Data on Campus Buildings as
Reported by the N.C. Commission on
Higher Education Facilities (NCCHEF),
The University of North Carolina
8-1
ACADEMICS > Institutional Research & Analysis > Facilities Inventory & Utilization
You are here:
Browse | Room Search | Building Search
Report Criteria:
Term:
Fall 2010
Building Condition:
Campus:
#008 East Carolina University
Air Condition Status:
Group Number:
Building Name:
Residential Classification:
Ownership Status:
Year Constructed:
>
<
Estimated Replacement Cost: >
<
Cost of Latest Renovation:
>
<
Year of Latest Renovation:
>
<
Accessible Area:
>
<
Assignable Area:
>
<
Gross Area:
>
<
Original Building Cost:
>
<
Number of Floors:
>
<
Last Year of Record Update: >
<
Total Buildings Found: 156
RES
ESTIMATED
OR
OWN YEAR
REPLACENRES SHP CONST MENT COST
BLDG
NO
LAST RENOVATION
COST
YEAR
NAME
001
BLDG AIR
ACCESSCOND COND IBLE
AREA
ASSIGN- GROSS
ABLE
AREA
AREA
BUILDING
COST
NO
LAST
OF
UPFLRS DATE
1
1
1954
29,090,689
4,718,733 97
1
6
96,521
96,521
129,963
1,659,000
03
99
001A JOYNER EAST
1
1
1975
10,978,959
1,214,000 97
1
6
96,521
96,521
30,118
2,116,000
04
97
001B
JOYNER DRUM ADDT
1
1
1996
33,712,723
1
6
96,521
96,521
150,612
15,431,267
04
99
002
FLANAGAN BLDG
1
1
1939
22,460,373
1
6
51,252
51,252
100,342
1,043,000
04
07
003
GRAHAM BLDG
1
1
1929
3,599,320
4
6
12,735
12,735
16,080
178,000
03
99
004
RAWL BLDG
1
1
1959
16,298,558
4
6
46,480
46,480
73,524
1,219,600
04
99
005S HOWELL SCIENCE SOUTH
1
1
1969
11,237,572
4
6
7,640
7,640
31,948
881,000
05
99
005N HOWELL SCIENCE NORTH
1
1
1970
10,215,976
4
6
7,640
7,640
31,948
881,000
04
99
005E HOWELL SCIENCE EAST
1
1
1969
10,215,976
4
6
7,640
7,640
31,948
881,000
03
99
4
6
7,640
7,640
11,725
881,000
04
99
4
6
37,979
37,979
63,866
1,167,000
03
07
JOYNER LIBRARY
005
HOWELL SCIENCE
1
1
1969
4,638,009
006
AUSTIN BLDG
1
1
1964
14,126,433
1,620,963 06
219,065 06
006A AUSTIN GRND STORAGE
1
1
2006
69,536
1
6
37,979
37,979
700
59,420
01
10
1
1
1952
12,639,107
4
3
39,955
39,955
52,701
725,000
02
99
008B BREWSTER B
1
1
1970
4,364,846
4
6
0
0
19,500
533,000
03
99
008C BREWSTER C
1
1
1970
4,364,846
4
6
0
0
19,500
533,000
03
99
008D
BREWSTER D
1
1
1970
9,535,510
4
6
0
0
42,600
914,000
03
99
008A
BREWSTER A
1
1
1970
8,249,782
4
6
0
0
36,856
1,066,000
04
99
FLETCHER MUSIC CTR
1
1
1966
13,195,263
4
6
47,428
47,428
58,950
1,200,000
02
07
1
1
2004
13,066,420
1
6
46,296
46,296
38,249
9,031,207
02
04
007
009
CHRISTENBURY MEM GYM
010A RIVERS ADDITION
4,818,702 07
010
RIVERS HESC
1
1
1968
16,563,355
373,155 97
4
6
46,296
46,296
104,158
2,736,000
03
10
012
SPEIGHT BLDG
1
1
1965
11,317,707
439,679 97
3
6
32,402
32,402
50,562
718,000
03
99
013
BELK ALLIED HEALTH
1
1
1972
15,849,987
2
6
27,412
27,412
49,567
1,147,748
03
06
014
JENKINS FINE ARTS CT
1
1
1977
24,620,863
4
6
81,154
81,154
109,994
4,549,432
03
05
030
SPILMAN BLDG
1
1
1930
3,742,575
4
6
9,554
9,554
16,720
215,000
02
99
031
WHICHARD BLDG
1
1
1923
5,253,483
47,126 95
4
6
13,730
13,730
23,470
338,000
02
99
032
WRIGHT
1
1
1968
11,818,417
1,852,124 97
3
6
20,019
20,019
49,279
2,053,795
03
07
1
1
1925
8,150,750
1,620,000 90
3
6
20,019
20,019
33,986
469,000
02
99
1
1
1951
6,401,453
1,900,000 82
4
5
15,705
15,705
26,692
225,000
02
99
033A MCGINNIS SCENCE SHOP
1
1
1982
2,302,337
3
1
15,705
15,705
9,600
402,844
02
05
034A MESSICK THEAT ARTS
1
1
1927
2,302,337
1,100,000 82
4
1
0
0
35,038
300,000
02
05
032W WRIGHT AUDITORIUM
033
MCGINNIS THEATRE
784,800 97
035
CROATAN SODA SHOP
1
1
1970
1,401,066
363,071 91
2
6
4,228
4,228
5,842
237,000
01
05
037
MINGES COLISEUM
1
1
1967
37,316,551
2,962,917 94
2
6
76,292
76,292
155,598
6,702,000
02
05
038
SCALES FIELD HOUSE
1
1
1966
3,441,271
100,000 83
4
5
11,348
11,348
14,349
195,000
01
05
039
PIRATES CLUB BLDG
1
1
1965
1,143,253
130,000 80
3
6
3,892
3,892
4,767
60,000
01
99
043
WAREHOUSE/TECH LAB A
1
1
1951
5,979,358
285,612 96
2
1
20,700
20,700
24,932
241,671
02
99
046
STUDENT HEALTH SRVCS
1
1
1930
2,816,525
1
5
4,933
4,933
11,744
132,000
02
05
046A STUDENT HEALTH ADDTN
1
1
2002
6,347,811
1
6
4,933
4,933
16,508
426,240
01
02
1
4
26,719
26,719
46,268
769,000
03
07
4
5
2,742
2,742
3,957
25,000
01
99
4
5
9,273
9,273
14,652
334,000
03
99
4
1
2,532
2,532
3,712
73,000
02
99
047
OLD CAFETERIA
1
1
1909
11,096,300
048
MAMIE JENKINS BLDG
1
1
1910
1,138,793
049
ERWIN HALL
1
1
1952
3,279,677
050
BLOXTON HOUSE/CULTUR
1
1
1952
830,886
052
CAREER SRVCS/5TH ST
7,002,879 06
192,000 88
1
1
1921
1,576,140
4
5
2,722
2,722
6,572
14,000
02
99
053A WAHL COATES A
1
1
1972
550,218
3
6
0
0
4,704
94,000
01
99
053B WAHL COATES B
1
1
1972
1,156,053
3
6
0
0
10,076
200,000
01
99
053C WAHL COATES C
1
1
1972
1,156,053
3
6
0
0
10,076
200,000
01
99
053D WAHL COATES D
1
1
1972
1,177,821
3
6
0
0
10,285
205,000
01
99
053E WAHL COATES E
1
1
1972
534,402
3
6
0
0
4,291
85,000
01
99
053F
WAHL COATES F
1
1
1972
1,283,291
3
6
0
0
10,144
202,000
01
99
053G
WAHL COATES G
1
1
1972
1,277,839
3
6
0
0
8,531
169,000
01
99
MENDENHALL STUD CTR
1
1
1974
28,035,738
3
6
74,717
74,717
116,900
5,272,000
03
99
055
100,450 94
3,600,000 87
056
WILLIS BUILDING
1
1
1974
3,685,175
4
6
8,334
8,334
15,366
527,000
01
99
058
ELLER HOUSE
1
1
1925
783,435
4
6
1,837
1,837
3,500
35,000
02
99
058A MARITIME HIS WET LAB
1
1
1990
184,187
4
1
1,837
1,837
576
8,500
01
05
058B MARITIME CNSRVTN LAB
1
1
1974
180,988
4
6
1,837
1,837
1,500
20,000
01
05
059
BELK ANNEX #1
1
1
1976
4,501,937
3
6
2,221
2,221
4,800
116,000
01
10
060
STEAM PLANT 14TH ST
1
1
1968
4,501,937
2
2
11,594
11,594
16,914
1,110,000
01
99
061
ATHLETICS CONCESSION
1
1
1963
410,584
3
6
1,528
1,528
1,712
5,000
01
99
064
HEAT DISTRIB PLANT
1
1
1978
1,023,600
3
1
2,796
2,796
3,582
300,000
01
99
067
BLOUNT HOUSE/POLICE
1
1
1945
759,707
343,414 99
3
6
2,298
2,298
3,394
6,018
02
05
070
JONES RESIDENCE HALL
2
1
1958
24,826,857
1,111,783 02
3
6
81,702
81,702
103,520
1,404,000
04
07
071
AYCOCK RESID HALL
2
1
1960
12,165,386
4
6
70,649
70,649
89,516
1,149,000
04
05
072
SCOTT RESIDENCE HALL
2
1
1962
13,330,197
3
5
73,019
73,019
98,087
1,179,000
04
05
073
BELK RESIDENCE HALL
2
1
1966
11,001,247
4
2
74,629
74,629
80,950
1,320,000
04
05
074
TYLER RESIDENCE HALL
2
1
1969
13,060,841
4
6
68,674
68,674
96,105
1,682,000
09
05
075
UMSTEAD RESID HALL
3
1
1955
7,934,789
3,570,486 95
2
6
32,685
32,685
48,512
700,000
03
05
076
SLAY RESIDENCE HALL
1
1
1949
5,605,151
2,522,198 94
2
6
19,600
19,600
34,269
571,000
03
05
077
GREENE RESID HALL
2
1
1966
11,243,287
4
6
58,154
58,154
82,731
1,200,000
10
05
078
WHITE RESIDENCE HALL
2
1
1968
11,243,287
4
6
58,296
58,296
82,731
1,303,000
10
05
079
CLEMENT RESID HALL
2
1
1969
11,693,533
4
6
58,154
58,154
86,044
1,311,000
10
05
080
FLETCHER RESID HALL
2
1
1964
10,960,343
4
6
61,061
61,061
80,649
1,197,000
07
05
081
GARRETT RESID HALL
2
1
1956
7,249,547
4
6
38,126
38,126
53,344
805,000
03
05
082
JARVIS RESID HALL
2
1
1909
4,111,164
1
6
25,358
25,358
34,467
141,000
02
05
083
FLEMING RESID HALL
2
1
1923
4,407,022
4
6
23,225
23,225
32,428
180,000
02
05
084
COTTEN RESID HALL
2
1
1925
6,399,343
4
6
31,391
31,391
47,088
251,000
03
05
085
RAGSDALE HALL
1
1
1923
12,961,212
550,000 76
4
6
22,339
22,339
41,144
470,431
03
99
086
CHANCELLOR RESIDENCE
2
1
1948
1,682,625
82,500 97
2
6
5,988
5,988
7,016
30,000
02
99
087
INTERNATIONAL HOUSE
1
1
1925
783,435
4
6
2,294
2,294
3,500
35,000
02
99
092
HOWARD HOUSE/N BUREA
1
1
1940
780,747
4
6
2,353
2,353
3,488
55,000
02
99
093
TAYLOR-SLAUGHTER/ALU
1
1
1955
1,058,306
3
6
3,365
3,365
4,728
80,000
03
99
095
HAROLD H. BATE BLDG
1
1
1988
36,933,306
2
6 103,981 103,981
165,000
10,900,000
03
00
097
WARD SPORTS MED FAC
1
1
1989
18,393,508
2
6
52,365
52,365
76,695
7,482,000
03
99
GROUNDS BLDG F
1
1
2003
199,855
1
1
0
0
4,368
100,000
01
05
100E GROUNDS BLDG E
1
1
2002
82,221
1
1
0
0
1,250
55,000
01
05
100D GROUNDS BLDG C
1
1
1999
199,855
1
1
0
0
4,368
100,000
01
05
100B GROUNDS STGE COMPLEX
1
1
1989
594,770
1
1
0
0
2,430
60,000
01
07
100F
1,083,800 92
5,574,000 79
102
ROPES COURSE SHED
1
1
1990
46,045
1
1
190
190
192
5,400
01
99
106
COLLEGE HILL STGE
1
1
1975
23,023
2
1
76
76
96
1,000
01
07
107
FAMILY THERAPY CLIN
1
1
1954
799,422
10,000 90
3
6
1,994
1,994
2,500
85,000
02
99
121
4TH ST FAC SERVICES
1
4
1960
979,293
53,162 97
2
6
2,867
2,867
4,350
01
99
122
PARKING & TRAFFIC OF
1
1
1982
667,933
125
WARD GUEST HOUSE
2
5
1929
671,513
126A FACILITIES SERV CTR
1
5
1970
1,092,330
126B CARPENTRY SHOP #4
1
5
1970
126C
MASONRY SHOP #5
1
5
126D
EPPES MOBILE #1
1
126E
EPPES MOBILE #2
126F
GARAGE
127
86,165 96
2
6
2,090
2,090
2,984
3
6
2,321
2,321
01
99
2,800
02
99
1
6
0
0
4,880
01
99
1,170,354
2
6
0
0
4,880
01
99
1970
1,157,644
2
6
0
0
4,827
01
99
5
1970
209,371
3
1
0
0
873
01
99
1
5
1970
1
4
1970
690,702
3
1
0
0
2,880
01
99
1,843,307
1
6
0
0
7,686
01
99
HUMAN RESOURCES
1
1
1973
1,247,227
1
6
8,656
8,656
13,088
250,000
02
07
130
TODD DINING HALL
1
1
1994
8,999,992
1
6
23,686
23,686
35,000
4,840,000
01
99
133
FINANCIAL SERVICES
1
1
1982
1,246,331
203,710 06
2
6
4,972
4,972
5,568
325,000
01
06
141
INST ADVANCEMENT BLD
1
1
1975
1,587,685
142
STUDENT REC CENTER
24,968 96
1
6
5,360
5,360
7,093
415,000
01
99
1
1
1996
143A
ABC STOR CROSS ST
40,740,962
2
6 118,709 118,709
150,227
17,976,155
02
05
1
4
150A
ROSS PLACE 608
1965
1,438,961
1
6
0
0
6,000
01
99
1
150B ROSS PLACE 602
1
5
1950
604,364
3
6
0
0
2,900
01
07
5
1950
574,145
3
6
0
0
2,050
01
07
140,000 96
346,310 05
187,000
151
ADMIN SUPPORT ANNEX
1
1
1950
767,094
2
6
2,388
2,388
3,427
175,000
01
99
155
BLOUNT RECR SPORTS C
1
1
1997
412,503
1
1
956
956
1,720
214,000
01
99
156
HARRIS BLDG
1
1
1997
4,634,651
1
6
16,978
16,978
19,325
600,000
01
99
158
REMCO
1
1
1947
603,916
2
6
2,246
2,246
2,698
145,000
02
05
159
QUIXOTE
1
1
1973
781,193
2
6
2,813
2,813
3,490
241,600
02
05
FACILITIES WAREHOUSE
1
1
2000
391,881
1
1
0
0
6,000
255,000
01
02
163
FICKLEN STADIUM
1
1
1963
48,295,375
2,000,000 93
2
2
25,478
25,478
58,819
22,378,581
04
05
164
DAILY REFL #1
1
1
1955
6,550,752
2,898,471 02
2
6
20,809
20,809
29,137
1,438,000
02
07
165
DAILY REFL #2
1
1
1954
850,586
226,086 03
1
6
2,970
2,970
3,800
187,000
01
06
167
BROWNING BLDG
1
1
1985
679,427
95,801 01
1
6
2,613
2,613
3,096
275,000
01
01
168
HARRINGTON FLD STOR
1
1
1999
15,925
1
1
864
864
960
7,000
01
00
170
SHADY LANE HOUSE
1
1
1959
440,294
2
6
2,184
2,184
2,200
139,000
02
10
171G
WEST CAMPUS STORAGE
1
1
1960
254,814
3
1
0
0
4,000
160,000
01
05
171F
COASTAL STUDIES ANX
1
1
1960
254,814
2
1
0
0
4,000
160,000
01
05
171E
SEWAGE TREATMENT BLD
1
1
1960
67,606
6
1
0
0
147
42,450
01
05
171D WATER TREATMENT BLDG
1
1
1960
14,970
1
1
0
0
283
9,400
01
05
171C GENERATOR BUILDING
1
1
1960
133,300
1
1
0
0
837
83,700
01
05
171B SHELTER A BUILDING
1
1
1960
43,637
2
6
0
0
137
27,400
01
05
171A WEST ACADEMIC BLDG
1
1
1960
6,893,498
3
6
0
0
24,047
4,328,460
01
05
1
6
4,555
4,555
6,000
523,500
01
06
11,416,500
03
05
01
01
01
05
161A
172
BOWEN CLEANERS PROP
1
1
2000
820,595
174
STRENGTH CENTER
1
1
2001
18,441,395
2
6
33,904
33,904
52,475
184
MAGIC MINI STORAGE
1
4
1995
37,804
1
6
96
96
600
189
FITT BUILDING
1
1
2003
764,897
1
6
2,984
2,984
4,572
109,165 01
521,896
190
FACILITIES ANNEX
1
1
1957
115,259
193
GREENVILLE CENTRE
1
1
1991
7,861,440
198
BLAIR BUILDING
1
1
1977
1,615,815
203
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
1
1
2003
206
WOODWORKS BLDG
1
1
209
STUDENT TRANSIT BLD
1
212
WEST END DINING
85,138 02
1
6
1,022
1,022
1,418
75,000
01
06
2
6
23,738
23,738
35,289
2,400,000
02
05
1
6
3,749
3,749
5,465
450,000
01
06
99,661,675
1
6 129,574 129,574
270,000
68,000,000
06
09
1925
225,123
4
2
8,000
8,000
8,158
187,500
01
07
4
1968
1,927,360
1
3
7,023
7,023
8,990
01
05
236,172 03
1
1
2005
17,440,272
1
6
22,003
22,003
39,978
13,573,187
02
05
214E HATTERAS BLDG #3
1
1
1903
442,722
4
1
21,216
21,216
6,800
57,324
01
10
214B HATTERAS BLDG #5
1
1
1903
4,151,170
4
1
21,216
21,216
64,000
537,497
01
10
214F
HATTERAS BLDG #7
1
1
1980
834,988
4
1
21,216
21,216
12,825
108,115
01
04
214D HATTERAS BLDG #2
1
1
1983
453,139
4
1
21,216
21,216
6,960
58,673
01
10
214C HATTERAS BLDG #6
1
1
1980
397,149
4
1
21,216
21,216
6,200
51,423
01
10
214A
HATTERAS BLDG #4
1
1
1903
902,112
4
1
21,216
21,216
14,000
116,806
01
10
214
HATTERAS BLDG #1
1
1
1983
1,381,294
4
1
21,216
21,216
21,300
178,851
01
10
215
BISCO FURNITURE
1
1
1917
1,432,987
4
1
21,690
21,690
22,010
567,858
01
04
215A BISCO WAREHOUSE #1
1
1
1906
2,094,078
4
1
21,690
21,690
32,164
829,831
01
04
215B BISCO WAREHOUSE #2
1
1
1947
662,457
4
1
21,690
21,690
10,175
262,515
01
04
215C BISCO WAREHOUSE #3
1
1
1999
856,798
4
1
21,690
21,690
13,160
339,528
01
06
442,212 06
216
HAYNIE PROPERTY
1
1
1914
4,809,525
4
1
73,034
73,034
73,872
1,080,000
01
04
227
CLARK-LECLAIR STAD.
1
1
2005
12,219,458
1
6
13,252
13,252
45,801
9,510,000
02
05
229
SELF HELP BLDG
1
4
1910
1,147,318
2
6
9,824
9,824
14,882
04
05
231
STUDENT LIFE ARLGTN
1
4
1997
679,747
1
6
2,551
2,551
3,023
01
05
237
ATHLETICS GRNDS STGE
1
1
2006
89,342
1
6
1,080
1,080
1,200
76,345
01
06
240
COLLEGE HILL SUITES
2
1
2006
36,862,063
1
6 132,930 132,930
155,773
31,500,000
06
06
241
FULL GOSPEL CHR.
1
1
1922
79,423
1
5
18,000
18,000
19,440
67,870
01
06
243
SZECHUAN GARDEN
1
1
1985
1,357,460
1
5
39,350
39,350
43,723
1,160,000
01
06
244
PROCTOR YOUNG HSE
1
1
1917
273,267
1
1
2,700
2,700
2,893
25,500
02
07
247
RAPPEL TOWER
1
1
2007
102,633
1
1
0
0
256
95,772
03
07
***
Totals:
1,054,873,197
4,782,275
303,800,810
ACADEMICS > Institutional Research & Analysis > Facilities Inventory & Utilization
ACADEMICS > Institutional Research & Analysis > Facilities Inventory & Utilization
You are here:
Browse | Room Search | Building Search
Report Criteria:
Term:
Fall 2010
Building Condition:
Campus:
#018 ECU-Health Affairs
Air Condition Status:
Group Number:
Building Name:
Residential Classification:
Ownership Status:
Year Constructed:
>
<
Estimated Replacement Cost: >
<
Cost of Latest Renovation:
>
<
Year of Latest Renovation:
>
<
Accessible Area:
>
<
Assignable Area:
>
<
Gross Area:
>
<
Original Building Cost:
>
<
Number of Floors:
>
<
Last Year of Record Update: >
<
Total Buildings Found: 50
BLDG
NO
NAME
RES
ESTIMATED
OR
OWN YEAR
REPLACENRES SHP CONST MENT COST
015
BRODY MED SCI BLDG
1
1
1982
051
MALENE G IRONS BLDG
1
1
1970
1
1
1999
1
1
1980
1
1
1999
088B LIFE SCIEN BLDG ADD
089
MEDICAL HEATING FACI
089B INCINERATOR ADDITION
88,913,054
LAST RENOVATION
COST
YEAR
1,200,000 99
BLDG AIR
ACCESS- ASSIGN- GROSS
COND COND IBLE
ABLE
AREA
AREA
AREA
3
6 281,228 281,228
1,971,120
4
6
5,419
5,419
24,108,016
1
6
0
0
2,845,066
1
2
5,723
5,723
9,240,443
1
4
5,723
5,723
1
6
22,198
480,279
BUILDING
COST
NO
LAST
OF
UPFLRS DATE
29,151,000
08
06
8,806
337,000
01
06
58,392
14,218,700
02
06
11,863
812,263
01
99
16,672
4,370,000
02
05
22,198
39,155
7,225,692
02
99
090
LEO JENKINS CANCER C
1
1
1984
15,508,758
096
MRI UNIT
1
1
1988
3,063,705
1
6
4,257
4,257
8,710
1,297,500
01
99
098
HARDY BLDG
1
1
1967
1,023,603
1
6
3,058
3,058
4,220
485,000
01
06
099A MEDICAL PAVILION #2
1
1
1966
694,221
3
6
0
0
2,171
117,884
01
05
099B MEDICAL PAVILION #3
1
1
1966
352,067
3
6
0
0
1,101
62,296
01
05
109
ADI BUILDING
1
1
1975
1,068,830
2
6
3,157
3,157
4,775
268,231
01
05
111
BETHEL CLINIC FPC
1
1
1952
1,910,619
3
6
3,318
3,318
5,975
49,999
02
99
113
BIOTECHNOLOGY BLDG
1
1
1991
9,002,134
1
6
19,627
19,627
28,152
1,191,127
02
99
114
ENDOCRINOLOGY MOD
1
1
1988
429,770
1
6
1,158
1,158
1,344
60,000
01
99
115
FAMILY PRACTICE CTR
1
5
1975
9,337,254
1
6
21,250
21,250
29,200
01
99
2,000,000 92
116
MEDICAL PAVILION #4
1
1
1966
117
PHYSICIANS QUAD "C"
1
1
118
PHYSICIANS QUAD "M"
1
1
119
PHYSICIANS QUAD "N"
1
120
FAMILY MEDICINE MOD
123
DEC SATELLITE CLIN
128
129
654,437
3
6
1,056
1,056
1,400
124,500
01
05
1966
794,307
3
6
1,582
1,582
2,484
158,847
01
05
1978
1,110,237
2
6
2,848
2,848
3,472
175,175
01
05
1
1974
1,162,681
2
6
2,549
2,549
3,636
220,000
01
06
1
1
1988
429,770
1
6
1,141
1,141
1,344
60,000
01
99
1
1
1985
1,087,406
1
6
3,311
3,311
4,858
300,000
02
99
PROSPECTIVE MEDICINE
1
1
1993
644,656
1
6
1,322
1,322
2,016
38,160
01
99
HEALTH SCI COMMUNICA
1
1
1993
644,656
6
6
1,322
1,322
2,016
42,188
01
05
132
PATIENT SRVES (MOAT)
1
1
1994
1,841,869
1
6
4,930
4,930
5,760
179,825
01
99
134
OB-GYN EXECUTIVE PK
1
4
1994
3,294,898
6
6
7,049
7,049
10,828
01
05
135
GENERATOR BUILDING
1
1
1982
1,866,194
2
1
1,840
1,840
2,244
750,000
01
94
136
MEDICAL REC MOD UNIT
1
1
1986
429,770
2
6
985
985
1,344
42,000
01
99
137
EAHEC MODULAR
1
5
1985
709,120
2
6
2,084
2,084
3,168
01
99
138
MEDICAL PAVILION #7
1
1
1966
277,880
2,513 95
2
6
391
391
869
48,777
01
99
139
MEDICAL PAVILION #9
1
1
1966
389,479
3,480 95
2
6
920
920
1,218
67,526
01
99
140
MEDICAL PAVILION #10
1
1
1966
424,014
3,673 95
2
6
1,191
1,191
1,326
73,513
01
99
ABC STOR DICKERSON
1
4
1995
4,077,050
1
6
0
0
17,000
01
99
144
DOCTORS PARK #6
1
4
1977
1,426,810
1
6
3,129
3,129
4,462
02
99
146
FIRETOWER MED OFF
1
4
1997
4,156,995
1
6
9,347
9,347
12,832
01
99
147
PLASTIC SURGERY
1
4
1997
2,398,266
1
6
4,871
4,871
7,425
02
99
148
CLINICAL SKILLS
1
4
1993
2,072,102
2
6
4,024
4,024
6,480
01
05
149
MEDICAL PAVILION #5
1
1
1966
710,528
2
6
1,309
1,309
2,222
111,000
01
05
153
MEDICAL PAVILION #1
1
1
1966
403,229
2
6
782
782
1,261
73,500
01
06
154
755 J. HOPKINS DR.
1
4
1998
796,865
1
6
1,650
1,650
2,492
01
99
173
MEDICAL PAVILION#6
1
1
1966
368,366
1
6
3,405
3,405
4,006
01
01
199
DOCTOR'S PARK #2
1
4
1966
1,541,886
1
6
5,353
5,353
6,000
01
05
221
AUSTIN GROVE APTS
2
4
2004
223,757
1
6
1,280
1,280
1,305
01
07
223
PEDS. DICKENSON
1
4
2004
591,285
1
6
2,200
2,200
2,640
01
07
224
PEDS. GREEN
1
4
2001
337,301
1
6
1,255
1,255
1,506
01
07
225
PEDS. ROYAL
1
4
2004
483,778
1
6
1,800
1,800
2,160
01
07
226
PEDS. 5TH
1
4
1995
403,149
1
6
1,500
1,500
1,800
01
07
239
HEALTH SCIENCES BLDG
1
1
2006
66,394,859
1
6 163,220 163,220
303,406
04
09
MOYE MEDICAL 1
1
4
2007
4,083,808
1
1
0
0
12,788
03
07
248
CARDIOVASCULAR BLD
1
1
2008
64,444,262
1
6
55,752
55,752
202,162
61,700,000
04
09
254
EASTERN NEURO
1
1
1990
3,326,400
1
6
11,702
11,702
21,276
3,300,000
02
10
***
Totals:
143C
246A
343,470,730
235,000
56,736,870
1,362,021
184,083,573
ACADEMICS > Institutional Research & Analysis > Facilities Inventory & Utilization
Notes from On-Campus
Meetings of Campus PDM
Planning Core Group
8-9
East Carolina University
FEMA PDM Eastern Campus Introduction and Kickoff meeting
Brewster Building D-207
May 26, 2010 - 3pm – 5 pm
East Carolina University
Bill Koch, Assoc. Vice Chancellor Environmental Health and Safety, kochw@ecu.edu
Bob Bentz, Info Technology Manager, BENTZR@ecu.edu. for Joe Norris, Interim Assoc
VC/CIO for ITCS
Mike Alexander, Env. Specialist, Environmental Health & Safety.
Major Frank Knight, Emergency Management Planning, ECU Police Department.
KNIGHTW@ecu.edu.
Tim Wiseman, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Enterprise Risk Management.
WISEMANW@ecu.edu.
Ricky Hill, Interim Executive Director Facilities Services. hillr@ecu.edu.
Ron Mitchelson, Department of Geography, mitchelsonr@ecu.edu.
Karen Mulcahy, Department of Geography, mulcahyk@ecu.edu.
City of Greenville
Chief Sandy Harris, Interim Chief of Fire/Rescue. sharris@GREENVILLENC.GOV.
Linwood Hines, Interim Deputy Chief, Fire/Rescue. lines@greenvillenc.gov.
Pitt County
Noel Lee, Director Pitt County Emergency Management. nlee@PITTCOUNTYNC.GOV.
UNC Charlotte Center for Transportation Policy Studies/Regional Center for Homeland
Security and Major Disaster Management
Edd Hauser, Director. ehauser@uncc.edu.
Sherry Elmes, Associate Director. smelmes@uncc.edu.
Not present at meeting
Tom Pohlman, EHS, POHLMANT@ecu.edu
A briefing and update of the project statue was held with Ron Mitchelson and Karen
Mulcahy from 3-3:30 prior to the entire group’s arrival.
Initial GIS mapping has been done under the direction of Karen Mulcahy using graduate
students. We need to get a contact for NC State that Karen can work with for mapping.
(Sherry will contact Katina Blue for this information.)
The entire group meeting was held from 3:30 – 5pm.
Attendees were given a one-page handout summarizing the goals and outputs of the
planning project.
Also a notebook containing an example of the complete campus plan was circulated around
the room.
8-10
A power point presentation was given jointly by Sherry Elmes and Edd Hauser explaining
the planning project. Q & A followed the presentation.
We explained that our goal is to complete their selection of buildings for inspection and
schedule that process by late June. Tim Wiseman asked whether buildings located off the
campus proper such as in the city of Greenville but used by ECU would be considered. He
also asked about the buildings associated with the medical school and nursing school will
be considered. We will leave the selection up to the ECU core team.
The general consensus of the group was that Tom Pohlman will be responsible for the
selection. Someone mentioned that he already has a list of priority structures. Ricky Hill
will pass the information to Tom and we will contact him directly to coordinate scheduling.
Representatives from the City of Greenville are familiar with Zapata Engineering based on
previous work experience. They assured the group that they would be impressed with the
professionalism of the company.
East Carolina University
FEMA PDM Pre-Inspection Kickoff Meeting
June 29, 2010 – Eppes #7
8 AM
Attending from ECU: Tom Pohlman, ECU Environmental Health & Safety; Griffin Avin,
ECU Facilities; Bob Bentz, Assistant Director Enterprise Systems and Data Center
Operations; Rocky Howell, Interim Executive Director of Facilities Services; Karen
Mulcahy, Assistant Professor Department of Geography/GIS; Paul Carlson, Facility
Mechanical Engineer; Ricky Hill, Information and Technology Manager; Wayne Reeves,
Assistant Director of Maintenance Engineering; Ron Mitchelson, Professor
Geography/GIS; Mike Rowe, ECU Facilities; Frank Knight, Major ECU Police; R. V.
Parker, EDU Facilities; Tony Yamada, ECU Facilities; Chief D. L. Branch, Battalion
Chief, Life Safety Services, Greenville Fire and Rescue; William T. Wiseman, ECU
Enterprise Risk Management.
Sherry Elmes and Edd Hauser from UNCC.
Brian Zapata from Zapata Engineering.
Sherry Elmes began the meeting with a brief overview of the FEMA PDM planning project
for the benefit of those who were not present for the meeting held in May.
Brian Zapata provided a company information sheet on Zapata Engineering and gave a
brief overview of Zapata’s chief client base as well as his role with the company and his
role in the FEMA PDM planning project.
8-11
He asked that the group report any history of weather related hazards that have affected
the ECU campus.
Tom Pohlman reported that Hurricane Floyd flooding heavily impacted the campus
making it a virtual island with no power, water leaving students and first responders
unable to gain access. Some buildings had 48” of water inside and since then flood gates
have been installed. Flooding is the greatest concern for the campus. Almost every year
ECU has been affected by hurricanes, tornadoes, winter storms and drought.
Existing plans have moved from multi-hazard to All Hazards. Large venues on campus
such as sporting events have led to developing plans for security measures and for dealing
with hazmat situations. Their plans are exercised on a regular basis.
Plans are in place to care for students in the aftermath of a hurricane event.
Brian then asked for an assessment of each of the eleven buildings on their list. ECU has a
medical school, dental school and nursing school. He then asked for their suggestion as to
where best to start the inspection process and for a schedule so as not to interfere with
normal campus operations.
East Carolina University
FEMA PDM Building Reports Review Meeting
Materials Management Conference Room(Bldg 141)
November 10, 2010
10 AM
Attending from ECU: Tom Pohlman, ECU Environmental Health & Safety; Griffin Avin,
ECU Facilities; Karen Mulcahy, Assistant Professor Department of Geography/GIS; Paul
Carlson, Facility Mechanical Engineer; Ricky Hill, Information and Technology Manager;
Frank Knight, Major ECU Police; William T. Wiseman, ECU Enterprise Risk
Management.
Sherry Elmes and Edd Hauser from UNCC.
The first pages of all ECU building reports were provided to Tom Pohlman prior to the
meeting for others to have a chance to comment. Tom provided a copy of those comments
to Edd and Sherry.
Detailed written comments were submitted for 5 of the 10 buildings by Bob Bentz,
Assistant Director Enterprise Systems & Data Center Operations: Blount House, Brody
Building, Cotanche Building, Joyner East Building, and Medical Center Utility Plant. The
comments were to clarify information regarding ITCS obtained by the inspection team
during the campus site visit in June.
Avin Griffin, Director Facilities Maintenance provided written comments concerning
Warren Life Sciences and Health Sciences Utility Plant. In the case of Warren and Utility
8-12
Plant, work orders have been issued to correct some issues noted during the inspection
process.
Tom also noted that the inspections related to Eppes work center should have been
confined to only building #3 rather than all the separate buildings. He noted that some of
the buildings listed on the inspection reports were not intended to be a part of the
inspections.
The information will be noted on the final building reports.
It was suggested that we incorporate the Facilities Services Standard Practices into the
plan to describe how the campus has instituted flood mitigation procedures as a result of
Hurricane Floyd such as flood gates for Howell Science Complex and the steam line now
being run over the river. Detailed information is available on the ECU website.
The ECU team was reminded that they should consider developing additional lists of
building/infrastructure that are of particular concern as to vulnerability during natural
disasters but not selected for detailed inspections. These lists will be included in the plan.
Karen Mulcahy, Edd Hauser and Sherry Elmes met at the conclusion of the building
reports review to discuss the GIS maps that are being created for each campus. Karen
shared the information she has collected so far. It was decided that it would be necessary
that she be able to contact a person on each campus who would provide the necessary
mapping information. We will want to highlight the buildings/infrastructure on each
campus that selected for inspections. Sherry will provide the lists and will obtain contact
information from each campus for Karen.
East Carolina University
February 26, 2013
A public meeting was held in the Materials Management Building Conference Room,
Building 141, to review the final PDM Campus Plan. Representatives from several
departments making up the campus administration were in attendance. (See attendee list)
Sherry Elmes (UNC Charlotte), Project Coordinator for the PDM Planning Project,
presented the final plan using a power point format. Ms. Elmes, Dr. Edd Hauser (UNC
Charlotte), and Tom Pohlman, Key campus contact and EHS Professional and Emergency
Management Coordinator, facilitated discussion during the meeting.
In addition to the ten buildings receiving comprehensive engineering inspections, other
critical buildings of particular concern will be added to campus summary.
Those present agreed the plan provided a valuable resource to aid the campus in
strengthening critical infrastructure against natural hazards that might affect the campus
causing disruption of operations and public safety. Discussion of mitigation measures
taken as a result of the Hurricane Floyd were reviewed and suggestions made to document
8-13
any recurring weather events that cause damage and disruption to campus operations for
the purpose of grant writing were encouraged. The plan must be updated on a regular
basis to keep current with other campus plans, their citizens and administration. A close
working relationship with Pitt County Emergency Management is maintained.
Following the meeting, Mr. Pohlman was provided a digital copy of the entire plan along
