DRUJune1

DRU PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATIONINTRODUCTION: 

DRU PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION INTRODUCTION THE FOLLOWING SLIDES PRESENT AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT INCLUDING MAJOR PARTICIPANTS, GOALS AND MILESTONES. MORE COMPLETE INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE IN THE APPROVED DRU PLAN.

DISASTER RESISTANT UNIVERSITYPLANNING GRANT: 

DISASTER RESISTANT UNIVERSITY PLANNING GRANT Administered by Mississippi Emergency Management Agency Disaster Resistant University Advisory Committee – U.M. Oversight and Support Center for Community Earthquake Preparedness – Project Management $75,000 Grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency

DISASTER RESISTANT UNIVERSITY GOALS: 

COMPLETION OF AN ACCEPTED NATURAL HAZARDS MITIGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION OF HAZARD MITIGATION PROJECTS A SAFER UNIVERSITY FOR FACULTY, STAFF AND STUDENTS DISASTER RESISTANT UNIVERSITY GOALS

ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS: 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS Mr. Buster Clark (chair) Ms. Barbara Lago Mr. Terron Jones Mr. Ed Movitz Ms. Linda Christian Mr. Jim Windham Ms. Kathy Tidwell Mr. Patrick Brown Ms. Lorinda Krhut Mr. Robin Miller Dr. Gregg Easson Mr. Tim Akers Mr. Jerry Johnson Mr. Jimmy Allgood Mr. Kurk Brummett Mr. Bob Boteler Dr. Lee Tyner Mr. Paul Hale

Slide6: 

DISASTER RESISTANT UNIVERSITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE University of Mississippi City and County City of Oxford Lafayette County State and Regional Mississippi Emergency Management Agency Three Rivers Planning and Development District

Slide7: 

Hazard Identification and Evaluation Profile Accepted Hazards Evaluate Vulnerabilities Construct Mitigation Goals and Strategies DISASTER RESISTANT UNIVERSITY Completion Mileposts Submittal Of Plan To: DRU Committee Mississippi Emergency Management Agency Federal Emergency Management Agency University of Mississippi

DRU PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATIONHAZARDS: 

DRU PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION HAZARDS CHARACTERIZING THE HAZARDS SERVES TO IDENTIFY DAMAGE TYPICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE HAZARD, ITS EXTENT, DURATION, AND ESTIMATED COSTS. THESE FACTORS ARE THEN USED TO CONSTRUCT APPROPRIATE MITIGATION MEASURES.

Hazard Profiles: 

Hazard Profiles Historical occurrence of event Severity of event Location (regional or local) Probability of future occurrence Typical damage

Hazard Identification / Evaluation: 

Hazard Identification / Evaluation Avalanche Coastal Erosion Coastal Storm Dam Failure Expansive Soils Volcano Tsunami Subsidence Tornado Earthquake Straight-line Wind Severe Winter Weather Lightning Hail Wildfire Flood Rejected Hazards Accepted Hazards

TORNADO: 

TORNADO Hazard of most concern Potential to cause the most damage Particularly destructive in densely populated areas 1971 “Mobile City” tornado (F2 class – 113 to 157mph) on western edge of Oxford - $500,000 damage

1984 Water ValleyTornado- A Model-: 

1984 Water Valley Tornado - A Model- April 21, 1984, Class 3 on Fujita Scale (158-206 mph) $25,000,000 worth of damage Tracked through an urbanized area A model for the University campus

March 9, 2006 Sardis, Mississippi Tornado (F1 Class): 

March 9, 2006 Sardis, Mississippi Tornado (F1 Class)

Earthquake: 

Earthquake Potentially the second most costly hazard for the University No warning Regional in nature – implications for rescue operations (how long the wait?) Older campus buildings pre-date building code Earthquakes can originate from New Madrid Fault Zone or from local sources

Straight-line WindsSevere Winter Weather: 

Straight-line Winds Severe Winter Weather Straight-line wind is third potentially most expensive hazard – from thunderstorms and remnants of hurricanes (Katrina, Rita, Lillian) Ice storms in 1996, 1994,1983,1951,1948 Mostly life line (infrastructure) damage

F3 Tornado Scenario: 

F3 Tornado Scenario

MEMA Standard HM Plan for MS: 

MEMA Standard HM Plan for MS

DRU PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATIONASSETS AND COST ESTIMATION: 

DRU PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION ASSETS AND COST ESTIMATION HAZARD PROFILES ARE USED TO ESTIMATE POTENTIAL LOSSES FROM EACH HAZARD. THE POTENTIAL LOSSES ARE COMPARED WITH TOTAL ASSETS (EXPOSURE) TO EVALUATE THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE HAZARD TO THE UNIVERSITY. THESE DATA ARE ALSO USEFUL TO DESIGN MITIGATION MEASURES.

OXFORD CAMPUS ASSETS: 

OXFORD CAMPUS ASSETS Personnel ~14,900 students ( ~80 students in 1848) ~ 2,300 full-time employees (~ 3,700 students in 15 resident halls, 2 apt. complexes) Total Direct Economic Exposure (incl. Football Stadium) $1.6 Billion Buildings/Facilities $1.9 Billion (Including Contents) Critical Facilities (Electricity, Telecommunications, Water, HVAC Power, Health Care, Food Service, Shelter, Transportation) High Priority Buildings (Library, Administration, Research Labs, Classrooms, Large Dormitories)

Economic Loss Estimation(including building contents): 

Economic Loss Estimation (including building contents)

DRU PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATIONMITIGATION: 

DRU PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MEASURES ARE SPECIFIC ACTIONS DESIGNED TO REDUCE THE FISCAL AND HUMAN COST OF AN EVENT – PRIOR TO THE OCCURANCE OF THE EVENT. SPECIFIC MITIGATION MEASURES ARE LISTED IN THE FOLLOWING SLIDE.

MITIGATION – THE KEY TO SAVING LIVES, MONEY AND PROPERTY: 

MITIGATION – THE KEY TO SAVING LIVES, MONEY AND PROPERTY IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MITIGATION MEASURES FULFILLS THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE DRU PLANNING EFFORTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI