“Promoting a
resilient
campus
community”
Multi-Hazard
Mitigation Plan
MULTI-HAZARD
MITIGATION PLAN
Prepared by the Eastern Michigan University
Emergency Management Office
June 2012
Rev.2.2
This page is intentionally left blank
This page is left intentionally blank
Eastern Michigan University
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Prepared by:
Eastern Michigan University
Office of Emergency Management
204C Public Safety Building
Eastern Michigan University
Ypsilanti, MI 48197
http://www.emich.edu/
June, 2012
This page is left intentionally blank
i
Record of Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Revisions
Date
Section
Pages
Entered By
8-23-12
All document review
All
Mark Wesley
2-13-13
Appendices
201-216
Mark Wesley
ii
Table of Contents
Section 1: Introduction………………………………………………………………..…
Background and Purpose………………………………………………….………..….
Authority……………………………………………………………………………..
Disaster Resistant University Initiative……………………………………..…………
Eastern Michigan University…………………………………………………..………
Scope of Plan……………………………………………………………………..……
Plan Overview…………………………………………………………………..……..
Mission Statement…………………………………………..…………………………
1
1
3
4
5
8
11
13
Section 2: Community Profile……………………………………………..…………….
Community Background………………………………………………………………
Population and Demographics………………………………………………………...
Geography and Environment………………………………………………………….
Employment and Industry…………………………………………….……………….
Housing………………………………………………………………………….…….
Social & Community Development………………………………………………...
Zoning & Land Use……………………………………………………………………
Transportation Network……………………………………………………………….
Police, Fire and Emergency Facilities…………………………………………………
13
13
14
18
19
23
24
25
29
34
Section 3: University Profile…………………………………………….…………….…
University Impact……………...……..…………………………………………..……
University Mission…………………………………………………….…………….
University Background……………...……………………………….………………...
Organizational Structure……………………………………………………..………
Scope……………………………………………………………………………...……
Economic Impact………………………………..……………………..………………
36
36
37
37
38
40
40
Section 4: Planning Process………………………………………………………..…….
Overview of Hazard Mitigation Planning…………………………………..………....
Preparing the Plan……………………………………………………………....……..
The Advisory Committee, Committee Meetings and Public Involvement…...…….....
42
42
43
49
Section 5: Hazard Identification, Risk Analysis & Vulnerability Assessment…….....
Initial Hazard Identification………………………………..………..………………...
State and Federal Disaster Declarations……………………………………………….
University Facilities Inventory………………………………………………………...
Natural Hazard………………………………………………………………………...
Mold…………………………………………...………………………………………
Technological Hazards……………….………………………………..…........………
Societal Hazards…………………………………………………………………..…...
Hazard Priority Rating………………………………………………………………....
Hazard Summary……………………………………...………………...……………..
51
51
54
55
63
81
84
106
117
120
iii
Section 6: Mitigation Strategy…………………………………………………………...
Introduction…………………………………..……………………………………..…
Eastern Michigan University Mitigation Goals………………………………………..
Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions…………………………………….
Recommendation and Prioritization of Mitigation Actions…………………………...
Potential Funding Sources……………………………………………………………..
121
121
123
129
134
142
Section 7: Plan Implementation and Maintenance…………………………….....……
Adoption and Implementation…………………………………………………………
Monitoring, Reviewing and Amending………………………………………………..
Continued Public Involvement………………………………………………………...
143
143
144
146
Section 8: References……………………………………………………………………..
Print Resources…………………………..……………………………….……………
Website Resources…………………………………………….………………………
147
147
148
Section 9: Appendices……………………………………………………………………
EMU Hazard Mitigation Risk Assessment Results 2011……………..…………….
Mass Notification & Emergency Communications………………………………….
Hazard Mitigation Meeting Sign in November 19, 2010…………………………...
EMHE Presentation Sign in December 13, 2011…………………………………......
November Mitigation Meeting Public Posting……………………………………...
November Mitigation Meeting Public Posting 2……………………………………
Health and Safety Committee Minutes September 17, 2010………………………….
Health and Safety Committee Minutes October 15, 2010……………….………….
Health and Safety Committee Minutes April 15, 2011………………………………..
Health and Safety Committee Minutes August 19, 2011……………………………..
Health and Safety Committee Minutes December 16, 2011…………………………..
Washtenaw Emergency Managers Consortium Risk Assessment Meeting March 23,
2012……………………………………………………………………………………
Mitigation Plan Community Presentation June 14, 2012…………………………...
Mitigation Plan Committee Presentation June 15, 2012………………………………
149
149
171
175
176
177
178
179
181
184
186
189
Figures
Figure 1-1: EMU Campus Locations Map……………………………………………..….
Figure 1-2: EMU Main Campus Map……………………………………………………..
Figure 2-1: Population by County Map……………………………………………………
Figure 2-2: EMU Student Gender Distribution……………………………………………
Figure 2-3: EMU Student Racial Distribution…………………………………………….
Figure 2-4: Labor Force Annual Average Map……………………………………………
Figure 2-5: Ypsilanti Road Map…………………………………………………………..
Figure 2-6: Michigan Road Map…………………………………………………………..
Figure 2-7: Washtenaw County Rail Map…………………………………………………
Figure 2-8: Michigan Rail Map……………………………………………………………
Figure 2-10: Area Public Transit Map…………………………………………………….
iv
192
193
199
7
10
16
17
17
22
26
27
28
29
31
Figure 3-1: EMU Organizational Chart……………………………………………………
Figure 3-2: Economic Impact of EMU…………………………………………………….
Figure 5-1: Presidential Disaster Declaration………….………………………………….
Figure 5-2: Areal View of EM…………………………………………………………….
Figure 5-3: Michigan Average Annual Snowfall………………………………………….
Figure 5-4: Tornado Activity in the United States………………………………………...
Figure 5-5: FEMA Wind Speed Map……………………………………………………...
Figure 5-6: Middle Huron Watershed Boundaries Map…………………………………..
Figure 5-7: City of Ypsilanti 100-yr Floodplain Map……………………………………..
Figure 5-8: 1947 Earthquake Effect Map………………………………………………….
Figure 5-9: Electric Utility Services Map…………………………………………………
Figure 5-10: YCUA Existing Water Supply System………………………………………
Figure 5-11: YCUA Existing Wastewater System………………………………………...
Figure 5-12: Gas Utility Services Areas…………………………………………………...
Figure 5-13: City of Ypsilanti Map with Campus Information……………………………
Figure 5-14: IED Attack Timeline………………………………………………………...
Figure 9-1: Outdoor Speaker Arrays Coverage Map
Figure 9-2: Washtenaw County Outdoor Warning Siren Coverage Map
Tables
Table 2-1: Demographic data
Table 4-1: EMU Mitigation Timeline
Table 4-2: EMU Hazard Mitigation Advisory Committee Members
Table 5-1: Hazard Identification Comparison
Table 5-2: General Fund Building Inventory & Replacement Costs
Table 5-3: Auxiliary Fund Building Inventory & Replacement Costs
Table 5-4: Estimated Building Contents Value
Table 5-5: Additional Asset Value Information
Table 5-6: Frequency Distribution of Ice and Sleet Storms
Table 5-7: EF Scale
Table 5-8: Recent Historical Earthquake Data
Table 5-9: Probability of Earthquakes within the Next 50 Years
Table 5-10: Results of the Risk Assessment
Table 5-11: EMU Fire Safety Matrix
Table 5-12: Hazard Priority Ranking
Table 6-1: STAPLEE Mitigation Criteria
Table 6-2: Mitigation Actions
Table 6-3: Mitigation Action Worksheet
v
39
41
54
55
64
67
70
72
75
79
95
96
98
99
100
114
198
199
15
48
50
53
56
58
60
62
65
69
80
80
88
91
120
136
137
141
This page is left intentionally blank
vi
Section 1: Introduction