with the power point presentation so that he might continue the review of the plan at
additional department meetings around the campus as well as being able to circulate the
plan electronically.
The final step will be to present the plan to the Chancellor and Chief Financial Officer for
their approval and adoption of the plan.
Attendees:
Tom Pohlman, EHS/Emergency Management Director
William Wiseman, Associate Vice Chancellor for Enterprise Risk Management
Rocky Howell, Operations Information Technology Manager
Ricky Hill, Interim Executive Director Facilities Management
Frank Knight, ECU Police
Sherry Elmes, UNC Charlotte, Project Coordinator
Edd Hauser, UNC Charlotte, PI for Project
8-14
FEMA Eligibility Requirements
For Mitigation Projects
8-15
HMA= Hazard Mitigation Assistance
D.1 Eligible Activities
In order to be eligible, activities must meet all requirements referenced in this guidance. Eligible
activities for HMA fall into the following categories:
♦ Mitigation projects (all HMA programs);
♦ Hazard mitigation planning (HMGP, PDM, and FMA programs); and
♦ Management costs (all HMA programs).
Table 4 summarizes eligible activities that may be funded by the HMA programs. Detailed
descriptions of these activities follow the table in Part III, D.1.1, D.1.2, and D.1.3.
Part III. Eligibility Information 13
Table 4: Eligible Activities by Program
SRL
1. Mitigation Projects √ √ √ √ √
Property Acquisition and Structure Demolition √ √ √ √ √
Property Acquisition and Structure Relocation √ √ √ √ √
Structure Elevation √ √ √ √ √
Mitigation Reconstruction √
Dry Floodproofing of Historic Residential Structures √ √ √ √ √
Dry Floodproofing of Non-residential Structures √ √ √ √
Minor Localized Flood Reduction Projects √ √ √ √ √
Structural Retrofitting of Existing Buildings √ √
Non-structural Retrofitting of Existing Buildings and Facilities √ √
Safe Room Construction √ √
Infrastructure Retrofit √ √
Soil Stabilization √ √
Wildfire Mitigation √ √
Post-Disaster Code Enforcement √
5% Initiative Projects √
2. Hazard Mitigation Planning √ √ √
The following activities are not eligible as stand-alone activities but are eligible only when
included as a functional component of eligible mitigation activities:
♦ For HMGP and PDM generators and/or related equipment purchases (e.g., generator
hook-ups) when the generator directly relates to the hazards being mitigated and is part of
a project (the 5% initiative allows for the stand-alone purchase of generators);
♦ Real property or easements purchases required for the completion of an eligible mitigation
project. For safe room projects, no real property or easement purchase is eligible; and
♦ Studies that are integral to the development and implementation of a mitigation project,
including hydrologic and hydraulic, engineering, or drainage studies.
D.1.1 Mitigation Projects
This section briefly describes the mitigation projects eligible under one or more of the five HMA
programs. Table 4 summarizes the eligibility of the following project types for each program:
8-16
♦ Property Acquisition and Structure Demolition – The acquisition of an existing at-risk
structure and, typically, the underlying land, and conversion of the land to open space
through the demolition of the structure. The property must be deed-restricted in perpetuity
to open space uses to restore and/or conserve the natural floodplain functions. For
property acquisition and structure demolition projects, see Part IX A.
♦ Property Acquisition and Structure Relocation – The physical relocation of an existing
structure to an area outside of a hazard-prone area, such as the Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) or a regulatory erosion zone and, typically, the acquisition of the underlying land.
Relocation must conform to all applicable State and local regulations. The property must
be deed-restricted in perpetuity to open space uses to restore and/or conserve the natural
floodplain functions. For property acquisition and structure relocation projects, see Part IX
A.
♦ Structure Elevation – Physically raising an existing structure to an elevation at or above
the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) or higher if required by FEMA or local ordinance.
Structure elevation may be achieved through a variety of methods, including elevating on
continuous foundation walls; elevating on open foundations, such as piles, piers, posts, or
columns; and elevating on fill. Foundations must be designed to properly address all
loads, be appropriately connected to the floor structure above, and utilities must be
properly elevated as well. FEMA encourages Applicants and subapplicants to design all
structure elevation projects in accordance with the American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE) 24-05 Flood Resistant Design and Construction. For additional information
about the NFIP and structure elevation projects, see Part X C.1.
♦ Mitigation Reconstruction – The construction of an improved, elevated building on the
same site where an existing building and/or foundation has been partially or completely
demolished or destroyed. Mitigation reconstruction is only permitted if traditional
structure elevation cannot be implemented and for structures outside of the regulatory
floodway or coastal high hazard area (Zone V) as identified by the existing best available
flood hazard data. Activities that result in the construction of new living space at or above
the BFE will only be considered when consistent with the Mitigation Reconstruction
requirements. Such activities are only eligible under the SRL Pilot program. For
additional information about mitigation reconstruction projects, see Part IX D.
♦ Dry Floodproofing – Techniques applied to keep structures dry by sealing the structure to
keep floodwaters out. For all dry floodproofing activities, FEMA encourages Applicants
and subapplicants to design all dry floodproofing projects in accordance with ASCE 24-05
Flood Resistant Design and Construction.
• Dry Floodproofing of Historic Residential Structures is permissible only when
other techniques that would mitigate to the BFE would cause the structure to lose its
status as defined a Historic Structure in 44 CFR Part 59.1.
• Dry Floodproofing of Non-residential Structures must be performed in accordance
with NFIP Technical Bulletin 3-93, Non-Residential Floodproofing—Requirements
and Certification, and the requirements pertaining to dry floodproofing of nonresidential
structures found in 44 CFR Parts 60.3(b)(5) and (c)(4).
8-17
♦ Minor Localized Flood Reduction Projects – These projects may include the installation
or modification of culverts and floodgates, minor floodwall systems that generally protect
an individual structure or facility, stormwater management activities such as creating
retention and detention basins, and the upgrade of culverts to bridges. These projects must
not duplicate the flood prevention activities of other Federal agencies and may not
constitute a section of a larger flood control system.
• For FMA, RFC, and SRL at least 50 percent of the structures directly benefiting from
this mitigation activity must be NFIP-insured. For RFC and SRL, these projects must
primarily benefit RFC or SRL structures, respectively. Documentation must be
provided in the subapplication that identifies all structures that will benefit from this
mitigation activity.
♦ Structural Retrofitting of Existing Buildings – Modifications to the structural elements
of a building to reduce or eliminate the risk of future damage and to protect inhabitants.
The structural elements of a building that are essential to protect in order to prevent
damage include foundations, load-bearing walls, beams, columns, structural floors and
roofs, and the connections between these elements.
♦ Non-structural Retrofitting of Existing Buildings and Facilities – Modifications to the
non-structural elements of a building or facility to reduce or eliminate the risk of future
damage and to protect inhabitants. Non-structural retrofits may include bracing of building
contents to prevent earthquake damage or the elevation of heating and ventilation systems.
♦ Safe Room Construction – Safe room construction projects are designed to provide
immediate live safety protection for people in public and private structures from tornado
and severe wind events, including hurricanes. For HMA, the term “safe room” only
applies to extreme wind (combined tornado and hurricane) residential, non-residential, and
community safe rooms; tornado community safe rooms; and hurricane community safe
room. This type of project includes retrofits of existing facilities or new safe room
construction projects, and applies to both single and multi-use facilities. For additional
information, see Part IX C.
♦ Infrastructure Retrofit – Measures to reduce risk to existing utility systems, roads, and
bridges.
♦ Soil Stabilization – Projects to reduce risk to structures or infrastructure from erosion and
landslides, including installing geo-textiles, sod stabilization, installing vegetative buffer
strips, preserving mature vegetation, decreasing slope angles, and stabilizing with rip rap
and other means of slope anchoring. These projects must not duplicate the activities of
other Federal agencies.
♦ Wildfire Mitigation – Projects to mitigate the risk to at-risk structures and associated loss
of life from the threat of future wildfire through:
• Defensible Space for Wildfire – Projects creating perimeters around homes,
structures, and critical facilities through the removal or reduction of flammable
vegetation. For additional information, see Part IX B.3.1.
8-18
• Application of Ignition-resistant Construction – Projects that apply ignitionresistant
techniques and/or non-combustible materials on new and existing homes,
structures, and critical facilities. For additional information, see Part IX B.3.2.
• Hazardous Fuels Reduction – Projects that remove vegetative fuels proximate to the
at-risk structure that, if ignited, pose significant threat to human life and property,
especially critical facilities. For additional information, see Part IX B.3.3.
♦ Post-Disaster Code Enforcement – Projects designed to support the post-disaster
rebuilding effort by ensuring that sufficient expertise is on hand to ensure appropriate
codes and standards, including NFIP local ordinance requirements, are utilized and
enforced. For additional information, see Part VIII A.8.
♦ 5% Initiative Projects – These projects provide an opportunity to fund mitigation actions
that are consistent with the goals and objectives of the State and local Hazard Mitigation
Plans and meet all HMGP program requirements, but for which it may be difficult to
conduct a standard BCA to prove cost effectiveness. For additional information, see Part
VIII A.10.
D.1.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning
Mitigation plans are the foundation for effective hazard mitigation. A mitigation plan is a
demonstration of the commitment to reduce risks from natural hazards and serves as a guide for
decisionmakers as they commit resources.
The mitigation planning process includes hazard identification and risk assessment leading to the
development of a comprehensive mitigation strategy for reducing risks to life and property. The
mitigation strategy section of the plan identifies a range of specific mitigation actions and
projects being considered to reduce risks to new and existing buildings and infrastructure. This
section includes an action plan describing how identified mitigation activities will be prioritized,
implemented, and administered.
Planning activities funded under HMA are designed to develop State, Tribal, and local mitigation
plans that meet the planning requirements outlined in 44 CFR Part 201. A mitigation planning
subgrant award must result in a mitigation plan adopted by the jurisdiction(s) and approved by
FEMA prior to the end of the POP.
For FMA, funds shall only be used to support the flood hazard portion of State, Tribal, or local
multi-hazard mitigation plans to meet the criteria specified in 44 CFR Part 201. Funds are only
available to support these activities in communities participating in the NFIP.
For links to mitigation planning and risk assessment resources, see Part X C.2.
8-19
Facility Inspection Procedure and
Risk Matrix Development using University
Facilities Risk Assessment Spreadsheet (UFRAS)
8-20
UFRAS Facility Inspection Procedures and Risk Matrix Development
Overview
The University Facilities Risk Assessment Spreadsheet (UFRAS) is the name for the risk assessment
model developed specifically for the PDM planning process for campuses that are part of the University
of North Carolina System. The purpose of these guidelines is to outline how to interpret the risk matrices
found within the facility report (Section 7). The risk matrices for a facility are the final output derived
from UFRAS implementation. The input to UFRAS is from a 92-item questionnaire used during on-site
facility inspections by a qualified structural engineer. It is highly recommended that the engineer, either a
university staff engineer or consulting engineer, conduct the physical inspection on each level of a
building including the basement to the roof. Facility inspection results are integrated with hazard
intensities and probabilities at the location of the facility. Some intensities and probabilities are
applicable to the State as a whole; others are applicable for a region of the state that includes a particular
campus.
The result of this analysis of on-site buildings (or other infrastructure) – including needs of critical
maintenance, repair, or reconstruction issues – is a matrix relating the risk of each of the nine natural
hazards affecting each individual component of the facility, as well as the overall average of all hazards
and building components. On page 8–31 are the guideline definitions of (a) the five facility components,
and (b) the definition of the nine hazards used in this project and common to most FEMA PDM planning
processes nationwide. An initial matrix relates the risks associated with each building as of the date of the
on-site inspection.
The second risk matrix relates the recommended Mitigation Measures and the impact of implementing
those measures on the overall risk to the facility. In most cases, there will be a decrease in risk for each
cell, representing the “after implementation” risk, again with the overall average risk rating. These
numbers have no intrinsic unit of measure in themselves, but are relative measures from the largest risk to
the smallest, as explained in more detail in the following general notes.
Detailed Notes
These guidelines outline the interpretation of the risk matrices found within the facility reports. Usually,
these risk matrices are on the second page of each individual facility report (Section 7). The risk matrices
are developed from facility inspections and the results from the inspections are integrated with hazard
intensities and frequencies for the area in which the facility is located. The matrices are designed to offer
a relative approximation of what the most ‘at risk’ components of the facility are and to guide the user as
to what will bring about the greatest reduction in overall risk to the facility.
The facility reports are designed to serve one or more of the following users: campus risk managers,
building managers, business continuity planners, safety and security, and other related facilities
management personnel. Within each facility report, there are two matrices for each facility that was
inspected. The first matrix is called “Risk as of inspection date” and the second matrix is called “Risk
after all mitigation measures are implemented.” As described previously, the first risk matrix reflects the
risk of the facility on the inspection date indicated in the report. The second risk matrix projects how risk
matrix entries could be reduced for the facility if all the mitigation measures called out in the report were
to be implemented for that facility. The values in the risk matrices range from 1-10, where 1 represents the
8-21
lowest risk and 10 represents the highest risk. The first matrix is normalized by campus, with the result
that there will likely be at least one facility of the ten inspected facilities that rates a “10” and another
that rates a “1.” There will be many rankings on every campus with a “1.” All other risk matrix entries
will fall between 1 and 10 according to the estimated risk of the component/hazard pair. The second risk
matrix is normalized the same way (by campus); however, there may not necessarily be a score of 10
within the campus set of those (the second matrix in each set of facility reports) matrices, since the “Risk
after all mitigation measures are implemented” matrices are measuring the projected risk score relative
to the scores in the “Risk as of inspection date” matrix.
The model calculates the potential for damage (and the facility’s present condition) and an independent
assessment by the inspection team identifies potential mitigation projects that should reduce the risk. This
risk assessment is made irrespective of the benefit to, or importance of, the facility. Therefore there is no
relationship between the ratings of a facilities “importance,” as related in the facilities UFIS score, and the
UFRAS score that is calculated after each building is inspected. There are rough order of magnitude
(ROM) cost estimates provided for each mitigation measure.
Each user of the UFRAS model can apply relative weights to the benefit of such costs, since the user will
be most familiar with the campus facilities.
The investment made in one facility may preclude an investment to be made in another facility due to
budget limitations. It is up to the user to assess the level of importance of upgrading one facility with
respect to another based on facility importance, cost of the mitigation measure(s), and risk reduction. The
UFIS tool (UFIS: University Facilities Importance Spreadsheet—a tool developed to subjectively rank
the most important facilities on a campus) and/or debate among appropriate campus officials is suggested
to determine where limited funds should be directed based on facility importance. This debate would
assist in determining the level of risk reduction that would bring the most return on an investment based
on the cost of implementing the mitigation measure.
Ratings on the day of inspection
On pages 8–26 thru 8–32 are the results of a carefully designed, unique set of 92 questions or issues that
have been rated for one facility on a scale of 1 to 4. Codes for rating each question or component are
found in the column labeled “range.” Where no code value is defined within the question itself, the “4”
rating would indicate that the element being addressed is in the “worst” condition, or highest effect on the
risk to the facility. To save printing, results of other facilities inspected are available on the accompanying
CD.
Projected ratings on a future date after mitigation measures have been completed
After rating the building components in their “as is” condition on the day of inspection, the next step is
to estimate, using engineering judgment, a possible future rating for each of the 92 questions/issues (see
pages 8–33 thru 8–39). The estimate would take into account an assumed future result that all mitigation
measures (as identified in the Facility Reports, Section 7) have been implemented.
A definition of each hazard considered in this project, as listed in the UFRAS Checklist, are shown on
page 8–24, along with a description of the facility components and a ROM (rough order of magnitude)
cost estimate guide for implementing each mitigation measure for each building, as shown in the Facility
Reports, Section 7, for each facility that was inspected).
8-22
The final component of UFRAS is the conversion of the raw data collected in the on-site engineering
inspection, and the data estimated for a future, post-mitigation implementation time, to produce the Risk
Matrix.
Description of the UFRAS Mathematical Model, and Guidelines for Its Use
Data used in computing final “before and after” risk matrices are shown in detail in Table 8.3 through 8.9
Hazard data and the results of the onsite inspections are input into UFRAS, where the following equation
is applied for every hazard/component cell of the risk matrix:
Risk =
(
)
×
∑
×
∑
Where (pl) is the probability and intensity of a hazard at the facility’s location; this is normalized by the
maximum probability and intensity of a hazard, given by (pImax).
∑E is the sum of the exposure conditions from the inspection checklist; Emin is the minimum possible sum
of exposure conditions from the inspection checklist; and Emax is the maximum possible sum of exposure
conditions from the inspection checklist.
∑V is the sum of the vulnerability conditions from the inspection checklist; Vmin is the minimum possible
sum of vulnerability conditions from the inspection checklist; and Vmax is the maximum possible sum of
vulnerability conditions from the inspection checklist.
The raw score outputted by UFRAS will range between 0 and 1.
Raw risk scores (ranging from 0-1) are proportionately scaled to range from 1-10 for convenience in
evaluating risk matrices. The hazard/component cell(s) with the highest risk score out of all inspected
campus facilities will receive a 10; the cell(s) with the lowest risk score out of all of the inspected campus
facilities will receive a 1.
The second risk matrix (“Risk after all mitigation measures are implemented”) is developed through the
same steps, except that some inputs from the inspection checklist were modified to reflect the reduced
ranking corresponding to implementing all the suggested mitigation measures.
The risk matrix estimates the potential for loss/damage (and of the facility’s present condition) and offers
insight on how to reduce the risk irrespective of the importance of the facility. While rough cost estimates
are provided for the suggested mitigation measures, it is up to the user to determine benefits relative to
costs, since this can vary greatly from facility to facility and campus to campus.
The output of the UFRAS model for each facility inspected on this campus are shown as “before and
after” mitigation risks. These summary results are shown on the second page of each Facility Report (see
Section 7)
8-23
Definition of Facility Components
Site:
Envelope:
Structure:
Contents:
Utilities:
Any natural occurring or built infrastructure immediately surrounding the primary
facility extending as far as a property boundary. This includes utilities on, over, or
under the site, trees, topography, service/support structures, etc.
All façade elements, flashing, roof, windows, fixtures, etc. of the primary facility.
All load resisting structural members of the primary facility.
Everything contained within the primary facility such as occupants, data, office or
laboratory equipment, etc. Another definition would be anything that is not attached
to the building.
Utility systems within the primary facility. Examples include: communication
lines and distribution systems, HVAC, power distribution and emergency power,
server rooms, fire alarm systems, sprinklers, etc.
Definition of Hazards
Wind:
Movement of air due to naturally occurring environmental pressure gradients; a
design parameter for structures.
Tornado:
Similar to wind, but much stronger; usually not a design parameter for structures.
Seismic:
Ground shaking due to movement of the earth’s crust; a design parameter for
structures.
Ice:
Accumulation of frozen precipitation that can damage components and cause
structures to be damaged by falling trees or other structures, loss of power, etc.
Snow:
A roof design parameter that can cause overload, especially when complicated by
accumulation of snow drifts. Snow can also cause site and utility damage.
Driving rain: Driving rain can infiltrate the façade, possibly damaging contents and deteriorating
the facade. Also included is localized flooding in poor drainage areas.
Flood:
Flood differs from driving rain in that the hazard is more widespread (i.e. occurs in
the flood zone) and is usually associated with the 100-year flood calculations. This
planning document delineates a GIS outline of the 100-year flood on each campus.
Wildfire:
Wildfire in general includes brushfire or accidental facility fires. However, in the
strictness sense, it is fire that starts on-site or the in the surrounding area. This
hazard, by default, can be related to the facility’s resilience to traditional building
fires. Wildfire is predominately triggered by lightning strikes, arson, or accidents
when drought-related conditions prevail.
Landslide:
Landslides (rockslides, mudslides, or both) can range from heavy erosion to slope
failures that damage site components that can wash out a structure. These risk
values must be understood relative to very broad conditions on the site or in close
proximity to the site. If it is obvious that erosion is the main concern, then the
landslide score is indicating an erosion risk from 1-10. The driving force behind
the landslide hazard is driving rain and/or seismic shaking as it relates to site
conditions and potentially unstable terrain.
Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Estimates for Mitigation Measures
Group A:
Group B:
Group C:
Group D:
<$5,000
$5,000-$25,000
$25,000-$100,000
>$100,000
8-24
Table 8.1 Summary Ratings of Surveyed Infrastructure
- East Carolina University Facility
Blount House
Brody Medical Sciences
Cotanche Building
Edward Nelson Warren Life Science Building
Eppes Complex
Jones Hall
Joyner East
Leo W. Jenkins Cancer Center
Medical Central Utility P lant
Steam P lant
Todd Dining Hall
Rating - Curre nt
2.20
1.42
1.00
1.13
1.53
1.20
1.02
1.13
1.02
1.58
1.02
Rating - Afte r
M itigation Proje ct
1.73
1.02
1.00
1.00
1.27
1.11
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.13
1.00
Diffe re nce
0.47
0.40
0.00
0.13
0.26
0.09
0.02
0.13
0.02
0.45
0.02
This table is a duplicate of Table 7.1, and summarizes the OVERALL Risk Rating for the 10 facilities that
were inspected in 2009. It also summarizes the comparable rating at some future, unspecified time during
which all recommended Mitigation Actions have been completed. Data from all 10 facility inspections
and UFRAS calculations will be contained in an accompanying CD. Complete inspection data and risk
calculations for only one facility is shown in printed format.
Table 8.2 ROM Estimated M itigation Cost
- East Carolina University Facility
Blount House
Brody Medical Sciences
Cotanche Building
Edward Nelson Warren Life Science Building
Eppes Complex
Jones Hall
Joyner East
Leo W. Jenkins Cancer Center
Medical Central Utility P lant
Steam P lant
Todd Dining Hall
Campus R & R
Proje cts (A + B )
$30,000
33,000
21,000
9,000
36,000
6,000
27,000
15,000
54,000
27,000
9,000
$267,000
FEM A M itigation
Proje cts (C + D)
$200,000
462,500
62,500
200,000
0
0
0
525,000
200,000
325,000
0
$1,975,000
Totals
$230,000
495,500
83,500
209,000
36,000
6,000
27,000
540,000
254,000
352,000
9,000
$2,242,000
Table 8.2 shows a Rough Order of Magnitude budget estimate for in-house R & R projects and
potentialFEMA Mitigation grant applications. Cost estimates for each project by category are as follows:
A ($3,000), B ($15,000), C ($62,500), and D ($200,000).
8-25
SITE, PAGE 1 OF 2
Q
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Question/Statement
For the primary facility on the site, determine the design occupancy
category according to Table1-1 of ASCE 7-05.
For the primary facility on the site, determine the actual occupancy
