guess Hall 5.036 0.504 10 10 1961 3


28,359 2.336 3 10 1991 1

George Street House 28.449 21.337 1 75 1914 2

The total dollar loss for the worst case tornado scenario is estimated at $129,222,000 forthe Critical, High and Medium Priority structures. Low Priority structures are not included inthis damage estimate. Other likely costs such as potential damage to infrastructure, debrisremoval, cost of security services and damage to other University property are excluded. Potential costs resulting from this scenario far exceed $1,500,000 threshold used by theUniversity as a point above which loss become problematic from a budget perspective.

The moderate tornado scenario models an F3 tornado with a width of 100 yards. Thepath of the tornado is the same as the 1000 yard “worst case scenario” and centered along thecenterline of the 1000 yard event as illustrated in Figure 5 (choice of path orientation wasarbitrary and one of convenience) . This scenario seeks to evaluate the potential losses that maybe associated with a tornado event of lessor scale. In this scenario, the tornado path extendsthrough the middle of the campus and includes the J.D. Williams Library and Martindale Hall inthe Critical class of structures, with the National Center for Physical Acoustics building, BrownHall, and Hefley Hall from the Medium Priority set of buildings. The assumed loss ratio is 10 %for all of these structures. The potential loss from this event totals $32,855,700 for only fivestructures. Shifting the tornado path slightly southeast, or if the tornado took a curving path,significantly more structures could be included. This scenario, as the previous one, does notinclude losses from low priority structures nor does it include losses from damaged life lines,


Page -58-

debris removal and other such costs. This more modest tornado event also greatly exceeds the$1,500,000 budgetary threshold.

Vulnerability from the Wind HazardStraight line winds of 100 mph from thunderstorms are conceivable based on wind gusts

recorded in the Memphis area (NCDC data for Shelby County, Tennessee). A 90 mile per hour(mph) basic wind speed is, in fact, required in current building codes (International CodeCouncil, 2003; American Society of Civil Engineers, 2006) for design of new structures. Theremnants of Hurricane Katrina is an example of a regional wind event on campus and resulted indamage to 20 campus structures. The losses associated with this event was $130,027. Thesewinds were measured at 53 mph. Logic would dictate that wind events with almost double thevelocity would result in significant damage to the campus.

To evaluate the wind hazard, the HAZUS-MH computer code was used to modelpotential damage from winds of 100 mph extending across the entire campus. The HAZUS codeconsiders several factors to estimate losses from wind damage. These factors includeconstruction type, roof type, type of roofing material, amount (area) of glass used inconstruction, the number of stories and the situation of the building (sheltered by other buildingand structures or open). The HAZUS-MH code also calculates contents loss as a function of thestructure’s performance. Loss ratios varied from one to five percent according to structurecharacteristics. The results from the wind modeling is summarized in Table 21, below.

Table 21 - Summary of Estimated Wind Losses by Structure Class (100 mph Wind Event)

Structure Class Contents Loss(thousands of $)

Loss by Wind Damage(thousands of $)

Total Loss(thousands of $)

Critical 160 1,888 2,048

High Priority 5,412 16,328 21,741

Medium Priority 695 5,593 6,288

Total projected wind losses from the 100 mph scenario is $30, 077,000. Since the 53mph wind event from remnants of Katrina resulted in a loss of only approximately $130,000, thesensitivity of structures to wind increasing velocity is obvious. This figure is well above the$1,500,000 budget threshold.

Vulnerability from the Wildfire HazardThe University of Mississippi has never had a documented wildfire that caused loss to the

main campus. The campus is, however bordered by some areas of woodlands and so we feel thehazard does exist. Vulnerable structures are considered those bordering forested areas. Discussions with the Mississippi Forestry Commission, suggests that maintained lawns betweenforested areas and structures act as a barrier to wildfire due to the paucity of fuel. Thevulnerable campus structures all have maintained lawns surrounding the structures so the lowfuel area is present between the structure and the forested area. This lawn also serves as a


Page -59-

defensive zone between the structure and the forested areas that could be used, in case ofwildfire, to construct fire breaks or move fire fighting equipment. Selected forested areas oncampus have already had much of the underbrush and woodland debris (fuel) removed so as toimprove the aesthetics of the area. This practice also lowers the potential for severe wildfires.Although we feel that the wildfire hazard exists, we feel the potential for significant loss due towildfire is minimal. If loss should occur, we feel it would be less than the University’s$1,500,000 economic threshold. Vulnerability from the Earthquake Hazard

The HAZUS loss estimation code was used extensively in the vulnerability analysis forthe earthquake hazard. The HAZUS code allows user defined earthquake scenarios to beevaluated. In this analysis a major earthquake event was modeled (magnitude 8) with anepicenter in the southern end of the New Madrid Seismic Zone (Marked Tree, Arkansas). Manyof the risk factors utilized in the evaluation represent output from the HAZUS code. Thisvulnerability assessment has incorporated four factors designed to evaluate various aspects ofrisk. These risk factors include 1) total dollar value of the structure itself and the contents withinthe structure, 2) total potential dollar loss, 3) functionality classification by the DRU Committee,and 4) number of people exposed to the risk.

The dollar value risk factor utilized the data produced by the Mississippi Department ofFinance and Administration (Mississippi Department of Finance and Administration, 2005) todetermine value of the structure, the value of the structure’s contents were derived from databases maintained by the University of Mississippi, and the value of special collections werederived by personal interviews. The total dollar loss was derived by multiplying the HAZUS-derived percent loss by the total dollar value. The DRU Committee functionality classificationhas been discussed earlier. The maximum number of people exposed to the risk was derived byadding the maximum number of students that could be in the building (from fire coderegulations) to the maximum number full time employees currently within the building (supportstaff, technical staff, professors).

The vulnerability evaluation for the Critical Structures class of buildings are summarizedin Table 22, below. These 10 structures are considered essential for the campus to manage adisaster and then to recover from the disaster. This table represents the result of the risk factorevaluation, but does not consider the importance of functionality - a more important factor forthis class of buildings. The ability to provide power and potable water, for example, may nothave high dollar values, but have high value for crisis management and recovery (water supplyfor fire fighting and electrical power to maintain essential functions).


Page -60-

Table 22 - Listing of Critical Structures and Result of Earthquake (M=8) Risk Factor Evaluations

Structure Total Dollar Value (Structure, equipment,special collection andinventory)

Total PotentialDollar Loss

Ranking inDollarLoss

Percent chance ofexceeding moderate

damage duringearthquake

Kinard Hall $13,288,990 $797,339 2 36.3

Memory House &Communication Cntr.*

$1,233,903 $73,434 8 35.7

Water Tower A $980,000 $58,800 9 36.3

Water Tower B $850,000 $51,000 10 35.8

New Power GenerationPlant (Central HeatingPlant)

$2,919,009 $175,1405

35.8

Student Health Cntr. $2,143,911 $128,635 6 36.1

Johnson Commons $3,912,564 $234,754 4 36.1

Student Union $12,615,237 $756,914 3 36.0

Tad Smith Coliseum $16,607,350 $996,441 1 35.9

Airport Terminal $1,616,465 $96,988 7 37.1

* - The Memory House is owned by the University of Mississippi Foundation, considered a private enterprise, so its replacement value does not appear in data regarding State property. Replacement value has been estimatedusing available data.

The High Priority Class of structures and their vulnerabilities are listed in below in Table 23. This class consists of 19 structures and includes the structures with the highest total dollarvalue and highest potential dollar loss. This class also includes the two largest dormitories oncampus, each consisting of 10 story structures housing over 1600 students.

Table 23 - List of High Priority Structures and Result of Earthquake (M=8) Risk Factor Evaluations

Structure Total Dollar Value (Structure, equipment,special collections andinventories) in millions of $

Total PotentialDollar Loss (inmillions of $)

Ranking inPotentialDollar Loss

Date Built Stories

Turner Center 15.41 0.906 11 1983 3

Martindale Hall 16.94 0.995 9 1929 3

Powers Hall 15.50 0.908 10 1969 3

Faser Hall 17.65 1.038 8 1969 3


Table 23 - List of High Priority Structures and Result of Earthquake (M=8) Risk Factor Evaluations




Date Built Stories

Page -61-

J.D. Williams Library 270.41 15.876 1 1951 3

Procurement Services 3.66 0.216 19 1999 1

Baxter Hall 20.96 1.228 7 1948 2

Miller Hall 4.41 0.259 16 1960 3

Carrier Hall 10.28 0.605 13 1954 2

Supercomputer Cntr. 9.03 0.529 14 1948 2


4.67 0.274 15 2004 1

Anderson Hall 4.23 0.249 17 1974 3


3.621 0.217 18 1


21.59 1.263 6 1969 10

University Museum 71.744 4.305 2 1937 1

Crosby Hall 11.932 0.699 12 1973 10

Thad Cochran NaturalProducts Center

33.927 1.997 5 2002 3


62.238 3.656 3 1939 2

Ventress Hall 60.896 3.579 4 1887 3

The Medium Priority class of structures contains most of the larger dormitories oncampus excluding the two largest (included in the high priority class, above). The vulnerabilitiesof this class of structures are included in Table 24, below. This class contains 12 structures.


Page -62-

Table 24 - List of Medium Priority Structures and Result of Earthquake (M=8) Risk Factor Evaluations




DateBuilt

Stories


28.359 1.668 2 1991 1

Stewart Hall 10.179 0.597 6 1963 2

Coulter Hall 22.349 1.315 4 1975 3

Lamar Law Center 16.955 0.996 5 1975 3

Kincannon Hall 9.285 0.544 7 1963 2

Brown Hall 5.365 0.315 9 1962 2

Deaton Hall 5.135 0.301 10 1952 2

Hefley Hall 7.483 0.439 8 1959 2

Lyceum 28.027 1.646 3 1848 3

Faulkner Hall 1.529 0.090 12 1920 2

Guess Hall 5.036 0.295 11 1961 3


28.911 1.697 1 2004 3

The reminder of the 224 structures on campus have been classed as low priority and arenot considered individually. In this scenario, the potential earthquake loss for the entire campus,including all classes of structures, is estimated to be $112,907,343.96. An earthquake of smallermagnitude, such as a magnitude 6.5, is much more likely to occur. A 6.5 magnitude earthquakewith an epicenter in Marked Tree, Arkansas, has a projected total economic loss of $3,328,000for the University. A 6.5 magnitude earthquake with an epicenter in northern Mississippi (localearthquake) would result in a projected economic loss to the University of $14,443,210. The 14million dollar potential loss from a local 6.5 magnitude earthquake verses the three million dollarloss from a equal-sized New Madrid Zone earthquake illustrates the importance of epicenterlocation to the estimation of potential damage to the built environment.

Impact of Natural Hazards at the University of Mississippi The impact of natural hazards vary considerably from one hazard to the next. In order to

evaluate the impact these potential losses could have on the University, each potential loss wascompared to the University budget in fiscal year 2006 ($368,787,798). This budget figureincludes all sources of income such as appropriations by the Mississippi legislature, privatedonations and grant income. The impact was measured by determining the percent of budget the


Page -63-

potential loss represented .The point where potential losses become a serious concern for thefiscal well-being of the University is $1,500,000 or approximately 0.4% of the annual budget.