Background and Purpose
Authority
Disaster Resistant University Initiative
Eastern Michigan University
Scope of Plan
Plan Overview
Background & Purpose
In the public sector, choices are made every day that affect the consequences, duration, and
costs of responding to and recovering from adverse incidents. Mitigation requires systemically
anticipating and adjusting to trends that could endanger the future of the campus community.
Appropriate choices made beforehand can manage or reduce long-term risk and potentially
reduce response requirements. Mitigation during the recovery phase helps strengthen and build a
more resilient campus community to withstand future disasters.
Hazard mitigation is defined by FEMA as “any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate
long-term risk to human life and property from a hazard event.” The results of a three-year,
congressionally mandated independent study to assess future savings from mitigation activities
provides evidence that mitigation activities are highly cost-effective. On average, each dollar
spent on mitigation saves society an average of $4 in avoided future losses in addition to saving
lives and preventing injuries (National Institute of Building Science Multi-Hazard Mitigation
Council 2005).
This plan documents Eastern Michigan University’s (the “University”) hazard mitigation
planning process and identifies relevant hazards and vulnerabilities and strategies the University
will use to decrease vulnerability and increase resiliency and sustainability of the Ypsilanti
Campus.
1
Information in this plan will be used to help guide and coordinate mitigation activities and
decisions for the University in the future. Proactive mitigation planning will help reduce the cost
of disaster response and recovery to the campus community by protecting critical university
facilities, reducing liability exposure, and minimizing overall campus impacts and disruptions.
The University planning area has been affected by hazards in the past and it is thus committed to
reducing future impacts from hazard events and becoming eligible for mitigation-related federal
funding.
The benefits of hazard mitigation include the reduction of: loss of life, property, essential
services, critical facilities and economic hardship as well as short and long-term recovery and
reconstruction costs. In addition it can increase cooperation and communication within the
university community and increase the potential for state and federal funding for recovery and
reconstruction projects. This can be accomplished through studying potential risks to the campus
community and coordinating resources, programs and authorities based on the information
discovered.
The Eastern Michigan University Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan was created to work towards
a proactive campus community. The goal of this plan is to identify risks to the campus
community and to educate university officials of said risks and the proposed actions to minimize
associated damages from both natural and manmade hazards. It was prepared with input from
various university departments and administrators as well as from the City of Ypsilanti and
Washtenaw County emergency programs. The plan was developed with the support of the State
of Michigan Emergency Management & Homeland Security Division (EMHSD) and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Region V.
2
Authority
In 2010 Eastern Michigan University was able to secure a FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant 1
allowing the University to develop and implement a hazard mitigation plan for its Ypsilanti, MI
campus location.
The Eastern Michigan University Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan has been created in
accordance with current federal rules and regulations governing local hazard mitigation planning
and prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law
106-390) and the implementing regulations set forth by the Interim Final Rule published in the
Federal Register on February 26, 2002, (44 CFR §201.6) and finalized on October 31, 2007. The
2007 amendments also incorporate mitigation planning requirements of the Flood Mitigation
Assistance (FMA) program authorized by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. While the
Disaster Mitigation Act emphasized the need for mitigation plans and more coordinated
mitigation planning and implementation efforts, the regulations established the requirements that
local hazard mitigation plans must meet in order to be eligible for certain federal disaster
assistance and hazard mitigation funding under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Act (Public Law 93-288).
In addition since November 2004, a plan is required to receive post-disaster mitigation funds
under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, information can be found in 44 CFR, Part 201 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (Revised November 2006). Under the DMA states, communities
and universities are eligible for funding. Universities are able to qualify as a result of the Disaster
1
(HMGP-1777.DR) Funded through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Emergency
Management & Homeland Security Division of the Michigan State Police (EMHSD).
3
Resistant University (DRU) initiative. The Eastern Michigan multi-hazard mitigation plan is
designed to meet the requirements laid out by FEMA. As a result the university will successfully
be eligible to obtain mitigation funding before and after disasters strike the EMU campus
community.
The project has been a collaborative effort on the part of the EMU Emergency
Management Office, which is responsible for day-to-day emergency preparedness, the
Environmental and Health Safety Office, the University Health and Safety Committee, which
also serves as the Hazard Mitigation Advisory Committee, Physical Plant, the Institute for
Geospatial Research & Education, and the many other units that contributed information and
review on the project.
Disaster Resistant University Initiative
While state and local governments are required to complete a Hazard Mitigation Plan under
the dictates of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000), universities are not required by
that law to perform a similar planning and mitigation activity. FEMA’s Disaster Resistant
University (DRU) program was intended to encourage and promote mitigation among
institutions of higher learning. The DRU initiative was phased out as a designated set-aside of
planning and mitigation funding for universities. Despite being phased out, the Disaster Resistant
Universities initiative emphasized the economic impact and interdependence of universities with
their surrounding communities and remains the model for hazard assessment and mitigation
planning for colleges and universities across the nation.
FEMA released a publication entitled Building a Disaster Resistant University (FEMA
443). “Building a Disaster-Resistant University” is both a how-to guide and a distillation of the
4
experiences of six universities and colleges that have been working to become more disasterresistant. This guide provided basic information as well as concrete ideas, suggestions, and
practical experiences for institutions that have provide insights to Eastern Michigan University
for beginning the step toward becoming a safer and more prepared campus
The DRU initiative put forth phases to the process that a university can follow to successfully
become a disaster resistant university. The phases are as follows in this order to: organize
resources, conduct hazard identification and risk assessment, develop a mitigation plan and to
adopt and implement the plan.
As of 2005, universities must compete with states, Indian Tribal governments and local
governments to attain funding. The mission of Eastern Michigan University is to develop a
FEMA approved multi-hazard mitigation plan to identify and address risks to the campus
community environment and by doing so will join the ranks of other disaster resistant
universities.
Eastern Michigan University
Eastern Michigan University is a comprehensive co-educational public university located in
Ypsilanti, Michigan. Eastern Michigan University was founded in 1849 as Michigan’s first
institution whose purpose was to educate teachers in preparation for serving in the public school
system. Initially, the school was known as the Michigan State Normal School, it also bore the
names Michigan State Normal College in 1899 and Eastern Michigan College in 1956 until 1959
when the name was changed to its final name Eastern Michigan University.
Today the campus has grown from a small four-acre plot to include more than 800 acres of
land. Currently, it serves about 23,000 students who have a choice from a full range of
5
bachelor’s programs, about 170 masters programs and a selection of specialty and doctoral
programs. The university is governed by an 8 member Board of Regents who are appointed by
the Michigan governor for eight-year terms and who oversee the university president. While the
main campus of the university is located in Ypsilanti, MI and includes a building to itself for the
College of Business located downtown, it also has satellite locations including Brighton, Detroit,
Fish Lake (Lapeer), Flint, Grand Rapids, Jackson, Livonia, Monroe, Traverse City and the jean
Noble Parson Center for the Study of Arts and Science (Lake Ann).
6
Figure 1-1: Map depicting the entirety of EMU locations including the satellite campuses. The
main campus is located within Washtenaw County.
7
Scope of Plan
Eastern Michigan University’s Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan is a single institutional plan that
identifies goals, objectives, and measures for hazard mitigation and risk reduction. This plan
follows DMA 2000 planning requirements and associated guidance for developing
Local Hazard Mitigation Plans, including specific guidance for “Building a DisasterResistant University”. These guidelines set forth a generalized 4-task planning process: 1)
Organize your Resources, 2) Assess Hazards and Risks, 3) Develop a Mitigation Plan, and 4)
Evaluate your Work.
Information in this plan will be used to help guide and coordinate mitigation activities and
decisions for Eastern Michigan University. This plan addresses natural hazards and manmade
hazards. Proactive mitigation planning will help reduce the cost of disaster response and
recovery to the University and the campus community by protecting critical facilities, reducing
liability exposure, and minimizing overall campus impacts and disruptions. Eastern Michigan
University and its host community have been affected by hazards in the past and the University
is committed to reducing future impacts from hazard events and becoming eligible for
mitigation-related federal funding.
Although Eastern Michigan University has several satellite locations, the focus of this plan
will be the main campus, including the Athletic Campus, the Eagle Crest Golf Course &
Corporate Education Center and the College of Business.
8
The main campus is located at:
124 College Place, Ypsilanti, MI 48197
The College of Business is located at:
300 W. Michigan Ave., 473 Gary Owen Building, Ypsilanti, MI 48197
The Eagle Crest Golf Course & Corporate Education Center is located at:
1275 South Huron Street Ypsilanti, MI 48197
Depicted below in Figure 1-2 is a map of the Eastern Michigan University main campus as
well as a view of the relative location of the College of Business, the Corporate Education Center
and Eagle Crest.
9
Figure 1-2:
10
Plan Overview
This plan is divided into 9 sections including appendices, figures and tables. Within this
multi-hazard mitigation one will find information on: hazard mitigation planning, Eastern
Michigan University, potential hazards to the campus community and a suggested course of
action to reduce the risks identified as being specific to Eastern Michigan. Below is a summation
of the sections.
Section 1: Introduction
The introduction provides a brief history on not only hazard mitigation planning but also
on the Disaster Resistant University initiative as laid out by FEMA. It connects the generalized
information on mitigation planning with the specifics of Eastern Michigan University and the
risks associated with its campus environment. Essentially, it acts as the foundation of the plan by
defining what it is and identifying plan objectives.
Section 2: Community Profile
Within the Community Profile section, the location and demographic information
specific to Eastern Michigan University can be found. In addition, an overview of the community
surrounding the university is provided.
Section 3: University Profile
This section provides a brief history and a current description of the University and
information regarding the university’s impact on the region, including economic impact on the
surrounding community.
11
Section 4: Planning Process
The planning process section details the specific steps taken by Eastern Michigan
University to create this plan. These steps were guided by the FEMA publication; Building a
Disaster Resistant University (FEMA 443). Also, detailed is the process used by Eastern
Michigan University to identify and rank the hazards to the campus community.
Section 5: Hazard Identification, Risk Analysis and Vulnerability Assessment
Details of the potential natural and manmade hazards to the community are found within
this section. In order to identify these hazards, a risk assessment was conducted that accounted
for both the probability and potential impact level of identified hazards. From this data, the
potential risks were ranked and categorized.
Section 6: Mitigation Strategy
The mitigation strategy identifies Eastern Michigan’s mitigation goals in response to the
highest potential risks to the campus. It identifies objectives that the university can pursue to
reduce potential losses.
Section 7: Implementation and Plan Preservation
This section details how Eastern Michigan will follow through on keeping an up to date
plan and suggested mitigation actions. Detailed within this section is the specifics on how the
university can follow through on the suggested mitigation actions. Individuals responsible for
maintaining the plan are identified as well as those who will support carrying out the mitigation
strategies.
Section 8: References
This section identifies the sources that contributed to the compilation of this plan.
12
Section 9: Appendices
Additional information useful to the plan will be found in this section including any
additional documents necessary.
Mission Statement
To engage our campus community in identifying and prioritizing specific mitigation actions
and to define and implement those mitigation actions in an effective and efficient process that
will ensure the greatest benefit to the stakeholders of Eastern Michigan University.
Section 2: Community Profile







Community Background
Population and Demographics
Geography and Environment
Employment and Industry
Housing
Transportation Network
Police, Fire and Emergency Facilities
Community Background
Washtenaw County is located approximately 30 miles west of Detroit and is comprised of
roughly 7120 square miles. The county is ranked 6th in the state of Michigan in regards to
population and it remains one of the fastest growing counties within the state following
Livingston County. Ypsilanti is one of 28 local governments within the county. Ypsilanti is the
second oldest city within the state as it was established in 1823. The name of the community
comes from General Demetrius Ypsilanti, a hero in the Greek war for independence. Eastern
Michigan University is a major population center for the city.
13
The community early on gained recognition for its commercial districts including what is
now known as Depot Town and for its educational institutions. In its early stages, the community
was greatly influenced by the presence of the river and its resulting abundant water power. As
Ypsilanti continued to flourish and thrive so did the river industries until the late 19th century
when the auto industry became the next major economic force. The Historic District is now an
area of great pride within the community and to this day it is protected.
Culturally, the community is often overshadowed by the nearby Ann Arbor however, that has
not kept the city from having a life of its own. Ypsilanti has several summer festivals which take
place in Depot Town including the annual Ypsilanti Heritage Festival and the Michigan Brewers
Guild Summer Beer Festival.
The Eastern Michigan Community is comprised of a mixture of faculty, staff, undergraduate
and graduate students. As of fall 2011, the University has approximately 23,441 students, 18,621
undergraduates and 4,820 graduate students. Students represent 45 states and 93 foreign
countries. The most popular majors are education, business, social sciences and history, science
and engineering, English, and the health professions.
Population & Demographics
Washtenaw County was formed out of a portion of Wayne County and consists of 14
townships, 6 charter townships, 3 villages and 5 cities including Ypsilanti. In addition the county
also houses several unincorporated communities. According to the 2010 census the population
for the county was at 344,791 with a great deal of its population concentrated in the Ann
Arbor/Ypsilanti area. Not surprisingly, a large portion of that population concentration stems
14
from the large colleges within this geographic area including the University of Michigan and
Eastern Michigan University.
According to the 2010 census the community itself is comprised of a population that is
59.39% Non-Hispanic white, 29.17% Black, 3.8% Asian and the remainder being a combination
of two or more races, Hispanic or Latino, Native American or Pacific Islander. The population
stood at 19,435 dropping from the 2000 census 13.1%. The median household income from
2006-2010 was $34,685 while the percentage of the population below the poverty line was
26.5%. To view a summation of the demographic data please see Table 2-1 below.
Demographics
City of Ypsilanti Washtenaw County Michigan
Population
19,435
344,791
9,883,640
Median Age
25
33.3
35.5
Male
9,662
170,132
4,873,095
Female
9,773
174,659
5,065,349
Under Age 15
2,333
59,300
2,164,198
Age 15-24
7,367
70,959
1,363,706
Age 65 and over
1,609
34,951
1,219,018
Bachelor Degree or higher
36.80%
50.80%
25.00%
Poverty level
26.50%
13.70%
14.80%
White
61.50%
74.50%
78.90%
Asian
3.40%
7.90%
2.40%
African American
29.20%
12.70%
14.20%
Blend of two or more races
4.30%
3.40%
2.30%
In addition, the population disbursement by county can be viewed below in Figure 2-1.
15
Figure 2-1.
16
The University population itself also has its own unique breakdown of demographic
information. Of all students, 59 percent are female and 41 percent are male.2
Figure 2-2.
EMU’s undergraduate population is approximately 67 percent white; 23 percent black; 2
percent international; 25 percent Asian; 2 percent Hispanic, 0.5 percent Native-American, and 7
unknown.
Figure 2-3.
2
Eastern Michigan University Office of Institutional Research and Information Management (IRIM)
17
Geography & Environment
The state of Michigan joined the union in 1837 and was the 26th state to join, its capital is
Lansing and its largest city is Detroit. Michigan is also nicknamed the ‘Great Lakes State’ and
the ‘Wolverine State,’ furthermore it proudly carries the motto “Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam
circumspice, which translates, ‘If you seek a pleasant peninsula, look about you.’” Michigan is
easily identifiable on a map as its Lower Peninsula resembles a left mitten as it is often called by
its residents, while the Upper Peninsula is known as “The U.P.” The Lower Peninsula is 277
miles long from north to south and 195 miles from east to west, it constitutes for approximately
two-thirds of the state’s land area. The state is surrounded by the world’s largest fresh surface
water system which is made up of the five great lakes and their connecting channels. The Great
Lakes include; Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie and Ontario and they cover more than
94,000 square miles they are a valued resource seeing as they hold about nine-tenths of the U.S.
freshwater supply and one-fifth of the world’s freshwater supply.
In addition to the vast water resources that the state has to offer there is also a wealth of
beautiful forest land and wildlife to be seen especially in the Upper Peninsula of the state. About
50% of the state is covered with 19.3 million acres of forests which is an important factor in
analyzing Michigan’s economy. This is because not only does a portion of that enable the ability
to harbor timber but also there is great appeal for recreational and tourism purposes. The ‘Pure
Michigan’ campaign relies heavily on the idea that people will want to come and experience
what the outdoors has to offer, not just the summer water sports or the winter recreation but also
the relaxing effects of the changing leaves in the fall months. In total the state has 78 state parks,
19 state recreation areas and 6 state forests; it should be of little surprise with these facts that
Michigan has the largest state forest system of any state.
18
Climate
Located in what is known as the Mid-western region of the United States, the state of
Michigan is one that experiences all four seasons and is known for its rather unpredictable
weather. Michigan has what is known as a continental climate, meaning that it is a climate
characterized by annual variations in temperatures caused by a lack of significant bodies of water
nearby, i.e. a sea or ocean. Due to the sheer length from top to bottom of the state there are two
different climate classifications, the southern and central parts of the Lower Peninsula have a
warmer climate with hot summers and cold winters. The northern area of the Lower Peninsula
and the entire Upper Peninsula have a climate that is much more harsh, with short warm
summers and long cold to very cold winters.
Washtenaw County sits within the humid continental climatic zone of eastern North
America. It is because of this that residents will experience a larger temperature range than other
areas at similar latitude. Eastern Michigan University and the surrounding community have to be
prepared to deal with a wide assortment of natural hazards including; flash flooding,
thunderstorms, tornadoes, snow or hail storms and much more.
Employment & Industry
Since its founding in 1849, Eastern Michigan University (EMU) has provided
high‐quality educational services to residents of Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County, the State of
Michigan, other states, and nations throughout the world. These educational services, the
resulting salaries for EMU faculty and staff, and other expenditures by the University represent
key components of the economic base of Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County, and neighboring areas.
EMU also contributes to economic activity at the local, state, and national levels through the
19
placement of its graduates in high‐skilled jobs that pay more than jobs requiring only a high
school education.
Furthermore, EMU enhances the quality of life of the local and regional communities
through providing arts and entertainment, athletic events, WEMU radio, and University support
for public service activities. EMU also improves the quality of life of the state and local
communities through cultural events, services to businesses, research and development, and the
extensive volunteer activities of its staff and students.
EMU’s annual operating budget and construction spending of about one‐half billion
dollars have a total impact on the regional economy of more than one billion dollars per year.
The state and regional economies also benefit from higher earnings, and thus higher expenditure
levels, for workers who have earned college degrees compared to those who have not. Including
this earnings premium, the total direct impact of Eastern Michigan University is more than $1.8
billion per academic year.
The alumni earnings premium accounts for more than 75% of EMU’s total direct impact
on Michigan’s economy. University expenditures account for about 18%, and student
off‐campus spending accounts for almost 7% of the direct impact. EMU’s total economic impact
amounts to more than $3.7 billion when the indirect effects of the direct expenditures are added.
The impact of the earnings premium is spread throughout Michigan, since EMU alumni reside
throughout the state. For all items except the earnings premium, the impact of EMU on the
economy is mostly concentrated in the Ypsilanti and Washtenaw County area.
EMU had a total impact on the Michigan economy of $3,694.8 million for the 2008
academic year. Thus, EMU’s impact on the Michigan economy was $41.6 for each dollar
received from the state, greater than the $26 to $1 ratio estimated by Carr and Roessner (2002)
20
for all 15 state universities. EMU’s better‐than‐average showing on this measure reflects the
number of EMU graduates and their corresponding earnings premiums relative to the level of
funding per student that EMU receives from the state compared to the average state university
funding.
Another way to look at the return the state receives on its investment in EMU is to
compare the state’s tax revenue from EMU’s impact to total funds received from the state
government. EMU’s total impact on the Michigan economy results in a contribution of $115.1
million in state tax revenue. Thus, EMU’s impact on state government tax revenue is $1.87 in
taxes for each dollar received from the state.
Student Off‐Campus Expenditures
The primary function of the University is providing educational services to students, so
the geographic origin of EMU students is an important factor in analyzing EMU’s economic
impact more than three quarters of its students come from Lenawee, Livingston, Macomb,
Monroe, Oakland, Washtenaw, and Wayne counties; while 14.9 percent come from areas other
than southeastern Michigan, and 2.46% represents foreign students.
Nearly eighty percent of EMU’s students come from outside of Washtenaw County to
attend EMU. About 3,000 students live in University‐provided residence halls or apartments;
expenditures on housing and food service by these on‐campus students represent the majority of
the $29.6 million in Auxiliary Activity Income for the University. Approximately 2,500 students
live in privately owned rental housing near campus and about 16,500 students commute to
classes from surrounding communities.
On‐campus students spend an estimated $7.5 million per academic year, split about
equally among books, supplies, transportation, and miscellaneous expenses. The 2,500
21
off‐campus students pay out an estimated $11.2 million for rent and meals per year, plus an
additional $7.4 million for books, supplies, transportation, and miscellaneous expenses. EMU’s
16,500 commuter students spend an estimated $29.8 million for transportation and an estimated
$29 million for books, supplies, and miscellaneous items.
Figure 2-4.
22
Housing
Eastern Michigan University's students make use of a variety of housing options both on
campus and in the surrounding community.
On campus, over 3,000 students, staff and faculty live in university housing. Housing
options include both traditional residence halls and apartments. Residence hall options include
the first year center, Buell Hall, Downing Hall, Wise Hall, The Village (which includes six
buildings and a commons building) and The Towers (which consists of Hill, Hoyt and Pittman).
The apartment options include Brown and Munson Apartments which primarily house single
students. These are located on the west side of campus. Cornell Courts is located west of the
main campus and includes one and two bedroom units. This complex also houses tenants with
children. Finally, there is Westview apartments which are located adjacent to Rynearson Stadium
and the Convocation Center. This complex is townhouse style and includes one and two
bedroom units.
Off campus a good portion of students have access to various types of property such as
houses, apartments, shared accommodations, townhouses, private homes, room & board, homestay, and several other popular property categories. It is estimated that more than 2,500 students
live in the neighborhoods adjacent to campus.
At the time of the last census survey, there were 9,215 total housing units in Ypsilanti.
The number of occupied housing units was 8,551, or 92.8 of the total units in town. Of these,
2,810 were owner-occupied (32.9) and 5,741 were renter-occupied (67.1, compared to the
national average of 33.80%). There were also 664 vacant homes in Ypsilanti at the time of the
last complete survey.
23
Social & Community Development
Universities, including Eastern Michigan University, have an impact that extends well
beyond such economic measures as monetary expenditures and economic vitality into the social
fabric of the entire community.
The mission of Eastern Michigan University includes this statement: "We extend our
commitment beyond the campus boundaries to the wider community through service initiatives
and partnerships of mutual interest addressing local, regional, national, and international
opportunities and challenges." One of EMU’s strategic directions is that it “will become a model
for public engagement by linking students, faculty, staff, and alumni with the local community,
the Detroit metropolitan area, southeastern Michigan, the State of Michigan and the region to
produce real‐world value and practical experience that enhances learning and helps address
community needs.”
Community engagement activities are an integral program component for a large
majority of organizational units at the university. Academic units use community venues as a
professional outlet for faculty and students in a mutually beneficial learning relationship. Many
non‐academic and support units at the university are also intensively involved in community
activities, often because such engagement is central to their organizational mission.
Community settings also serve as an extension of the campus as venues for such
field‐experience educational activities as internships and student teaching. While these
career‐preparation activities are sometimes recognized in terms of their social integration with
the community, they are less often analyzed as a vital component of a university’s long‐term
contribution to the economic well‐being of the community.
24
Community engagement value can be partially expressed through the aggregation of
common data about community‐based programs, events, and partnerships. On average during the
academic year, the community‐engagement programs of EMU:

Sponsor or host more than 2,200 events, programs, and activities that average 900,000
attendees.

Receive more than $4.3 million of outside funding for community‐based programming
from more than 20 different organizations, including individuals, businesses, foundations,
and government agencies.

Collaborate with more than 800 different organizations to engage in community‐service
activities. Partners include non‐profit agencies, governmental units, professional and
fraternal organizations, private corporations, school districts, and other colleges and
universities.
Zoning & Land Use
Eastern Michigan University’s Ypsilanti campus is within the jurisdictional boundary of
the City of Ypsilanti. The EMU Corporate Education Center, just south of the main campus
is within the jurisdictional boundary of Ypsilanti Township. Both jurisdictions are zoned
communities and have assigned districts for the areas where EMU property is located.
City of Ypsilanti
For the EMU main campus, University properties fall within the Public Lands (PL)
zoning district. The PL public land district is designed to classify publicly-owned uses and
permits the normal principal and incidental uses required to carry out governmental functions
and services. It is the intent of the PL public land district to encourage the development of
25
attractive public spaces which are conducive to community interaction, including innovative
parking arrangements, combinations of permitted uses, and rehabilitation of existing
structures.
While not under control of the University, the City of Ypsilanti has a Student Overlay
District (S-OL). The intent of the student overlay district is to provide areas in the vicinity of
the Eastern Michigan University campus which are conducive to student living, recognizing
that the needs and lifestyle of students vary from those of families and other household types.
It is further recognized that a higher density of development in student areas is appropriate
given the large number of students who wish to live in close proximity to the university
campus and the necessity of students to walk or otherwise use nonautomotive transportation
thereby reducing the overall number of off-street parking that is needed. To allow greater
flexibility within the S district, "relaxed requirements" are permitted for some land uses.
26
Charter Township of Ypsilanti
The area in which the EMU Corporate Education Center and Eagle Crest Golf Course are
located is zoned Multiple Family Residential by the Township (RM-3). The RM-3 multiplefamily residential district is designed to provide sites for high-density multiple-dwelling
developments adjacent to high traffic generators and in areas abutting major thoroughfares
and expressways.
27
University Development and Local Zoning Ordinances
Eastern Michigan University is immune from control by the legislature, many aspects of
the executive branch, and cities in which its University-owned campuses are located; but it is
not immune from the authority of the courts. Some degree of political control is exercised as
the legislature approves appropriations for the University. While the local communities have
zoning ordinances in place, the University is not compelled to follow the ordinances. The
University does work with local jurisdictions in being a responsible community partner.
The board of control of a public university is a constitutional corporation and is vested
with the entire control of university affairs and property. Eastern Michigan Univ Bd of
Control v Labor Mediation Bd, 384 Mich 561, 565; 184 NW2d 921 (1971) (relying on
Weinberg v Regents of the Univ of Michigan, 97 Mich 246, 254; 56 NW 605 (1893)).
Whether a public university is subject to local regulation depends upon the legislative
intent expressed in the applicable enabling statute. Chapter 390 of the Michigan Compiled
Laws governs the operations of universities and colleges, MCL 390.1 et seq; MSA 15.901 et
seq. Section 551 provides for the continuation of Central, Eastern, Northern, and Western
Michigan Universities and states that these universities will each be governed by an eight
member board of control. Under section 553, a university's board of control has general
supervisory power to control and direct university funds. University authority to acquire and
develop land, buildings, and other facilities is addressed in section 558, which provides in
part that “A board, after approval by the legislature, may acquire land or acquire or erect
buildings, or alter, equip or maintain them, to be used as residence halls, apartments, dining
facilities, student centers, health centers, stadiums, athletic fields, gymnasiums, auditoriums,
parking structures and other educational facilities”.
28
Transportation Network
Roads
Ypsilanti is made up of mostly collector roads but also several major roadways. Major
portions of I-94, US-12 and US-23 run through the city limits as well as the surrounding area.
These highways can be viewed in Figures 2-5 below. The city of Ypsilanti shares responsibility
of the local roads with Washtenaw County. Eastern Michigan is responsible for maintaining its
parking lots and streets.
Figure 2-5.
29
Figure 2-6.
30
Rail
Within Washtenaw County there are four rail lines, these lines run through Ypsilanti
including the areas surrounding campus. Ypsilanti Depot Town still has tracks which run through
it and influenced the name of the popular local restaurant, Sidetracks. Directly across from
campus lies a set of tracks used primarily for freight trains, several popular off campus housing
options surround these tracks and house a substantial portion of students.
Figure 2-7.
31
Figure 2-8.
32
Airports
Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport is located less than 20 miles east of campus
and is the primary airport for the state of Michigan. Housed much closer to campus is Willow
Run Airport, Willow Run sits just 8 miles east of Eastern Michigan University. Due primarily to
its proximity to the primary airport, Willow Run serves non-commercial passenger services.
Willow Run occupies a 2,600-acre site along the Detroit - Ann Arbor high tech and
manufacturing corridor. It is supported by a strong infrastructure of freeways: I-94, I-96, US 23,
I-275, and I-75.
Figure 2-9.
33
Public Transit
Public transportation in the city is primarily offered through The Ann Arbor
transportation authority (AATA). The AATA provides transportation primarily between the city
of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti.
Figure 2-10.
Police, Fire & Emergency Facilities
Police
Within Washtenaw County there are a total of eighteen police stations, the city of Ypsilanti
has its own police department although the area is also patrolled by state police officers. The
Ypsilanti police department is currently made up of 30 police officers, 2 parking enforcement
officers and 3 civilian support personnel.
34
Eastern Michigan University also has its own full service professional police department,
including the power of arrest. EMU Public Safety is located at 1200 Oakwood St. and is open 24
hours a day, seven days a week, to serve the needs of the campus community. The department is
comprised of 21 Police Officers, 4 foot patrol Officers, 9 full time dispatchers, 4 sergeants and 4
administrators.
Fire
The City of Ypsilanti Fire Department protects 45000 people living in an area of 4.5
square miles. It operates out of 1 station that protects a range of areas from residential to
commercial to Eastern Michigan University. The City of Ypsilanti Fire Department which
consists of approximately 19 firefighters divided up into 3 shifts.
Medical
Washtenaw County has five medical hospitals including the U of M Health System which
is one of the largest in the world. Less than 2 miles from main campus and across the street from
Rynearson Stadium is St. Joseph Mercy Hospital. St. Joseph Mercy has 529 beds and a staff of
over 3,500. It also has a helicopter facility.
Emergency Management
The Michigan Emergency Management Act, Act 390, 30.409, Section 9 (5) requires that
a “ public college or university with a combined average population of faculty, students, and
staff of 25,000 or more, including its satellite campuses within this state, shall appoint an
emergency management coordinator for the public college or university.“ In compliance with the
act, EMU has an appointed emergency management coordinator.
35
The Office of Emergency Management is housed within the Department of Public Safety.
EMU Emergency Management works in collaboration with the city, county and university to
align preparedness activities for the better of the University and community population.
The Office maintains comprehensive preparedness and response plans that are coordinated with
the City of Ypsilanti and Washtenaw County and define the actions to be taken by the University
to respond to various types of emergencies. EMU also has a Community Emergency Response
Team (CERT) that provides support on campus and to the surrounding communities.
Washtenaw County has its own Office of Emergency Management which works on
emergency preparedness for the county as well as education and outreach for the public. While
the City of Ypsilanti does not have a separate emergency management program, emergency
services are coordinated through the Ypsilanti Fire Department.
Section 3: University Profile