category according to Table1-1 of ASCE 7-05.
Rate emergency vehicle access to the site and to the facility of interest
within the site; consider size/capacity of routes, redundancy of routes,
potential obstructions, etc. Note specific concerns.
Rate pedestrian exposure to vehicular impacts considering placement of
sidewalks/crosswalks/paths relative to roads/bicycle paths; also
consider road layout, hills, curves, etc. when roads are wet or covered
with ice/snow. Note specific concerns.
Rate the exposure of the facility to vehicular impacts considering
placement of the facility relative to roads; also consider road layout,
hills, curves, etc. when roads are wet or covered with ice/snow. Note
specific concerns.
Rate the exposure of site components (including utilities) to vehicular
impacts considering placement of components relative to roads; also
consider road layout, hills, curves, etc. when roads are wet or covered
with ice/snow. Note specific concerns.
Rate the overall vulnerability of all utilities (utility lines and supporting
equipment) to the facility on the site.Consider all hazards that could
damage/destroy utility lines and consider surrounding sites as
necessary.Note the utilities that receive ratings higher than 1.
Rate how effectively utility lines are grouped/routed throughout the
site, including interconnectivity with other sites. This rating involves the
overall utilities layout with consideration given to how one utility is
situated relative to another and utility placement relative to the site’s
usage. Note specific concerns.
Rate the emergency shut-off systems for all potentially dangerous
utilities (steam, gas, etc.) within the site. Note specific concerns.
Rate the exposure of hazardous materials stored on the site considering
all hazards.Note the hazardous materials that receive ratings higher
than 1.
Rate the proximity of surrounding facilities that could slam into the
facility of interest when subjected to large lateral loads (seismic, high
winds, landslide, etc.). Note specific concerns.
Determine the site class using Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-05; consider
site/soil remediation efforts such as soil compaction, replacement of
poor soil with better soil, etc.
Rate the vulnerability of all site components (except utilities) to seismic
shaking.
Determine the design wind speed used to design the facility, especially
if the facility lies in a special wind region.
Determine the surface roughness category of the site and surrounding
sites (1=B, 2=C, or 3=D).
LANDSLIDE
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30,
2010
WILDFIRE
INSPECTION
DATE
FLOOD/RAIN
- AS INSPECTED -
SNOW
BLOUNT HOUSE
2/8/2013 15:09
ICE
FACILITY
Printed:
SEISMIC
UFRAS INSPECTION CHECKLIST
WIND/TORNADO
EAST CAROLINA
UNIVERSITY
RANGE
CAMPUS
1-4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1-4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1-4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1-4
1
1
1
1-4
3
3
3
1-4
1
1
1
1-4
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1-4
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1-4
1
1-4
1
1
1-4
1
1
1
1-4
1
1
1-4
3
1
1
1
1-2
1-3
1
8-26
SITE, Page 2 OF 2
Q
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Question/Statement
Rate the exposure to wind speed up effects on the site due to site
topography.
Rate the vulnerability of site components (except utilities) to windinduced hazards. Consider wind pressure loading, wind-borne debris
and impact of fixed objects such as nearby trees colliding with site
components; for wind-borne debris consider the site of interest and
surrounding sites. Note specific concerns.
Rate the exposure of the facility to wind hazards. Consider wind-borne
debris and impact of fixed objects such as nearby trees colliding with
the facility; for wind-borne debris consider the site of interest and
surrounding sites. Note specific concerns.
Determine the percent of the site that is in the 100-year floodplain.
Determine the facility’s lowest elevation relative to the 100-year
floodplain.
Rate the facility's reliance on drainage infrastructure.
Rate the vulnerability of site components (except utilities) to flood
waters. Note specific concerns.
Rate the exposure of the facility to a landslide event; consider the site of
interest and surrounding sites.
Rate the exposure of site components (except utilities) to a landslide
event; consider the site of interest and the potential effects of
surrounding sites.
Determine the ground snow load used to design the facility.
Classify the facility’s roof exposure based on Table 7-2 of ASCE 7-05.
Rate the potential for increased snow loading on the facility due to
surrounding taller structures/trees within 20 ft of the facility if this was
likely not accounted for in the facility’s initial design.
Rate the exposure of vulnerable site components (except utilities) to a
snow/ice event; consider the site of interest and the potential effects of
surrounding sites.
Rate the fuel available (exposure) for a wildfire to approach the facility;
consider the site of interest and surrounding sites.
Rate the fuel available (exposure) for a wildfire to approach vulnerable
site components (except utilities); consider the site of interest and
surrounding sites.
Except for utilities, rate the site’s vulnerability to all other hazards
(hazards not directly considered above) with respect to indigenous or
man-made geological formations (water table location, rock formations,
poor soils susceptible to liquefaction or sinkholes, etc.). Note the
specific vulnerability and the corresponding hazard.
1-4
1
1-4
3
1-4
3
1-4
1
1-4
1
1-4
1
1
1
1-4
2
2
2
LANDSLIDE
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30,
2010
WILDFIRE
INSPECTION
DATE
FLOOD/RAIN
- AS INSPECTED -
SNOW
BLOUNT HOUSE
2/8/2013 15:09
ICE
FACILITY
Printed:
SEISMIC
UFRAS INSPECTION CHECKLIST
WIND/TORNADO
EAST CAROLINA
UNIVERSITY
RANGE
CAMPUS
1-4
1
1-4
1
1-2
1-3
1
1-4
1
1
1-4
1
1-4
1
1-4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1-4
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
8-27
ENVELOPE, PAGE 1 OF 2
Q
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Question/Statement
Record the enclosure classification. (1 = Open, 2 = Enclosed, 3 = Partially
Enclosed)
Rate the level of geometric irregularities in elevation (consider the
composite of all elevations).
Rate the level of geometric irregularities in plan.
Rate the potential for development and severity of snow drifts based
solely on roof geometry.
Determine the construction type as defined in IBC 2006, Section 602.
[Type I &II = 1, Type III = 2, Type IV = 3, Type V = 4]
Rate the vulnerability (resistance) of architectural
features/nonstructural components attached to the façade system,
with special consideration given to components being located near
corners, eaves, and other wind speed up regions. Also consider
attachment configuration and condition.
Rate the vulnerability (resistance) of architectural
features/nonstructural components attached to the roof envelope
system, with special consideration given to components being located
near corners, eaves, and other wind speed up regions. Also consider
attachment configuration and condition.
Rate the vulnerability (resistance) of windows considering: percent of
glass on façade/roof, glass type (annealed, heat strengthened,
tempered, polycarbonate) and lay-up (including laminated glass),
adequacy of mullions and window frames, window film, film
attachment, catch systems, and locking mechanisms (for operable
windows).
Rate the vulnerability (resistance) of pedestrian/vehicular doors
considering: door construction, adequacy of door frames, hinges, and
locking mechanisms.
Rate the vulnerability (resistance) of the veneer/bearing wall façade
system to out-of-plane and in-plane loading that might lead to breach of
the envelope. Similar to considerations for “Structure” the rating for
the façade system should include estimates for: seismic response
modification factor, over strength factor, and façade flexibility. Note
that load bearing walls will likely have a higher resistance to out-ofplane loads.
Rate the overall quality and condition of the facade system, including all
envelope connections and seals.
Rate the vulnerability (resistance) of the (nonstructural) roof envelope
system to out-of-plane (i.e. wind, snow, ice) and in-plane loading that
might lead to breach of the envelope. Similar to considerations for
“Structure” the rating for the roof envelope system should include
estimates for: seismic response modification factor, over strength
factor, and roof envelope flexibility.
Rate the overall quality and condition of the (nonstructural) roof
envelope system, including all envelope connections and seals.
1-4
2
1-4
1
1
1-4
2
2
LANDSLIDE
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30,
2010
WILDFIRE
INSPECTION
DATE
FLOOD/RAIN
- AS INSPECTED -
SNOW
BLOUNT HOUSE
2/8/2013 15:09
ICE
FACILITY
Printed:
SEISMIC
UFRAS INSPECTION CHECKLIST
WIND/TORNADO
EAST CAROLINA
UNIVERSITY
RANGE
CAMPUS
1
1-4
1
1-4
4
4
1-4
1
1-4
1
1-4
3
1-4
1
1-4
2
1
1-4
2
1
1-4
3
1-4
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8-28
ENVELOPE, PAGE 2 OF 2
Q
14
15
16
17
18
19
Question/Statement
Rate the roof’s susceptibility to ponding with consideration given to
roof slope, drainage redundancy, and maintenance.
Rate the architectural performance (i.e. thermal barrier, moisture
barrier, natural lighting) of the facade system; pay special attention to
flashing around windows, doors, vents, etc. Note reasons for the higher
scores.
Rate the architectural performance (i.e. thermal/moisture barrier,
natural lighting) of the roof envelope system; pay special attention to
flashing around clerestories, skylights, hatches, etc. Note reasons for the
higher scores.
Rate the architectural performance (i.e. thermal barrier, moisture
barrier) of the lowest level “floor plane”. Note reasons for the higher
scores.
Rate the potential for or history of adverse interactions of the envelope
system with other facility components (structure, contents, utilities,
site).
Rate the general Exposure x Vulnerability composite score of the
“Envelope” after completing all other ratings of the “Envelope”
inspection checklist. Repairs (increased vulnerability) and retrofits
(decreased vulnerability) of the structure should be considered and
noted in this rating.
1-4
1
1
1
1-4
2
2
2
1-4
1
1
1
1-4
4
4
4
LANDSLIDE
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30,
2010
WILDFIRE
INSPECTION
DATE
FLOOD/RAIN
- AS INSPECTED -
SNOW
BLOUNT HOUSE
2/8/2013 15:09
ICE
FACILITY
Printed:
SEISMIC
UFRAS INSPECTION CHECKLIST
WIND/TORNADO
EAST CAROLINA
UNIVERSITY
RANGE
CAMPUS
4
1-4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1-4
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
8-29
STRUCTURE PAGE 1 OF 1
Q
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Question/Statement
Record the facility’s mean roof height.
Determine if the structural system is a hybrid structural system, and
rate the potential for adverse interactions due to potentially dissimilar
system responses.
In order to approximately compute the structure’s period, classify the
structure as one of the following: 1-Steel MRF, 2-Concrete MRF, 3Eccentrically braced frame, 4-Other.
Rate the level of horizontal (plan) structural irregularities of the facility
based on Table 12.3-1 in ASCE 7-05.
Rate the level of vertical (elevation) structural irregularities (up the
height) of the facility based on Table 12.3-2 in ASCE 7-05.
Use Table 12.2-1 in ASCE 7-05 to determine the seismic response
modification factor R.
Use Table 12.2-1 in ASCE 7-05 to determine the system over strength
factor Ω.
In addition to Item 7 (immediately above), rate the potential over
strength/stiffness contributions of elevator core(s), stairwell core(s),
stair structures, rigid chases, etc. that are traditionally neglected in
structural design.
Use Table 12.2-1 in ASCE 7-05 to determine the deflection amplification
factor Cd.
Rate the potential for or history of adverse interactions of the structural
system with other facility components (envelope, contents, utilities,
site/general).
Rate the overall quality and condition of the structural system, including
member-to-member connections. (Consider performance under hazard
overload)
Rate the overall quality and condition of the foundation and structural
connections to the foundation (consider performance under hazard
overload).
Rate the overall quality and condition of the connections anchoring the
roof structural system to the supporting structure. (Consider
performance under hazard overload)
Rate the fire resistance/protection of structural members.
Rate the general Exposure x Vulnerability composite score of the
“Structure” after completing all other ratings of the “Structure”
inspection checklist. Repairs (increased vulnerability) and retrofits
(decreased vulnerability) of the structure should be considered and
noted in this rating.
1-4
2
2
2
1-4
1
1
1
1-4
4
4
4
1-4
1
1-4
2
LANDSLIDE
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30,
2010
WILDFIRE
INSPECTION
DATE
FLOOD/RAIN
- AS INSPECTED -
SNOW
BLOUNT HOUSE
2/8/2013 15:09
ICE
FACILITY
Printed:
SEISMIC
UFRAS INSPECTION CHECKLIST
WIND/TORNADO
EAST CAROLINA
UNIVERSITY
RANGE
CAMPUS
1-4
3
3
3
1-4
2
2
2
1-4
1
1
1
1-4
2
1-4
2
3
1
1
1
1-4
2
2
1
1
1
1-4
2
4
1-4
4
3
1
4
1-4
1-4
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
8-30
UTILITIES PAGE 1 OF 1
Q
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Question/Statement
Rate how effectively the utility lines are grouped/routed throughout the
facility, including where they penetrate the facility’s envelope; this
rating involves the overall utilities layout with consideration given to
how one utility is situated relative to another and utility placement
relative to the facility’s function(s). This rating, for example, would give
an indication of whether damage of one utility system would cause
damage to other utility systems.
Rate the overall quality and condition of utility lines, support
equipment, and associated connections to the structural system (or
adequate nonstructural components). Note the utilities that receive
ratings higher than 1.
Is the facility equipped with a sprinkler/fire suppression system? (1yes, 2-no)
Rate the exposure of utilities that are vulnerable to water damage
considering their location and the surrounding drainage infrastructure.
Note the utilities that receive ratings higher than 1.
Rate the exposure of utilities that are vulnerable to fire considering
their location. Note the utilities that receive ratings higher than 1.
Rate the emergency shut-off systems for all potentially dangerous
utilities (gas, steam, water, air). Note the utilities that receive ratings
higher than 1.
Rate the exposure of utilities that are vulnerable to lateral or vertical
shaking due to seismic or other extreme lateral loads; this includes
utility system supports, connections, and support equipment connected
to the structure or to the envelope. Note the utilities that receive
ratings higher than 1.
Rate the exposure of utilities that are vulnerable to large vertical static
deflections that might result from static overload. Note the utilities that
receive ratings higher than 1.
Rate the vulnerability of utilities where they penetrate the facility or are
attached to its envelope. Consider isolation of utility lines from the
building envelope where seismic shaking could sever the line(s).
Rate the redundancy of power and/or power back-up systems.
Rate the redundancy of HVAC system(s) if sustained environmental
conditions are critical to the facility’s function (or HVAC back-up for
regions in a facility where controlled environmental conditions are
critical: server rooms, communications rooms, etc.).
Rate the redundancy of communications and fire/safety systems.
1-4
1-4
2
2
1-2
LANDSLIDE
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30,
2010
WILDFIRE
INSPECTION
DATE
FLOOD/RAIN
- AS INSPECTED -
SNOW
BLOUNT HOUSE
2/8/2013 15:09
ICE
FACILITY
Printed:
SEISMIC
UFRAS INSPECTION CHECKLIST
WIND/TORNADO
EAST CAROLINA
UNIVERSITY
RANGE
CAMPUS
2
2
2
2
2
1
1-4
1
1
1
1
1
1-4
1
1-4
1
1
1-4
3
3
1-4
1
1
1
1
1
1-4
1
2
1
1
1-4
3
3
3
3
1-4
3
3
1
1-4
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
13
Rate the potential for, or history of, adverse interactions of the utilities
with other facility components (envelope, structure, contents, site).
1-4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
Rate the general Exposure x Vulnerability composite score of the
“Utilities” after completing all other ratings of the “Utilities” inspection
checklist. Repairs (increased vulnerability) and retrofits (decreased
vulnerability) of utilities systems should be considered and noted in this
rating.
1-4
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
8-31
CONTENTS PAGE 1 OF 1
Q
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Question/Statement
Rate the evacuation routes in the facility (capacity of corridors and
stairwells, redundancy of routes, distance to nearest exit, etc.). Note
specific concerns.
Rate the exposure of facility occupants that typically occupy the space
within 10 ft of the facility envelope. Consider number of occupants and
the time spent near the facility envelope.
Rate the location, quantity, and combustibility of materials in the
facility. Note specific materials of concern.
Rate the quantity and level of toxicity of hazardous materials in the
facility; also consider how these materials are stored/contained. Note
toxicity and containment of the specific materials of concern.
Rate how effectively built-in nonstructural components are connected
to the structural back-up (or the building envelope); consider where
components are located up the height of the facility. Note the
components of concern.
Rate the stability/connections of other significant nonstructural
components; consider where components are located up the height of
the facility. Note the components that receive ratings higher than 1.
Rate the exposure of facility occupants to nonstructural components
that could cause physical harm (i.e. blunt trauma) should they fall or
topple. Note specific concerns.
Rate the exposure of facility occupants to utilities systems that could
cause physical harm (shock, asphyxiation, burns, etc.) should they
malfunction. Note specific concerns.
Rate the contents that are vulnerable to large vertical static deflections
that might result from static overload (i.e. heavy roof snow/ice/ponding
loads or floor overloads). Note the contents that receive ratings higher
than 1.
Rate the exposure of contents that are vulnerable to water damage
near water or steam lines. Consider value, importance, and quantity of
the contents in the rating. Note the contents that receive ratings higher
than 1.
Rate the exposure of contents that are vulnerable to water damage
near the facility’s envelope. Consider value, importance, and quantity of
the contents in the rating. Note the contents that receive ratings higher
than 1.
Rate the potential for or history of damage to facility contents or
adverse interactions of contents with other facility components (site,
envelope, structure, contents, and utilities).
Rate the general Exposure x Vulnerability composite score of the
“Contents” after completing all other ratings of the “Contents”
inspection checklist. Replacement/repairs (increased vulnerability) and
relocation/protecting (decreased vulnerability) contents.
1-4
2
2
2
2
1-4
1
1
1-2
1
1
1-4
1
1
LANDSLIDE
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30,
2010
WILDFIRE
INSPECTION
DATE
FLOOD/RAIN
- AS INSPECTED -
SNOW
BLOUNT HOUSE
2/8/2013 15:09
ICE
FACILITY
Printed:
SEISMIC
UFRAS INSPECTION CHECKLIST
WIND/TORNADO
EAST CAROLINA
UNIVERSITY
RANGE
CAMPUS
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1-4
1
1
1-4
1
1
1-4
2
1
1-4
1
1
1-4
1
1-4
1
1
3
1
1-4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1-4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1-4
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
8-32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Question/Statement
For the primary facility on the site, determine the design occupancy
category according to Table1-1 of ASCE 7-05.
For the primary facility on the site, determine the actual occupancy
category according to Table1-1 of ASCE 7-05.
Rate emergency vehicle access to the site and to the facility of interest
within the site; consider size/capacity of routes, redundancy of routes,
potential obstructions, etc. Note specific concerns.
Rate pedestrian exposure to vehicular impacts considering placement of
sidewalks/crosswalks/paths relative to roads/bicycle paths; also
consider road layout, hills, curves, etc. when roads are wet or covered
with ice/snow. Note specific concerns.
Rate the exposure of the facility to vehicular impacts considering
placement of the facility relative to roads; also consider road layout,
hills, curves, etc. when roads are wet or covered with ice/snow. Note
specific concerns.
Rate the exposure of site components (including utilities) to vehicular
impacts considering placement of components relative to roads; also
consider road layout, hills, curves, etc. when roads are wet or covered
with ice/snow. Note specific concerns.
Rate the overall vulnerability of all utilities (utility lines and supporting
equipment) to the facility on the site.Consider all hazards that could
damage/destroy utility lines and consider surrounding sites as
necessary.Note the utilities that receive ratings higher than 1.
Rate how effectively utility lines are grouped/routed throughout the
site, including interconnectivity with other sites. This rating involves the
overall utilities layout with consideration given to how one utility is
situated relative to another and utility placement relative to the site’s
usage. Note specific concerns.
Rate the emergency shut-off systems for all potentially dangerous
utilities (steam, gas, etc.) within the site. Note specific concerns.
Rate the exposure of hazardous materials stored on the site considering
all hazards.Note the hazardous materials that receive ratings higher
than 1.
Rate the proximity of surrounding facilities that could slam into the
facility of interest when subjected to large lateral loads (seismic, high
winds, landslide, etc.). Note specific concerns.
Determine the site class using Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-05; consider
site/soil remediation efforts such as soil compaction, replacement of
poor soil with better soil, etc.
Rate the vulnerability of all site components (except utilities) to seismic
shaking.
Determine the design wind speed used to design the facility, especially
if the facility lies in a special wind region.
Determine the surface roughness category of the site and surrounding
sites (1=B, 2=C, or 3=D).
LANDSLIDE
Q
SITE, PAGE 1 OF 2
WILDFIRE
INSPECTION
MONDAY, JULY 12, 2011
DATE
FLOOD/RAIN
- AFTER MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION -
SNOW
BLOUNT HOUSE
2/8/2013 15:10
ICE
FACILITY
Printed:
SEISMIC
UFRAS INSPECTION CHECKLIST
WIND/TORNADO
EAST CAROLINA
UNIVERSITY
RANGE
CAMPUS
1-4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1-4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1-4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1-4
1
1
1
1-4
1
1
1
1-4
1
1
1
1-4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1-4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1-4
1
1-4
1
1
1
1
1
1-4
1
1
1
1-4
1
1
1-4
1
mph
1-3
1
8-33
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Question/Statement
Rate the exposure to wind speed up effects on the site due to site
topography.
Rate the vulnerability of site components (except utilities) to windinduced hazards. Consider wind pressure loading, wind-borne debris
and impact of fixed objects such as nearby trees colliding with site
components; for wind-borne debris consider the site of interest and
surrounding sites. Note specific concerns.
Rate the exposure of the facility to wind hazards. Consider wind-borne
debris and impact of fixed objects such as nearby trees colliding with
the facility; for wind-borne debris consider the site of interest and
surrounding sites. Note specific concerns.
Determine the percent of the site that is in the 100-year floodplain.
Determine the facility’s lowest elevation relative to the 100-year
floodplain.
Rate the facility's reliance on drainage infrastructure.
Rate the vulnerability of site components (except utilities) to flood
waters. Note specific concerns.
Rate the exposure of the facility to a landslide event; consider the site of
interest and surrounding sites.
Rate the exposure of site components (except utilities) to a landslide
event; consider the site of interest and the potential effects of
surrounding sites.
Determine the ground snow load used to design the facility.
Classify the facility’s roof exposure based on Table 7-2 of ASCE 7-05.
Rate the potential for increased snow loading on the facility due to
surrounding taller structures/trees within 20 ft of the facility if this was
likely not accounted for in the facility’s initial design.
Rate the exposure of vulnerable site components (except utilities) to a
snow/ice event; consider the site of interest and the potential effects of
surrounding sites.
Rate the fuel available (exposure) for a wildfire to approach the facility;
consider the site of interest and surrounding sites.
Rate the fuel available (exposure) for a wildfire to approach vulnerable
site components (except utilities); consider the site of interest and
surrounding sites.
Except for utilities, rate the site’s vulnerability to all other hazards
(hazards not directly considered above) with respect to indigenous or
man-made geological formations (water table location, rock formations,
poor soils susceptible to liquefaction or sinkholes, etc.). Note the
specific vulnerability and the corresponding hazard.
Rate the general Exposure x Vulnerability composite score of the
“Site/General” components after completing all other ratings of the
“Site/General” inspection checklist. Repairs (increased vulnerability)
and retrofits (decreased vulnerability) of site components should be
considered and noted in this rating.
1-4
1
1-4
3
1-4
3
1-4
1
1-4
1
1-4
1
1
1
1-4
2
2
2
LANDSLIDE
Q
SITE, Page 2 OF 2
WILDFIRE
INSPECTION
MONDAY, JULY 12, 2011
DATE
FLOOD/RAIN
- AFTER MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION -
SNOW
BLOUNT HOUSE
2/8/2013 15:10
ICE
FACILITY
Printed:
SEISMIC
UFRAS INSPECTION CHECKLIST
WIND/TORNADO
EAST CAROLINA
UNIVERSITY
RANGE
CAMPUS
1-4
1
1-4
1
psf
1-3
1
1-4
1
1
1-4
1
1-4
1
1-4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1-4
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1-4
8-34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Question/Statement
Record the enclosure classification. (1 = Open, 2 = Enclosed, 3 = Partially
Enclosed)
Rate the level of geometric irregularities in elevation (consider the
composite of all elevations).
Rate the level of geometric irregularities in plan.
Rate the potential for development and severity of snow drifts based
solely on roof geometry.
Determine the construction type as defined in IBC 2006, Section 602.
[Type I &II = 1, Type III = 2, Type IV = 3, Type V = 4]
Rate the vulnerability (resistance) of architectural
features/nonstructural components attached to the façade system,
with special consideration given to components being located near
corners, eaves, and other wind speed up regions. Also consider
attachment configuration and condition.
Rate the vulnerability (resistance) of architectural
features/nonstructural components attached to the roof envelope
system, with special consideration given to components being located
near corners, eaves, and other wind speed up regions. Also consider
attachment configuration and condition.
Rate the vulnerability (resistance) of windows considering: percent of
glass on façade/roof, glass type (annealed, heat strengthened,
tempered, polycarbonate) and lay-up (including laminated glass),
adequacy of mullions and window frames, window film, film
attachment, catch systems, and locking mechanisms (for operable
windows).
Rate the vulnerability (resistance) of pedestrian/vehicular doors
considering: door construction, adequacy of door frames, hinges, and
locking mechanisms.
Rate the vulnerability (resistance) of the veneer/bearing wall façade
system to out-of-plane and in-plane loading that might lead to breach of
the envelope. Similar to considerations for “Structure” the rating for
the façade system should include estimates for: seismic response
modification factor, over strength factor, and façade flexibility. Note
that load bearing walls will likely have a higher resistance to out-ofplane loads.
Rate the overall quality and condition of the facade system, including all
envelope connections and seals.
Rate the vulnerability (resistance) of the (nonstructural) roof envelope
system to out-of-plane (i.e. wind, snow, ice) and in-plane loading that
might lead to breach of the envelope. Similar to considerations for
“Structure” the rating for the roof envelope system should include
estimates for: seismic response modification factor, over strength
factor, and roof envelope flexibility.
Rate the overall quality and condition of the (nonstructural) roof
envelope system, including all envelope connections and seals.
1-4
2
1-4
1
1
1-4
2
2
LANDSLIDE
Q
ENVELOPE, PAGE 1 OF 2
WILDFIRE
INSPECTION
MONDAY, JULY 12, 2011
DATE
FLOOD/RAIN
- AFTER MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION -
SNOW
BLOUNT HOUSE
2/8/2013 15:10
ICE
FACILITY
Printed:
SEISMIC
UFRAS INSPECTION CHECKLIST
WIND/TORNADO
EAST CAROLINA
UNIVERSITY
RANGE
CAMPUS
2
1-4
1
1-4
4
4
1-4
1
1-4
1
1-4
1
1-4
1
1-4
2
1
1-4
2
1
1-4
3
1-4
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8-35
14
15
16
17
18
19
Question/Statement
Rate the roof’s susceptibility to ponding with consideration given to
roof slope, drainage redundancy, and maintenance.
Rate the architectural performance (i.e. thermal barrier, moisture
barrier, natural lighting) of the facade system; pay special attention to
flashing around windows, doors, vents, etc. Note reasons for the higher
scores.
Rate the architectural performance (i.e. thermal/moisture barrier,
natural lighting) of the roof envelope system; pay special attention to
flashing around clerestories, skylights, hatches, etc. Note reasons for the
higher scores.
Rate the architectural performance (i.e. thermal barrier, moisture
barrier) of the lowest level “floor plane”. Note reasons for the higher
scores.
Rate the potential for or history of adverse interactions of the envelope
system with other facility components (structure, contents, utilities,
site).
Rate the general Exposure x Vulnerability composite score of the
“Envelope” after completing all other ratings of the “Envelope”
inspection checklist. Repairs (increased vulnerability) and retrofits
(decreased vulnerability) of the structure should be considered and
noted in this rating.
1-4
1
1
1
1-4
2
2
2
1-4
1
1
1
1-4
2
2
2
LANDSLIDE
Q
ENVELOPE, PAGE 2 OF 2
WILDFIRE
INSPECTION
MONDAY, JULY 12, 2011
DATE
FLOOD/RAIN
- AFTER MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION -
SNOW
BLOUNT HOUSE
2/8/2013 15:10
ICE
FACILITY
Printed:
SEISMIC
UFRAS INSPECTION CHECKLIST
WIND/TORNADO
EAST CAROLINA
UNIVERSITY
RANGE
CAMPUS
2
1-4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1-4
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
8-36
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Question/Statement
Record the facility’s mean roof height.
Determine if the structural system is a hybrid structural system, and
rate the potential for adverse interactions due to potentially dissimilar
system responses.
In order to approximately compute the structure’s period, classify the
structure as one of the following: 1-Steel MRF, 2-Concrete MRF, 3Eccentrically braced frame, 4-Other.
Rate the level of horizontal (plan) structural irregularities of the facility
based on Table 12.3-1 in ASCE 7-05.
Rate the level of vertical (elevation) structural irregularities (up the
height) of the facility based on Table 12.3-2 in ASCE 7-05.
Use Table 12.2-1 in ASCE 7-05 to determine the seismic response
modification factor R.
Use Table 12.2-1 in ASCE 7-05 to determine the system over strength
factor Ω.
In addition to Item 7 (immediately above), rate the potential over
strength/stiffness contributions of elevator core(s), stairwell core(s),
stair structures, rigid chases, etc. that are traditionally neglected in
structural design.
Use Table 12.2-1 in ASCE 7-05 to determine the deflection amplification
factor Cd.
Rate the potential for or history of adverse interactions of the structural
system with other facility components (envelope, contents, utilities,
site/general).
Rate the overall quality and condition of the structural system, including
member-to-member connections. (Consider performance under hazard
overload)
Rate the overall quality and condition of the foundation and structural
connections to the foundation (consider performance under hazard
overload).
Rate the overall quality and condition of the connections anchoring the
roof structural system to the supporting structure. (Consider
performance under hazard overload)
Rate the fire resistance/protection of structural members.
Rate the general Exposure x Vulnerability composite score of the
“Structure” after completing all other ratings of the “Structure”
inspection checklist. Repairs (increased vulnerability) and retrofits
(decreased vulnerability) of the structure should be considered and
noted in this rating.
ft
28 28
28
1-4
1
1
1
1-4
4
4
4
1-4
1
1-4
2
LANDSLIDE
Q
1
STRUCTURE PAGE 1 OF 1
WILDFIRE
INSPECTION
MONDAY, JULY 12, 2011
DATE
FLOOD/RAIN
- AFTER MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION -
SNOW
BLOUNT HOUSE
2/8/2013 15:10
ICE
FACILITY
Printed:
SEISMIC
UFRAS INSPECTION CHECKLIST
WIND/TORNADO
EAST CAROLINA
UNIVERSITY
RANGE
CAMPUS
R
3
3
3
Ω
3
3
3
1-4
1
1
1
Cd
3
1-4
2
3
1
1
1
1-4
2
2
1
1
1
1-4
2
4
1-4
4
3
1
4
1-4
1-4
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
8-37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Question/Statement
Rate how effectively the utility lines are grouped/routed throughout the
facility, including where they penetrate the facility’s envelope; this
rating involves the overall utilities layout with consideration given to
how one utility is situated relative to another and utility placement
relative to the facility’s function(s). This rating, for example, would give
an indication of whether damage of one utility system would cause
damage to other utility systems.
Rate the overall quality and condition of utility lines, support
equipment, and associated connections to the structural system (or
adequate nonstructural components). Note the utilities that receive
ratings higher than 1.
Is the facility equipped with a sprinkler/fire suppression system? (1yes, 2-no)
Rate the exposure of utilities that are vulnerable to water damage
considering their location and the surrounding drainage infrastructure.
Note the utilities that receive ratings higher than 1.
Rate the exposure of utilities that are vulnerable to fire considering
their location. Note the utilities that receive ratings higher than 1.
Rate the emergency shut-off systems for all potentially dangerous
utilities (gas, steam, water, air). Note the utilities that receive ratings
higher than 1.
Rate the exposure of utilities that are vulnerable to lateral or vertical
shaking due to seismic or other extreme lateral loads; this includes
utility system supports, connections, and support equipment connected
to the structure or to the envelope. Note the utilities that receive
ratings higher than 1.
Rate the exposure of utilities that are vulnerable to large vertical static
deflections that might result from static overload. Note the utilities that
receive ratings higher than 1.
Rate the vulnerability of utilities where they penetrate the facility or are
attached to its envelope. Consider isolation of utility lines from the
building envelope where seismic shaking could sever the line(s).
Rate the redundancy of power and/or power back-up systems.
Rate the redundancy of HVAC system(s) if sustained environmental
conditions are critical to the facility’s function (or HVAC back-up for
regions in a facility where controlled environmental conditions are
critical: server rooms, communications rooms, etc.).
Rate the redundancy of communications and fire/safety systems.
1-4
1-4
2
2
1-2
LANDSLIDE
Q
UTILITIES PAGE 1 OF 1
WILDFIRE
INSPECTION
MONDAY, JULY 12, 2011
DATE
FLOOD/RAIN
- AFTER MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION -
SNOW
BLOUNT HOUSE
2/8/2013 15:10
ICE
FACILITY
Printed:
SEISMIC
UFRAS INSPECTION CHECKLIST
WIND/TORNADO
EAST CAROLINA
UNIVERSITY
RANGE
CAMPUS
2
2
2
2
2
1
1-4
1
1
1
1
1
1-4
1
1-4
1
1
1-4
3
3
1-4
1
1
1
1
1
1-4
1
2
1
1
1-4
3
3
3
3
1-4
3
3
1
1-4
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
Rate the potential for, or history of, adverse interactions of the utilities
with other facility components (envelope, structure, contents, site).
1-4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
Rate the general Exposure x Vulnerability composite score of the
“Utilities” after completing all other ratings of the “Utilities” inspection
checklist. Repairs (increased vulnerability) and retrofits (decreased
vulnerability) of utilities systems should be considered and noted in this
rating.
1-4
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
8-38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Question/Statement
Rate the evacuation routes in the facility (capacity of corridors and
stairwells, redundancy of routes, distance to nearest exit, etc.). Note
specific concerns.
Rate the exposure of facility occupants that typically occupy the space
within 10 ft of the facility envelope. Consider number of occupants and
the time spent near the facility envelope.
Rate the location, quantity, and combustibility of materials in the
facility. Note specific materials of concern.
Rate the quantity and level of toxicity of hazardous materials in the
facility; also consider how these materials are stored/contained. Note
toxicity and containment of the specific materials of concern.
Rate how effectively built-in nonstructural components are connected
to the structural back-up (or the building envelope); consider where
components are located up the height of the facility. Note the
components of concern.
Rate the stability/connections of other significant nonstructural
components; consider where components are located up the height of
the facility. Note the components that receive ratings higher than 1.
Rate the exposure of facility occupants to nonstructural components
that could cause physical harm (i.e. blunt trauma) should they fall or
topple. Note specific concerns.
Rate the exposure of facility occupants to utilities systems that could
cause physical harm (shock, asphyxiation, burns, etc.) should they
malfunction. Note specific concerns.
Rate the contents that are vulnerable to large vertical static deflections
that might result from static overload (i.e. heavy roof snow/ice/ponding
loads or floor overloads). Note the contents that receive ratings higher
than 1.
Rate the exposure of contents that are vulnerable to water damage
near water or steam lines. Consider value, importance, and quantity of
the contents in the rating. Note the contents that receive ratings higher
than 1.
Rate the exposure of contents that are vulnerable to water damage
near the facility’s envelope. Consider value, importance, and quantity of
the contents in the rating. Note the contents that receive ratings higher
than 1.
Rate the potential for or history of damage to facility contents or
adverse interactions of contents with other facility components (site,
envelope, structure, contents, and utilities).
Rate the general Exposure x Vulnerability composite score of the
“Contents” after completing all other ratings of the “Contents”
inspection checklist. Replacement/repairs (increased vulnerability) and
relocation/protecting (decreased vulnerability) contents.
1-4
2
2
2
2
1-4
1
1
1-2
1
1
1-4
1
1
LANDSLIDE
Q
CONTENTS PAGE 1 OF 1
WILDFIRE
INSPECTION
MONDAY, JULY 12, 2011
DATE
FLOOD/RAIN
- AFTER MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION -
SNOW
BLOUNT HOUSE
2/8/2013 15:10
ICE
FACILITY
Printed:
SEISMIC
UFRAS INSPECTION CHECKLIST
WIND/TORNADO
EAST CAROLINA
UNIVERSITY
RANGE
CAMPUS
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1-4
1
1
1-4
1
1
1-4
2
1
1-4
1
1
1-4
1
1-4
1
1
3
1
1-4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1-4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1-4
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
8-39
Table 8.2 Probability x Intensity
Investigated Probability
Normalizing Probability
Probability Ratio
Hazard Input Quantity (HIQ)
Intensity
Normalizing HIQ
Normalizing Intensity
Intensity Ratio
p x I Ratio
0.02 yr-1 0.0005 yr-1
0.02 yr-1 0.0011 yr-1
1.00
0.44
110 mph 200 mph
31.0 psf 102 psf
150 mph 250 mph
57.6 psf 160 psf
0.54
0.64
0.538
0.283
0.0004 yr-1 0.02 yr-1 0.02 yr-1
0.0004 yr-1 0.02 yr-1 0.02 yr-1
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.06 %g 0.75 in 10 psf
0.06 %g 3.6 psf 10 psf
1.00 %g 1.5 in 100 psf
1.00 %g 20 psf 100 psf
0.06
0.18
0.10
0.060
0.179
0.100
0.02 yr-1
0.02 yr-1
1.00
8.50 in/24hr
8.50 in/24hr
17.0 in/24hr
17.0 in/24hr
0.50
0.500
0.01 yr-1
0.01 yr-1
1.00
0.0 FIRM
0.0 FIRM
1.0 FIRM
1.0 FIRM
0.0
0.000
LANDSLIDE
WILDFIRE
FLOOD
DRIVING RAIN
SNOW
ICE
SEISMIC
TORNADO
PROBABILITY x INTENSITY
MATRIX:
WIND
Blount House
0.02 yr-1
0.02 yr-1
1.00
8.50 in/24hr
8.50 in/24hr
1.38 in/24hr
1.38 in/24hr
0.16
0.162
-
-
-
0.280
Sources:
Wind: Figure 6-1, pp. 32 and 33 from ASCE 7-05 (NOT to be confused with ASCE 5-07)
Tornado: investigated probability and normalizing probability come from Figure 2-2, p. 2-14 of FEMA 361
Tornado: remaining 4 come from Figure 3-1, p. 3-8 of FEMA 361.
Seismic: Figure 22-1 and 22-2 on pp. 210-213, depending on facility
Ice: Figure 10-2 on pp. 104 and 105 from ASCE 7-05
Snow: Figure 7-1, pp. 84 and 85 from ASCE 7-05
Driving rain: PDF map from NOAA website: ftp://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/pub/hdsc/data/orb/na14orbv3_nc50y24h.pdf
Flood: FIRM (Flood Insurance Rate Maps) or used county GIS flood maps, done on a county by county basis
Wildfire: used same map from driving rain
Landslide: Used seismic map and driving rain map and averaged the values
8-40
Table 8.3 Average Exposure Measure, As Inspected
WIND
TORNADO
SEISMIC
ICE
SNOW
DRIVING RAIN
FLOOD
WILDFIRE
LANDSLIDE
AVERAGE
Blount House
0.280
0.308
0.300
0.410
0.403
0.340
0.280
0.308
0.300
0.410
0.403
0.340
0.313
0.318
0.125
0.278
0.319
0.271
0.000
0.133
0.333
0.133
0.111
0.142
0.000
0.111
0.222
0.118
0.100
0.110
0.000
0.111
0.222
0.111
0.087
0.106
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.231
0.179
0.154
0.113
0.095
0.000
0.000
0.107
0.106
0.062
0.108
0.143
0.193
0.194
0.187
0.165
EXPOSURE MATRIX
AVERAGE (AI):
0.165
SITE
ENVELOPE
STRUCTURE
CONTENTS
UTILITIES
AVERAGE
Table 8.4 Average Vulnerability, As Inspected
WIND
TORNADO
SEISMIC
ICE
SNOW
DRIVING RAIN
FLOOD
WILDFIRE
LANDSLIDE
AVERAGE
Blount House
0.278
0.380
0.381
0.429
0.333
0.360
0.278
0.380
0.381
0.429
0.333
0.360
0.286
0.222
0.429
0.250
0.290
0.295
0.056
0.138
0.118
0.190
0.167
0.134
0.056
0.133
0.111
0.190
0.167
0.131
0.056
0.111
0.222
0.167
0.222
0.156
0.333
1.000
0.000
1.000
1.000
0.667
0.000
0.200
0.556
0.182
0.160
0.219
0.000
0.152
0.216
0.143
0.161
0.134
0.149
0.302
0.268
0.331
0.315
0.273
VULNERABILITY MATRIX
AVERAGE (AI):
0.273
SITE
ENVELOPE
STRUCTURE
CONTENTS
UTILITIES
AVERAGE
Table 8.5 Average Risk, As Inspected
SITE
ENVELOPE
STRUCTURE
CONTENTS
UTILITIES
AVERAGE
0.0419
0.0630
0.0615
0.0945
0.0723
0.0666
0.0221
0.0331
0.0324
0.0497
0.0380
0.0351
0.0055
0.0043
0.0033
0.0043
0.0057
0.0046
0.0001
0.0034
0.0071
0.0047
0.0034
0.0037
0.0001
0.0016
0.0026
0.0023
0.0018
0.0017
0.0001
0.0063
0.0248
0.0094
0.0098
0.0101
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0209
0.0054
0.0041
0.0061
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0044
0.0049
0.0019
AVERAGE
LANDSLIDE
WILDFIRE
FLOOD
DRIVING RAIN
SNOW
ICE
SEISMIC
0.01443
WIND
RISK MATRIX AVERAGE
(AI):
TORNADO
Blount House
0.0078
0.0124
0.0170
0.0194
0.0156
0.0144
8-41
Table 8.6 Average Exposure Measure, After Mitigation
WIND
TORNADO
SEISMIC
ICE
SNOW
DRIVING RAIN
FLOOD
WILDFIRE
LANDSLIDE
AVERAGE
Blount House
0.240
0.308
0.300
0.313
0.351
0.302
0.240
0.308
0.300
0.313
0.351
0.302
0.292
0.318
0.125
0.267
0.264
0.253
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.044
0.037
0.016
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.039
0.033
0.015
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.048
0.029
0.015
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.231
0.179
0.154
0.113
0.095
0.000
0.000
0.083
0.076
0.051
0.096
0.104
0.106
0.143
0.144
0.119
EXPOSURE MATRIX
AVERAGE (MM):
0.119
SITE
ENVELOPE
STRUCTURE
CONTENTS
UTILITIES
AVERAGE
Table 8.7 Average Vulnerability, After Mitigation
WIND
TORNADO
SEISMIC
ICE
SNOW
DRIVING RAIN
FLOOD
WILDFIRE
LANDSLIDE
AVERAGE
Blount House
0.167
0.340
0.333
0.238
0.292
0.274
0.167
0.340
0.333
0.238
0.292
0.274
0.048
0.194
0.381
0.214
0.258
0.219
0.056
0.069
0.000
0.143
0.111
0.076
0.056
0.067
0.000
0.143
0.111
0.075
0.056
0.056
0.000
0.125
0.167
0.081
0.333
1.000
0.000
1.000
1.000
0.667
0.000
0.200
0.333
0.136
0.120
0.158
0.000
0.091
0.162
0.107
0.129
0.098
0.098
0.262
0.171
0.261
0.275
0.213
VULNERABILITY MATRIX
AVERAGE (MM):
0.213
SITE
ENVELOPE
STRUCTURE
CONTENTS
UTILITIES
AVERAGE
Table 8.8 Average Risk, After Mitigation
SITE
ENVELOPE
STRUCTURE
CONTENTS
UTILITIES
AVERAGE
0.0216
0.0563
0.0539
0.0402
0.0551
0.0454
0.0114
0.0297
0.0283
0.0212
0.0290
0.0239
0.0009
0.0038
0.0030
0.0035
0.0042
0.0031
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0012
0.0008
0.0005
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0007
0.0005
0.0003
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0031
0.0025
0.0012
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0126
0.0041
0.0031
0.0040
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0026
0.0028
0.0011
AVERAGE
LANDSLIDE
WILDFIRE
FLOOD
DRIVING RAIN
SNOW
ICE
SEISMIC
0.00884
WIND
RISK MATRIX AVERAGE
(MM):
TORNADO
Blount House
0.0038
0.0100
0.0109
0.0085
0.0109
0.0088
8-42
PDM Planning Workshop
June 22-23, 2011
8-38
UNC System PDM Planning Workshop
June 22/23, 2011
Host University: UNC Charlotte
Wednesday – June 22 – Ben Craig Center, Mallard Creek Road, Charlotte
(approx. 3 miles from UNC Charlotte Campus)
12 Noon – Box lunches provided; informal, “rolling start” to the workshop
12:30pm – Welcome and overview of the workshop: Sherry Elmes, PDM Project
Planning Director, UNC Charlotte (UNCC)
Introduction of presenters: Edd Hauser, Director, Regional Center for Disaster
Studies, and PDM Workshop Moderator, UNC Charlotte (UNCC)
Self Introductions from workshop participants
1pm – Status report of the planning review process: Sherry Elmes, UNCC; Nick Burk and
Chris Crew, North Carolina Emergency Management (NCEM)
1:15pm – Guidelines and Hands-on Instruction for using the University Facilities
Importance Spreadsheet (UFIS): Brian Zapata, Zapata Engineering, Inc.
2:00pm – Guidelines and Hands-on Instruction for using the University Facilities Risk
Assessment Spreadsheet (UFRAS): Brian Zapata
2:45pm – Afternoon Break
3pm –3:30pm – Risk Management and Business Continuity; “How do the Functions
Merge?” – Sally Peterson and Josh Allen, UNCC
4:00pm – Mitigation Presentation Nick Burk, NCEM
5:00 pm - Adjourn and depart for Hilton University for check in
6:30-8pm – Dinner at the Hilton
8-39
Thursday – June 23 – Hilton Hotel, University City
8:30am: Continental breakfast
9:00am: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program review and guidelines for applications:
NCEM - Nick Burk and Chris Crew.
Campuses are asked to bring possible mitigation projects for review to determine
what qualifies for mitigation funding. (Break out session)
10:00 am: The overall PDM plan and its importance to each campus: Brent Herron,
Associate Vice President for Campus Safety and Emergency Operations, UNC General
Administration
10:30 am: Break
10:45-11:45am: Interactive Panel Discussion on Future Direction for PDM Planning on
the university campus, Moderator – Edd Hauser, UNCC
“Examples of Perspectives for Continuing the PDM Planning Process”.
Wayne Broome, Emergency Management Director, Mecklenburg County
Owen Cooks, Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities Management, Winston-Salem
State University
Phillip Powell, Director, Facilities Services, North Carolina Central University
Kevin Madsen, Emergency Manager and Asst. Director, Environmental Health and
Safety, UNC Wilmington
Seth Norris, Director, Emergency Plans and Operations, Appalachian State
University
Ron Campbell, Emergency Management Coordinator, UNC Chapel Hill
(All participants are asked to bring at least one issue or question that you have
about the PDM Planning program for your campus )
11:45 am Wrap up and final Q&A: Sherry Elmes
12:00pm: Box lunches to eat here or take on the road
8-40
June 24, 2011
Notes from June 22 – 23 Workshop with North Carolina Emergency Management Division
(NCEM), Mitigation Branch and UNC System Campus PDM Planners
Wednesday afternoon, June 22
Wednesday agenda largely focused on UFIS and UFRAS familiarization, plus Introduction to
FEMA Mitigation Grant program. Presentations are in attachments.
ATTACHMENT A - Overview, Edd Hauser/ Sherry Elmes
ATTACHMENT B – Brian Zapata workshop
ATTACHMENT C - Nick Burk PPT presentation
Thursday morning, June 23
1.
Chris Crew workshop:
Approval process on campuses – looking ahead to renewals within next two years, Campus PDM
plans will be an Annex to the County PDM plans for the county in which the campus is located;
must move ahead on orienting Vice Chancellor of Business Affairs (or similar function), who
must demonstrate (for the Chancellor) the process for applying for Mitigation grant funds and
certify to the (usually in-kind) 25 % match. It would be helpful for each campus to create a flow
chart showing the steps to getting a mitigation project approved for submission. (What
departments/ levels of administration on your campus have to review and sign off on the
project?)
Who’s the Owner? Who will be responsibility for updating the plan? (Only two or three
participant in the workshop knew of their responsibility. Others – not sure
Project - most intensive part is the BC Data, risk assessment; Categories of projects - most
campuses do NOT have flooding problem; various wind damage – tornados primarily, are
critical to be included; NCEM is available to visit campuses to review CBA.
Costs for a project are reimbursable so the campus must pay up front. Flood hazards are the #1
issue we see in NC; runoff and storm water. (Water quality is not a consideration).
Shaw University, after heavy damage from tornadoes on April 16 tornadoes, is being retro-fitted
with storm shutters on Campus EOC; Safe rooms should be considered, or at a minimum,
removing interiors of glass and strengthen interior walls; Tie-downs for roofing also included
“Code + “Shaw U. facilities with most damage are Student Center, Dining Hall, Dorm (9 story)
B/C Analysis – meet with facilities management and capital improvement units for data – must
have a positive BC Ratio
8-41
UNC Wilmington had projects for double roof on computer center, and window hardening with
mylar shield; need to detail surrounding building and tall trees, plus terrain, other infrastructure;
adjoining buildings
Hazard mitigation grant funding cannot be used for NEW buildings. Current building codes can
be upgraded to Code Plus with mitigation funding.
Public Assistance funds can be used for restoration projects but only back to original condition;
not mitigation upgrades. Need detailed scope of work and maintenance costs should be included.
Training – NCEM would like to hold a one-day workshop on preparing applications and BC
Analysis - did not have time to go in-depth this session;
Need to develop a ROM estimate for how much is needed to run an EOC on a typical campus;
typically this is the police headquarters but not always
Projects that have been considered early-on by various campuses:
Storm water project – e.g., sink hole at ASU resulting from pipe collapse; NCEM can
help, but need to differentiate between deferred maintenance and actual mitigation; two
approaches (1) does drainage damage buildings? Or (2) are drainage issues prohibiting access;
ASU considering increasing size and extent of current culvert system, vs. uncovering the
drainage into a channel;
Earthquake potential - NC west of I-77 is moderate risk; may need to consider hanging
ceilings, replace tiles, lights, etc.; funds for $150 K available NOW and is 100 Pct. Fed. Funds;
think about sensitive hardware like hospital EKG machines (vulnerable)
Hazard history is VERY important. Any damage should be documented as well as functional
down time. (Building operation costs can be determined by looking at the annual divided by 365
for the daily cost to determine the cost for the number of days down.)
Certain buildings such as police operations should be multiplied by 10 because of their critical
functioning to the campus. Part of the plan update should include the above considerations.
EOC program is available in NC at present - $30 M available nationwide; therefore expected to
be highly competitive; Homeland Security Office in NCEM will handle applications;
8-42
2.
Brent Herron presentation:
Creation of his office in 2007 resulted from recommendation of the President’s Safety Task
Force, following the VPI shooter disaster
His office handles four areas - Emergency Management, Police (Safety), Mental Health for
students, faculty, staff; physical security (preventive – e.g., PDM planning)
Over past four years, have conducted 34 exercises (in 2009/ 2010); 2,000 people involved, 150
agencies (thought to be the largest university program for campus safety in the country; have
investigated other incidents, and prepared after action reports that have been combined into
strengths and areas needing improvements
At present, Brent has monthly conference call designed specifically for Campus Police Chiefs;
UNC System has nine EM Coordinators; this group has monthly conference call with Brent;
Four campuses are in process of establishing new EM positions (making 13); four others (?)
(FOLLOW-UP: NCEM will be included in this monthly Safety and Security/ Emergency
Management conference calls)
Need to continue to evaluate Risks and Vulnerabilities (example of the strengthened side of the
Pentagon on 9/11 hit by the hijacked plane; anywhere else on the other four sides would have
been much heavier damage to the building, greater loss of life.
3.
Panel Presentation – Participants: Wayne Broome, Mecklenburg County
Emergency Management ; Kevin Madsen, UNC Wilmington; Seth Norris,
Appalachian State University; Owen Cooks, Winston Salem State University; Ron
Campbell, UNC Chapel Hill; Phillip Powell, NC Central University
Focus on full program/ full staff position on each campus going forward; MUST
EMPHASIZE that campus EM coordinator need to have close working relationship
with their county’s EMA Director; need to have high level discussions by all
campuses still developing their plans in order to avoid “push back” of the PDM
planning process by top administrators later on.
Wayne Broome