Tornados and earthquakes are considered the first and second most serious hazards to thecampus. The F3, 1000 yard-wide, tornado scenario is estimated to result in losses of$129,222,000 or 35% of the budget. This loss also translates into 86.1 times the $1,500,000budgetary threshold. The scenario for the less severe tornado event resulted in projected lossesof over $32,000,000. The worst-case scenario earthquake loss was estimated to be $112,907,343or 30.6% of the budget. It is clear that the 30.6% potential loss would, if it should occur, havecatastrophic consequences to the University budget and the University’s ability to carry out itsmission. The total projected economic loss from the 6.5 magnitude Marked Tree earthquake is$3,328,000 or 0.90 % of the annual budget. Though considerably smaller than the magnitude 8earthquake, it is still more than double the $1,500,000 economic threshold. These data clearlyindicate that the consequences of natural hazard events can have catastrophic results, andmitigation is in order.

Mitigation StrategyThe mitigation goals identified in this section were derived from descriptions of damage

reported in the hazard profile section, discussions with the University of Mississippi PhysicalPlant Department personnel, interviews with various University personnel not associated withthe Physical Plant Department (department chairs, staff, faculty, students), and the members ofthe DRU Committee. The Mississippi mitigation plan (Mississippi Emergency ManagementAgency, 2004) and the regional mitigation plan (Three Rivers Planning and DevelopmentDistrict, 2005) were used as background information identifying goals of importance to theseorganizations. Guidance was also provided by the FEMA 386-3 (Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, 2003 (b)) document and the format suggested therein was adopted. Afterthe initial listing of mitigation action items were made, they were grouped and organized intogoals, objectives, and action items and presented to the DRU Committee for their consideration. The DRU Committee approved the strategy after recommended modifications were made andhelped to identify the priorities for completion of the various action items.

The mitigation goals listed below were constructed by considering the “typical damage”caused by the hazards (discussed in the previous hazard profile section), the criticalityclassification assigned to the structure or lifeline, overall vulnerability and a structure’s value toemergency operations and recovery. Consideration was also given to action items which wouldaffect the adjoining jurisdiction and result in mutual benefits. Potential mitigation projects werealso discussed in detail where the University had already initial steps to lessen certainvulnerabilities, but were not completed due to lack of funds.

Prioritization of Hazards of Concern to the UniversityThe hazards profiles, described earlier, illustrated that the set of hazards of concern do

not have the potential to affect the University with equal severity. These hazards have beenprioritized to provide guidance to potential mitigation measures (actions). The priority listinghas considered the consequences of hazards having a low per year probability, but high damage


Page -64-

potential, such as earthquakes, as well as the more common high damage potential hazards suchas tornados. The number of structures potentially vulnerable to the individual hazards were alsoconsidered in forming the prioritized listing below. The hazards are listed in order of decreasingimportance.

1) Tornado2) Earthquake3) Wind4) Severe Winter Weather5) Lightning6) Hail7)Wildfire8) Flood

Mitigation Goals and Objectives to Reduce Existing VulnerabilitiesThe mitigation goals, objectives, and action measures listed below are derived from a

broader listing complied during the investigation. Some suggested action measures were notincluded because they were thought to be insufficiently related to mitigation while some havebeen combined into one action measure. Others measures remain as useful suggestions, but theDRU Committee has selected the following measures as those most important to the University’smitigation efforts. The entire range of potential action measures are included in Appendix J. Goal 2, and its associated objectives and action measures, is aimed at reducing futurevulnerabilities.

Goal 1Reduce / eliminate vulnerabilities to research equipment investments, unique research data andadministrative records due to natural hazards.

Objective 1.1 - Establish guidance policy and means for the archiving of research data.

Action Measure 1.1.1 - Establish standard guidance and policy for Universitydepartments to use as a means of protection of research data.Discussion - The purpose of this measure is to provide standardized policysuggesting means by which research data should be properly archived and stored,and the location where duplicate data should be stored. Informal interviewsacross campus indicate there is no standardized guidance for the archiving ofresearch data. Archiving the data is largely the responsibility of the investigatorand is conducted at varying time intervals and by various means. The archiveddata is often stored in a different place in the same office or sometimes on anotherhard drive on the same computer. Fire and water damage resulting from tornado,wind, or earthquake can easily destroy this unique research information. Thismeasure will conduct the background research to establish the most cost-effectivemeans for protection of research data and the publication and distribution of thispolicy to all departments. This research and a limited-scale pilot project is


Page -65-

envisioned to test the results of the research. Estimated cost is $60,000. Potentialsources of funds include those provided by the Mississippi legislature, privatedonations and Federal pre-disaster mitigation funds. Hazards - earthquake, tornado, lightning induced fire, windstormImplementing Office / Department -Vice Chancellor of Administration andFinanceImplementation Time Frame: April 2006 - June 2007

Goal 2Enhance and maintain natural hazard mitigation as a part of the University’s standard operatingprocedure in order to reduce / eliminate future vulnerabilities.

Objective 2.1 - Institutionalize hazard mitigation within the University.

Action Measure 2.1.1 - Transfer mitigation measures to future construction bylinking the hazard mitigation plan to the University’s capital building plan. Holdannual meetings to with the DRU Advisory Committee and the Facilities Planningstaff to discuss transfer of knowledge.Discussion - The capital building plan for the campus develops a proposedstructure’s design, building site, and safety features. By transferring mitigationknowledge to proposed buildings, potential damage is avoided and safer workareas are produced. The purpose of this action measure, therefore, would be toreduce future vulnerabilities by incorporating identified mitigation measures intorequirements for proposed structures. This can be accomplished by jointmeetings with the University Facilities Planning Department and DRU committeemembers and technical staff. No additional funding is required to implement thismeasure.Hazards - all hazardsImplementing Office / Department -Vice Chancellor of Administration andFinanceImplementation Time Frame: July 2006 - December 2006

Action Measure 2.1.2 - Incorporate non-structural mitigation measures intoFacilities Planning Department’s guidance “Instructions to Design Professionals”(University of Mississippi Facilities Planning Department, 2005).Discussion - The guidance provided by the Facilities Planning Departmentoutlines those measures expected to be accomplished by the design professional. Including nonstructural mitigation in the planning phase of design will ensurethese measures are included in the structure upon completion and quality of workwill be assured. No additional funding is required to implement this measure.Hazards - all hazardsImplementing Office / Department -Vice Chancellor of Administration and FinanceImplementation Time Frame: October 2006 - September 2007


Page -66-

Action Measure 2.1.3 - The University of Mississippi will incorporate andadhere to the most current building code and its seismic provisions in the designof campus structures.Discussion - University of Mississippi’s Facilities Planning Department willrequire seismic design in all future structures. This requirement will mitigatesome of the earthquake hazard, but will also aid in the mitigation of damage fromother hazards. No additional funding is required to implement this measure.Hazards - earthquakeImplementing Office / Department -Vice Chancellor of Administration andFinanceImplementation Time Frame: July 2006 - March 2007

Action Measure 2.1.4 - Publish and distribute a crisis management / naturalhazard mitigation guide for department chairs and other interested persons. Discussion - This action measure will condense both the crisis management planand the mitigation plan and publish them for distribution to the department chairs. The guiding idea is that crisis management and mitigation are significantlyenhanced if the faculty and staff are familiar with the fundamentals and haveidentified sources of additional information. This concise booklet will providethese data. A similar booklet was published in 2002 that covered emergencyresponse to selected man-made and natural hazards (see Douglas, 2002,University of Mississippi, 2002). Estimated cost is $10,000. Potential sources offunds include those provided by the Mississippi legislature, private donations andFederal pre-disaster mitigation funds. Hazards - all hazardsImplementing Office / Department -Vice Chancellor of Administration andFinanceImplementation Time Frame: January 2007 - December 2007

Action Measure 2.1.5 - Institutionalize the recommendation that no futurestructures susceptible to flood damage be built in the flood plain areas within theUniversity of Mississippi Field Station.Discussion - The field station has in place a recommendation to bar futureconstruction of buildings within the flood plain areas of the field station. Therecommendation has been adhered to, but does not carry the force of Universitypolicy. This action measure will formalize the recommendation as Universitypolicy. The cost of the action will be minimal as the initial recommendation hasbeen accepted and need only be submitted for administration approval. Noadditional funds are required to implement this measure.Hazards - flood

Implementing Office / Department -Vice Chancellor of Administration andFinanceImplementation Time Frame: April, 2006 - December 2006


Page -67-

Goal 3Eliminate / Reduce vulnerabilities to existing University property, and cultural resources fromnatural hazards and enhance emergency preparedness.

Objective 3.1 - Reduce fire vulnerabilities from the lightning hazard and from naturalgas utilities.

Action Measure 3.1.1 - Install seismic gas shut-off valves on all Universitybuildings with natural gas connections.Discussion - The purpose of this measure is to reduce vulnerabilities associatedwith the use of natural gas. The examination of typical damage by naturalhazards often mentions the concern with leaking natural gas. This concern hasbeen noted with tornado damage, flood damage, wind induced damage andearthquake damage. Although these valves are designed for earthquake hazards,they can also be useful for other hazards. This measure would install valvesbeginning with the structures classed as critical and proceed to lower priorities. Estimated cost is $500,000. Potential sources of funds include those provided bythe Mississippi legislature, private donations and Federal pre-disaster mitigationfunds. Hazards - earthquake, tornado, wind stormImplementing Office / Department -Vice Chancellor of Administration andFinanceImplementation Time Frame: January 2007 - December 2009

Action Measure 3.1.2 - Upgrade all campus fire hydrants so they are capable ofadequate flow for fire fighting.Discussion - Adequate flow capacity of fire hydrants represents a very basicconfining parameter for fire protection. The purpose of this measure is to assurethat, in the event of a fire, hydrant flow capacity is adequate. The existinghydrants with insufficient flow capacity will be removed and replaced with newhydrants. The work will begin by evaluating the hydrants servicing the structuresclassed as critical and work to lower priority buildings. Estimated cost is$500,000. Potential sources of funds include those provided by the Mississippilegislature, private donations and Federal pre-disaster mitigation funds. Hazards - earthquake, tornado, lightning induced fire, windstorm, wildfireImplementing Office / Department -Vice Chancellor of Administration andFinanceImplementation Time Frame: October 2006 - June 2010

Action Measure 3.1.3 - Survey campus buildings to determine their compliancewith fire code requirements and identify any special requirements that may needto be added to accommodate persons with disabilities.Discussion - Several natural hazards could result in structural fire. The purposeof this measure is to survey campus buildings to determine if additional fire safety


Page -68-

measures are needed to insure the safety of the occupants. Although thisevaluation will be applicable to all occupants, it is particularly aimed at meetingthe special needs of persons with disabilities. With campus structures dating from1848 to present the safety considerations for the disabled vary widely. Thisproject will identify those structures where additional work is needed andprioritize the recommended work. The ultimate goal is to identify futuremitigation projects and seek funding to implement them. The estimated cost ofthe project is $75,000. Potential sources of funds include those provided by theMississippi legislature, private donations and Federal pre-disaster mitigationfunds. Hazards - earthquake, tornado, lightning induced fire, wildfireImplementing Office / Department -Vice Chancellor of Administration andFinanceImplementation Time Frame: July 2006 - June 2008

Action Measure 3.1.4 - Evaluate wind and earthquake performance of the J.D.Williams Library and the University / Mary Buie Museum with the goal ofidentifying any measures needed to add additional protection for these facilities.Discussion - These two structures, along with their special collections areconsidered high dollar value structures. The proposed work would entail acomputational modeling of the structures to evaluate potential earthquakeperformance and identify any measures needed to provide additional protection. The earthquake evaluation would include foundation evaluation and structure /soil interaction. This action measure would also include evaluation of thestructures’ performance during wind and tornado events. The study wouldinclude roof conditions, connections and any roof attachments. The proposedaction is to identify any measures needed to add additional protection during theseevents. The ultimate goal is to identify future mitigation projects and seekfunding to implement them. The estimated cost of the project is $100,000. Potential sources of funds include those provided by the Mississippi legislature,private donations and Federal pre-disaster mitigation funds. Hazards - earthquake, tornado, straight line windsImplementing Office / Department -Vice Chancellor of Administration andFinanceImplementation Time Frame: January 2007 - June 2008

Objective 3.2 - Reduce the vulnerabilities to campus lifelines from natural hazards andminimize interruption of mission performance.

Action Measure 3.2.1 - Replace above ground electrical power lines withunderground lines. Discussion - Electrical power is a basic requirement for the campus to respond toa crisis event, recover from the event, and to resume its stated mission. Thehazard profiles demonstrate that loss of power was a recurring problem during ice


Page -69-

storm events and is mentioned as far back as the 1948 event as well as the 1951and 1994 event. Loss of power also frequently occurs during wind events. Thepurpose of this measure is to mitigate this hazard by placing all electrical powerlines underground. Underground power lines would serve to protect them fromfrequent outages due to ice or wind. Estimated cost is $12,000,000 to convert allcampus above ground lines to underground lines. Intermediate steps to achievethis objective would be to install dedicated underground lines initially to the TadSmith Coliseum and the near-by water tower / treatment plant (critical facilities). Estimated cost for this step would be $475,000. The next intermediate step wouldbe to add a dedicated line to service the waste water treatment plant (anothercritical facility) at an estimated cost of $150,000. After completion of theseprojects, underground line would be installed at the Natural Products Center /Coulter Hall / Faser Hall research complex and at Shoemaker Hall. Potentialsources of funds include those provided by the Mississippi legislature, privatedonations and Federal pre-disaster mitigation funds. Hazards - Tornado, severe winter storm, wind storm, earthquakeImplementing Office / Department -Vice Chancellor of Administration andFinanceImplementation Time Frame: April 2006 - December 2011

Action Measure 3.2.2 - Identify emergency traffic routes by posting signs on thecampus routes.Discussion - The purpose of this action measure is to clearly identify emergencytraffic routes throughout campus to aid traffic flow in and out of campus duringemergency events. This measure would be of particular importance if the campushad to be evacuated. Estimated cost is $10,000. Potential sources of fundsinclude those provided by the Mississippi legislature, private donations andFederal pre-disaster mitigation funds. Hazards - Tornado, earthquake, wind stormImplementing Office / Department -Vice Chancellor of Administration andFinanceImplementation Time Frame: April 2007 - December 2008

Action Measure 3.2.3 - Expand Coliseum Drive to four lanes of traffic fromHighway 6 underpass to Fraternity Row to facilitate existing campus emergencytransportation route.Discussion - The purpose of this action measure is to enhance emergencyentrance to and exit from the campus. Coliseum Drive is presently a two lanepavement and is often congested due to student traffic into this portion of campus. This mitigation measure will reduce the time required by emergency vehicles toaccess the southwestern end of campus. Coliseum Drive is adjacent to the TadSmith Coliseum (a critical structure - shelter) and connects with Fraternity Row -a major east-to-west campus corridor. Estimated cost is $500,000. Potential


Page -70-

sources of funds include those provided by the Mississippi legislature, privatedonations and Federal pre-disaster mitigation funds.Implementing Office: Vice Chancellor of Administration and FinanceImplementation Time Frame: July 2008 - June 2010

Action Measure 3.2.4 - Purchase emergency generators for selected location toenhance emergency preparedness. Discussion - The purpose of this action measure is to ensure that critical facilitiescan operate during a crisis event. Electrical power is essential, so generators forselected facilities are proposed in order to aid crisis response. The generators areproposed to be located at the new Physical Plant Administration building, thealternate emergency operations center (critical facility), and at the airport terminal(critical facility). Estimated cost is $375,000. Potential sources of funds includethose provided by the Mississippi legislature, private donations and Federal pre-disaster mitigation funds. Hazards - all hazards

Implementing Office / Department -Vice Chancellor of Administration andFinanceImplementation Time Frame: April 2006 - December 2010

Goal 4Protect the health, safety and welfare of students, faculty and staff at the University ofMississippi.

Objective 4.1 - Enhance the communication and warning capabilities needed before andduring a natural hazard crisis event.

Action Measure 4.1.1 - Install additional wind warning system components toaugment the existing warning system. Discussion - The University maintains a warning system, but there are areas ofthe campus where the warnings cannot be heard. The purpose of this measurewill be to add warning sirens in these “gaps” so the entire campus is covered bythe warning system. This system is commonly used for the wind and tornadohazards. Estimated cost is $135,000. Potential sources of funds include thoseprovided by the Mississippi legislature, private donations and Federal pre-disastermitigation funds. Hazards - tornado, lightning induced fire, wind stormImplementing Office / Department -Vice Chancellor of Administration andFinanceImplementation Time Frame: April 2006 - December 2006

Action Measure 4.1.2 - Install three 800 trunking radio communication towerswith repeaters on each.


Page -71-

Discussion - The purpose of this measure is to improve the communicationabilities of the University during a natural hazard crisis event. Presently theUniversity must rely on a communication tower approximately 15 miles from thecampus and “on campus” communication is not uniform. The installation ofthese towers would greatly enhance the quality of campus emergencycommunications and provide uniform coverage across the campus. Estimatedcost is $500,000. Potential sources of funds include those provided by theMississippi legislature, private donations and Federal pre-disaster mitigationfunds. Hazards -all hazardsImplementing Office / Department -Vice Chancellor of Administration andFinanceImplementation Time Frame: October 2006 - September 2007

Action Measure 4.1.3 - Install cross link console in order to communicate withall radios not on the 800 trunking system.Discussion - The purpose of this measure is to improve the communicationabilities of the University during a natural hazard crisis event. The ability tocommunicate with all radios during a crisis event will aid the emergency managerin coordinating response and reacting to on-going events in a timely manner. Theresult should be lessened damage and response time. Estimated cost is $50,000. Potential sources of funds include those provided by the Mississippi legislature,private donations and Federal pre-disaster mitigation funds. Hazards - all hazardsImplementing Office / Department -Vice Chancellor of Administration andFinanceImplementation Time Frame: October 2006 - December 2007

Action Measure 4.1.4 - Purchase new 800 trunking radios to augment existingunits.Discussion - The purpose of this measure is to ensure all departmental emergencyresponders can communicate with the emergency personnel during a crisis event. Additional radios will allow the emergency operations center to be kept informedas to field conditions and to ensure a rapid response to developing situations oncampus. Estimated cost is $100,000. Potential sources of funds include thoseprovided by the Mississippi legislature, private donations and Federal pre-disastermitigation funds. Hazards - all hazardsImplementing Office / Department -Vice Chancellor of Administration andFinanceImplementation Time Frame: October 2006 - September 2007

Objective 4.2 - Enhance the safety of students, staff, and faculty during potential naturalhazard events.


Page -72-

Action Measure 4.2.1 - Install tornado / storm shelters at selected areas of thecampus that does not have easy access to designated tornado shelters. Discussion - The campus has areas that are used as shelters during potentialtornado events. These locations are, unfortunately, sparsely distributed over thecampus and there is no shelter or structure that can be used as a shelter at theUniversity airport. The purpose of this measure is to supplement the existingsheltering areas to allow access to more students, faculty or staff. Prefabricatedshelters will be utilized. Estimated cost is $75,000. Potential sources of fundsinclude those provided by the Mississippi legislature, private donations andFederal pre-disaster mitigation funds. Hazards - tornado, wind stormImplementing Office / Department -Vice Chancellor of Administration andFinanceImplementation Time Frame: July 2006 - December 2007

Action Measure 4.2.2 - Install signs to identify designated storm sheltering areasand outside signs indicating directions to the designated sheltering areas. Discussion - Safety shelters are of little use unless they are easily identified andclearly marked. The purpose of this measure is to post outside signs to direct thepublic to the shelter and interior signs with directions to the shelter or shelter area. Estimated cost is $5,000. Potential sources of funds include those provided bythe Mississippi legislature, private donations and Federal pre-disaster mitigationfunds.

Hazards - tornado, wind stormImplementing Office / Department -Vice Chancellor of Administration andFinanceImplementation Time Frame: October 2006 - September 2008

Action Measure 4.2.3 - Install safety film on all large glass panes to prevent theglass from shattering into shards and causing injuries.Discussion - The purpose of this measure is to mitigate the hazards presented bysharp glass shards that become airborne during a tornado or wind event or fromfalling glass during an earthquake event. The Student Union has glass as abuilding material and has a history of glass panes becoming dislodged andshattering during wind events. The Student Union building (classed as a criticalfacility) would be the initial building to be filmed followed by the Tad SmithColiseum (also a critical facility). The lobby areas of the large dormitories arealso areas where glass filming would have high priority due to the number ofstudents that are present. Estimated cost is $350,000 to film three criticalfacilities. Other structures would follow that are classed as critical or highpriority. Potential sources of funds include those provided by the Mississippilegislature, private donations and Federal pre-disaster mitigation funds. Hazards - earthquake, tornado, wind storm, hail


Page -73-

Implementing Office / Department -Vice Chancellor of Administration andFinanceImplementation Time Frame: January 2007 - March 2011

Goal 5Maintain and enhance communications regarding natural hazard mitigation measures within theUniversity and with adjoining jurisdictions.

Objective 5.1 - Promote inter-jurisdictional communications by establishing long-termliaison with other jurisdictions and engaging in joint mitigation projects.

Action Measure 5.1.1 - Construct a new water treatment plant with crossconnects to the City of Oxford’s water distribution system.Discussion - The purpose of this measure is to ensure the availability of potablewater for both consumption and fire fighting. This measure would provideredundancy in the case of a regional-scale natural disaster such as earthquake or amore local event such as a tornado, or major fire. The treatment plant wouldallow potable water to be transferred from the University jurisdiction to the Cityof Oxford’s or vice versa. It also could be used to meet population needs in thecase of one water system becoming disabled. With the ability to connect thewater systems, the ability to fight fires is significantly enhanced for bothjurisdictions potentially avoiding physical damage and emergency managementcosts. Estimated cost is $650,000. Potential sources of funds include thoseprovided by the Mississippi legislature, private donations and Federal pre-disastermitigation funds. Hazards - earthquake, tornado, lightning induced fire, drought, wind stormImplementing Office / Department -Vice Chancellor of Administration andFinanceImplementation Time Frame: July 2007 - September 2009

Action Measure 5.1.2 - Continue to maintain the Disaster Resistant UniversityCommittee and its mitigation planning as permanent part of University / City /County relations. Discussion - The DRU Committee consists of members from the county, city ,regional and State governmental organizations. The committee is ideal forfostering multi- jurisdictional planning efforts. This action measure will continuethe DRU Committee meetings beyond the performance period of this project andhold a yearly public meeting / briefing to allow an opportunity for publiceducation and input into the mitigation planning process. Meetings will be heldin the adjoining jurisdiction, the University, or other jurisdictions as agreed uponby the Committee. Estimated cost is $1,000 per year. Potential sources of fundsinclude those provided by the Mississippi legislature, private donations andFederal pre-disaster mitigation funds. Hazards - all hazards


Page -74-

Implementing Office / Department -Vice Chancellor of Administration andFinanceImplementation Time Frame: April 2006 - December 2011

Goal 6 Use the knowledge gained from the University of Mississippi Disaster Resistant UniversitiesProject to reduce / eliminate vulnerabilities at other Mississippi colleges and universities.