University Impact
University Mission
University Background
Organizational Structure
Scope
Economic Impact
University Impact
Eastern Michigan University has a substantial influence on the surrounding community. A
sizeable portion of the population is made up of students, faculty and staff members. The
University hosts many community events in the various sporting facilities, the convocation
center as well as the Student Center. The community has many of the traditional staples of being
a ‘college town’ however; it is often overshadowed by Ann Arbor and the University of
Michigan.
36
University Mission
Eastern Michigan University is committed to excellence in teaching through traditional and
innovative approaches, the extension of knowledge through basic and applied research, and
creative and artistic expression. Building on a proud tradition of national leadership in the
preparation of teachers, it maximizes educational opportunities and personal and professional
growth through an array of baccalaureate, master’s and doctoral programs.
The University extends its our commitment beyond the campus boundaries to the wider
community through service initiatives, and public and private partnerships of mutual interest
addressing local, regional, national and international opportunities and challenges.
University Background
Founded in 1849, Michigan State Normal School was designated by the state legislature as
the first institution to educate teachers to serve the public schools. As a result the University
became the sixth teacher education institution in the nation. A campus that today comprises more
than 800 acres was once a four-acre plot with one building and two programs of study. The
school’s name changed several times; to Michigan State Normal College in 1899; to Eastern
Michigan College in 1956; and finally to Eastern Michigan University in 1959.
The University has since expanded; adding the College of Business in 1964, the College of
Health and Human Services in 1975 and the College of Technology in 1980. More recently,
Eastern Michigan has developed Extended Programs that include Continuing Education, the
Centers for Corporate Training, the World College and numerous community-focused institutes.
37
Over the years, EMU has educated thousands of sons and daughters of Michigan, the nation, and
the world.
The University currently serves nearly 23,000 students who are pursuing undergraduate,
graduate, specialist, doctoral and certificate degrees in the arts, sciences and professions. In all,
more than 200 majors, minors and concentrations are delivered through the University’s
Colleges of Arts and Sciences; Business; Education; Health and Human Services; Technology,
and its graduate school.
Eastern Michigan’s exceptional faculty, students and alumni include CEOs from major
businesses; numerous Fulbright Scholars and Milken Family Foundation National Educators
award winners; and several Michigan Teachers of the Year. EMU is regularly recognized by
national publications for its excellence, diversity, and commitment to applied education.
The University has enhanced its learning environment through structural initiatives during
the past several years. Recent construction includes the Terrestrial and Aquatic Research Facility
(1998), the Convocation Center (1998), the Bruce T. Halle Library (1998), the John W. Porter
College of Education Building (1999), the Everett L. Marshall College of Health and Human
Services Building (2000), the Village residence hall (2001), University House (2003), and new
Student Center (2006).
Organizational Structure
The president is the chief executive officer of the University. The president is responsible for
the entire operation of the University and is charged to implement its mission, consonant with the
policies and actions of the Board of Regents. The Board consists of eight members appointed by
the Governor to serve staggered eight-year terms. The University is constitutionally autonomous.
38
Below is an organizational chart which gives insight into the hierarchical structure of the
university.
Figure 3-1.
39
Scope
Hazards analyzed within this plan were categorized as being high, medium and low. Within
the contents of this plan, all potential hazards are addressed on a rudimentary level and can be
seen within the risk rating chart found later on. Those hazards deemed to be ‘high’ or that have
the most potential to occur and damage the campus community will be focused on in depth.
Eastern Michigan University had multiple campus locations including several satellite
campuses. Within this plan, the main campus, the College of Business and Eagle Crest take
primary focus.
Economic Impact
Eastern Michigan University has a substantial impact on the local economy as a result mainly
of two things: employing individuals and attracting students and visitors to the area for a
majority of the calendar year. As depicted below, the university stimulates the local economy
through purchases and construction contracts, especially in recent years as updates have been
performed in several of the buildings. To name just a few examples this included the
construction of the relatively new Student Center and most recently the renovation of PrayHarold. In addition, students place their money into the local economy during their time in
school whether it is on off campus housing or generic spending. Finally, faculty/staff and visitors
often find themselves investing in the Ypsilanti, economy whether intentional or not.
40
Figure 3-2.
Often, students and graduates dedicate their time to developing the local community.
Many students attain internships to assist in their personal and professional growth; this labor is
most often free and can be of great benefit to the surrounding community. The University not
only assists in stimulating the local economy but it also attributes a great deal to the makeup of
the City of Ypsilanti.
41
Section 4: Planning Process
 Overview of Hazard Mitigation Planning
 Preparing the Plan
 The Advisory Committee, Committee Meetings and Public Involvement
Overview of Hazard Mitigation Planning
Across the United States, natural and manmade disasters have led to increasing levels of
death, injury, property damage, and interruption of business, government and educational
services. Eastern Michigan University recognizes the consequences of disasters and the need to
reduce their impacts.
The Plan will guide the University toward greater disaster resistance in harmony with the
character and needs of the campus and the surrounding community. Planning is a prerequisite for
funding under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Pre- Disaster Mitigation Program and
Flood Mitigation Assistance program, all available from FEMA through EMHSD and will
position the University to be eligible to apply for future mitigation grants.
Mitigation is defined as any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the long term
effects of disasters. Simply stated, mitigation is loss reduction activities taken before or after
disasters. While it is important to address the other three phases of emergency management:
preparedness, response and recovery, the focus of this Plan is on mitigation. It also addresses
some aspects of disaster preparedness, response, and recovery, as these elements can enhance or
hinder the eventual success of the plan itself.
Hazard mitigation planning is beneficial to EMU in several ways. It helps the University
become more resilient to disaster losses and is necessary in order for the University to maintain
its eligibility for FEMA Pre-disaster Mitigation and Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs.
42
An element of particular interest to many administrators is that it is mitigation planning is
meant to reduce the costs associated with hazards of all kinds. If done properly, it will take a
long term view of rebuilding post hazard and identify ways to minimize the time and cost
associated with addressing the most likely hazards. The benefits associated with mitigation
planning include a reduction in: loss of life, property, essential services, critical facilities and
economic hardship as well as a reduction in short and long-term recovery and reconstruction
costs. Additional benefits include an increase in both cooperation and communication within the
community as well as potential for state and federal funding for recovery and reconstruction
projects.
Preparing the Plan
Eastern Michigan University worked to establish the framework and process for this planning
effort using FEMA’s Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance (2008) and the State
and Local Mitigation Planning How-To Guides (2001), which include Multi-Jurisdictional
Mitigation Planning (2006). The plan is structured around a four-phase process:
1) Organize resources

Organize the planning effort

Involve the campus community

Coordinate with other agencies
2) Assess risks

Identify the hazards

Assess the risks
43
3) Develop the mitigation plan

Set goals

Review proposed activities

Draft an action plan
4) Implement the plan and monitor progress

Adopt the plan

Implement, evaluate and revise the plan
In October of 2010 work on the Eastern Michigan University Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
began. The first steps taken involved researching the necessary contents of a hazard mitigation
plan and then transitioning into the specifics of the Eastern Michigan community. While creating
this plan, information was collected from a variety of sources including previous documents and
plans. Some are listed below. A kick-off meeting was held for the campus community and local
agencies on November 19, 2010.
Supporting Plans and Procedures

Eastern Michigan University, Emergency Response Procedures
This Emergency Response3 Procedure (ERP) is a guide to how the Eastern Michigan
University community (students, faculty, staff and visitors) conducts specific emergency
response actions for emergency situations. While this procedure provides detailed action
steps, the users must keep in mind that all emergency events are unique and that
3
The term “response” as used in this procedure includes immediate actions to save lives, protect
property and the environment, and meet basic needs.
44
procedures can, and should, be implemented on a scalable, flexible, and adaptable basis
to align with the challenges presented by the emergency.
This ERP is an integrated component of a comprehensive preparedness and response
system that will ensure unity of effort and help EMU protect the health and safety of the
campus community and its resources. As this system is implemented, it will align and
synchronize this ERP with the University’s Comprehensive Emergency Management
Plan (CEMP), Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) and Building Emergency Plans
(BEP).
This ERP has also been developed to comply with the Michigan Occupational Safety
and Health Act, Act 154, P.A. 1974, as amended, the Fire Prevention Act, Act 207, P.A.
1941 as amended, and the Michigan Emergency Management Act, Act 390, 1976, as
amended.

All-Hazards Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
The EMU Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) is intended to
establish policies, procedures and organizational structure for response to
emergencies that cause a significant disruption of the functioning of all or portions of
the University. The CEMP describes the roles and responsibilities of divisions,
departments, offices, units and personnel during emergency situations. The CEMP is
designed to:
1. Present a proactive response designed to protect students, staff and faculty, as
well as the community and the environment in case of a major emergency or
disaster.
45
2. Serve as a guide for managing any situation, generally of an emergency nature
that may result from a single violent act and disasters both natural and
technology-based.
3. Outline and assign responsibilities for coping with emergencies affecting the
safety and wellbeing of people and/or facilities on campus.
4. Facilitate compliance with certain regulatory requirements of federal, state
and local agencies and enhances the University's ability to quickly return to
normal operations following an emergency or disaster.

Continuity of Operations Plan
The Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) allows the University to preserve,
maintain, and/or reconstitute its capability to perform essential functions in the event
of any disaster or emergency that could potentially disrupt operations and services. It
is not an emergency response plan; the purpose of a COOP is to facilitate the
recovery and resumption of critical or essential functions through the development of
plans, procedures and provisions for alternate sites, personnel, resources,
interoperable communications and vital records/databases.