Economic impacts of closing down I-77 and I-85 as result of nuclear incident
from either Catawba Nuclear Station (on Lake Wylie) or McGuire Nuclear Station
(Lake Norman/ Mountain Island Lake) provided early start-up at county level

Understand protocol of your campus hierarchy.
8-43
Kevin Madsen

UNC – Wilmington : submitted plan for DRU (Disaster Resilient University) in
2000; it was approved in 2009; 2014 will be required to update (five year cycle)

Academic and Student affairs – have annual briefing for these and others,
including Chancellor’s Executive Cabinet

On-campus engagement with “marketing/ public affairs” office to solicit campus
input

Others important to be contacting - Faculty Senate; IT group; FCAP unit - have
useful backup data but no methodology for determining priorities; IT operations
and Facilities Management staff should be consulted and directly involved in all
FEMA Mitigation Grant

Building Coordinators/ “Superintendents” are the personnel most familiar with
building condition and work orders that may reveal underlying issues.
Seth Norris

ASU – Zone maintenance is used and is being used on many of the UNC
campuses. This allows facilities staff to become more familiar with the buildings
they see.

Emergency Management Task Force meets on a monthly basis and its members
represent every division of the university campus.

Should have annual updates of all plans. Facilities work orders should be
reviewed to determine what issues are most commonly seen.
Owen Cooks

Consider utilizing your Marketing and Communications Department.

Understand campus protocol.

Involve the Executive Cabinet and Faculty Senate.

Your IT group needs to be involved as well as off site support.

Facilities maintenance staff is most familiar with buildings and building
coordinators.
8-44
Ron Campbell

Chapel Hill – Need to think as a city or county; therefore politics are a major
issue. Become familiar with your campus politics.

AIM Facility Management software also useful

State Dept. of Insurance also has annual review; need to coordinate with EM
office/ PDM coordinator

Understand power behind Team/Train/Educate (TTE) in reviewing EOP and
PDM; keep all four phases of EM in process of improvement

Think outside the box; consider NIMS training

Meet at least annually but more often even monthly if needed with counterparts
from local city and county; conduct periodic fire drills and take the process
seriously; continuing communications is the key

All hazards plan? Cyber security; terrorist intervention (FEMA PDM projects
are restrictive to Natural Hazards, although some of the project categories could
apply to either (e. g., hardening buildings, back-up generators, etc.)

Archiving data - hard to track, but recognized as an issue that needs to be
addressed

Think ahead – be proactive rather than reactive and learn to think outside the box.
NIMS training and exercises are critical.
Phillip Powell

NCCU – FCAP is done every 3 years.

You may need to steer the FCAP inspection team when they come to your
campus.

Get to know your City/County Manager and Executive Assistants. (Most
campuses are located within a city and/or county jurisdiction and you should work
closely with the city government.)

Review work orders and preventive maintenance records to determine if recurrent
damage to buildings occurs as a result of weather events.

Involve design and construction office in plans.
8-45
4. General Discussion:
5.

NCEM has access to program called “Digital Sandbox” which can be applied
statewide to develop risk assessment for each county; need to involve universities

As result of this project, NCSSM has established new working relationship with
Durham County EMA

Updating plans - will need to start in 2012; use 18 to 24 months to update data,
priorities, etc.