Objective 6.1 - Initiate DRU planning activities at Mississippi’s major researchuniversities and other University of Mississippi campuses.

Action Measure 6.1.1 - Visit each of Mississippi’s major research universities todiscuss disaster resistance and encourage them to initiate disaster mitigationplanning.Discussion - The best means of getting mitigation planning started at otheruniversities is to meet with them personally to discuss the advantages and themethodologies that can be used to formulate a mitigation plan. The purpose ofthis action measure is to use the University of Mississippi DRU project as amodel for other universities. Personal visits and presentations are envisioned as ameans to initiate action while the University of Mississippi will act as a mentor. Estimated cost is $5,000 for the initial year. Potential sources of funds includethose provided by the Mississippi legislature, private donations and Federal pre-disaster mitigation funds. Hazards - all hazardsImplementing Office / Department -Vice Chancellor of Administration andFinanceImplementation Time Frame: July 2006 - December 2008

Action Measure 6.1.2 - Prepare natural hazard mitigation plans for theUniversity of Mississippi’s Southaven and Tupelo campuses. Discussion - The University of Mississippi also has satellite campuses in Tupeloand Southaven, Mississippi. This measure will prepare for each campus amitigation plan similar to the main campus plan and using similar methodologiesto estimate vulnerabilities. The satellite campus plans will be administered assubordinate jurisdictions under the University of Mississippi’s plan. While theTupelo campus will likely be subject to a similar set of natural hazards as themain campus, the Southaven campus will likely have a greater risk for earthquakedamage due to its near proximity to the southern end of the New Madrid FaultZone. Each campus mitigation plan will evaluate these similarities anddifferences. All applicable hazards will be considered. Estimated cost for thismitigation action measure is $100,000. Potential sources of funds include thoseprovided by the Mississippi legislature, private donations and Federal pre-disastermitigation funds.

Hazards - all hazards


Page -75-

Implementing Office / Department -Vice Chancellor of Administration andFinanceImplementation Time Frame: October 2006 - December 2008

Objective 6.2 - Initiate DRU planning activities at one or more of Mississippi’s teachinguniversities and historically black universities.

Action Measure 6.2.1 - Visit with Mississippi’s major teaching and historicallyblack universities to discuss disaster resistance and encourage them to initiatedisaster mitigation planning.Discussion - The best means of getting mitigation planning started at otheruniversities is to meet with them personally to discuss the advantages and themethodologies that can be used to formulate a mitigation plan. The purpose ofthis action measure is to use the University of Mississippi DRU project as amodel for other universities. Personal visits and presentations are envisioned as ameans to initiate action while the University of Mississippi will act as a mentor. Estimated cost is $8,000 for the initial year. Potential sources of funds includethose provided by the Mississippi legislature, private donations and Federal pre-disaster mitigation funds. Hazards - all hazardsImplementing Office / Department -Vice Chancellor of Administration andFinanceImplementation Time Frame: July 2006 - December 2008

Cost-Benefit ReviewThere are specific costs associated with any mitigation activity, and such a mitigation activitywill generate certain benefits. While the cost of a particular action is often easy to quantify, itcan be more difficult to quantify the associated benefits in monetary terms. Those mitigationactivities that generate the largest amount of benefit for the lowest cost are typically consideredthe highest priority, and are described as having a high benefit-cost ratio. Quantifying thebenefits of mitigation activities is an important step needed in prioritizing mitigation projects.

According to FEMA, benefits derived from mitigation projects are the avoided damagesand losses as a direct result of the mitigation activity. These benefits are calculated byestimating future damages and losses for two scenarios: 1) what the resulting damages and losseswould be for a particular event without undertaking the mitigation project, and 2) what theresulting damages and losses would be for the same event if the mitigation project is completed(FEMA, 2005). Benefits would be considered if the difference between the damages incurredwithout the mitigation activity are greater than the damages incurred after the mitigation activity. The greatest potential benefit comes when there is a disaster with the greatest damages andlosses prior to any mitigation activities. Thus those catastrophic disasters that pose the highestrisk typically have mitigation projects with the highest benefits.


Page -76-

There are four categories of avoided damages (FEMA, 2005). Avoidance of casualties(injuries and deaths) rank among the highest benefit of all mitigation activities. Because of therelatively high density of population on the University of Mississippi campus, potentialcasualties factor into many of the identified hazards. Avoidance of loss-of-function can be animportant benefit of any mitigation project. Loss-of-function occurs when the normal activitiescan not be accomplished, for example buildings are damaged to the point where the offices andclassrooms must be moved elsewhere, which is typically expensive. Loss of utilities might makean otherwise undamaged building temporarily unsuitable, and thus also qualifies as loss-of-function. Displacement costs incurred to secure temporary facilities in order for the university tocontinue its educational mission could be quite substantial. For example, California StateUniversity, Northridge was closed for a month after the January 1994 Northridge earthquake,and was only able to reopen using 450 temporary trailers to serve as classrooms (FEMA,2003(a)). Avoidance of physical damages to both buildings and the specialized equipment thatmany buildings on campus contain is an important benefit. The density of buildings, just like thehuman population, is also high on the campus, with 214 buildings contained within anapproximate one-square-mile area. Many of these structures contain expensive physicalresources, such as delicate scientific equipment or extensive library holdings. Often physicaldamage also leads to a loss-of-function expense. Finally, the avoided emergency managementcosts due to a disaster can be important to the university, particularly in the areas of debrisremoval and cleanup costs, plus the costs associated with enhanced security. The extensive icestorm during February 1994 caused many downed trees and branches on the university campus,resulting in an expense of one million dollars just in debris removal.

The 29 mitigation goals and objectives described in the previous section were examinedin light of the four categories of potential damages listed above. Each mitigation action measurewas assigned a relative value within one or more of the four categories, as shown in Table 25. When the mitigation action had the highest influence on a particular category of avoideddamages, it was given a value of three. Mitigation action 1.1.1, for example, has to do with thearchiving of research data, so in the event of a disaster valuable data would not be lost, and thusresearchers could continue their activities, which essentially results in a loss-of-function benefitin regard to the data. Each mitigation action has at least one category at this highest value. Intermediate levels of influence were given a value of two, and those with low influence wereassigned a value of one. Mitigation action 4.2.3, which involves installation of safety film onlarge glass windows in buildings, has the greatest benefit in an avoidance of casualties, and to alesser extent an avoidance in the loss-of-function possibility for the building. In some casesmore than one category for a particular mitigation action was considered of high, medium or lowinfluence, so multiple categories were given this same value (see, for example, mitigation action2.1.3 in Table 25, where incorporating seismic provisions in building codes would reduce thelikelihood of casualties, physical damages, and loss-of-function for a building).

Based on the experience of other universities with natural disasters, it appears that thetwo categories of causalities and loss-of-function often contributed to the greatest monetarydamages to the institutions (FEMA, 2003(a)). To acknowledge this larger contribution, for thepurpose of this study, a multiplier factor was incorporated into the analysis prior to summing the


Page -77-

values for each mitigation action. Both casualty and loss-of-function were given a multipliervalue of two, indicating a higher potential monetary loss as compared to the losses incurred byphysical damages and avoided emergency management costs. For example, for mitigation action3.1.3 (listed in Table 25), the physical, loss-of-function, and casualty damages are considered tobe of equal importance, however, it is anticipated that loss-of-function and casualty will createthe largest amount of monetary damages, so they are both multiplied by two prior to summing. Thus 12 of the 15 total points assigned to the mitigation activity comes from those twocategories.

The total point value for each of the 29 mitigation actions, as shown in Table 25, can beused to help prioritize these proposed mitigation actions. An initial examination of the resultssuggests there are three main groups of actions, which would correspond with a high, mediumand low priority. The four highest-scoring mitigation actions had values of 13 to 15. These fouractions (2.1.3, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, and 3.1.3) all ranked high because they addressed both loss-of-function and casualty as the primary benefits. Mitigation action 2.1.3 applies to futureconstruction on the campus, while the other three actions involve existing buildings. The twohighest-scoring actions, which should provide the greatest potential benefit, are moreadministrative in nature (adopting a building code that incorporates seismic provisions, andpreforming a fire and disability compliance survey). The two other high-priority items arephysical modifications (installation of seismic gas shut-off valves and upgrading fire hydrants).

The medium-priority mitigation actions include 17 of the 29 listed actions, spanning atotaled point value of 11 down to five. These actions are typically a mixture of avoided damagecategories. The high end of the range is dominated by loss-of-function combined with physicaldamages. The low end of the range is primarily just one major category (loss-of-function orcasualty), possibly with some input from physical damage or emergency management costs.

The eight low-priority mitigation actions in Table 25 have a totaled value of three pointsin the ranking system. All of these actions involve the avoidance of emergency managementcosts as the sole contributing benefit. They are a mixture of administrative (continuation of theDRU committee, for example) and physical actions (widening Coliseum Drive, for example).

Table 25 - Summary of Benefit - Cost Review *1,*2

Action Measures Avoided Damages

Number Brief Description Physical Loss ofFunction

Casualty Emerg.Manag. Total

Multiplier Factor By AvoidedDamage Type

1 2 2 1

1.1.1 Protection of research data 3 6

2.1.1 Institutionalize hazardmitigation

1 2 1 3 10







1 2 2 1

Page -78-

2.1.2 Non-structural mitigation forplanning

3 3 9

2.1.3 Building code with seismicprovisions

3 3 3 15

2.1.4 Crisis/Mitigation guide 1 1 3 6

2.1.5 Formalize no flood plainconstruction within the UM

Field Station3 2

7

3.1.1 Seismic gas shut-off valves 3 3 2 13

3.1.2 Upgrading/adding fire hydrants 3 3 2 13

3.1.3 Fire code/disability compliancesurvey

3 3 3 15

3.1.4 Evaluation of earthquake /wind performance of J.D.

Williams Library andUniversity Museum

3 3 1 11

3.2.1 Underground utility lines 3 1 7

3.2.2 Identify emergency trafficroutes

3 3

3.2.3 Coliseum Drive widening 3 3

3.2.4 Purchase emergency generators 2 3 7

4.1.1 Additional storm warningsystems

2 3 7

4.1.2 Radio communication tower 3 3

4.1.3 Cross link console installation 1 3 5

4.1.4 Purchase trunking radios 1 3 5

4.2.1 Storm shelter installation 3 6

4.2.2 Storm shelter sign installation 3 2 8

4.2.3 Safety film on large glass panes 1 3 7







1 2 2 1

Page -79-

5.1.1 Connection with adjoiningwater system / potable water

treatment plant

2 3 8

5.1.2 Maintaining DRU committee 3 3

6.1.1 Visiting other researchuniversities

3 3

6.1.2 Preparing natural hazardmitigation plans for other UM

campuses3 3

6.2.1 Visiting other historically blackuniversities

3 3

*1 - Ranking: High (3), Medium (2), Low (1)*2 - Total is defined as each ranking times its respective multiplier factor summed for all four damage types.