Building Emergency Plan
Building Emergency Plans (BEP) provide additional procedures for preparedness
and response for emergency incidents. The BEP provides critical information that
each individual needs to be familiar with when there is an emergency in a specific
building. All building occupants need to review, understand, and practice their
Building Emergency Plan information and procedures, including emergency alerting,
notification, evacuation, and shelter-in-place procedures.
46

Crisis Communications Plan
The EMU Crisis Communications Plan outlines the policies and procedures for
the coordination of communications within the university, and between the university,
the media and the public in the event of an emergency or controversial issue. The plan
provides a strategy for communicating quickly and adequately with EMU’s target
audiences during various levels of emergencies.

Emergency Alert Systems Policy and Procedures
The Eastern Michigan University campus maintains a multi-modal approach to all
hazards emergency alerting and notification. This document establishes the policy
and procedures for the support of emergency alerts and notification at EMU and to
ensure compliancy with applicable federal laws.
In addition to the Eastern Michigan University plans referenced, the State of Michigan
Hazard Analysis, and the Washtenaw County and the City of Ypsilanti Hazard Mitigation plans
were reviewed for area information.
47
Table 4-1.
48
The Advisory Committee, Committee Meetings & Public Involvement
In compliance with the guidelines laid out by FEMA, the Emergency Management Office
held a public meeting at the both the start and conclusion of the project to inform the community
of what this project entailed and what the project goals were. In addition, a meeting was held in
December of 2011 to provide a status update of the project while revision were being made to
the plan. To gain more direct involvement, a rough draft of the plan was sent out in March of
2012 to solicit commentary and suggestions. It was sent to advisory committee members as well
as the public safety professionals of the city and county.
As the office concluded the research phase of the project, it proceeded to involve the
community members once more. Members of the Eastern Michigan University campus
community (faculty, staff and students) were asked for suggestions regarding mitigation
recommendations. Additionally, copies of the plan were provided to the City of Ypsilanti Fire
Department which coordinates emergency services for the city, Ypsilanti Police Department,
Washtenaw County Emergency Management and the Michigan Emergency Management &
Homeland Security Division Region 2 –S Coordinator.
Information on how to obtain a copy of the draft plan was made available to interested
members of the public and a presentation was prepared to provide an overview of the planning
process and the results of the project.
Hazard Mitigation Planning & Advisory Committee Information
The Eastern Michigan University Multi-Hazard Mitigation project is headed by Mark
Wesley, EMU Emergency Director, who is the primary point of contact. Members of the
committee include representatives from various University departments, the City of Ypsilanti
and Washtenaw County. The table below identifies the individuals and the organizations they
represent.
49
Eastern Michigan University Hazard Mitigation Advisory Committee
Name
Affiliation
Kevin Abbasse
EMU Physical Plant
Sonya Alvarado
EMU Federation of Teachers
Ellen Bernard
EMU Environmental Health and Safety
Marc Breckenridge
Washtenaw County Emergency Management
Elizabeth Bucciarelli
American Association of University Professors
Susan Campbell
PT Union/Office of Research & Development
Akosua Dow
Provost’s Office & Academic Affairs
John Foley
Huron River Watershed
Nick Graham
AFSCME/Physical Plant
Cat Griebe
Mitigation GA
Joanne Hansen
Women's Commission
Erica Healander
Risk Management
Robert Heighes
Chief, EMU Department of Public Safety
Barbara Hopkins
Center for Organization Risk Reduction
Jon Ichesco
Chief, Ypsilanti Fire Department
Ken Kelly
Washtenaw County Emergency Management
Thomas Kovacs
American Association of University Professors
Kevin Lawson
EMU Student Center
Mark Monarch
EMU Physical Plant
Steve Moore
EMU Physical Plant
Steve Pernicky
American Association of University Professors
Bilal Sarsour
EMU Physical Plant
Toni Taylor
Clerical Union/Academic Advising
Eric Ward
University Health Services
Mark Wesley
EMU Emergency Management
Kathryn Wilhoff
Environmental Health and Safety
Gregg Wilmes
American Association of University Professors
Table 4-2.
50
Section 5: Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment & Vulnerability Analysis