Continue to work on consolidating the plans - revised plans – from 2012 going
forward - need to be pro-active in coordinating with Counties
Conclusions:
System plans cover all 17 campuses (UNC Med School not covered; ECU Med School is
included in current Eastern plan; a separate analysis and planning document is underway for Ag
and Vet Schools at NCSU and NC A&T
Approved and Adopted Plan is the only one that counts; you cannot play the game if you’re not
on the field
In the interim period, if disaster occurs and affects your campus, need to work with County
EMA; their plan covers the campus as well; Mitigation Grant for project work could be sent BY
COUNTY EMA on behalf of the campus
8-46
PDM Planning Workshop UNC Charlotte June 22-23, 2011
Name
Title
Phillip Powell
Emergency Management
Coordinator
Director Facilities Management
Tom Pohlman
Environmental Manager
Seth A. Norris
University/Agency
EMAIL
Phone
Appalachian State University
norrissa@appstate.edu
828-262-8081
NC Central University
ppowell@nccu.edu
919-530-7244
East Carolina University
pohlmant@ecu.edu
252-238-6166
East Carolina University
mulcahyk@ecu.edu
252-328-4991
Fayetteville State University
gtatum1@uncfsu.edu
910-916-0623
Louisa Thomas
Rick Hess
Assistant Professor Department
of Geography
Emergency Management
Coordinator
Environmental Health & Safety
Assistant Director of Security
NC A&T State University
NC School of Science & Math
lvthomas@ncat.edu
hess@ncssm.edu
336-334-7992
919-416-2910
Ed McBride
VC for Finance & Operations
NC School of Science & Math
mcbride@ncssm.edu
919-416-2659
Todd Becker
Emergency Manager
NC State University
todd_becker@ncsu.edu
919-515-2895
Katina Blue
Director, Business Continuity
NC State University
katina_blue@ncsu.edu
919-515-5201
Chris Miller
Safety Officer
UNC Asheville
cmiller@unca.edu
828-251-6038
Eric Boyce
Chief of Police
UNC Asheville
eboyce@unca.edu
828-251-6951
Ron Campbell
Emergency Management
Coordinator
UNC Chapel Hill
rcampbe@psafety.unc.edu
919-962-7145
Josh Allen
Business Continuity Analyst
UNC Charlotte
jalle131@uncc.edu
704-687-7884
Sally Peterson
Risk Management Analyst
UNC Charlotte
speterson@uncc.edu
704-687-5711
Brian Thomas
Sergeant of Accreditation &
Emergency Management Coord.
UNC Charlotte
bsthomas@uncc.edu
704-687-8455
Jeff Baker
Chief of Police
UNC Charlotte
jbaker88@uncc.edu
704-687-8457
UNC Greensboro
jason_marshburn@uncg.edu
336-256-8632
UNC Greensboro
rrdonels@uncg.edu
336-334-5963
Karen Mulcahy
George Tatum
Jason Marshburn
Rollin Donelson
Director of Emergency
Management
AVC for Safety & Emergency
Management
8-52
Kevin Madsen
Travis Bryant
Arthur Herns
Owen Cooks
Tammi Hudson
Emergency Management
Coordinator
AVC Campus Safety &
Emergency Operations
Environmental Health & Safety
AVC Facilities Management
Emergency Management
Coordinator
UNC Wilmington
madsenk@uncw.edu
910 962 7874
UNC Pembroke
travis.bryant@uncp.edu
910-775-4500
UNC Pembroke
Winston-Salem State University
arthur.herns@uncp.edu
cooksoj@wssu.edu
910-521-6792
336-750-2855
Western Carolina University
thudson@wcu.edu
828-227-3445
Brent Herron
Associate VP for Campus Safety
& Emergency Operations
UNC General Administration
bherron@northcarolina.edu
919-9624594
Sarah Smith
Director of Sponsored Programs
UNC General Administration
smsmith@northcarolina.edu
919-962-4557
Crystally Wright
Administrative Assistant
UNC General Administration
cwright@northcarolina.edu
919-962-4621
Chris Crew
State Hazard Mitigation Officer
jcrew@ncem.org
919-715-8000 Ext 277
Nicholas Burk
Hazard Mitigation Supervisor
nburk@ncem.org
919-715-8000 Ext 371
Edd Hauser
PDM Planning Project Director
UNC Charlotte
ehauser@uncc.edu
704-687-5953
Sherry Elmes
PDM Planning Project
Coordinator
UNC Charlotte
smelmes@uncc.edu
704-687-5952
David Martin
Graduate Assistant
UNC Charlotte
damartin@uncc.edu
704-687-5906
Brian Zapata
Consultant
Zapata, Inc.
bzapata@zapatainc.com
704-378-4917
Wayne Broome
Emergency Management
Director
Charlotte/Mecklenburg
Emergency Management Office
lbroome@ci.charlotte.nc.us
704-336-7616
Ramey Kemp
Consultant
Ramey Kemp & Associates
rkemp@rameykemp.com
919-872-5115
Jake Carpenter
Consultant
Ramey Kemp & Associates
jcarpenter@rameykemp.com
919-872-5115
William Fetter
Consultant
Ramey Kemp & Associates
wfetter@rameykemp.com
919-872-5115
North Carolina Emergency
Management
North Carolina Emergency
Management
8-53
PDM Planning Workshop
June 22-23, 2011
PowerPoint Presentations
8-49
UNC System PDM Workshop
June 22-23, 2011
UNC Charlotte
PDM Planning - Goals
• To institutionalize a continuing mitigation ethic and
incorporate hazard resilience principles into the
policy-making processes of The University of North
Carolina and its constituent institutions, in order to
reduce the impact of natural hazards and disasters.
• To develop a natural hazards mitigation plan that
meets planning criteria outlined in 44 CFR, Part 201.
• To develop a model PDM planning process for a
multi-campus university system
• To develop an innovative approach based on ASCE/
Building Security Council national standards
PDM Planning - Project Scope
• Three
year grants ( west 2008 to 2010,
east 2010 through 2012)
• Based on FEMA requirements
• Plan development assistance, collaboration,
support from NCEM
• System–wide planning process and Grant
Management Support from UNC-GA
• Establish resources needed to continue
planning process
PDM Planning – Tasks for Each Campus
• Involve
Senior Administrative Staff
• Involve County EMA Director
• Identify core group and oversight committee
• Identify multi-hazards that may occur
• Inventory physical assets and infrastructure
• Develop mitigation goals and objectives
• Assess importance of each building
• Estimate RISK for each “most important” infrastructure
• Select Mitigation Action Projects, with ROM budget
• Develop Implementation Strategy
• Obtain approvals (GA, NCEM, FEMA)
Today’s participants who are
involved in the system-wide project NCEM
UNC-GA
Char/Meck EMA
Zapata, Inc.
UNC Charlotte
SELF INTRODUCTIONS
Going Forward > > >
PDM Team for each campus –
should include county EMA
director; campus EM, business
continuity, capital planning,
facilities management, security
and emergency response, IT, and
other administrative offices
PDM Planning Workshop - Wednesday Agenda
• Introductions
• Status on Submitted PDM Plans
• Identifying Critical Infrastructure (UFIS)
• Assessing Risk for selected sample (UFRAS)
• Risk Management and Business Continuity
• Orientation to FEMAs Mitigation Process
Thursday agenda:
•Mitigation Grant Program
• Importance of Continuing PDM Planning
• Panel Discussion / Q&A
• Summary and Wrap-up
Performing Pre-Disaster Mitigation Assessments
Using UFIS and UFRAS
22 June 2011
Agenda
• Inspection process
• How UFIS and UFRAS help
• How to use UFIS
• Exercise
• How to use UFRAS
• Exercise
www.zapatainc.com
Inspection Process
• Assemble list of candidate critical facilities
• Input facilities and scoring criteria in UFIS
o Ranked list of facilities for inspection
• Perform site visit/inspection
o Building walk around / walk through
o UFRAS scoring
o Written report detailing findings and
recommendations
www.zapatainc.com
UFIS vs. UFRAS
• UFIS – University Facilities Importance Spreadsheet
o Intended to rank facilities according to relative
importance
o Extremely simple formulas
o 8 inputs per facility
o Helps build consensus among stakeholders
• UFRAS – University Facilities Risk Assessment Spreadsheet
o
o
o
o
Intended to rank facilities according to relative risk
Extremely intricate formulas
~ 250 inputs per facility
Demonstrates to funding agency that mitigation
dollars are being allocated effectively
www.zapatainc.com
UFIS
•
•
•
•
•
•
User’s Guide
Table 1-1 – Occupancy – ASCE 7
Facility List
Weights
Data Entry Form
Results
• Note: Macros MUST be enabled!
www.zapatainc.com
Choosing Occupancy
• Most buildings are Occupancy II
o Offices, warehouses
o Anything not a III or IV
• Occupancy III
o Classroom or residence halls that hold more than
500 people
• Occupancy IV
o Police, fire, 911 call center, critical telecom
www.zapatainc.com
Facility List
• Enter the list of facilities to be ranked in the
appropriate red-shaded column
• Can cut and paste into this sheet
• NCCHEF # can be any number, not required
for analysis
• Enter the following facilities and NCCHEF #
o
o
o
o
o
Sycamore Dorm #1
Atkins Library #2
Duke Centennial Hall #3
Public Safety Building #4
Cameron Hall #5
www.zapatainc.com
Weights
• Weights allow the user to give greater
significance to one or more ranking criteria
• Higher value for weight means a greater
significance
• Example – you are more concerned about
the value of the facility’s contents than its
historic value
• No restriction on the value other than it must
be greater than 0
• Recommended weight = 1.0 for all factors
www.zapatainc.com
Data Entry Form
• Will automatically populate from the Facility
List sheet
• Under each Facility Factor, assign a ranking
using the weights shown in the column
heading
• A higher weight means the facility is more
important with respect to the factor
• Name of user – handy if multiple people are
filling out UFIS together
• Comments – useful for explaining very
high/low ratings
www.zapatainc.com
Factors
• Occupancy – Get from Table 1-1
• Emergency Function – Is it critical in your
emergency plan?
• Facility Loss – High insured value of structure?
• Facility Contents – High insured value of contents?
• Business Continuity – is it critical to COOP?
• Interconnectivity – do multiple facilities rely on this
facility?
• Data/Animal – is there a vivarium or high value
research?
• Historical/Cultural – is there historic/cultural value?
www.zapatainc.com
Example Building Properties
• Sycamore – 600 beds, 15 stories, shelter in place
facility, largest dorm on campus
• Atkins Library – 12 stories, highest insured value on
contents and structure, primary data center/fiber
point of delivery
• Duke Centennial – Mech. Engr. Research and
classroom building, one of a kind equipment,
occupancy of 300 people
• Public Safety Building – Small one story structure
housing police dept, 911 call center, armory
• Cameron Hall – Civil engineering dept, office
building, occupancy of 250 people
www.zapatainc.com
Results
• Step 1 – Press “Get Data”
• Step 2 – Press “Sort Results”
• Sorted importance scorings presented
• If you want to make changes to your scoring
and then re-rank, press “Clear Results” button
www.zapatainc.com
Ranking Results
• Did the UFIS generated ranking match your
own prioritization?
www.zapatainc.com
Questions/Contact
Brian Zapata
6302 Fairview Road, Suite 600
Charlotte, NC 28210
(704) 358-8240 - Phone
(704) 358-8342 - Fax
(888) 529-7243
bzapata@zapatainc.com
http://www.zapatainc.com
www.zapatainc.com
UFRAS
University Facilities Risk Assessment Spreadsheet
22 June 2011
Agenda
• Outline UFRAS
o Develop a brief understanding of how to use UFRAS
o Develop an understanding of what to do with
output from UFRAS
• Go through each sheet of UFRAS
o Explain input/results
o Instruct users’ on how to input data
o Present a synopsis of the function of each sheet
www.zapatainc.com
UFRAS
• Objectively and consistently quantifies
a risk index for facilities via a matrix
www.zapatainc.com
UFRAS
• Facilitates quick and efficient
comparison of risk across facilities
• Conducts a hazard assessment and
vulnerability assessment
• Output highlights areas of weakness
• Reinforces the suggestion for mitigation
measures
www.zapatainc.com
Hazard Assessment
• Evaluates the probability and intensity of the 9
potential hazards that could affect a campus
• Data comes from reputable sources
o ASCE 7-05
o NOAA
o County flood maps
• Inputs are normalized relative to hazard
intensities across the continental United States
• Inputs are largely static for each campus
o Reference data unlikely to change; thus campuses
should not need to adjust these inputs for future use
www.zapatainc.com
Hazard Assessment
www.zapatainc.com
Vulnerability Assessment
• Conducted via site visits, discussion with
facility personnel, review of
drawings/documents
• Inspection checklist is completed while
conducting inspection
• 1-5 hours to complete, depending on
size/complexity of facility
• Facility conditions change over time, thus the
need to reevaluate facilities periodically
www.zapatainc.com
Inspection Checklist
• Divided into 5 sections—based on facility
components; it is the first 5 sheets in UFRAS
• 92 total questions/statements
• 910 permutations to produce final matrix
• Inspector assigns ratings (usually 1-4) for each
question/statement which are input for risk
calculation
• Unanswered questions/statements are
omitted from risk index calculation
www.zapatainc.com
Results
• 1 represents lowest risk
• 10 represents highest risk
• Matrix is normalized by campus
www.zapatainc.com
Results
www.zapatainc.com
Analysis
• Based on output from UFRAS:
o Highlights areas of weakness in facility components
relative to hazards
o Mitigation measures can be tailored for the weaker
areas in the facility
• Once mitigation measures are suggested
o Inspection checklist may be modified to reflect
lower vulnerability
− Second matrix is concurrently produced projecting
new lower risk
www.zapatainc.com
Overview of UFRAS sheets
• 11 Total sheets
5 sheets make up the inspection checklist
1 sheet makes up the hazard assessment
1 sheet concisely summarizes input data
1 sheet allows users to modify ratings to reflect
proposed mitigation measures
o 1 sheet produces normalized output
o 2 sheets produce raw output
o
o
o
o
www.zapatainc.com
Sheet 1: Site/General Checklist
• 31 questions/statements pertaining to:
o
o
o
o
General facility design parameters
Site geography
Vegetation
Site improvements
− Streets/roads
− Fencing
− Drainage infrastructure
o Utilities on site
o Storage tanks
o Secondary/support structures
www.zapatainc.com
Sheet 2: Envelope Checklist
• 19 Questions/statements pertaining to:
o Windows and doors
− Flashing
− Closing mechanisms
− Material
o Veneer
− Attachment, configuration, material
o Foundation plane/lowest level floor plane
o Building geometry
o Roof system
− Coping
− Drainage
www.zapatainc.com
Sheet 3: Structure Checklist
• 15 Questions/statements pertaining to:
o Geometry of structure (plan and elevation)
o Design loads
o Structural system
− Redundancies
− Hybrid
− Design era
o Connections
o Foundation
o Construction type/materials
www.zapatainc.com
Sheet 4: Utilities Checklist
• 14 Questions/statements pertaining to:
o All utility systems within the facility
− Telecommunications
− Power
− Gas
− Water (potable, wastewater, roof drain lines)
− Fire safety systems
− Computing systems
− Building controls
− Security systems
www.zapatainc.com
Sheet 5: Contents Checklist
• 13 Questions/statements pertaining to:
Occupants
Corridors, stairwells, exit routes
Furniture
Interior (non-structural) partition walls, flooring,
doors, windows
o Specialized equipment
o Light fixtures
o Elevators
o
o
o
o
www.zapatainc.com
Sheet 6: PI Input Values
www.zapatainc.com
Sheet 7: Final Output
• Presents normalized risk index matrices
o First set presents normalized relative to facility
− As Inspected (AI) Matrix
− Mitigation Measures (MM) Matrix—calculates new risk
index with updated inputs that assume suggested
mitigation measures are implemented
o Second set presents normalized relative to campus
− AI Matrix
− MM Matrix
o Third set presents normalized relative to sample
space
− AI Matrix
− MM Matrix
www.zapatainc.com
Sheet 8: Summary of EV Inputs
• Lists all 92 questions/statements with
respective ratings in one place for ease of
reference
o 4 page printout
o For review only; no modifications can/need to be
made
www.zapatainc.com
Sheet 9: Insert Updated EV
Values
• Identical layout to Sheet 8
o Modify ratings in this sheet to reflect the lower
vulnerability based on suggested mitigation
measures
o Anytime a rating is modified, an (*) appears to the
right of the updated rating
o This input is used to produce the “MM” matrix
www.zapatainc.com
Sheet 10: Output Printout (AI)
• Displays the raw output from the input ratings
o
o
o
o
Contents of this sheet have minimal applicable use
Summarizes the hazard information
Presents an exposure and vulnerability matrix
Presents a raw risk index matrix
− Range 0-1 where 0 is lowest risk; 1 is highest risk
o All of which is used to produce normalized risk index
matrices
• Error message at the bottom of sheet is only
item needed from this sheet
o Error count tallies the number of times a rating
outside range limits is input in sheets 1-5
www.zapatainc.com
Sheet 11: Output Printout (MM)
• Identical in layout and function to Sheet 10
o Uses data from Sheet 9 (Updated EV Inputs) to
produce a risk index matrix reflecting lower risk
(assuming mitigation measures are implemented)
o This data is used to produce the “MM” set of
matrices
• Error message at the bottom of sheet is only
item needed from this sheet
o Error count tallies the number of times a rating
outside range limits is input in Sheet 9
www.zapatainc.com
Normalization
• Cell F54 controls campus normalization
o Set this cell equal to the maximum value within the
campus set of raw risk index matrices
− Can be done with a master spreadsheet that links to
other facilities on campus
• Cell F55 controls sample space normalization
o Set this cell equal to the maximum value within the
sample space of raw risk index matrices
− If the sample space is the campus, use the same
value that was used in F54
www.zapatainc.com
Results
• Output can be combined with UFIS results
o Composite of objective importance and risk scores
• Output can be combined with any measure
of facility value/importance
o Facilitates a better understanding of the results
− Incorporates a loss measure
− Combines risk and importance into one result
• Must use raw risk scores
o Raw risk scores present the most accurate result
o Normalized risk scores do not have enough
resolution to provide clear delineation of results
www.zapatainc.com
Exercise
• Facility “A” has a raw risk score of 0.020
o Insured value of $4.8 million
o UFIS score of 0.680
• Facility “B” has a raw risk score of 0.045
o Insured value of $3.5 million
o UFIS score of 0.580
• Which facility should take priority in receiving
mitigation measures?
www.zapatainc.com
Exercise
• Facility “A”
o 0.020 x $4.8 million = $0.096 million
o 0.020 x 0.680 = .0136
• Facility “B”
o 0.045 x $3.5 million = $0.158 million
o 0.045 x 0.580 = 0.0261
(Insured value)
(UFIS results)
(Insured value)
(UFIS results)
• Facility “B” takes priority for mitigation measures
based on composite score
www.zapatainc.com
Questions/Contact
Brian Zapata
6302 Fairview Road, Suite 600
Charlotte, NC 28210
(704) 358-8240 - Phone
(704) 358-8342 - Fax
(888) 529-7243
bzapata@zapatainc.com
http://www.zapatainc.com
www.zapatainc.com
Slide 1
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
Recovery Section- Hazard Mitigation
State of North Carolina
Hazard Mitigation Branch
Grants Management:
Overview, Trends, and Goals
PDM Planning Workshop
June 22, 2011
This presentation was originally presented by Nick Burk, Hazard Mitigation Supervisor, North Carolina
Emergency Management.
Slide 2
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
Recovery Section- Hazard Mitigation
Mitigation Activities
•
•
•
•
•
Planning
Acquisition/Demolition
Structure Elevation
Storm Water Management
Wind Retrofit Projects
These are the 5 predominant project types funded in NC Hazard Mitigation.
8-106
Slide 3
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
Recovery Section- Hazard Mitigation
Acquisition & Demolition
Requires structures to be removed from acquired property
•Property must be maintained forever as open space
•The most permanent type of mitigation
To date NCEM has acquired approx. 7,000 parcels in the flood plains of NC since 1996. Still a solid
mitigation option but in some areas, they have acquired the lion’s share of properties that are cost
effective and eligible.
We help manage the funding from FEMA for communities to acquire and demolish structures on
property in flood prone areas. There is a deed restriction that requires the property to be maintained
as open space in perpetuity. In some cases it’s been possible to use this land to build as a baseball
field or park. It must remain an permeable surface.
Slide 4
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
Recovery Section- Hazard Mitigation
Structure Elevation
Elevation - raising a structure above Base Flood
Elevation plus 1 ft freeboard
• One of the most common mitigation techniques used
for retrofitting flood-prone properties.
Many houses on the coast can be elevated to mitigate flooding issues. This is less expensive and
less disruptive to the community/homeowner than acquisition/demolition.
8-107
To date , NCEM has elevated approx 7,000 structures since 1996. Still very solid mitigation option
but in some communities, we have elevated the vast majority of cost effective properties.
Slide 5
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
Recovery Section- Hazard Mitigation
Stormwater Management
Improvements to drainage systems
Storm water Management is an increasingly lucrative mitigation option. It requires intensive
hydrology, environmental and cost effectiveness work prior to application submission.
An Engineering Study has to demonstrate the project is cost effective, thus a FEMA model BenefitCost Analysis is needed. This is an example of a storm water retention pond in the town of River
Bend near New Bern, NC.
Cannot be part of a larger project.
Slide 6
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
Recovery Section- Hazard Mitigation
Wind Retrofit Projects
Includes storm shutters, safe rooms, roof tie-downs,
and other projects to strengthen building envelopes
8-108
Wind Retrofit projects gained prominence during April 2011 tornadoes. Emerging project type.
NCEM provided storm shutters to EOCs in Brunswick Co. and Sunset Beach with 2008 TS Hanna
funding.
Slide 7
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
Recovery Section- Hazard Mitigation
In a Campus Context
UNC-Wilmington DRU Project: Shatter-Resistant Glass
Window Retrofit
UNC Wilmington’s 2004 project provided significant wind protection to several facilities on campus.
Potential projects include shatter-resistant glass, strengthening building envelopes, and structural tie
downs for seismic risk. College campuses are a prime potential customer for Hazard Mitigation in the
coming years.
Slide 8
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
Recovery Section- Hazard Mitigation
Funding Streams
Disaster
Non-Disaster
8-109
Disasters have associated mitigation funding with them (HMGP). Each year, 4 non-disaster funding
streams are also available. PDM is very competitive nationally but has broad potential project types –
i.e.; floods and fires. FMA,SRL, and RFC are flood-insurance based programs and target acquisition
and elevation primarily.
Slide 9
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
Recovery Section- Hazard Mitigation
Grant Programs
HMGP Presidential Declared Disaster*
Federal Share
NonFederal
Share
* State Traditionally Pays 25% Non-Federal Share
75%
25%
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM)**
75%
25%
Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA)**
90/75%
10/25%
Repetitive Flood Loss Program (RFC) **
100%
0%
Severe Repetitive Loss Program (SRL) **
90%
10%
** Community or Homeowner Pays Non-Federal Share
Funding stream cost shares. Most programs have 25% cost share associated with it. Traditionally, in
disasters, the State of NC picks up the 25% non-federal match of HMGP.
RFC—prove that you cannot provide the match.
Slide 10
8-110
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
Recovery Section- Hazard Mitigation
Benefit Cost Analysis in a Nutshell:
For every dollar of funds spent, at least
a dollar of “benefits” must be achieved.
BCA in a Nutshell. BCA is a requirement of mitigation. Project must have dollar benefits greater than
the cost.
Slide 11
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
Recovery Section- Hazard Mitigation
How this is calculated:
• Project budget = Costs
• “Potential Future Damages Avoided” = Benefits*
• Benefits/Costs = Ratio
if >1 the project is Cost Effective
“Potential Future Damages Avoided” Benefits/Project costs = ratio that must be greater than 1.0.
Slide 12
8-111
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
Recovery Section- Hazard Mitigation
The BCA Funnel
BCA
Cost Effective Projects
Only 20-25% of potential projects end up being cost effective.
Slide 13
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
Recovery Section- Hazard Mitigation
Inside the BCA Funnel
Local EM
Planning
Floodplain Admin
Engineering
Data
NCEM
Hazard
Mitigation
BCA Result
Analysis, Data Collection, and Analysis is executed and facilitated by NCEM sub-grantees and
stakeholders.
Slide 14
8-112
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
Recovery Section- Hazard Mitigation
NCEM HM Branch
Grants Management Trends
Slide 15
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
Recovery Section- Hazard Mitigation
Closing Old Business
•
Programmatically Closed all Disasters from Floyd to Ophelia
•
“Administratively Closing” all disasters from Floyd to Ophelia
•
Financial reconciliation with program, fiscal, and federal staff
•
End Result: Legacy Disasters “Coming Off the Books”
•115 Projects Programmatically Closed (2009 surge year)
NCEM HM Staff have programmatically closed 115 projects from Floyd to Ophelia.
8-113
Slide 16
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
Recovery Section- Hazard Mitigation
Managing Surge
•
In addition to editing, writing, and managing current grants:
•In 2009, Grants Staff programmatically closed a large percentage of
legacy Floyd-Ophelia grants and provided closeout deliverables
•In 2010, Grants Staff helped to review a surge of approximately
100 Hazard Mitigation Plans submitted in the last year of the update
cycle
•JFO Operations and Recovery Augmentation Operations for DR-1871
(2009), DR-1942 - TS Nicole (2010), and DR-1969 - Severe
Weather/Tornado event (2011). 1 staff member dedicated to 406
Mitigation.
NCEM HM Staff have also reviewed 100 HM Plans and participated in Recovery Operations for
recent disasters including 2008’s Tropical Storm Hanna; 2009’s Severe Winter Storm; 2010’s Tropical
Storm Nicole; and 2011’s Severe Tornadoes.
Slide 17
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
Recovery Section- Hazard Mitigation
Fully Transitioning to the
“Smaller Disaster/Non Disaster Model”
•
HM currently managing four disaster funding streams…
•TS Hanna – DR-1801 ~$1.1M
•2009 Ice Storm – DR-1871 ~2.8M (Grants still being written)
•TS Nicole – DR-1942 ~.9 M (Grants still being written)
•2011 Tornadoes – DR-1969 ~3M (Grant writing to begin)
 4 Disasters = $7.8 M
Unlike years past, when large-scale disasters used to dominate funding, four funding streams
currently comprise approx 8M in disaster funding for HMGP in NC.
8-114
Slide 18
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
Recovery Section- Hazard Mitigation
Fully Transitioning to the
“Smaller Disaster-Non Disaster Model”
• HM currently managing six non-disaster funding streams…across
Fiscal Years dating back to FY08
•PDM
•L-PDM
•FMA
•SRL
•RFC
•Earthquake Consortia
 6 Non-Disaster Funding Streams = $35.8 M
By contrast, we are managing approx 36M in non-disaster funds-over 4x more non disaster funds
than disaster funds right now. This is a dramatically different model.
Slide 19
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
Recovery Section- Hazard Mitigation
Increasing Complexity
HM Branch Currently Managing:
•51 Grants
•$36.9M in Funding
•% of Staff FTE Allocated Across 15 disaster/non-disaster grant
streams
•Funding streams all have different grant life cycles
8-115
NCEM is currently managing 51 grants for approx $37M in funding. Staff time is divided up among
15 potential smaller funding streams. These streams change frequently based on new awards and
grant closures.
Slide 20
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
Recovery Section- Hazard Mitigation
Increasing Complexity
HM Branch Currently Writing:
•Applied for $8.4M in new non-disaster funding last year
•Deadlines for DR-1871 and DR-1942 will occur this summer
•Deadlines for DR-1969 can occur as early as October
•Anticipate applying for ~$8-10M in non-disaster funding in FY12
•Grant Applications need Approved Hazard Mitigation Plans
HM Branch is currently writing grants for 3 smaller –scale (funding-wise) disasters and 4 non-disaster
programs. All will be due by Thanksgiving.
Slide 21
8-116
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
Recovery Section- Hazard Mitigation
Coordinating Milestones
These disaster and non-disaster timelines involve intense management of interim milestones. (Note –
we have turned in our August 2 grants already!!)
Slide 22
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
Recovery Section- Hazard Mitigation
Ongoing Grants Management Goals for 2011
• Deliver outstanding customer service to Subgrantees in disaster
and non-disaster settings
• Develop relationships to broaden our non-traditional customer base
• Diversify our applicant pool and project types
• Execute fundamentals well
• Manage the process and de-conflict dependencies
• Prepare for the unexpected – anticipate a Continuity presence
NCEM Goals:
1) Outstanding customer service; 2) new customers; 3) new project types; 4) executing grant
fundamentals well and consistently; 5) managing processes and de-conflicting dependencies; 6)
anticipate a continuity presence ahead of hurricane season
Slide 23
8-117
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
Recovery Section- Hazard Mitigation
Questions?
Nicholas M. Burk
Hazard Mitigation Supervisor
North Carolina Emergency Management
1830 Tillery Place
Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: 919-715-8000 x371
Fax: 919-715-9763
8-118
PDM Planning Workshop
April 25-26, 2012
8-119
UNC System PDM Planning Workshop
Agenda
April 25/26, 2012
Host University: UNC Charlotte
Wednesday – April 25– Center City Building UNC Charlotte, Uptown Charlotte
(UNC Charlotte Center City Building, 320 E. 9th Street, Charlotte, NC 28202)
12 Noon – Room 902 - Box lunches provided; informal, “rolling start” to the workshop
12:30pm – Room 904 - Welcome and overview of the workshop: Sherry Elmes, PDM
Project Planning Director, UNC Charlotte (UNCC)
Self Introductions from workshop participants
1pm – Status report of the planning review process: Sherry Elmes, UNCC; Nick Burk,
Chris Crew, and Callion Maddox, North Carolina Emergency Management (NCEM)
1:15pm – Review for using the University Facilities Importance Spreadsheet (UFIS) and
the University Facilities Risk Assessment Spreadsheet (UFRAS): Brian Zapata, Zapata,
Inc. and Edd Hauser, UNCC
1:45pm – Mitigation Presentation – Nick Burk, NCEM; Summary report on Grant
Development Workshop offered by GTC in Arlington, Tom Pohlman, ECU
2:30pm – Afternoon break
2:50pm – Hazard Mitigation Grant Program review and guidelines for applications:
NCEM - Nick Burk, Chris Crew, and Callion Maddox (Break out session)
Campuses are asked to bring possible mitigation projects for review to determine if they
qualify for mitigation grants and the process necessary for submission.
4:30pm - Adjourn and depart for Holiday Inn Center City for check in
6:30-8pm – Dinner at the Holiday Inn Center City
8-120
Thursday – April 26 – UNC Charlotte Center City Building
8:30am: Room 902 - Continental breakfast
9:00am: Room 904 – Break out team reports (results of Wednesday afternoon session)
10:00 am: Safety and Security Issues: Brent Herron, Associate Vice President for Campus
Safety and Emergency Operations, UNC General Administration
10:30 am: Break
10:45-11:45am: Comparisons of Campus PDM Planning and County All Hazards Plans
(How we can work together for better results) – Moderator: Seth Norris, Appalachian
State
Rickey Freeman, Emergency Management Director-Elizabeth City State University
David Weldon, Emergency Management Director-UNC Asheville
Timothy Johnson, Emergency Management Coordinator-NC A&T University
Warren Lee, Emergency Management Director-New Hanover County
Wayne Broome, Emergency Management Director-Mecklenburg County
Jerry Vehaun, Emergency Management Director-Buncombe County
11:45 am Wrap up and final Q&A: Sherry Elmes
12:00pm: Box lunches to eat here or take on the road
HAVE A SAFE TRIP HOME!
8-121
UNC System Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Planning Workshop
Workshop Proceedings
April 25-26, 2012
Rooms 902 and 904, UNC Charlotte Center City Building
Agenda for Day 1 (April 25 session):
1. Status Report on the Planning Review Process – presented by Nicholas Burk
(Hazard Mitigation Supervisor) and Chris Crew (State Hazard Mitigation Officer)
of the NC Emergency Management (NCEM)
2. Review and Presentation of the University Facilities Importance Spreadsheet (UFIS)
and the University Facilities Risk Assessment Spreadsheet (UFRAS) – presented by
Brian Zapata of Zapata, Inc. and Edd Hauser of UNCC
3. Report on Grant Development Workshop – presented by Tom Pohlman
4. Hazard Mitigation Presentation – presented by Ryan Wiedenman (Hazard
Mitigation Planner) and Nicholas Burk (Hazard Mitigation Supervisor) from
NCEM
5. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Review and Guidelines for Applications – with
NCEM
6. Workshop Question and Answers
Introduction

Dr. Edd Hauser and Ms. Sherry Elmes from the Center for Transportation Policy
Studies – UNC Charlotte, welcomed the participants from UNC western and eastern
campuses, emergency management officials from NC Emergency Management and
county officials to the two-day workshop session on the pre-disaster mitigation project
funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Ms. Elmes provided an overview of the sessions in the two-day workshop. Participants
are asked to provide brief introduction of their positions and roles in emergency
management in their respective organizations.
Status Report on the Planning Review Process

Mr. Nicholas Burk, Hazard Mitigation Supervisor at NCEM, provided a presentation
of the status and progress report of the mitigation actions and projects that are
currently in place for North Carolina. He also presented information on the possible
FEMA funding streams for disaster and non-disaster related projects. The Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program provides funding for disaster-related projects. For nondisaster related projects, clients can tap into available funding for pre-disaster
mitigation projects, repetitive flood programs, severe repetitive loss, flood mitigation
assistance and the severe repetitive loss program.
8-122

Mr. Chris Crew, State Hazard Mitigation Officer from NCEM, provided information
on some discussions with FEMA concerning the pre-disaster (PDM) program. FEMA
has taken the position that there may be other programs that need the money allocated
for the PDM program. FEMA may recommend scrapping the PDM program to divert
funding for other programs in the budget. Mr. Crew suggested to those in attendance
that they should inform all contacts and local elected officials about the importance of
the pre-disaster mitigation program and to enjoin them to participate in the discussions
related to the its budget in future budget discussions.