Prioritizing Action Measures For ImplementationThe action measures described above have been prioritized to establish an order for

implementation. The process of prioritization focused on the DRU Advisory Committee. TheCCEP staff compiled a preliminary set of prioritized action measures for the consideration of theDRU Committee. The CCEP staff explained the logic and criteria to arrive at the suggestedprioritized listing. The Committee then evaluated the listing provided by the CCEP, comparedthe list of mitigation actions with the full list of suggested mitigation actions (Appendix J) todetermine if other action measures should be included, weighed the implications of the othercriteria discussed below and finally modified the listing as they thought appropriate. As theDRU Committee includes representatives from the adjoining jurisdiction as well as regional andstate jurisdictions, all concerned parties were able to review the mitigation strategy / plan andhad the opportunity to participate.

The STAPLEE criteria is suggested by FEMA (FEMA, 2003(b)) as a guide to evaluatingand prioritizing potential mitigation actions. These criteria are designed to evaluate criteria on alocal governmental level and are not entirely applicable to the university environment. Mostuniversities are not organized around the municipality model, but rather are run more like acorporation with a lead officer (Chancellor or President) making many of the decisions. Thisofficer is supported by his or her administrative staff with authority to make decisions withintheir area of responsibility. To promote the mitigation idea to a university, the support of theadministration is more important than typical political involvement and often university


Page -80-

administrations reserve political involvement to themselves in varying degrees. Champions inthe university administrative branch is an important component for the plan to function properly. In this plan, the STAPLEE criteria were considered in the prioritization of the mitigation actions,but those that didn’t fit the university model were discounted while the ones that did apply wereused.

To compliment the STAPLEE criteria the prioritization process considered the hazardprofiles, vulnerabilities, project costs and potential benefits. Projects that could mitigate theaffects of multiple hazards were given higher ranking than those addressing only one hazard.The cost aspects of some goals were such that the only reasonable approach to fulfilling the goal/ objective was to break the objectives into parts that could be implemented over a span of time.

Social aspects of the mitigation actions were also considered. The major component ofthe university population is the student body. The student body is a mix of people from differentorigins that change as students come and go from the University. Most individual students are atthe University for approximately four years and move to the job market or graduate studies. Oneparticular group, disabled persons, remain fairly constant on the University and this group wasidentified as one where mitigation measures would be particularly useful. Many of the structureson campus were constructed prior to the Americans with Disabilities Act, and so upgrading orimproving facilities to better protect this group from natural hazards would be particularlyuseful. Mitigation actions that would aid this special group were given higher priority.

Those mitigation actions that benefitted the most people were given priority. Forexample, mitigation actions that would add a measure of protection to Martin-Stockard Tower, adormitory with over 900 students, would be more advantageous than a measure that would addadditional protection to a structure with only 50 students.

Table 26, below, reflects the prioritized listing agreed upon by the DRU Committee. Theimplementation of the mitigation actions will start with priority number 1 and continue to lowerpriority actions. Minimal cost mitigation actions, which involve the addition of mitigationmeasures to existing plans and design guidance, will be implemented upon approval of the planby all parties.

Table 26 - Prioritized Listing of Mitigation Actions by the DRU Committee

Priority ActionMeasureNumber

EstimatedProjectDurationyears (months)

Affectsexistingbuilding /infrastructure

Affectsfuturebuilding /infrastructure

Description / Comments

1 4.1.2 , 4.1.41 (12) No No Install three radio communication

towers, purchase new 800 trunkingradios

2 3.2.1 5.75 (69) Yes No Replace present power lines withunderground lines








Page -81-

3 1.1.1 1.25 (15) No No Establish standard guidance forprotection of research data

4 4.1.1 0.75 (9) No No Install additional storm warningsystems on campus

5 3.1.41.5 (18)

Yes NoEvaluate wind and earthquake

performance for Williams Libraryand University / Buie Museum

6 3.1.32 (24) Yes

NoDetermine fire code compliancefor structures with emphasis on

disabled persons issues

7 3.1.2 3.75 (45) Yes No Upgrade fire hydrants to minimumstandards

8 3.1.1 3 (36) Yes No Install seismic gas shut-off valves

9 2.1.1 0.5 (6) No Yes Require mitigation measures aspart of capital building plan

10 2.1.21 (12) No Yes Incorporate nonstructural

mitigation measures into designguidance documents

11 2.1.30.75 (9) No Yes Adhere to latest building code

provisions in future constructionincluding seismic provisions

12 4.2.3 4.25 (51) Yes No Install safety filming on large glasspanes

13 4.1.3 1.25 (15) No No Install cross link console foremergency communications

14 4.2.2 2 (24) No No Install interior and exterior signsmarking shelter areas

15 4.2.1 1.5 (18) No No Install tornado / storm shelters atselected locations

16 5.1.2 5.75 (69) No No Continue DRU committee asmitigation planning organ of UM

17 3.2.2 1.75 (21) No No Install signs marking emergencytraffic routes on campus








Page -82-

18 6.2.12.5 (30) No No Encourage mitigation planning at

teaching, and historically blackuniversities

19 6.1.1 2.5 (30) No No Encourage mitigation planning atresearch universities

20 6.1.2 2.25 (27) No Yes Prepare mitigation plans for theSouthaven and Tupelo campuses

21 2.1.50.75 (9) No Yes Make UM policy that no buildings

are to be constructed on knownflood plains

22 5.1.1

2 (24) No No Construct new water treatment /cross connections with Universityand City of Oxford water supply

systems

23 3.2.4 4.75 (57) No No Purchase emergency generators forselected locations

24 3.2.3 2 (24) No No Expand Coliseum Drive tofacilitate emergency vehicle traffic

25 2.1.41 (12) No No Publish and distribute crisis

management / mitigation plan forcampus departments

Implementation of Action MeasuresThe lead administrative unit for implementation of DRU-related mitigation work will be

the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance (VCAF) (also see MitigationGoals and Objectives to Reduce Existing Vulnerabilities section ). This office will assign workto the appropriate subordinate departments and will ensure all applicable Federal and State laws,rules and regulations are adhered to throughout the process of project completion. Priority forimplementation of action measures has been established by the DRU Committee.

The VCFA will ensure all proposed work will include the identification of work to becompleted, the location of the proposed work, time of performance, estimated cost of the project,and the identification of potential funding sources. Standard accounting procedures will befollowed. The VCFA will also assign quality control and assurance responsibilities to the propersubordinate department. Some of the proposed mitigation actions will not require procurementof additional funds. These action measures can be implemented without the delay associatedwith seeking external funding.


Page -83-

Plan Maintenance, Evaluation and RevisionThe DRU Committee will meet at least twice per year to conduct the business of campus

mitigation. The DRU Committee is responsible for plan maintenance, monitoring and evaluation. Monitoring the progress of the plan will be included in the agenda for two DRU Committeemeetings; at the beginning of the calender year and again at a mid-year meeting. The update tothe committee will include a summary of the committee’s current guidance as to the actionmeasure prioritization, overall status by action measure, a status report of completion of work byaction measure, funding status, and proposed completion date. Meetings to evaluate themitigation progress is also an opportunity to evaluate potential funding sources and currentfunding. Updating data contained in the plan will be an on-going task and will be reported to theDRU Committee for their comment and approval. Table 27, below is a proposed summarydocument designed to aid the DRU Committee in monitoring the progress of the plan. The Chairmay form Subcommittees to focus on plan monitoring and to make recommendations to thecommittee.

Table 27 - Proposed Project Summary Document for DRU Committee Plan Monitoring (contained data isfictitious and for illustrative purposes only)

ActionMeasureNumber

CurrentDRUCommitteePriority

Proposed /Active /Complete /Ongoing

%Complete

FundingStatus

CompletionDate

Comments

9.9.9 1 Complete 100 N/A Complete

1.9.7 2 Active 32 Funded 12/15/2006 Delayed

18.3.9 3 Proposed 0 Pending N/A Funding pending - priority changed atyear-end meeting

12.4.32 4 Ongoing 30 Funded 2 yrs. fromcurrent date

multi-year project -l year complete

The DRU Committee will include on its agenda for its mid-year meeting an evaluation ofthe plan’s overall usefulness and vitality. The purpose of the evaluation is to identify changes inthe plan that may be necessary or desirable to make it a more efficient planning document or toimprove on the execution of the mitigation measures. Any changes agreed upon by thecommittee will be included in the plan upgrade agenda. The committee will consider thefollowing criteria when evaluating the plan:

1) new construction or conditions that may require plan updates,

2) identify areas where the plan has been successful and areas where additional work isneeded,


Page -84-

3) identify any new mitigation measures that should be added or existing measures thatshould be deleted from the plan,

4) new legislation or rule making that may / will influence the operation andimplementation of the plan, and adequacy of funding to implement measures,

5) review the current mitigation action prioritizations, and

6) results from on-going plan monitoring.

The Chair of the DRU Committee may also call special meetings of the Committee as awhole to evaluate the plan should a significant event occur on campus. The Chair may alsoappoint subcommittees to investigate and evaluate special aspects of the plan and report back tothe committee as a whole.

The beginning-of-the-year meeting will contain on its agenda an item to evaluate theneed to update major portions of the plan (updating data to reflect changes will be an ongoingtask). The discussion will consider issues identified during plan evaluations and any issuesidentified during the monitoring of the on-going work. Natural hazard-related events on campusand the influence (or lack thereof) that mitigation work had on the damage caused by the eventwill be evaluated. Problem areas or successful mitigation will also be identified during thisannual evaluation. The DRU Committee may decide that the plan needs no major update, itneeds immediate updating, or updating is needed, but can wait to the end of the five year cycle. If immediate update is required, the update will be approved by the DRU Committee and thensubmitted to MEMA and FEMA for their concurrence.

At the end of every five year period the DRU Committee will evaluate and make anymajor updates needed to the plan or add updates identified earlier. The MEMA and FEMA willbe notified if major upgrades to the plan are required and the plan will be submitted for theirconcurrence. This plan will be provided to the University administration and any concernedgovernment agency or member of the public.

As mentioned in the previous section, the mitigation measures identified in this plan willinterface with the University’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The CIP is the only planninginstrument currently in use on the campus, so interfacing the mitigation plan with the CIP coversall planning for future campus construction (Banner, 2006). Also, as mentioned previously,mitigation measures will be incorporated into the construction guidance entitled “Instructions toDesign Professionals” (University of Mississippi Facilities Planning Department, 2005). Although it does not contain the future planning aspects of the CIP, it does alert architects anddesign engineers to specific issues the University wishes to incorporate into campus design. TheDRU mitigation plan will be referenced in the document, serving to alert professionals designingfuture structures that the measures of the mitigation plan should be considered. The University’sMaster Plan is no longer in effect, although there have been discussions regarding its renewal. If


Page -85-

a decision is made to construct a new Master Plan, the DRU Committee will seek to havemitigation measures included.

The process by which aspects of the mitigation plan are incorporated into otherUniversity plans and guidance documents is not complex. For an action measure to beincorporated into another university plan requires only the approval of the department directorwhich administers the plan. If, for example, an action measure was to be included in the CIP, theapproval of the director of the Facilities Planning Department would be required. Approval ofthe director assures inclusion of the measure. All business of the University is, of course, subjectto oversight of the appropriate Vice Chancellor, the Provost and Chancellor. Note in Table 1that many of the DRU Committee members are directors of university departments.

The public will be given the opportunity to participate in the on-going process vianotification by print and electronic means. The DRU meetings involving evaluations andupgrades will be announced by press releases to the campus and Oxford print media. Thereleases will solicit public participation. Announcements will also be placed on the Universityweb site as well as other departmental sites. The mitigation plan will be made available indigital or hard copy by request. The plan will also be available on-line through the CCEP website ( http://www.olemiss.edu/orgs/ccep/ )or that of the Mississippi Mineral Resources Institute (http://www.olemiss.edu/depts/mmri/ ).


Page -86-

References Cited

Allgood, Jimmy, 2005, personal communications with Charles Swann on 12/07/2005.

American Geological Institute, 1984, Dictionary of geological terms: American GeologicalInstitute, third edition, Anchor Books, New York, New York, 571 p.

American Meteorological Society (AMS), 2000, Glossary of Meteorology, 855 p.

American Society of Civil Engineers, 2006, Minimum loads for buildings and other structures -ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-05, 388p.

Atkins, A.M., 2005, Community has a role in keeping Ole Miss safe from natural disasters,research says - Public forum set for Wednesday evening in Oxford: Oxford Eagle, Monday,August 8, 2005, 137th year, no. 218, Front page story.

Attaya, J.S., 1951, Lafayette County Geology: Mississippi Office of Geology, Bulletin 71, 49 p.

Banner, Ian, 2006, personal communications with Charles Swann on 2/3/2006.

Bicker, A.R., Jr., 1969, Geologic Map of Mississippi: Mississippi Office of Geology, Map 1,1:500,000 scale, l sheet.

Bloom, A.L., 2004, Geomorphology - A systematic analysis of Late Cenozoic land forms:Waveland Press Inc., Long Grove, Ill., 482 p.

Bograd, M.B.E., 2005, Earthquakes in Mississippi: Mississippi Office of Geology, Fact Sheet 1,revised June 2005, one page.

Clarion-Ledger, 2005, Oxford - Public hearing to address plan for natural hazards: Clarion-Ledger, Monday, August 8, 2005, p.2B.

Clark, Roland, 2006, personal communications with C. Swann on January 12, 2006.

Curran, B.E. and R.L. Holle, 1997, Lightning fatalities, injuries, and damage reports in theUnited States from 1959 - 1994, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration,Technical Memorandum NWS SR - 193, Daily Journal, 2005, Area safety forum Wednesday in Oxford: August 9, 2005, vol.132, no.131,page 2A.


Page -87-

Daily Journal, 2006, More local input sought for university disaster plan: February 12, 2006, vol.132, No. 318, page 2a.

Daily Mississippian, 2006, Community input sought for disaster response plan: February 13,2006, vol. 97, No. 91, page 5.

Douglas, Joy, 2002, University adopts emergency plan: The Daily Mississippian, vol.94, no. 6,front page story.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1999, Midwest tornados of May 3, 1999 -Observations, recommendations, and technical guidance: Federal Emergency ManagementAgency, FEMA 342, 164 p.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2001, Understanding your risks: Identifying hazardsand estimating losses: Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 386-2, 143 p.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2003 (a), Building a disaster-resistant university:Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 443, 53 p.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2003 (b), Developing the mitigation plan - identifyingmitigation actions and implementation strategies: Federal Emergency Management Agency,FEMA 386-3, 127 p.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2005, Mitigation BCA Toolkit: Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, Version 2, 1 CD. Gunn, John, 2006, Leaders urge input on plan: Daily Mississippian, Vol. 97, No. 93, February15, 2006, Front page story.

Hiles, Victoria, 2005, Mississippi Valley State University enrollment drops: Daily Mississippian,vol. 97, no. 40, Monday October 17, 2005, page 6 story.

Holland, M.M., L.B. White, and K.R. Pigott, 1997, The University of Mississippi Field Station,Planning activities: Development of The University of Mississippi Biological Field Station, FieldStation Publication No. 3, 63 p.

International Code Council, 2003, International Building Code - 2003 edition, 756p. Kahler, J.W., 2005, personal communications, interview held with C. Swann on 6/29/2005.

Lin, Kevin, 2005, internet information at http://www.geocities.com/wallstreet/5484/hail.html.


Page -88-

Lott, N.L. and Tom Ross, 1994, 1994 Weather in the Southeast: The February ice storm and theJuly flooding: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, on line publication, www.nndc.noaa.gov/onlinestore.html , 7 p.

Magee, David, 1994, Ice storm cripples Oxford area: Oxford Eagle, vol. 126, no. 81, Front pagestory.

Mathis, P.R., 1951, Cooking on hearth serves in farm homes; power lines down: Oxford Eagle,February 8, 1951, vol. 83, no. 12, Front page story. Menard, H. W., 1974, Geology, Resources, and Society - An introduction to earth science: W. H.Freeman and Co., San Francisco, Ca.., 619 p.

Mississippi Academy of Sciences, 2005, History of the Mississippi Academy of Sciences - Itsfirst fifty years: on line publication from the Mississippi Academy of Sciences website:www.msstate.edu/org/MAS/history/MAShistory.pdf .

Mississippi Department of Finance and Administration, 2005, Annual capital facilities study:Mississippi Department of Finance and Administration, pp. 11A -11J.

Mississippi Emergency Management Agency, 2004, The State of Mississippi StandardMitigation Plan: Mississippi Emergency Management Agency, 527p.

Mississippi Forestry Commission, 1987, Individual Fire Report, Fire 045, Oxford Office of theMississippi Forestry Commission, 2 p.

O,Driscoll, Patrick, 2005, Hints of quake under central USA: USA Today,, internet news, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-07-new-madird-hints-quake_x.html , 3 pages.

Oxford Eagle, 1948(a), Winter cracks down with zero temperature, four inches of snow - Lowestmercury reading in several years, highways remain open, very few accidents: January 22, 1948,vol. 80, no.9, Front page story.

Oxford Eagle, 1948 (b), Spring weather replaces snow, sleet and rain - Warm clear days aredoing much to get ground, roads dried out; growing season near: February 19, 1948, vol. 80, no.13, Front page story.

Oxford Eagle, 1948 (c), Sleet, ice follow snow as winter continues unusual heavy onslaught -Damages to many trees, other property; business, traveling almost at standstill: January 29, 1948,vol. 20, no. 10, Front page story.

Oxford Eagle, 1948 (d), Heavy phone damage, much repairing ahead - Storm takes out nearlyhalf of the phones, all but one long distance line go out: February 5, 1948, vol. 80, no. 11, Frontpage story.


Page -89-

Oxford Eagle, 1948 (e), Fuel supply low, worse ahead if cold hangs on - Town and campus hit,latter being most critical; some campus homes without fuel : January 29, 1948, vol. 20, no. 10,Front page story.

Oxford Eagle, 1951(a), Schools closed ‘Til Monday’, sleet and slush: February 1, 1951, vol. 83,no. 11, Front page story.

Oxford Eagle, 1951 (b), Freeze!: February 1, 1951, vol. 83, no. 11, Front page story.

Oxford Eagle, 1951 (c), Landscape is a beautiful tragedy; Weatherman reports on ice storm; Arecord 8 below: February 8, 1951, vol. 43, no. 12, Front page story, .

Oxford Eagle, 1962(a), Hailstorm strikes community and causes heavy damage - Oxford“shaken” by hail: April 12, 1962, vol. 94, no. 22, Front page story.

Oxford Eagle, 1962(b), They saw a tornado ‘inside out’: March 1, 1962, vol. 94, no. 16, Frontpage story.

Oxford Eagle, 1968, School to meet Sat. - Half day slated because of snow: March 28, 1968,vol. 100, no. 21, Front page story.

Oxford Eagle, 1970(a), Seven inch rain falls: May 14, 1970, vol. 102, no. 28, Front page story.

Oxford Eagle, 1970(b), County roads, bridges, damaged to ‘tune of $177,000': May 21, 1970,vol. 102, no. 29, Front page story.

Oxford Eagle, 1984(a), photo and caption, January 16, 1984, vol. 116, no. 55, Front page.

Oxford Eagle, 1984(b), photo and caption, January 20, 1984, vol. 116, no.59, Front page.

Oxford Eagle, 1994, Shelter available: Oxford Eagle, February 11, 1994, vol. 126, no.82, Frontpage story.

Oxford Eagle, 2005, Disaster Planning Public Hearing: August 10, 2005, 137th year, no. 219.

Perkins, Wayne, 2005, Mississippi Farm Bureau, Office Manager, Oxford, MS., Personalcommunications with Charles Swann on 11/8/2005.

Phillips, J.P., 1971, Tornado strikes $500,000 blow to Lafayette Co., Oxford Eagle, February 25,1971, vol. 102, no. 17, Front page story.

Phillips, J.P., 1984, Lafayette County feels fury of deadly storms: Oxford Eagle, April 23, 1984,vol. 116, no. 121, Front page story.


Page -90-

Schaefer, J.T., J.J. Levit, S.J. Weiss and D.W. McCarthy, 2005, The frequency of large hail overthe contiguous United States, 7 p., web publication atwww.spc.noaa.gov/publications/schaefer/hailfreq.pdf

Schultz, Lucy and John Waterman, 2005, Katrina rolls through Lafayette County - Downedphone networks snarl recovery efforts, block news from loved ones south: Oxford Eagle, August30, 2005, 137th year, no. 234, Front page story.

Shearer, Mary, 2006, personal communication with C. Swann, January 19, 2006.

Smith, Edwin, 2006, Community input sought for UM’s disaster response plan: Oxford Eagle,138th year, No. 94, February 13, 2006, page 2.

Speakes, Larry, 1962, Harmontown begins anew: Oxford Eagle, March 1, 1962, vol. 94, no. 16.,Front page story.

Stead, Alma, 1983, Oxford feels brunt of winter storm: Oxford Eagle, January 21, 1983, vol,115, no. 57, Front page story.

Stewart, Shea, 2004, UM receives $75,000 FEMA grant: The Oxford Eagle: November 15, 2004, Front page story.

Stover, C.W. and J.L. Coffman, 1993, Seismicity of the United States, 1568 - 1989 (Revised):U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1527, 418 p.

Swann, C.T., C.L. Mullen, R.M. Hackett, R.K. Stewart and C.B. Lutken, 1999, Evaluation ofearthquake effects on selected structures and utilities at the University of Mississippi: Amitigation model for universities: final report to the Mississippi Emergency ManagementAgency, 258 p.

Swann, C.T., 2005, Analysis of felt reports of the February 10, 2005 earthquake at the Universityof Mississippi - Lafayette County, Mississippi: Center for Community Earthquake Preparedness,Open-File Report CCEP-05-01, 8 p.

Sweate, Jimmye, 1984, Water Valley tornado kills seven, injures 65: Oxford Eagle, vol. 116,no.21, April 23, 1984 issue, Front page story.

Three Rivers Planning and Development District, 2005, Regional natural hazard mitigation plan:413 p. Tuttle, M.P., 2005, New Madrid in motion, Nature: vol. 435, June 23, 2005, pp.1037 - 1039.

University of Mississippi, 1996, Storm damage report for February 1-7, 1996 ice storm:University of Mississippi, 5 pages.


Page -91-

University of Mississippi, 2002, Handbook of emergency management guidelines for theUniversity of Mississippi, University of Mississippi, 15 p.

University of Mississippi, 2003, The University of Mississippi Crisis Management Plan:University of Mississippi, 70p.

University of Mississippi Facilities Planning Department, 2005, Instructions to designprofessionals: University of Mississippi, 95p.