Initial Hazard Identification
State and Federal Disaster Declarations
Risk and Vulnerability
Community Critical Facilities and Services
Campus Critical Facilities and Services
University Building Inventory
Natural Hazards
Technological Hazards
Societal Hazards
Hazard Summary
Hazard Priority Rating
Initial Hazard Identification
The primary method used to initially identify relevant hazards to the Eastern Michigan
University community was to conduct a survey. The Eastern Michigan Emergency Management
Office conducted an online hazard assessment survey from January 27, 2011 until February 26,
2011. The survey was made available for students, staff and faculty via Surveymonkey, an online
survey hosting website. The purpose of the survey was to identify relevant threats to the campus
community. The information gathered from the responses to this survey supports the
development of the Eastern Michigan University Hazard Mitigation Plan. The survey acted as a
vital part of steps 1 through 3 of the risk assessment process.
The survey was sent out to various members of email mailing lists, was posted on EMU
Today and word of mouth was used to increase awareness of the surveys existence. In total there
were 350 respondents, which included faculty, staff and both undergraduate and graduate
students. The survey consisted of 12 multiple choice questions and 1 optional question regarding
additional commentary suggesting any improvements the university might be able to make in the
area of emergency preparedness and mitigation.
51
The results of this survey were used in conjunction with previously existing data from the
City of Ypsilanti and Washtenaw County Hazard Mitigation Plans and data from past natural and
manmade events that have occurred on and around campus. The survey supports the creation of
an extensive profile of potential hazards affecting the University based on historical accounts,
existing emergency plans, and knowledge of students, faculty, and staff. The various hazards
identified through the risk assessment process will then be prioritized based on the likelihood of
occurrence, severity of the hazard and cost of damage to the University
52
The following chart compares the hazards identified in other plans with the hazards identified
by Eastern Michigan University.
Table 5-1.
53
State & Federal Disaster Declarations
Washtenaw County has experienced five (5) governor’s declarations of emergencies
(9/05; 4/04; 8/03; 7/80; 1/78) and eight (8) Presidential declarations (9/05; 6/04; 8/03; 1/01; 1/99;
7/80; 1/78; 4/65) between 1953 and 2011.
Figure 5-1.
54
University Facilities Inventory
"Buildings" are the primary components of what is commonly referred to as "facilities” in the
University inventory. Physical "facilities" is often used as a more generic term to include other
types of structures, real property, and fixed assets; and records of these extended capital
investments should be maintained by each institution. Following is a listing of university
facilities including satellite locations which are denoted with an asterisk in Table 5-2.
Figure 5-2.
55
General Fund Building Inventory and Replacement Cost Information
General Fund
Buildings
Alexander
Boone Hall
Bowen
Briggs
Central Stores
Convocation Center
Cooper
Corporate Education
Center
Everett C. Marshall
Fletcher Building
(Acquired 2010)
Ford Hall
Greenhouse & Aquatic
Biology
Halle Library
Heating Plant
Hover
Indoor Practice Facility
John W. Porter
King
Kresge Center*
Mark Jefferson
McKenny Union
Oestrike Stadium
Olds\Robb Center
Owen C.O.B
*Satellite location
Floors
Sq. ft.
Date
Built
Age
(yrs)
Major System Renovations
Architectural
Mechanical
Electrical
Time Since
Renovation
(yrs)
2012 Building
Replacement
Value
4
3
2
1
1
3
2
86,900
45,210
89,220
9,500
10,140
198,385
12,150
1980
1914
1955
1937
1972
1998
1984
32
98
57
75
40
14
28
1980
2000
1955
1990
1972
1998
1984
1998
2000
1955
1990
1972
1998
1984
1980
2000
1955
1990
1972
1998
1984
32
12
57
22
40
14
28
$22,857,042
$11,891,448
$23,467,264
$2,498,756
$2,667,093
$52,180,601
$3,195,777
2
37,200
1989
23
1989
1989
1989
23
$10,917,195
3
70,324
2000
12
2000
2000
2000
12
$18,497,107
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$4,000,000
2
33,333
1929
83
1968
1968
1968
44
$8,767,477
1
5,200
1998
14
1998
1998
1998
14
$1,367,740
5
3
2
1
3
4
1
5
4
1
5
5
273,715
23,856
11,021
1998
1951
1941
2010
1966
1939
1974
1969
1931
1968
1984
1990
14
61
71
2
46
73
38
43
81
44
28
22
1998
1951
2002
2010
1999
1939
1974
2011
1992
1968
1984
1990
1998
1951
2002
2010
1999
1939
1974
2011
1992
1968
1984
1990
1998
1951
2002
2010
1999
1939
1974
2011
1992
1968
1984
1990
14
61
10
13
73
38
1
20
44
28
22
$71,994,422
$43,731,458
$4,045,514
$3,400,000
$37,816,700
$17,946,458
$3,315,717
$68,645,427
$28,170,975
$1,818,953
$47,510,821
$40,082,287
143,775
61,450
12,606
180,802
107,103
1,312
180,631
126,000
Table 5-2.
56
General Fund Building Inventory and Replacement Cost Information
General Fund
Buildings
Paint Research
Pease
Physical Plant
Physical Plant Storage
Garage
Pierce Hall
Pray Harrold
Quirk
Rackham
Roosevelt
Rynearson Stadium
School House
Sculpture Studio
Sherzer
Sill Hall
Snow
Starkweather Hall
Strong
Student Union
Team Building
University House
Warner
Welch Hall
611 West Cross Street
(Psych Clinic)
Floors
Sq. ft.
Date
Built
Age
(yrs)
Major System Renovations
Architectural
Mechanical
Electrical
Time Since
Renovation
(yrs)
2012 Building
Replacement
Value
1
2
1
8,000
30,181
25,300
1987
1914
1995
25
98
17
1987
1994
1995
1987
1994
1995
1987
1994
1995
25
18
17
$2,937,565
$7,938,416
$6,654,581
1
8,500
1995
17
1995
1995
1995
17
$2,235,729
4
7
2
2
2
3
1
1
3
2
2
2
3
3
1
2
2
4
61,275
237,108
58,205
45,890
75,639
49,595
900
4,648
35,253
92,635
30,035
8,706
80,713
176,000
13,536
10,700
95,349
36,840
1948
1967
1959
1938
1924
1968
1905
1959
1903
1965
1959
1896
1957
2006
1995
2003
1964
1896
64
45
53
74
88
44
107
53
109
47
53
116
55
6
17
9
48
116
1990
2011
1959
1938
1973
1968
1988
1959
1990
1965
1959
1996
1957
2006
1995
2003
1964
1986
1990
2011
1959
1938
1973
1968
1988
1959
1990
1965
1959
1991
1957
2006
1995
2003
1964
1986
1990
2011
1959
1938
1973
1968
1988
1959
1990
1965
1959
1991
1957
2006
1995
2003
1964
1986
22
1
53
74
39
44
24
53
22
47
53
16
55
6
17
9
48
6
$16,116,976
$62,365,794
$15,309,483
$12,070,306
$19,895,095
$15,776,833
$659,676
$1,222,549
$9,272,489
$24,365,501
$11,304,440
$2,289,912
$21,229,694
$41,530,308
$3,560,332
$3,374,689
$25,079,356
$9,689,912
2
4,050
1970
42
1970
1970
1970
42
$1,065,259
Total Replacement Cost
Table 5-2. (cont’d.)
57
$846,731,151
Auxiliary Fund Building Inventory and Replacement Cost Information
Auxiliary Buildings
Best Hall
Brown Hall
Buell Hall
Cornell Courts3 units
Cornell Courts6 units
Dining Commons 1
Dining Commons 2
Dining Commons 3
Downing Hall
Eagle Crest Golf
Course Clubhouse
Goddard Hall
Hill Hall
Hoyt Hall
Jones Hall
Lake House
Munson
Table5-3.
Floors
Sq. ft.
Date
Built
Age
(yrs)
Major System Renovations
Architectural
Mechanical
2011
Building
Replacement
Value
S47,187,463
Electrical
Time Since
Renovation
(yrs)
1965
1940
1957
47
72
55
1966
46
$1,964,530
1960
52
$4,108,049
5
5
5
2
68,516
87,872
73,352
28,344
1965
1940
1957
1966
47
72
55
46
1965
1940
1957
1966
1965
1940
1957
1966
2
56,728
1960
52
1960
1960
2
2
2
5
49,276
68,635
46,990
73,821
-
1957
1967
1969
1957
-
55
45
43
55
-
1957
1967
1969
1957
-
1957
1967
1969
1957
-
1957
1967
1969
1957
55
45
43
55
$5,169,150
$31,000,9455
$4,929,343
$9,603,070
-
-
$2,100,512
75,856
94,944
94,944
70,491
3,380
49,264
1955
1969
1969
1948
1994
1940
57
43
43
64
18
72
1955
1969
1969
1948
1994
1940
1955
1969
1969
1948
1994
1940
1955
1969
1969
1948
1994
1940
57
43
43
64
18
72
$12,291,0506
$11,492,091
$11,492,091
See 5
$395,091
See 3
5
11
11
5
1
4
4
Brown-Munson Apartments combined. See Munson value.
5
Includes Phelps/Putnam/Sellers/Walton Residence Halls Complex
6
Goddard/Jones Halls combined
58
4
$6,225,667
Auxiliary Fund Building Inventory and Replacement Cost Information
Auxiliary Buildings
Phelps Hall
Pittman Hall
Putnam Hall
Sellers
Softball Concessions
The Village
Walton Hall
Westview Apartments
600 W. Forest
601 W. Forest
526 St. Johns
Floors
5
11
5
5
1
3
5
2
2
2
3
Sq. ft.
56,722
94,944
56,722
56,722
1,050
113,060
56,722
107,880
5,580
2,775
1,434
Date
Built
Age
(yrs)
1966
1969
1968
1966
2005
2001
1968
1967
1949
1919
1920
46
43
44
46
7
11
44
43
63
93
92
2011
Building
Replacement
Electrical
Value
1966
46
See 4
1969
43
$11,492,091
1968
44
See 4
1966
46
See 4
2005
7
$381,058
2001
11
$14,580,978
1968
44
See 4
1969
43
$11,316,824
1949
63
$359,717
1980
32
$191,358
1988
92
$119,559
Total Replacement Cost $61,820,858
Major System Renovations
Architectural
Mechanical
1966
1969
1968
1966
2005
2001
1968
1969
1949
1980
1920
1966
1969
1968
1966
2005
2001
1968
1969
1949
1980
2001
Table5-3. (cont’d.)
59
Time Since
Renovation
(yrs)
Estimated Building Contents Value
Building Name
Alexander Music Building
Best Hall
Boone Hall
Briggs Hall
Buell Hall
Central Receiving & Warehouse
Convocation Center
Cooper Building (2000 Huron River Dr.)
Coral Substation
Cornell Court Apartments A-F
Cornell Court Apartments G,H,I
Corporate Education Center
Dining Commons #1
Dining Commons #3-Hoyt Convention Center
Dining Complex #2 W/Dorms
Downing Hall
Eagle Crest Golf Course Clubhouse
Fletcher Building
Ford Hall
Halle Library
Heating Plant
Hill Tower Complex #3
Hover Building
Hoyt Tower Complex #3
Lake House
Jones-Goddard Hall
King Hall
Mark-Jefferson Science Complex
Marshall Building
McKenny Hall
Table 5-4.
60
2010- 2011
Contents
Value
$1,969,347
$1,079,417
$782,278
$225,844
$447,452
$92,435
$527,089
$382,265
$32,059
$150,315
$619,092
$392,430
$1,721,127
$355,400
$364,850
$108,620
$90,086
$500,000
$253,363
$4,386,431
$1,008,667
$127,048
$1,059,500
$619,957
$19,884
$68,338
$643,280
$2,570,674
$359,170
$656,500
Estimated Building Contents Value
Building Name
Munson-Brown Hall
Oestrike Baseball Stadium
Owen/(Cob) Parking Structure
Owen/(Cob)
Paint Research Lab
Parking Structure
Pease Auditorium
Physical Plant (Wm. Smart Bldg)
Physical Plant Storage Garage
Pierce Hall {Including Radio Tower}
Pittman Tower Complex #3
Porter College Of Education Building
Pray-Harrold
Quirk Theatre
Rackham Hall
Roosevelt Hall
Rynearson Eastside
Rynearson Indoor Practice Facility
Rynearson Stands
Rynearson Team Bldg.
School House
Sculpture Studio
Sherzer Hall
Sill Hall
Snow Health Center
Starkweather Hall
Strong Hall
Terrestrial/Aquatic Center
Table 5-4. (cont’d.)
61
2010- 2011
Contents
Value
$740,308
$10,100
$123,077
$2,357,393
$444,654
$3,984,960
$106,866
$489,676
$567,007
$923,372
$122,314
$1,550,149
$8,157,097
$210,706
$820,997
$616,006
$181,740
$50,000
$112,099
$694,561
$13,893
$53,433
$450,273
$2,634,193
$480,220
$597,281
$1,252,926
$35,393
Estimated Building Contents Value
Building Name
Warner Gym, Bowen Fieldhouse, Rec-IM
Welch Hall
Westview Apartments
Wise Hall
Village Residence Halls
University House
Psychological Clinic 611 W. Cross Street
526 St. Johns
600 W. Forest St
601 W. Forest
Student Center
Total Estimated Content Values
2010- 2011
Contents
Value
$1,431,528
$1,643,842
$29,627
$138,238
$1,122,518
$493,239
$75,000
$10,687
$1,515
$1,515
$1,351,538
$55,692,859
Table 5-4. (cont’d.)
Additional Assets Value Information
Asset
Value
$82,131,140
$7,659,760
$4,554,510
$2,806,015
$2,574,491
$558,000
$411,565
$392,843
$281,058
$97,986
Library Holdings
Main Campus Parking Structure
College of Business Parking Structure
Coral Substation
Fine Arts throughout Campus
Stadium Scoreboard
Stadium Lights
Softball Fields
Radio Tower (890 W. Cross)
Women’s Softball Stands
Table 5-5.
62
Natural Hazards
Severe Snow Storm
Snow storms are just one category of severe winter weather; they include but are not
limited to blizzard conditions. A snow storm involves an excess of snowfall while a blizzard is
the combination of heavy snowfall with high winds, traditionally the winds are over 35 mph and
visibility is reduced to near zero. Snow itself can be categorized as flurries, squalls, blowing
snow and a blizzard. Severe snow storms have the potential to be quite devastating to the areas
they hit. Snow storms have the ability to cause car accidents, power outages, property damages
and loss of life in the most detrimental situations.
Eastern Michigan University has not been immune to the perilous winter conditions that
hit Michigan traditionally between the months of November to March. The locations
traditionally affected when the main campus closes are: the COB, Livonia, Brighton and Detroit.