NCEM will continue to help and provide support to UNC universities in finding
projects that meet the requirements set by FEMA for mitigation grant funding.
Review and Presentation of the University Facilities Importance Spreadsheet (UFIS) and
the University Facilities Risk Assessment Spreadsheet (UFRAS)

Dr. Brian Zapata, Consultant from Zapata, Inc., presented the user’s guide to the
University Facilities Importance Spreadsheet (UFIS) and the University Facilities Risk
Assessment Spreadsheet (UFRAS). Both spreadsheets were used in the assessment of
ten (10) selected buildings in the western UNC campuses in the first phase of the PDM
planning project funded by FEMA. These spreadsheets are also being used in the
eastern UNC campus plans currently under development.

The UFIS presentation gave the participants an overview of the spreadsheet and
provided a step-by-step guide to filling out the forms and ranking the buildings in the
spreadsheet based on facility factors. The facility factors include measurements on the
following categories: Facility Occupancy, Emergency Function, Facility Loss, Facility
Contents, Business Continuity, Interconnectivity/Dependency, Data/Animal Factor
(DAF), and Historic/Cultural Value. A facility importance rating is computed based on
the rankings from these factors. A user’s guide to the UFIS is provided as a handout to
all participants in the workshop.

For the UFRAS presentation, the hazard assessment matrix is presented with risks
associated with each building as of date of the on-site inspection. An inspection checklist
is also available in the workshop folder provided to participants. Another risk matrix is
also presented after all mitigation measures are implemented. Both matrices will
contribute to the calculation of the overall average risk rating.

Dr. Hauser noted that a one-page summary document is provided in the campus folder,
which contains all related information on the campus building assessments including
the building history and building certifications. This summary document can be
submitted to the university Chancellors to aid in decision-making and discussions
related to the PDM project.
Report on Grant Development Workshop
8-123

Mr. Tom Pohlman, Environmental Health and Safety Manager at the East Carolina
University, shared his experience with attending a Grant Development Workshop at the
Grants Training Center in Arlington, Virginia. He also distributed a grant writing
handout which contains tips on writing a grant proposal, specifically on the hazard
mitigation grant process.

For additional tools on the grant writing process, Mr. Pohlman suggested that
participants visit the Grant Training Center website at
http://granttrainingcenter.com/workshops_list.
Hazard Mitigation Presentation

Mr. Ryan Wiedenman, Hazard Mitigation Planner from the NCEM, presented the
process involved in University Hazard Mitigation Planning. The University plans
describe the facilities for evaluation and assess risks and vulnerabilities in each building
facility. The plan also identifies specifications that can address risks and vulnerabilities.

The hazard mitigation planning process compels university officials to think about
possible risks that can affect the university community and address these issues to
mitigate hazards and disaster effects. Mr. Wiedenman also presented different
components of the university plans and how NCEM reviews these plans.

The NCEM is willing to review and help universities in hazard mitigation planning of
projects that are eligible for funding under the pre-disaster mitigation program.
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Review and Guidelines for Applications

Mr. Nicholas Burk, Hazard Mitigation Supervisor from NCEM, presented suggestions
on how to pitch mitigation projects to funding organizations. Mr. Burk distributed a
sample document from a proposed hazard mitigation grant program application that
describes the scope of work summary, methodology, line item budget, project timeline
and tasks, and alternative actions. This sample document serves as a guide for writing
proposed projects that NCEM can review prior to proposal submission.

A demonstration on how to compute benefits and costs for proposed project was
conducted with Mr. Seth Norris, Emergency Management Coordinator from
Appalachian State University. The benefits include items that can show potential future
savings on damages that can be avoided, while the costs will include all project-related
costs, including materials, labor costs, and how long materials used for hazard
mitigation will last.

An example of materials with a low cost that can be used for hazard mitigation is the
purchase of Velcro fasteners and straps for securing equipment and shelf items in the
event of a possible earthquake. This simple mitigation measure could prevent damage
to equipment that would otherwise fall during a seismic event. The benefits and costs of
8-124
these mitigation materials must also take into account the costs of equipment that is
protected, recurrence interval and functional downtime.

Important items that need to be communicated with funding organizations in writing
include answers to key project questions: who, what, why, where and how this proposed
project is a good mitigation project for funding.

Dr. Hauser also noted that for coming up for proposed mitigation projects, campus can
collaborate with other campuses that have the same goals. The best ally for achieving
positive results in the pitching of mitigation projects are relationships that are formed
within the network of emergency management officers. NCEM is willing to review all
proposed projects that may be possibly eligible under the Unified Hazard Mitigation
Assistance Program and can also provide technical assistance on projects being
submitted under other funding streams.
Workshop Question and Answers

Ms. Elmes moderated the workshop session and opened the floor for discussion and
questions from participants to NCEM and other resource speakers. She asked
participants to think about possible mitigation projects that universities can propose for
funding under the hazard mitigation program. The following issues were addressed by
NCEM resource speakers:
o Difference between projects geared toward maintenance versus mitigation –
Project components should explicitly state which items and materials will be
used specifically for maintenance or for mitigation purposes. Mitigation
measures are not the same as maintenance measures.
o Flooding projects – For projects that aim to mitigate flooding impacts, three
flooding incidents must be documented to be able to qualify for funding. The
exact dates of conditions, events and the duration of power loss must also be
recorded to justify funding of proposed projects.
o Retrofitting of Emergency Operations Centers – Retrofit projects to replace or
add equipments in emergency operation centers may or may not be provided
with funding from the hazard mitigation program. The details of this type of
project proposal need to be indicated in the application and NCEM is willing to
review the proposal if the proposal is eligible for funding.
o Portable power generation – For grant application projects that request portable
power generation, details must be presented. Most of the time, FEMA does not
approve projects that focus on portable power generation. FEMA prefers
projects that involve permanent power generation. NCEM can help evaluate the
benefits and costs of these types of projects.
8-125
o Flooding in areas within the floodplain – Events of flooding incidents need to be
documented. The project proposal must show that flooding incidents occurred
three times. NCEM can help evaluate these project proposals if eligible for
hazard mitigation funding. Mr. Chris Crew of NCEM mentioned the use of a
spreadsheet that record events under the state mitigation plan. Universities can
take advantage of this spreadsheet to record hazard or disaster events.
o Multi-use buildings – FEMA does not encourage construction of multi-use
buildings. If the buildings to be constructed will be designed as a tornado shelter,
for example, then the building should only be used as a tornado shelter and not
for any other purposes.
o Emergency communications speakers on campuses – Campus emergency
notification projects fall under the 5% category than can be funded under the
hazard mitigation program. This type of project can be included in the
“education and outreach” line item of the budget.
o Cost benefit analysis requirement – There are projects that do not require cost
and benefit analysis in the hazard mitigation planning program. Projects that
have small costs (from $5,000) may not need to have cost and benefit analysis in
their proposal.
o Storm water floods between Residence Halls and Administration Building – In a
situation where floods happen between residence halls and administration
building, projects that will address this issue may be funded under the hazard
mitigation program. Details must be provided in the project proposal.
o Repair and renovation projects – There is a repair and renovation budget deficit
in the UNC budget. Extra funds for repair and renovation were used for
hurricane relief. NCEM noted that repair and renovation is not their business.
However, if the building was damaged based on a hazard that was declared by
the President as a national disaster, projects can be funded under the hazard
mitigation program.
o Timeline to Write Grant Proposals – The typical timeframe to write and develop
a grant proposal usually takes one year.
o Strategic Planning for Shovel-Ready Projects – The purpose of having a
strategic plan is to be able to identify shovel ready projects that can be funded as
funds become available. University officials must be able to identify which
projects are priorities and which projects have critical needs.
o Benefit of FEMA-approved projects – The benefit of having FEMA approval for
project proposal is having access and eligibility to FEMA program funds. The
hazard mitigation program aims to support projects that reduce risks and
impacts from hazards and disasters.
8-126

Ms. Elmes noted that the pre-disaster mitigation planning project also provides the
universities with tools that they can use to rate their own facilities. By using the UFIS
and UFRAS, universities are able to rank all the other buildings and facilities within the
campuses aside from the initial ten buildings that were evaluate under the PDM
project.
The workshop session for Day 1 was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. A dinner reception is
scheduled for participants at 6:30 p.m. at the Holiday Inn Center City, Charlotte, NC.
Agenda for Day 2 (April 26 session):
1. Presentation on Climate Change – presented by Chris Crew, NCEM
2. Safety and Security Issues – presented by Brent Herron, Associate Vice President
for Campus Safety and Emergency Operations, UNC General Administration
3. Panel Discussion: Comparisons of Campus PDM Planning and County All Hazards
Plans – moderated by Seth Norris, Emergency Management Coordinator,
Appalachian State University
4. Next Steps
Introduction

Dr. Hauser and Ms. Elmes welcomed the participants for the second day session of the
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Workshop. Ms. Elmes invited the participants to provide
suggestions and ideas based on the workshop discussions from the previous session.

Ms. Katina Blue, Director of Business Continuity at the North Carolina State
University described a proposed a web-based spreadsheet that can be used for
insurance and risk management. In addition to this proposal, Ms. Blue also suggested
that aside from environmental management officers and staff, the deans, registrars,
faculty and sponsored research staff should also be included in the discussion on
building risk assessments.

Mr. Timothy Johnson, Emergency Management Coordinator from the North Carolina
A&T State University suggested that the design of the hazard assessment form should
consider maintenance issues for the long-term.
Presentation on Climate Change

Mr. Chris Crew, State Hazard Mitigation Officer from NCEM, provided a brief
presentation on NC’s changing climate. This presentation was previously delivered at
the NCEMA Spring Conference on March 12, 2012.
8-127

Global temperatures are rising and this condition leads to a number of threats to the
North Carolina weather and climate for the next thirty to fifty years. Threats to NC
weather and climate include rising sea levels, heavy precipitation, increased tropical
cyclone intensity, more droughts and worse heat waves.

Projections and analysis of NC weather and climate yield that hurricanes return over
the period of five to seven years. Temperatures in NC are expected to reach peak levels
for 120 days per year during the years 2080 to 2099. These weather and climate changes
will affect the NC community for the next few years. The following website provides
more information on climate change, and how it affects the NC community:
http://www.climatechange.nc.gov

Mr. Crew also noted the importance of strategic planning and how understanding,
planning and managing helps address issues that are identified during assessment. On a
national climate assessment level, global climate change impacts in North Carolina are
significant given the state’s geographical location. These issues related to climate needs
to be addressed in the university’s strategic planning.
Safety and Security Issues

Mr. Brent Herron, Associate Vice President for Campus Safety and Operations, from
the UNC General Administration provided a presentation on the status of safety and
security in the UNC system. UNC campuses are required to submit campus safety
reports to the UNC-GA, in an effort to ensure the safety of the university community on
hazards and disasters. Mr. Herron noted that school shootings are the biggest threat to
the safety and security of the campus community. Campuses are encouraged to broaden
campus involvement in addressing safety and security issues on campus.

Mr. Herron also reported that safety officials are undergoing advanced training on
safety and security to prevent crises that are similar to campus shootings in the national
news. Pictures of law enforcement exercises were shown to participants in the
presentation. Data on on-campus criminal offenses is also presented.

Mr. Herron encouraged the participants to look into the UNC Campus Safety Task
Force Report to the President and draft manuals and reports on their respective
campuses. This document is available in the internet though this link:
http://intranet.northcarolina.edu/content.php/docs/bog/bogdocs/200711/workshops/UNC%20Campus%20Safety%20Taskforce%20Final%20Report.pdf
Panel Discussion: Comparisons of Campus PDM Planning and County All Hazards Plans

Higher education and emergency management officials and selected university
representatives were invited to serve as members of a panel to discuss campus pre8-128
disaster mitigation planning and all hazards plans. Higher education and emergency
management officials include Mr. Wayne Broome (Director, Charlotte Mecklenburg
Emergency Management Office), Mr. Warren Lee (Emergency Management Director,
New Hanover County), and Mr. Jerry Vehaun (Emergency Management Director,
Buncombe County). The university representatives include Mr. Timothy Johnson
(NCAT), Mr. Rickey Freeman (ECSU) and Mr. David Weldon (UNC Ashville). The
panel discussion was moderated by Mr. Seth Norris (ASU). Each panel member
introduced themselves by providing a brief discussion of their experiences as hazards
planning officers.

University Plans versus All Hazards Plans – Both university and county all-hazards
plans incorporate best practices in emergency management. Mr. Vehaun noted that in
the case of UNCA, data from their university plan was incorporated in their county allhazards plan. Mr. Weldon agreed and noted that both plans address common
structural issues related to environmental topography and power distribution lines.

Prioritization of University Projects – Mr. Broome noted that university officials should
view the county officials as partners in the implementation of hazard mitigation
projects. The role of county officials in prioritization of projects is to help the university
navigate the bureaucracy to ensure funding and the proper implementation of
approved projects. There needs to be an open communication and exchange of
information from both parties. Although the exchange of ideas is always good, Mr.
Broome acknowledges that cost is a big consideration in terms of prioritization.

Roadblock for University and Country All Hazards Planning Coordination – The
biggest roadblock for university and county coordination is communication. Mr. Lee
noted that faculty and staff from the university contribute to hazard mitigation
planning through studies that benefit the university and the county on both levels. Mr.
Broome suggested reaching out to the local media to encourage universities to have
partnerships with the local emergency management offices. Universities must be
prepared to discuss hazard mitigation issues and let local emergency offices know that
they are assets in hazard mitigation efforts.

Adjustment from Academia to Local Emergency Management – Mr. Freeman said that
on the academic side, the faculty and staff are not aware of their respective roles in the
emergency communications plan. Mr. Johnson agreed having faculty understand their
roles and responsibilities in emergency management are important.
Next Steps

Next steps for this project include working on assessments with the UNC eastern
campuses and the submission of the project outputs to NCEM for review and approval.
After the reports are reviewed and approved by NCEM, the project outputs will be
submitted to FEMA.
8-129