Ward, Robbie, 2005, Twister rips MSU, Starkville: Daily Journal, vol. 132, no.179, Monday,September 26, 2005, Front page story.

Waterman, John, 2006, Are we prepared for a disaster? - University, community officials discussmitigation plan: Oxford Eagle, 138th year, No. 97, Thursday, February 16, 2006, Front pagestory.

WLBT, 2004, Remembering the ice storm of 1994, WLBT.com,www.wlbt.com/global/story.asp?s, 1p.


Page -92-

Appendix A - Agendas for DRU Advisory Committee Meetings


Page -93-

University of MississippiDisaster Resistant University Project

October 5, 2004Room 200, Lyceum

Agenda

1) Greetings and Opening Remarks 2) Introduction to the Center for Community Earthquake Preparedness

3) The Disaster Resistant University Program - A Primer

4) Organization of the Advisory Committee

5) Determine Next Meeting Date

6) Adjourn


Page -94-


November 23, 2004Room 200, Lyceum

Agenda

1) Greetings and Opening Remarks 2) Item for discussion: The University of Mississippi join the mitigation plan currentlybeing prepared by the Three Rivers PPD.

3) Update on HAZUS model for the University

4) Identification of Essential Buildings on Campus

5) Identification of Essential Functions on Campus

6) Outline of the UM mitigation plan requirements and procedures

7) Discussions with the Mississippi University for Women in Columbus, Mississippi

8) Next meeting & adjourn


Page -95-

University of MississippiDisaster Resistant University ProjectDRU Advisory CommitteeRoom 200, LyceumApril 12, 2005 - 3:30 p.m.

Agenda

1) Call to Order and Opening Remarks - Buster Clark

2) Five Minute Updates- Recent Southeastern HAZUS Users Group Meeting - Chris Mullen- Seattle DRU meeting - Chris Mullen- Status of DRU Mitigation Plan - Charles Swann- February 10 earthquake felt reports from Oxford and the University- Discussion with MEMA regarding a state-wide, university/college disaster work group

3) Video - “ Academic Aftershocks”- Charles Swann

4) Closing Remarks and Adjourn - Buster Clark


Page -96-


January 30, 2006Room 200, Lyceum

*******

Agenda

1) Greetings and Opening Remarks

2) The University of Mississippi Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan- Update - The Next Step

3) Preliminary Comments From the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency (aninformal review)

4) Setting priorities for the mitigation action measures

5) DRU Committee approval of plan - approval to send to formal MEMA / FEMA review

6) Next Meeting and Adjourn


Page -97-

Appendix B - Materials Associated With DRU Public Meetings

August 10, 2005, City / County Briefing- Meeting Agenda - held in the Oxford Conference Center, 5:30 p.m., Oxford,

Mississippi- E-mail announcement to university employees sent August 9, 2005


Page -98-

UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPIDISASTER RESISTANT UNIVERSITY PROJECT

CITY/COUNTY GOVERNMENT BRIEFINGOXFORD CONFERENCE CENTER

AUGUST 10, 2005

WELCOME - Richard Howorth, Mayor, City of Oxford- Dr. Jeff Alford, Associate Vice Chancellor for University Relations, University

of Mississippi

REDUCING THE COST OF MISSISSIPPI’S NATURAL HAZARDS - Mississippi Emergency Management Agency

NATURAL HAZARDS IN OXFORD / LAFAYETTE COUNTY - Mr. Jimmy Allgood, Oxford / Lafayette County Emergency Manager

UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI AS A DISASTER RESISTANT UNIVERSITY- Mr. Charles Swann, University of Mississippi

HAZARD PROFILES FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI- Mr. Charles Swann, University of Mississippi

HAZARD VULNERABILITY, AND EXPOSURE FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI- Dr. Christopher Mullen, University of Mississippi

CONCLUSIONS & FUTURE EVENTS- Dr. Christopher Mullen, University of Mississippi

QUESTIONS & COMMENTS ******

A Note to the PublicThe public is encouraged to participate by asking questions, and / or making suggestions andcomments. You may also participate by submitting written comments or by electroniccommunications. Written comments can be sent to Dr. Christopher Mullen, Director; CCEP;School of Engineering, P.O. Box 1848, University, Mississippi, 38677. Electroniccommunications can be sent to Dr. Mullen ([email protected]) at ph. (662) 915-5370 or Mr.Charles Swann ([email protected]) at ph. (662) 915-7611.

*******This Disaster Resistant University Project is funded by the Federal Emergency ManagementAgency with the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency providing project administration


Page -99-

and oversight. The project is dedicated to reducing the cost of natural hazards at the Universityof Mississippi and enhancing the health, safety and welfare of those who work and study there.


Page -100-

E-mail announcement to university employees on August 9, 2005. *******

This message is being sent using E-mail to Groups ( UM Employees ).

You are invited to attend and participate in a public hearing at 5:30 p.m.Wednesday, Aug. 10, at the Oxford Conference Center to help UM researchersworking with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the MississippiEmergency Management Agency develop a plan to keep Ole Miss safer in anatural disaster.

The Disaster Resistant University plan affects all of Oxford and LafayetteCounty, so all local citizens are encouraged to attend the meeting. Thosewho do will hear from UM researchers working on the plan, MEMArepresentatives and local leaders such as Oxford Mayor Richard Howorth.

-----

For more information or assistance related to a disability, please contact: Charles Swann at [email protected] or 915-7611

Visit 'Inside Ole Miss Online' for UM faculty & staff news at http://www.olemiss.edu/iom.


Page -101-

UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPIDISASTER RESISTANT UNIVERSITY PROJECT

UNIVERSITY BRIEFINGANDERSON AUDITORIUM

FEBRUARY 15, 20066:00 P.M.

WELCOME- Dr. Jeff Alford, Associate Vice Chancellor for University Relations, University ofMississippi- Mr. Richard Howorth, Mayor, City of Oxford

THE COST OF NATURAL HAZARDS AT MISSISSIPPI UNIVERSITIES- Mississippi Emergency Management Agency

NATURAL HAZARDS ON THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI CAMPUS- Mr. Roland (Buster) Clark - University of Mississippi

THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI AS A DISASTER RESISTANT UNIVERSITY-Mr. Charles Swann, University of Mississippi

HAZARD PROFILES FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI- Mr. Charles Swann, University of Mississippi

HAZARD VULNERABILITY AND EXPOSURE FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI- Dr. Chris Mullen, University of Mississippi

CONCLUSIONS- Dr. Chris Mullen, University of Mississippi

QUESTIONS & COMMENTS*******

A Note to the PublicThe public is encouraged to participate by asking questions, and / or making suggestions andcomments. You may also participate by submitting written comments or by electroniccommunications. Written comments can be sent to Dr. Christopher Mullen, Director, CCEP,School of Engineering, P.O. Box 1848, University, Mississippi, 38677. Electroniccommunications can be sent to Dr. Mullen ( [email protected]) at ph. (662) 915-5370 or Mr.Charles Swann ([email protected]) at ph. (662) 915-7320).

*******The Disaster Resistant University Project is funded by the Federal Emergency ManagementAgency with oversight by the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency.


Page -102-

Appendix C - List of People Serving as an Information Resource (excluding DRU Committee)


Page -103-


Name Affiliation Hazard Comments

Mrs. Nancy Roberts UM staff employee lightning personal interview

Mr. Jim Petermann former UM employee lightning telephone interview

Mrs. Laura Harper UM government documentslibrarian

all hazards personal interview

Mr. Tracy Lusk former UM employee earthquake, winterstorm

personal interview

Dr. J. Robert Woolsey Director, MS. MineralResources Institute

tornado personal interview

Mr. J.W. Kahler Associate Director, UM PhysicalPlant


Mrs. Ann H. Huggins Oxford Eagle winter storm personal interview

Mr. “Son” Hudson Panola County EmergencyManager


Mr. James Curcio Associate Executive Director,North Delta Planning andDevelopment District


Ms. Rachel Bost UM Staff - Physical PlantRecords


Mr. Jim Wingrove MEMA - Senior Planner -Mitigation Bureau

all hazards telephone and personalinterview

Ms. Sherrie Walls Chancellery Clerk, LafayetteCounty


Mr. Robert Jordan U.M. Staff - Imaging Services

1994 ice storm,snow / ice storm

personal interview

Ms. Shelia Ray Chancellery Clerk Office winter storms personal interview

Ms. Marilyn Davis Mississippi ForestryCommission - Oxford office

wildfire personal interview

Dr. Charlie Wax Mississippi State University -State Climatologist

all hazards telephone interview /personal interview

Mr. M.B.E. Bograd Mississippi Office of Geology -State Geologist, Acting Earthquake

telephone interview




Page -104-

Mr. Denny Buchannon UM Physical Plant, Coordinatorof Maintenance andConstruction

Lightning personal interview

Ms. Lorinda Krhut UM Director of Housing all hazards -information onstudent housing

personal interview -provided suggestions formitigation actions

Mr. Albert Spearth Director, University /Skipworth-Bouie Museum

all hazards personal interview -provided suggestions formitigation actions

Mr. Steve Mauldin UM Physical Plant -Construction Engineer


Mr. Max Miller UM Assistant Registrar all hazards personal interview

Mr. Bill Anderson UM Physical Plant - FacilitiesPlanning, Construction Manager


Mr. Lee McCord Mississippi ForestryCommission - Service Forester

wildfire personal interview

Mr. Reid Russell UM Physical Plant -Environmental Engineer


Ms. Laura Diven-Brown UM Office of Financial Aid -Director


Dr. Kai Fong Lee UM Dean of School ofEngineering

all hazards personal interview -research records

Mr. Ian Banner UM Facilities Planning ,University Architect

all hazards Personal interview -provided suggestions formitigation actions

Ms. Wilma Webber-Colbert

UM Human Resources, Managerof Employer Relations

all hazards Personal interview - herand staff providedsuggestions for mitigationactions

Mr. A. J. DeFalco UM Campus Food ServiceDirector

all hazards Personal interview -provided suggestions andconcerns regardingnatural hazards

Mr. Mark Baker UM Field Station - ResidentManager

all hazards Personal interview -provided suggestions formitigation actions




Page -105-

Dr. Rick Highsmith UM - Field Station Director all hazards Personal interview -provided suggestions formitigation actions

Ms. Pam Roy UM - Director of Budget, ViceChancellor for Administrationand Finance

all hazards Personal interview -provided suggestions asto financial impact ofnatural hazards to UM

Mr. Wayne Perkins Office Manager - Southern FarmBureau

all hazards personal interview - costsassociated with naturalhazards in Lafayette Co.

Mr. Ricky Jaggers Emergency Manager - PontotocCounty

tornado telephone / personalinterview providedinformation on Pontotoctornado

Ms. Mary Shearer North Mississippi Herald tornado personal interview -provided photos on 1984Water Valley tornado


Page -106-

Appendix D - Topographic Map of the University Campus (from U.S. Geological Survey, Oxford South, 7.5 minute topographic map, 1980)

The 500 foot contour on campus has been emphasized.


Page -107-


Page -108-

Appendix E - FUJITA SCALE


Page -109-

Class Damage Class Wind Speed (mph) Description of Damage

F0 Light Damage 40 - 72 Damage to chimneys or TVantennae

F1 Moderate Damage 73 - 112 Peels surface off roofs

F2 Considerable Damage 113 - 157 Roofs torn off frame houses leavingstrong upright walls standing

F3 Severe Damage 158 - 206 Roofs and some walls torn off well-constructed frame houses

F4 Devastating Damage 207 - 260 Well-constructed frame housesleveled, leaving piles of debris

F5 Incredible Damage 261-318 Strong frame houses lifted offfoundation

Detailed Damage Descriptions:F0 - Some damage to chimneys or TV antennae: breaks branches off trees; pushes over

shallow-rooted trees; old trees with hollow insides break or fall; sign boards damages.