Ms. Elmes thanked all the participants for attending the two-day workshop on predisaster mitigation planning. She encouraged all participants to provide feedback on
the workshop and other suggestion through email. Copies of the presentations and the
workshop proceedings will be sent out to all participants in a few weeks.
The workshop session for Day 2 was adjourned at 12:00 p.m. Box lunches were provided
for participants at Room 902 of the Center City Building, UNC Charlotte.
Post Script to the workshop proceedings from Chris Crew dated May 15, 2012:
The House Homeland Security Appropriations Committee presented a budget proposal that
calls for $14.3 million in PDM funding---we are still a long way from an approved budget, but
PDM isn’t dead yet.
Prepared by: Hazel Marie Sarmiento
Reviewed and Approved by: Sherry Elmes and Edd Hauser
Center for Transportation Policy Studies, UNC Charlotte
8-130
PDM Planning Workshop
April 25-26, 2012
PowerPoint Presentations
8-131
Adapting to North Carolina’s
Changing Climate
Climate Adaptation Strategy Framework
developed by the
North Carolina Interagency Leadership Team
Presented to the North Carolina Emergency Management Association
Chris Crew, CFM
State Hazard Mitigation Officer, NCEM
NCEMA Spring Conference
March 12, 2012
by
Overview
•
•
•
•
•
•
Climate Change?
Why do we need a strategy?
Who is the “ILT”?
What process was used to draft the strategy?
Who will be asked to support?
How does this impact Emergency Management?
Climate vs. Weather
According to NOAA:
• Climate is defined as the expected frequency of specific states of the
atmosphere, ocean, and land including variables such as temperature (land,
ocean, and atmosphere), salinity (oceans), soil moisture (land), wind speed
and direction (atmosphere), current strength and direction (oceans), etc.
Climate encompasses the weather over different periods of time and also
relates to mutual interactions between the components of the earth system
(e.g., atmospheric composition, volcanic eruptions, changes in the earth’s
orbit around the sun, changes in the energy from the sun itself, etc.).
• Weather is defined as the state of the atmosphere at a given time and
place, with respect to variables such as temperature, moisture, wind speed
and direction, and barometric pressure
Weather Makers in the S.E. USA
Many influences:
• Dry vs. very moist air
• Very cold vs. very hot air
• Extratropical cyclones
(lows)
• Tropical cyclones
The Climate is Changing
 Global Temperatures are
rising.
 Sea levels are rising.
 Climate change is reflected
rise, indicated by color
in water cycle changes and Temperature
(red=higher rate of increase). Earth’s surface
temperature has risen ~1.3˚ F since 1850.
in extreme weather.
Image courtesy of the Joint Institute for the Study of the
Atmosphere & Ocan, U. of Washington.
What are the significant threats ?
• Based on the U.S. Global Change Research
Program report, Global Climate Change
Impacts in the United States, there are a
number of significant threats projected for
North Carolina.
Climate-Related Impacts
to North Carolina
Rising sea level  Higher storm
surges
Heavy precipitation Increased
flooding
Increased tropical cyclone intensity
More droughts
Worse heat waves
Rising Sea Level
 NC is projected to be
one of top 3 states for
SLR impact, with more
than half of shoreline
at very high risk.
Sea Level Rise - Impacts
•
•
•
•
•
Inundation
Increased coastal erosion
Breach of barrier Islands
Salt water intrusion
Rising water table
Heavy Precipitation
Increased Heavy Precipitation Events Impacts
•
•
•
•
Flooding
Increased stream flows
Erosion
Landslides
Increased Tropical Cyclones
Intensity
Increased Tropical Cyclone
Intensity or Frequency
• Increased Storm Damage
– Shoreline erosion
– Storm surge
– Flooding
– Wind
– Rain
Hurricanes
Source: National Hurricane Center
Higher storm surges
Over wash
Inundation
Related sanitation problems
Sewer
overflows
Exposed Septic Tank
More droughts
Drought - Impacts
• Reduced water availability:
– Stream flow
– Base flow
– Soil moisture
– Groundwater recharge
– Salt wedge migration
Water Availability
Water Quality
Reduced
ground &
surface
water
supply
Increased
runoff
resulting in
erosion and
sedimentation
Increased
water
demand due
to higher
temperatures
Overwhelmed
water
infrastructure
due to flooding
telegraph.co.uk
wakeupwakecounty.com
Worse Heat Waves
Temperature and its impact on our lives
Heat - Impacts
Includes Heat Waves and High
Temperature Days & Nights
• Heat Stress
• Water demand increase
• Energy demand increase
• Air pollution increase
• Ocean acidification
Worse heat waves
More days with peaks over 90 degrees: Summer 2010 was NC’s hottest
on record, with 91 days above 90 degrees in Raleigh.
Why Do We Need An
Adaptation Strategy?
Why Do We Need A Strategy?
• Weather records over the past two decades indicate that
citizens are being impacted by extreme weather and we
are being called to respond more and more frequently.
• The NC Climate Adaptation Strategy can serve as a
framework providing some level of cross-sector and
cross-agency consistency in response, recovery and
mitigation planning efforts at the local, regional and state
level.
Legislation: SL 2010-180, Section 13.(a)
 Departments of Administration, Agriculture,
Commerce, Health, Insurance, Transportation,
CCPS, & DENR shall report to DENR for ERC by
Nov. 2011.
 Review planning and regulatory programs to
determine whether they currently consider
impacts of global climate change, including
adaptation and Sea-Level Rise.
 If yes, recommend how to modify or expand?
 If no, recommend what should be added?
 NOTE: Does not include GHG reduction.
The Rationale
Many of our planning and regulatory
agencies use historical data to project
future trends.
Future circumstances may not match
historical climate trends.
Planning programs might need to modify
current protocols for decisions with long
planning horizons.
• Who is the ILT?
• What is their mandate?
Climate Change Adaptation Workshop
Planning for North Carolina’s Future:
Ask the Climate Question
www.ClimateChange.NC.gov
Climate Conditions Based on IPCC
Classified by Major Type:
Reference: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) - Climate Change 2007: Working Group I –
The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 3, Table 3.7, pg 314.
Strategic Planning Approaches
•
There are many approaches to strategic planning :
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Situation-Target-Proposal
Situation - evaluate the current situation and how it came about.
Target - define goals and/or objectives (sometimes called ideal state)
Path / Proposal - map a possible route to the goals/objectives
See-Think-Draw
See - what is today's situation?
Think - define goals/objectives
Draw - map a route to achieving the goals/objectives
Draw-See-Think-Plan
Draw - what is the ideal image or the desired end state?
See - what is today's situation? What is the gap from ideal and why?
Think - what specific actions must be taken to close the gap between today's situation and the
ideal state?
Plan - what resources are required to execute the activities?
•
The Process
• Identify sectors and stakeholders
impacted
• Assess sensitivity
• Assess vulnerability or adaptability
• Assess strategies to address
vulnerabilities
Planning Areas in
Assessment
Sectors with Resources and Services
Climate
Condition
Changes
Climate Sensitivity Assessment
Climate
Drivers
• 15 different sectors
• Scales
– State
– Regional
– Regions within
state
Climate
Factors
Non –
Climate
Factors
Climate
Conditions
Impact
Consequences to Sector
Specific
Resources and Services
Vulnerability Assessment
Sensitivity
• Degree to which
climate may affect
resource
Adaptive
Capacity
• Ability of resource
to accommodate
impacts
Assess First to Inform Strategy
Climate Assessment
• Assessment of
impacts to NC
• Resources identified
by sector
• Vulnerabilities to
climate variation
and change
Strategy
Development
• Climate is only one
part of the strategy
or decision
• Informed and
modified by
vulnerabilities
• Strategies
integrated across
sectors
Broad Adaptation Strategies
Policy Integration
and Creation
• Develop integrated water
management
• Interagency collaboration
Promotion and
Facilitation of
for adaptation planning
Adaptive Behaviors
Research and
Education
• Encourage wise water
use through education
and communication.
Guiding Principles
• State has the ability to make progress on in
next 3-5 years
• Leverages limited resources
• No cost or Low cost / no regrets strategies
• Addresses multiple or particularly vulnerable
systems
• Integrates with other ongoing local and
regional government planning initiatives
Integrated & Coordinated
Framework
WILL
WILL NOT
• Be a resource to
support decisions
• Be ‘adaptable’ as new
science and tools
become available
• Address common
concerns across
sectors and regions
• Mandate agency policy
• Be prescriptive
• Be focused on GHG
reduction
• Be tied to specific
global climate models
Adaptation Strategy Cycle
Layout of the strategy
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Executive Summary
Part 1
Ch 1-Climate Change Adaptation in NC
Ch 2-The Changing Climate and Its Impacts
Ch 3- Impact Assessment and Strategy Development Process
Ch 4-Overarching Strategies and Adaptive Response Options
Part 2
Ch 5-NC’s Natural Environment
Ch 6-NC’s Built Environment
Ch 7- NC’s People
Ch 8-NC’s Economy
Overarching Cross-Sector
Strategies
1. Collaborate with partners to provide information
that informs decisions.
2. Promote comprehensive adaptation planning
among state agencies.
3. Facilitate communication and education to
support local, regional and state planning
efforts.
Overarching Cross-Sector
Strategies
4. Refine adaptation strategies as science becomes
available and tools improve.
5. Encourage broad collaboration and partnerships
to leverage resources.
6. Partner with communities to facilitate local climate
adaptation efforts.
THE NATIONAL CLIMATE
ASSESSMENT
• NC developed the climate sensitivity
prototype for the National Climate
Assessment for NOAA’s National
Climatic Data Center.
• This NC effort will be featured as a
case study in the Southeast Region
section of the next National Climate
Assessment, due in 2013.
Proposed Next Steps
• ILT support for Overarching Strategies
• State agencies review and approve
Strategy Framework
• ILT support for Strategy Framework
• Publish and disseminate Strategy
Framework
• Work with partners to implement
How does this impact NCEM?
Hazard Mitigation Plan
• North Carolina’s Hazard Mitigation Plan
identifies some potential of impacts due to
climate change. A new section of the Risk
Assessment titled “Long Term Hazards”
identifies two inter-related categories of hazard
associated with climate change, “Sea Level
Rise” and “Changes in Weather Patterns.”
How does asking the climate question
impact our mission?
•
•
•
•
•
•
What’s the mission?
How is the climate changing?
How might climate change affect the mission?
What is the vulnerability?
What is the risk?
What should we do?
Will I have to address Climate Change
in my local Hazard Mitigation Plan?
• Currently there is no mandate in the Disaster
Recovery Act, nor in any code, rule or policy of
FEMA or NCEM that requires specific
recognition of climate change
• The prospect of changes in the predictability of
weather related hazards and impacts suggests
that action may be warranted in HM plans and
other emergency management planning
processes
We can anticipate, plan ahead, act …
OR we can react.
Tornado Safe Rooms
Do they make sense in North Carolina?
What are the Options?
•
•
•
•
•
•
Do nothing
Promote individual responsibility
Provide grants for individual safe rooms
Provide grants for public/institutional safe rooms
Promote stronger building codes
Promote education and outreach to change
behavior
Problems with providing individual shelters
through HMGP and similar programs
• Cost (Avg. grant in Mississippi $3500 x appx 5000 projects=$17.6 million —there
are 24 counties in NC identified by FEMA as High Risk for tornado—there are well
over 1,000,000 structures in these counties—that’s at least $3.5 billion. PDM 2011
project for Raleigh calls for $1.2 million to build a saferoom in a mobile home park
with capacity for appx 900 souls. Building to FEMA safe room standard is expensive.)
• Risk (even in Tornado Alley return freq for impact on a specific structure is about
1:50,000 years--.0002%/year—FEMA ranks NC # 20 in risk outside of tornado alley)
• Prioritization (what is basis for determining eligibility?)
Snakes or Speeding Cars?
Are tornadoes becoming more frequent?
Are tornadoes getting worse?
Any connection to climate change?
Are tornadoes becoming more deadly?
Almost 20,000 deaths have been reported associated with
more than 3600 tornadoes in the United States since
1680. A cursory examination of the record shows a break
in 1875. Prior to then, it is likely that many killer tornadoes
failed to be reported. When the death toll is normalized by
population, a near-constant rate of death is apparent until
about 1925, when a sharp fall begins. The rate was
about 1.8 people per million population in 1925 and was
less than 0.12 people per million by 2000. The decrease
in fatalities has resulted from two primary causes: a
decrease in the number of killer tornadoes and a decrease
in the number of fatalities in the most deadly tornadoes.
Current death rates for mobile home residents, however,
are still nearly what the overall national rate was prior to
1925 and are about 20 times the rate of site-built
home residents. The increase in the fraction of the U.S.
population living in mobile homes has important
implications for future reductions in the death toll.
Deaths in the 3 May 1999 Oklahoma City Tornado
from a Historical Perspective
HAROLD E. BROOKS AND CHARLES A. DOSWELL III*
NOAA/National Severe Storms Laboratory, Norman,
Oklahoma
What’s the risk?
How many people are killed by tornadoes each year?
NWS records indicate 360 people were killed by tornadoes during the
month of April 2011.
TOP 5 U.S. ANNUAL TORNADO DEATH TOLLS:
1) 1925-794 2) 1936-552 3) 1917-551 4) 2011-550 5) 1927-540
On the average tornadoes kill about 60 people each year, mostly from flying or
falling debris. NC 1950-2011 ~132 (57 in 1984 and 26 in 2011—so weighted average is 1 or less
per year in NC)
Source: NOAA Storm Prediction Center
Demographics of Death
Most tornado-related deaths occur:
In the daytime
-between 2pm and 8 pm
At home or in vehicles
As of 1975, about 33% of deaths were in mobile homes, 25% in site-built homes and
13% in vehicles
About evenly distributed Female/Male
Typical age 45-63
-median age 54 +/- 9 years
Source: NOAA
When is the risk highest?
How much time do you have?
How much advance warning can forecasters give us before a
tornado strikes?
The current average lead-time for tornado warnings is 11 minutes. NSSL
is working to increase tornado warning lead-times to 20 minutes.
How long is a tornado usually on the ground?
Detailed statistics about the time a tornado is on the ground are not
available. This time can range from an instant to several hours. The
average is about five minutes.
Source: NOAA
*NCEM began discussions and planning concerning the possibility of severe weather associated with the
Saturday 4/16/11 tornado outbreak on the Tuesday before the event-4/12/11
What should we promote?
• Good surveillance and warnings in plain
language
• Availability of shelters in public places
• Education to help people be aware and know
how to behave (where to go—what kind of
places seek shelter)
Performing Pre-Disaster Mitigation Assessments
Using UFIS and UFRAS
Agenda
• Inspection process
• How UFIS and UFRAS help
• How to use UFIS
• Exercise
• How to use UFRAS
• Exercise
www.zapatainc.com
Inspection Process
• Assemble list of candidate critical facilities
• Input facilities and scoring criteria in UFIS
o Ranked list of facilities for inspection
• Perform site visit/inspection
o Building walk around / walk through
o UFRAS scoring
o Written report detailing findings and
recommendations
www.zapatainc.com
UFIS vs. UFRAS
• UFIS – University Facilities Importance Spreadsheet
o Intended to rank facilities according to relative
importance
o Extremely simple formulas
o 8 inputs per facility
o Helps build consensus among stakeholders
• UFRAS – University Facilities Risk Assessment Spreadsheet
o
o
o
o
Intended to rank facilities according to relative risk
Extremely intricate formulas
~ 250 inputs per facility
Demonstrates to funding agency that mitigation
dollars are being allocated effectively
www.zapatainc.com
UFIS
•
•
•
•
•
•
User’s Guide
Table 1-1 – Occupancy – ASCE 7
Facility List
Weights
Data Entry Form
Results
• Note: Macros MUST be enabled!
www.zapatainc.com
Choosing Occupancy
• Most buildings are Occupancy II
o Offices, warehouses
o Anything not a III or IV
• Occupancy III
o Classroom or residence halls that hold more than
500 people
• Occupancy IV
o Police, fire, 911 call center, critical telecom
www.zapatainc.com
Facility List
• Enter the list of facilities to be ranked in the
appropriate red-shaded column
• Can cut and paste into this sheet
• NCCHEF # can be any number, not required
for analysis
• Enter the following facilities and NCCHEF #
o
o
o
o
o
Sycamore Dorm #1
Atkins Library #2
Duke Centennial Hall #3
Public Safety Building #4
Cameron Hall #5
www.zapatainc.com
Weights
• Weights allow the user to give greater
significance to one or more ranking criteria
• Higher value for weight means a greater
significance
• Example – you are more concerned about
the value of the facility’s contents than its
historic value
• No restriction on the value other than it must
be greater than 0
• Recommended weight = 1.0 for all factors
www.zapatainc.com
Data Entry Form
• Will automatically populate from the Facility
List sheet
• Under each Facility Factor, assign a ranking
using the weights shown in the column
heading
• A higher weight means the facility is more
important with respect to the factor
• Name of user – handy if multiple people are
filling out UFIS together
• Comments – useful for explaining very
high/low ratings
www.zapatainc.com
Factors
• Occupancy – Get from Table 1-1
• Emergency Function – Is it critical in your
emergency plan?
• Facility Loss – High insured value of structure?
• Facility Contents – High insured value of contents?
• Business Continuity – is it critical to COOP?
• Interconnectivity – do multiple facilities rely on this
facility?
• Data/Animal – is there a vivarium or high value
research?
• Historical/Cultural – is there historic/cultural value?
www.zapatainc.com
Example Building Properties
• Sycamore – 600 beds, 15 stories, shelter in place
facility, largest dorm on campus
• Atkins Library – 12 stories, highest insured value on
contents and structure, primary data center/fiber
point of delivery
• Duke Centennial – Mech. Engr. Research and
classroom building, one of a kind equipment,
occupancy of 300 people
• Public Safety Building – Small one story structure
housing police dept, 911 call center, armory
• Cameron Hall – Civil engineering dept, office
building, occupancy of 250 people
www.zapatainc.com
Results
• Step 1 – Press “Get Data”
• Step 2 – Press “Sort Results”
• Sorted importance scorings presented
• If you want to make changes to your scoring
and then re-rank, press “Clear Results” button
www.zapatainc.com
Ranking Results
• Did the UFIS generated ranking match your
own prioritization?
www.zapatainc.com
Questions/Contact
Brian Zapata
6302 Fairview Road, Suite 600
Charlotte, NC 28210
(704) 358-8240 - Phone
(704) 358-8342 - Fax
(888) 529-7243
bzapata@zapatainc.com
http://www.zapatainc.com
www.zapatainc.com
UFRAS
University Facilities Risk Assessment Spreadsheet
25 April 2012
Agenda
• Outline UFRAS
o Develop a brief understanding of how to use UFRAS
o Develop an understanding of what to do with
output from UFRAS
• Go through each sheet of UFRAS
o Explain input/results
o Instruct users’ on how to input data
o Present a synopsis of the function of each sheet
www.zapatainc.com
UFRAS
• Objectively and consistently quantifies
a risk index for facilities via a matrix
www.zapatainc.com
UFRAS
• Facilitates quick and efficient
comparison of risk across facilities
• Conducts a hazard assessment and
vulnerability assessment
• Output highlights areas of weakness
• Reinforces the suggestion for mitigation
measures
www.zapatainc.com
Hazard Assessment
• Evaluates the probability and intensity of the 9
potential hazards that could affect a campus
• Data comes from reputable sources
o ASCE 7-05
o NOAA
o County flood maps
• Inputs are normalized relative to hazard
intensities across the continental United States
• Inputs are largely static for each campus
o Reference data unlikely to change; thus campuses
should not need to adjust these inputs for future use
www.zapatainc.com
Hazard Assessment
www.zapatainc.com
Vulnerability Assessment
• Conducted via site visits, discussion with
facility personnel, review of
drawings/documents
• Inspection checklist is completed while
conducting inspection
• 1-5 hours to complete, depending on
size/complexity of facility
• Facility conditions change over time, thus the
need to reevaluate facilities periodically
www.zapatainc.com
Inspection Checklist
• Divided into 5 sections—based on facility
components; it is the first 5 sheets in UFRAS
• 92 total questions/statements
• 910 permutations to produce final matrix
• Inspector assigns ratings (usually 1-4) for each
question/statement which are input for risk
calculation
• Unanswered questions/statements are
omitted from risk index calculation
www.zapatainc.com
Results
• 1 represents lowest risk
• 10 represents highest risk
• Matrix is normalized by campus
www.zapatainc.com
Results
www.zapatainc.com
Analysis
• Based on output from UFRAS:
o Highlights areas of weakness in facility components
relative to hazards
o Mitigation measures can be tailored for the weaker
areas in the facility
• Once mitigation measures are suggested
o Inspection checklist may be modified to reflect
lower vulnerability
− Second matrix is concurrently produced projecting
new lower risk
www.zapatainc.com
Overview of UFRAS sheets
• 11 Total sheets
5 sheets make up the inspection checklist
1 sheet makes up the hazard assessment
1 sheet concisely summarizes input data
1 sheet allows users to modify ratings to reflect
proposed mitigation measures
o 1 sheet produces normalized output
o 2 sheets produce raw output
o
o
o
o
www.zapatainc.com
Sheet 1: Site/General Checklist
• 31 questions/statements pertaining to:
o
o
o
o
General facility design parameters
Site geography
Vegetation
Site improvements
− Streets/roads
− Fencing
− Drainage infrastructure
o Utilities on site
o Storage tanks
o Secondary/support structures
www.zapatainc.com
Sheet 2: Envelope Checklist
• 19 Questions/statements pertaining to:
o Windows and doors
− Flashing
− Closing mechanisms
− Material
o Veneer
− Attachment, configuration, material
o Foundation plane/lowest level floor plane
o Building geometry
o Roof system
− Coping
− Drainage
www.zapatainc.com
Sheet 3: Structure Checklist
• 15 Questions/statements pertaining to:
o Geometry of structure (plan and elevation)
o Design loads
o Structural system
− Redundancies
− Hybrid
− Design era
o Connections
o Foundation
o Construction type/materials
www.zapatainc.com
Sheet 4: Utilities Checklist
• 14 Questions/statements pertaining to:
o All utility systems within the facility
− Telecommunications
− Power
− Gas
− Water (potable, wastewater, roof drain lines)
− Fire safety systems
− Computing systems
− Building controls
− Security systems
www.zapatainc.com
Sheet 5: Contents Checklist
• 13 Questions/statements pertaining to:
Occupants
Corridors, stairwells, exit routes
Furniture
Interior (non-structural) partition walls, flooring,
doors, windows
o Specialized equipment
o Light fixtures
o Elevators
o
o
o
o
www.zapatainc.com
Sheet 6: PI Input Values
www.zapatainc.com
Sheet 7: Final Output
• Presents normalized risk index matrices
o First set presents normalized relative to facility
− As Inspected (AI) Matrix
− Mitigation Measures (MM) Matrix—calculates new risk
index with updated inputs that assume suggested
mitigation measures are implemented
o Second set presents normalized relative to campus
− AI Matrix
− MM Matrix
o Third set presents normalized relative to sample
space
− AI Matrix
− MM Matrix
www.zapatainc.com
Sheet 8: Summary of EV Inputs
• Lists all 92 questions/statements with
respective ratings in one place for ease of
reference
o 4 page printout
o For review only; no modifications can/need to be
made
www.zapatainc.com
Sheet 9: Insert Updated EV
Values
• Identical layout to Sheet 8
o Modify ratings in this sheet to reflect the lower
vulnerability based on suggested mitigation
measures
o Anytime a rating is modified, an (*) appears to the
right of the updated rating
o This input is used to produce the “MM” matrix
www.zapatainc.com
Sheet 10: Output Printout (AI)
• Displays the raw output from the input ratings
o
o
o
o
Contents of this sheet have minimal applicable use
Summarizes the hazard information
Presents an exposure and vulnerability matrix
Presents a raw risk index matrix
− Range 0-1 where 0 is lowest risk; 1 is highest risk
o All of which is used to produce normalized risk index
matrices
• Error message at the bottom of sheet is only
item needed from this sheet
o Error count tallies the number of times a rating
outside range limits is input in sheets 1-5
www.zapatainc.com
Sheet 11: Output Printout (MM)
• Identical in layout and function to Sheet 10
o Uses data from Sheet 9 (Updated EV Inputs) to
produce a risk index matrix reflecting lower risk
(assuming mitigation measures are implemented)
o This data is used to produce the “MM” set of
matrices
• Error message at the bottom of sheet is only
item needed from this sheet
o Error count tallies the number of times a rating
outside range limits is input in Sheet 9
www.zapatainc.com
IMPORTANT – Sheet 11:
Output Printout (AI)
• Cell F54 controls campus normalization
o Set this cell equal to the maximum value within the
cell range B43:S47
− Can be done with a master spreadsheet that links to
other facilities on campus
• Cell F55 controls sample space normalization
o Set this cell equal to the maximum value within the
sample space of raw risk index matrices
− If the sample space is the campus, use the same
value that was used in F54
www.zapatainc.com
Results
• Output can be combined with UFIS results
o Composite of objective importance and risk scores
• Output can be combined with any measure
of facility value/importance
o Facilitates a better understanding of the results
− Incorporates a loss measure
− Combines risk and importance into one result
• Must use raw risk scores
o Raw risk scores present the most accurate result
o Normalized risk scores do not have enough
resolution to provide clear delineation of results
www.zapatainc.com
Exercise
• Facility “A” has a raw risk score of 0.020
o Insured value of $4.8 million
o UFIS score of 0.680
• Facility “B” has a raw risk score of 0.045
o Insured value of $3.5 million
o UFIS score of 0.580
• Which facility should take priority in receiving
mitigation measures?
www.zapatainc.com
Exercise
• Facility “A”
o 0.020 x $4.8 million = $0.096 million
o 0.020 x 0.680 = .0136
• Facility “B”
o 0.045 x $3.5 million = $0.158 million
o 0.045 x 0.580 = 0.0261
(Insured value)
(UFIS results)
(Insured value)
(UFIS results)
• Facility “B” takes priority for mitigation measures
based on composite score
www.zapatainc.com
Questions/Contact
Brian Zapata
6302 Fairview Road, Suite 600
Charlotte, NC 28210
(704) 358-8240 - Phone
(704) 358-8342 - Fax
(888) 529-7243
bzapata@zapatainc.com
http://www.zapatainc.com
www.zapatainc.com
NC Division of Emergency
Management
University Hazard Mitigation
Planning
Ryan Wiedenman
Hazard Mitigation Planner
North Carolina Emergency Management
Why Plan?
More than just lip service…
1) To force us to think about the risks we face
as a jurisdiction, university, etc.
2) To have real, substantive projects that we
can implement when the opportunity for
mitigation opportunities arise
North Carolina Emergency Management
Current UNC System Plan Alignment
Individual Campus Plans:
UNC-CH and UNC-W
Western Campuses:
WCU, UNCA, ASU, UNCC, WSSU, UNCSA, UNCG, NCA&T
Eastern Campuses:
ECU, ECSU, FSU, UNCP, NCCU, NCSU
Community Colleges:
ACC, ABTCC, BCCC, BCC, BRCC, BCC, CCCTI, CFCC, CCC, CVCC, CCCC,
CPCC, CCC, CCCC, CoA, CCC, DCCC, CTCC, ECC, FTCC, FTCC, GC, GTCC,
HCC, HCC, ICC, JSCC, JCC, LCC, MCC, MCC, MCTC, MCC, MCC, NCC, PCC,
PCC, PCC, RCC, RCC, RCCC, RCC, RCC, RCCC, SCC, SCC, SPCC, SCC, SCC,
SCC, SCC, TCCC, VGCC, WTCC, WCC, WPCC, WCC, WCC
North Carolina Emergency Management
Current UNC System Plan Alignment
Ashe
Watauga
Alleghany
Surry
Swain
Graham
Haywood
Jackson
Caldwell
Yancey
Yadkin
Buncombe
Henderson
McDowell
Polk
Cherokee
Gaston
Guilford
Person
Alamance Orange
Davidson
Granville
Vance
Northampton
Warren
Cabarrus
Mecklenburg
Stanly
Montgomery
Clay
Union
Anson
Nash
Harnett
Hoke
Pitt
Lenoir
Sampson
UNC-CH
UNC Eastern Campuses
UNC-W
Beaufort
Craven
Jones
Onslow
Bladen
Pender
UNC Western Campuses
Washington
Pamlico
Duplin
Scotland
Robeson
Martin
Greene
Wayne
Cumberland
Edgecombe
Wilson
Johnston
Moore
Richmond
Bertie
Wake
Lee
Gates
Hertford
Franklin
Durham
Chatham
Randolph
Rowan
Lincoln
Cleveland
Forsyth
Davie
Catawba
Rutherford
Macon
Alexander
Iredell
Burke
Caswell
Rockingham
Halifax
Wilkes
Avery
Madison
Stokes
New
Hanover
Columbus
Brunswick
UNC Community Colleges
North Carolina Emergency Management
Carteret
Tyrrell
Hyde
Dare
Organization of University Plans
Based on assessment of individual facilities:
1) Describes facility
2) Assesses Risks and Vulnerabilities
3) Identifies specific actions that can be taken
to address those Risks and Vulnerabilities
North Carolina Emergency Management
Facility Description (Western)
NCCHEF #: 1-41-6-23 [See Appendix]
Year Built: 1904
Intended Use: Dining hall
Actual Use: Dining hall
Construction Cost: $ 471,000
Present Value of Structure: $ 9,151,498
Present Value of Contents: $ 1,253,440
Number of Stories: 2
Square Footage (Conditioned): N/A
Façade Constr. : Brick masonry, glass curtain wall
Roof Constr. : Slate, rubber, metal standing seam
Structural System: Masonry shear walls &R/C frame
Special Contents: Cafeteria, kitchen, cold storage
Last Renovation: N/A
Date Inspected: 30 March 2009
North Carolina Emergency Management
Facility Description (Western)
FacilityDescription
TheUniversityDiningHall is theprimarycafeteriafor studentsandfacultyoncampus. Thefacilityhouses
thekitchensandcold storagenecessarytocaterallcampusfacilities. Theoriginal structureof thedininghallwas
constructed in 1904 of multi-wythebrick masonryand has arubberizedroof. In the1960’sfouradditionalwings
wereconstructed ofreinforcedconcretewithconcretepanand joistfloorsand aslatetile
roofsupportedbysteel trusses. Exteriorwallsareconstructed of masonryinfill. In the1960’sathirdaddition of
theatriumand otherareaswasconstructedofreinforcedconcretewith aconcretepanand joistfloor
system. Thebuildingisentirelyabovegradewith acrawl spacein themiddleof thefivewings. Thefoundation is
constructedof hollowclaymasonrypiersand shearwalls. Thebuildinghas abackupgeneratorfor lifesafety
functions. Thebuildingis not sprinklered but does haveafirealarmsystem. Thefacilityhasanemergencyplan to
providecateringservices intheevent ofanextendedpower outage.
North Carolina Emergency Management
Risk and Vulnerability (Western)
·
·
·
·
Unreinforced clay masonry piers and/or shear walls support the center of the
building and utilities. In a seismic event these unreinforced piers and/or shear walls
can fail and cause building collapse or damage to utilities. (Photos 1 and 2)
Insufficient concrete cover over reinforcing steel has led to corrosion in reinforced
masonry and concrete components. (Photos 3 and 4)
Paling on patio on NE side of facility is being forced off the patio (Photos 5 and 6)
Back-up generator is not capable of sustaining normal operations in the event of a
power loss
Photo 2.
Unreinforced
clay masonry
piers supporting
utility lines.
Photo 5.
Paling being
forced off of patio
North Carolina Emergency Management
Mitigation Actions (Western)
Mitigation Measures
A: <$5,000 B: $5,000-$25,000 C: $25,000-$100,000 D: >$100,000
• Foundation piers and/or shear walls should be retrofitted to enhance seismic
performance. D (High Wind/Tornado, Winter Weather)
• All areas of insufficient concrete cover should be inspected and properly
repaired to provide cover for reinforcing steel and prevent further deterioration
and compromising of structural integrity. B (High Wind/Tornado, Winter
Weather)
• Retrofit the paling and patio drainage/flashing as needed to remediate damage
and prevent further deterioration C (High Wind/Tornado, Winter Weather)
• Provide back-up generator power sufficient to maintain a food supply and
business continuity in the event of an extended power loss D (High
Wind/Tornado, Winter Weather)
North Carolina Emergency Management
Mitigation Actions UNCUNC-CH
UNC-CH CoGen Plant
Item
no.
Roof
RV7
Roof
RV5
Component Vulnerability
Boiler 8 Bldg
The guyed
stack is
missing a guy
wire on the
west side;
wind
vulnerability
Large stacks
at Boiler
Bldg
Stack sleeve
and mounts
corroded;
wind
vulnerability
Damage
Potential
Mitigation
Action
Cost
Priority
(1 to 3)
Moderate
Install
additional
guy wire
and anchor
at west
side stack
7,000
1
Low
Replace
stack
sleeve and
corroded
mount
6,000
3
North Carolina Emergency Management
Hazard Mitigation Branch
Mitigation For Campuses:
2012 Update
UNC System PDM Planning
Workshop – April 2525-26, 2012
North Carolina Emergency Management
Tropical Storm Nicole – October 2010
North Carolina Emergency Management
Tornado Outbreak – April 2011 – (DR
(DR--1969)
North Carolina Emergency Management
Hurricane Irene – August 2011 – (DR
(DR--4019)
North Carolina Emergency Management
Irene Division Priorities
-Address Disaster Housing issues in Disaster Impact zone
with expedited process (FEMA Temporary Housing Units)
-Acquisition and Elevations in Disaster Impact Zone
North Carolina Emergency Management
Mitigation Action: Acquisition & Demolition
North Carolina Emergency Management
Mitigation Action: Structure Elevation
North Carolina Emergency Management
Mitigation Action: Stormwater Management
North Carolina Emergency Management
Mitigation Action: Retrofit Projects
North Carolina Emergency Management
Mitigation Action: Early Warning/Redundancy Projects
North Carolina Emergency Management
FEMA--funded Funding Streams
FEMA
Disaster
Non-Disaster
North Carolina Emergency Management
Mitigation Proposals – Any Funding Stream
What Makes Good Mitigation
Pitching to Funders
North Carolina Emergency Management
Good Mitigation Proposals – Any Funding Stream
Pitching Mitigation: Problem Definition
•What is at risk?
•What hazards?
•Who is threatened?
•What functional downtime/COOP?
•Mitigation vs. Maintenance
North Carolina Emergency Management
Good Mitigation Proposals – Any Funding Stream
Pitching Mitigation: Math
Benefit Cost Analysis •Benefits: “Potential Future Damages Avoided”
•Costs: Project Costs
North Carolina Emergency Management
Example:
•Non Structural EQ project
North Carolina Emergency Management
North Carolina Emergency Management
North Carolina Emergency Management
Cost
•Materials
•Labor
•How long will it last for?
North Carolina Emergency Management
Benefits
•Recurrence Interval
• Cost of Equipment Protected
•Clean Up
•HazMat
•COOP/Functional Downtime
North Carolina Emergency Management
Benefits/Costs
•For every dollar contributed to the
project, how many dollars will the
University benefit?
North Carolina Emergency Management
Good Mitigation Proposals – Any Funding Stream
Pitching Mitigation - Writing
Who, What, Why, Where
How
(methodology)
North Carolina Emergency Management
Good Mitigation Proposals – Any Funding Stream
Best Ally to Pitch Mitigation
Relationships
North Carolina Emergency Management