F1 - Peels surface off roofs; windows broken; mobile homes pushed or overturned; trees onsoft ground up rooted; some trees snapped; moving auto pushed off the road.

F2 - Roofs torn off frame houses leaving strong upright walls standing; weak structures oroutbuildings demolished; railroad boxcars pushed over; large trees snapped or uprooted;light-object missiles generated; cars blow off highway/ block structures and walls badlydamaged.

F3 - Roofs and some walls torn off well-constructed frame houses; some rural buildingscompletely demolished or flattened; railroad cars overturned; steel framed hangar-warehouse type structures collapse; cars lifted off the ground and may roll some distance;most trees in a forest uprooted, snapped or leveled; block structures leveled.

F4 - Well-constructed frame houses leveled, leaving piles of debris; structure with weakfoundation lifted, torn, and blown some distance; trees debarked by small flying debris;sand soil eroded and gravel flies in high winds; cars thrown some distance or rolledconsiderable distance finally to disintegrate; large missiles generated.

F5 - Strong frame houses lifted completely off foundation and carried considerable distancesto disintegrate; steel or reinforced concrete structures damaged; automobile-sizedmissiles carried a distance of 100 yds or more; trees debarked completely; incrediblephenomena can occur.


Page -110-

Appendix F - Flood Insurance Rate Map for the University of MississippiCampus


Page -111-


Page -112-

Appendix G - Photographs of the University of Mississippi Campus Duringthe 1994 Severe Winter Storm Event

(Photos compliments of Robert Jordan - U. M. Imaging Services)


Page -113-


Page -114-

Appendix H - Map of Campus Buildings and Their Classification forMitigation Assessment


Page -115-


Page -116-


Page -117-


Page -118-

Appendix I - Selected Factors Used in Vulnerability Analysis for Critical,High and Medium Priority Structures


Page -119-

Appendix I - Selected Factors Considered In Vulnerability Analysis

Structure Classification Acquired Valueof Contents(Equipment)

ReplacementValue ofStructure *1

Value of SpecialEquipment /Collections

MaximumOccupants

Kinard Hall Critical $1,219,126 $12,069,865 95

Brant Memory House& CommunicationCenter

Critical $233,904$1,000,000(estimated value)

42

Water Tower A &Treatment Plant- TadSmith

Critical $980,000*2 0

Water Tower B &Treatment Plant -Kinard

Critical $850,000*2 0

J. B. Harrison StudentHealth Center

Critical $321,021 $1,822,891 12

P. B. JohnsonCommons Complex

Critical $695,252 $3,217,314 106

Student Union Critical $405,435 $12,209,802 115

Tad Smith Coliseum Critical $226,237 $16,381,113

Airport Terminal Critical $107,147 $173,250

New Power Plant(Central HeatingPlant)

Critical $2,919,009 5

Turner Center High $1,254,056 $14,153,261

Martindale High $891,676 $16,047,710 136

Faser Hall High $8,053,923 $9,595,555 215

J.D. Williams Library High $1,701,699 $156,710,220 $112,000,000 53

Procurement Services High $1,970,750 $1,691,883

Baxter Hall High $5,884,624 $15,077,386 40

Miller Hall High $304,944 $4,107,963 91

Carrier Hall High $4,553,328 $5,730,718 256

Supercomputer Center High $5,644,908 $3,386,728

New Physical PlantComplex High

$3,511,044 26+

Anderson Hall High $1,765,642 $2,466,193 388






MaximumOccupants

Page -120-


High $121,286 $3,500,000*2 3


High $116,346 $21,472,607 466 /465*3

Mary Buie /University Museum

High $274,881 $24,739,298 $46,730,000*4 10

Crosby Hall High $111,073 $11,820,551 697

Thad Cochran NaturalProducts ResearchCenter

High $6,465,030 $27,462,417102

Powers Hall High $872,398 $14,628,938 40


High $1,583,092 $60,654,958 870

Ventress Hall High $160,854 $60,735,540 12


Medium $13,340,922 $15,018,037 48

Stewart Hall Medium $117,761 $10,061,724 306

Coulter Hall Medium $4,596,718 $17,752,086 348

Lamar Law Center Medium $1,102,278 $15,852,783 946

Kincannon Hall Medium $19,174 $10,265,627 510

Brown Hall Medium $54,959 $5,310,000 219

Deaton Hall Medium $41,578 $5,093,911 96

Hefley Hall Medium $62,275 $7,421,137 138

Lyceum Medium $1,781,426 $26,245,238 57

Faulkner Hall Medium $9,666 $1,519,422 91

Guess Hall Medium $15,777 $5,019,769 103 / 97*3


Medium $150,275 28,760,555






MaximumOccupants

Page -121-

*1 - Replacement values from Mississippi Department of Finance and Administration, 2005, Annual capital facilitiesstudy, pp.11A - 11J.*2 - Replacement estimate by UM Physical Plant Department.*3 - Occupancy listed for multiple wings.*4 - This value includes specialized cabinets, custom-made for storage of museum items. Replacement valueprovided by museum.


Page -122-

Appendix J - Complete Listing of Suggested Action Measures


Page -123-

Appendix JComplete Listing of Suggested Action Measures

The following suggestions were proposed by various departments and personnel during theconstruction of the mitigation plan. The acronym in parentheses following the suggested measureindicates the origin of the suggestion (the University physical plant, for example, is indicated by(PPD)). The definition of the acronyms are listed below.

PPD University Physical Plant DepartmentSUM Skipworth-University MuseumSH Student Housing and Residence LifeCCEP Center for Community Earthquake PreparednessHR Department of Human ResourcesF&PD Facilities and Planning DepartmentMEMA Mississippi Emergency Management AgencyUFS University Food ServicesCOO City of OxfordUMFS University of Mississippi Field Station

1 - Build new water treatment plant with cross connects to the City of Oxford water system as aback up. (PPD)

2 - Upgrade the water tower at Kinard Hall to a 600,000 gallon modern tower. This water towerwas donated from a WWII air base. (PPD)

3- Upgrade electrical generation plant to its full capacity. This will require two additionalgenerators. (PPD)

4- Install dedicated electrical lines from the generation plant to the research complex (NaturalProducts, Coulter, Faser and Shoemaker) for animal research backup. (PPD)

5 - Put all electrical lines underground to protect them from ice and wind damage. (PPD)

6 - Put in dedicated electrical line from the electrical generating plant to buildings that might beused as shelters in an emergency or are needed for essential services. (PPD)

Tad Smith ColiseumIndoor Practice FacilityTurner CenterWaste Water Treatment PlantOne Water Tower

7 - Stand alone electrical generators for buildings or equipment. (PPD)PPD administration buildingAirport terminal & fuel tanks


Page -124-

Runway lights at the airportCommunication Center

8- Upgrade the generators at the research complex to run on natural gas. (PPD)

9 - Install seismic shutoff valves on all buildings. (PPD, CCEP,UFS)

10 - Upgrade waste water plant to meet current standards and replace obsolete components. (PPD)

11- Buy additional 800 trunking radios for all departments designated emergency responders.(PPD)

12 - Install three 800 trunking communication towers with repeaters on each. (PPD)

13 - Install a cross link console in order to communicate with all radios not on the 800 trunkingsystem. (PPD)

14 - Equipment needed for the new University emergency operations center. (PPD)

15 - Add Knox key lock boxes for all buildings on campus. (PPD)

16 - Upgrade all fire hydrants for proper and adequate flow all over campus. (PPD)

17 - Laminate all large glass panes with plastic film to keep them from shattering into glass shards.(PPD)

Student UnionLaw SchoolTad Smith Coliseum

18 - Wind warning system is needed to provide an warning system for straight line winds andtornados. (PPD)

19 - Build safety shelters at various locations that do not have tornado resistant shelters. (PPD)

20 - Add GPS mapping capabilities and line correction to existing utility maps and photos. (PPD)

21 - Expand Coliseum Drive to four lanes to Fraternity Row to provide a safer emergencytransportation route. (PPD)

22 - Build single lane traffic and pedestrian bridge from All American Drive across the North-SouthCorridor to connect with Old Taylor Road. This would help eliminate congestion at the intersectionof University and All American. (PPD)

23 - Identify and develop emergency traffic routes on campus. (PPD)


Page -125-

24 - Roof repair at the Skipworth-University museum to protect special collections. (SUM)

25 - Remove I beam grid work in main display area to minimize hazard from falling metal. (SUM)

26 - Install internal intercom system in dorms to warn of storm events and give instructions tostudents. (SH)

27 - Glass needs to be filmed in dorms. (SH)

28 - Radio communication improvement needed so the Director of Housing can be in contact withthe Physical Plant Department, other housing staff, and police during crisis event. (SH)

29 - Policy needs to be established to guide data archiving and storage at both the research level andat the University administrative level. (CCEP, HR)

30) - Establish a central facility to handle university-wide archiving and storage of digital records,it would also implement the digital reproduction of existing paper records. (HR)

31 ) - Provide means of digitizing additional paper records for archival storage. (CCEP)

32) - Make the mitigation plan a part of the standard operating procedure of the University. (CCEP)

33) - Incorporate nonstructural mitigation into the University’s design guidance documents.(F&PD)

34) - Ensure that latest building codes are adhered to and seismic provisions are included. (CCEP,F&PD)

35) - Publish and make available to the interested public a guide to mitigation and crisismanagement at the University of Mississippi. (CCEP)

36) - Determine if fire safety for disabled persons needs improvement in campus buildings. (F&PD)

37) - Continue the DRU committee after project is complete to facilitate communications betweenthe University and adjoining jurisdictions. (CCEP)

38) - Use the lessons learned in the DRU project to encourage mitigation at other state researchuniversities. (MEMA, CCEP)

39) - Use the lessons learned in the DRU project to mentor one of Mississippi’s historically blackuniversities. (CCEP, MEMA)

40) - Install emergency electrical generator for Johnson Commons food services to run refrigerationunits and kitchen for feeding. (UFS)


Page -126-

41) - Install emergency gas supply for Johnson Commons food services to run stoves for foodpreparation. (UFS)

42) - Begin measures to control erosion on campus drainages and maintain channels to provideadequate flow of surface water. (CCEP)

43) - Install water monitoring equipment to determine groundwater levels during droughtconditions.(CCEP)

44) - Include naturally-occurring biological hazards, such as West Nile Disease, in the plan bysetting up designated areas and equipment for vaccine loading/storage, and designate area(s) forvaccine administration. (COO)

45) - Transfer gained mitigation knowledge to other universities including the other University ofMississippi campuses. (CCEP)

46) - Increase fuel storage capacity at Field Station to extend run time capabilities of emergencygenerators. (UMFS)

47) - Stabilize propane tank bank used to provide heating to Field Station complex to avoidmovement / line rupture / potential fire. (UMFS)

48) - Evaluate J.D. Williams Library and Buie Museum for earthquake and wind performance toidentify any projects to mitigate these hazards. (CCEP)

Documents

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ... · natural hazard mitigation plan of the university of mississippi, lafayette county, mississippi prepared by the center for