Closures have occurred due to inclement winter weather conditions on multiple occasions over
the past 2 years. The following are the dates on which EMU had to close their campus and all
non-essential departments due to hazardous winter weather, including severe snowstorms.
 February 10, 2010
 February 1, 2011-for the evening beginning at 5pm
 February 2, 2011
 February 21, 2011
Snow storms have the ability to impact the Eastern Michigan community both on and off
campus. Transportation impairments are a common hazard associated with severe snow storms
and can affect the EMU community, especially due to the large commuter population. Falling
63
tree limbs and power outages have the potential to leave faculty, staff and students without
adequate heat and sustenance if caught on campus in a severe snow storm condition. To
demonstrate the likelihood of a potential extreme snow situation affecting an EMU property
including the main campus, the map below displays the average snow fall seen in Michigan on
any given year.
Figure 5-3.
64
Ice Storm
An ice storm is any heavy accumulations of ice which can result in hazardous conditions
and potentially damage property. Ice storms have the ability to bring down trees, electrical wires,
telephone lines and communication towers. Communications and power can be disrupted for
extended periods of time while utility companies work to repair the damages. Additionally,
entire communities can be left without heat during the extreme cold of a Michigan winter. While
intense ice storms can clearly cause greater amounts of damage even small accumulations of ice
may cause extreme hazards to motorists and pedestrians. Although ice storms are less common
than snow storms they do occur in Michigan, the most recent severe ice storm occurred in
February of 2011 across much of southeastern Michigan. According to the National Climatic
Data Center, major ice storms have caused more than $200 million in damages since 1993
(averaging $16.4 million per year). It is clear that a severe ice storm has the potential to cause a
major disruption to the campus. Repair staff may find themselves burdened with the challenge of
returning damaged areas to a state of function in a fashion quick enough to prevent additional
disruptions to daily operations. As displayed below in Table 5-6, the majority ice and sleet
storms occur between December and March, knowing this will assist in preparedness planning.
The Eastern Michigan University community is vulnerable in the event of a severe ice
storm. Not all buildings on campus are equipped with emergency generators in the event of
65
power loss due to such a storm. In addition, pipes are susceptible to freezing and bursting,
potentially leaving residents without water for extended periods of time. The severity of the
storm to the area as a whole would impact how detrimental such an event could be to the
campus. It is possible for emergency response times to be slowed slightly if conditions reach a
substantially dangerous level. While Eastern does have a capable maintenance staff; damages to
power for example, can only be handled by the utility company. In this case, the campus would
be at the mercy of their response time in order to restore campus to its fully functioning state.
Tornado/Microburst
Tornadoes are one of nature’s most violent storms. According to the Glossary of
Meteorology, a tornado is “a violently rotating column of air, pendant from a cumuliform cloud
or underneath a cumuliform cloud, and often (but not always) visible as a funnel cloud.”
The most violenttornadoes, with wind speeds of 250 mph or more, are capable of
tremendous destruction. Damage paths can be more than 1 mile wide and up to 50 miles long.
Tornadoes can occur anywhere in the United States. The states along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts
have some of the highest occurrence rates of smaller tornadoes (EF0-EF2), while the Great
Plains region of the country (which includes parts of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska)
consistently has the highest occurrence rates of larger tornadoes (EF3-EF5). Tornadoes are
responsible for the greatest number of wind-related deaths each year in the United States.
The National Weather Service (NWS) classifies and issues tornado watches and warnings
as follows:
A Tornado Watch is issued to alert people to the possibility of a tornado developing in the area
in the next 12 hours.. At this point, a tornado has not been seen but the conditions are very
favorable for tornados to occur at any moment.
66
A Tornado Warning is issued when a tornado has actually been sighted (reliable spotter report)
or has been picked up on radar in the area.
Figure 5-4.
Tornadoes come in all shapes and sizes.Tornadoes can also occur in thunderstorms that
develop in warm, moist air masses in advance of eastward-moving cold fronts. These
thunderstorms often produce large hail and strong winds, in addition to tornadoes. During the
spring, thunderstorms frequently develop along a“dryline,” which separates warm, moist air to
the east from hot, dry air to the west.
In a simplified tornado “model,” there are three regions of tornadic winds:
1. Near the surface, close to the core or vortex of the tornado. In this region, the winds are
complicated and include the peak at-ground wind speeds, but are dominated by the
67
tornado’s strong rotation. It is in this region that strong upward motions occur that carry
debris upward, as well as around the tornado.
2. Near the surface, away from the tornado’s vortex. In this region, the flow is a
combinationof the tornado’s rotation, inflow into the tornado, and the background wind.
Theimportance of the rotational winds as compared to the inflow winds decreases with
distance from the tornado’s vortex. The flow in this region is extremely complicated. The
strongest winds are typically concentrated into relatively narrow swaths of strong
spiraling inflow rather than a uniform flow into the tornado’s vortex circulation.
3. Above the surface, typically above the tops of most buildings. In this region, the flow
tends to become nearly circular. In a tornado, the diameter of the core or vortex
circulation can change with time, so it is impossible to say precisely where one region of
the tornado’s flow ends and another begins.
Also, the visible funnel cloud associated with and typically labeled the vortex of a tornado is
not always the edge of the strong, high winds. Rather, the visible funnel cloud boundary is
determined by the temperature and moisture content of the tornado’s inflowing air. The highest
wind speeds in a tornado occur at a radius measured from the tornado vortex center that can be
larger than the edge of the visible funnel cloud’s radius. It is important to remember that a
tornado’s wind speeds cannot be determined solely from its appearance.
From 1971 until February 2007, tornadoes were typically categorized according to the Fujita
Scale (F Scale), which was created by the late Dr. Tetsuya Theodore Fujita, University of
Chicago. The Fujita Scale categorized tornado severity by damage observed, not by recorded
wind speeds.
68
The Fujita Scale categorizes tornado severity based on observed damage. The six-step scale
ranges from F0 (light damage) to F5 (incredible damage). Since February 2007, the National
Weather Service has used the Enhanced Fujita Scale (EF Scale). This new scale ranges from EF0
to EF5. See http://www.spc.noaa.gov/efscale for further information on the EF Scale.
Table 5-7.
The FEMA Wind Speed Map in Figure 5-5 is primarily based on historical data. Since
1997, almost 1,300 tornadoes, on average, have been reported nationwide each year. Most
tornadoes are short-lived, average less than 500 feet wide, and traverse less than 2,000 feet.
Some large tornadoes have been known to cause damage along paths that are 1-mile wide and
many miles long; however, tornadoes such as these occur only a few times each year. The land
area directly impacted by all tornadoes in a year is relatively small. At present, it is not possible
to directly measure wind speeds in a tornado because of its short life. Thus, the data available for
tornadoes, intensity, and area of damage are relatively sparse and require special consideration in
the probability assessment of wind speeds.
69
Figure 5-5.
Wind Storm
High winds that are not a result of hurricanes or tornadoes are one of the most damaging
forms of weather across the entire nation. High winds occur across Southeast Michigan. If the
winds are sufficiently fast, they are identified as windstorms and are often labeled as damaging
straight-line winds. They often cause damages to property and the environment, and sometimes
to humans. Damages from high winds include downed transmission lines, broken and fallen
trees, damaged buildings and homes (roofs, windows, and siding), and damages to aircraft,
trains, and vehicles.
Severe winds are fairly common in various parts of Michigan. Along the Great Lakes
shoreline, high winds occur regularly and gusts of over 74 miles per hour (hurricane velocity)
occasionally occur with a storm system. Severe winds can cause damage to structures, power
70
lines, and trees. Power outages can result in the need for sheltering those left without power for
extended periods.
High winds are often defined by wind speeds over 60 mph. High damaging wind areas
range in size from a few hundred square miles up to hundreds of thousands of square miles.
The National Weather Service (NWS) classifies and issues wind advisories and warnings as
follows:
A Wind Advisory is generally issued when there are sustained winds of 25–39 miles per hour
(40–63 km/h) and/or gusts to 57 miles per hour (92 km/h) over land. The product is site specific,
but winds of this magnitude occurring over an area that frequently experiences such wind speeds
will not trigger a wind advisory.
A High Wind Warning is issued by the NWS if winds are forecast to be 39-57 mph for at least
1 hour; or any gusts to 58-73 mph on land.
Flood/Riverine Urban Runoff
The climate in Washtenaw County is characteristically continental and, as such, is subject
to extreme temperature variation and fairly well distributed precipitation. Precipitation is slightly
greater during the summer months than during the winter months. The annual precipitation is
approximately 30 inches. Snowfall averages approximately 30 inches annually.
The Huron River, which flows north to south through the County, is a major waterway
flowing through southeastern Michigan to its mouth at Lake Erie. The Huron River, which runs
through Ypsilanti and is near the northern boundary of EMU’s main campus, is a 130-mile-long
river rising out of the Huron Swamp in Indian Springs Metropark in northern Oakland County
and flowing into Lake Erie on the boundary between Wayne County and Monroe County.
71
The Huron River is a typical Southeast Michigan stream; mud banks, slow stream flow
and a low gradient define this river. There are 24 major tributaries totaling about 370 miles
(600 km) in addition to the mainstream. The Huron River watershed drains 908 square miles
(2,350 km2). It is the only state-designated Country-Scenic Natural River in southeast Michigan.
This includes 27.5 miles (44.3 km) of the mainstream, plus an additional 10.5 miles (16.9 km) of
three tributaries.
The river has many dams, 19 on the mainstream and at least 96 in the entire system. Most
dams are only a few feet high, built to slightly increase and maintain water levels in existing
lakes, a use that is now environmentally controversial. However, at least a dozen dams that were
built for mill or hydroelectric power and several formed large new lakes behind them. Some of
these on the Huron River mainstream are Kent Lake, Barton Pond, Argo Pond, Ford Lake,
Belleville Lake, and Flat Rock Pond.
Figure 5-6 The Middle Huron Watershed boundaries within
the Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti Metropolitan Area.
72
Severe floods caused by intense thunderstorms during summer months have been
recorded. However, the more severe flooding in rivers such as the Huron River, generally occur
in late winter and early spring from a combination of frozen ground, melting snow and heavy
rain. The greatest floods of the Huron River in Washtenaw County during the time period of
1920 to 1980 occurred in March 1918, April 1947 and June 1968, as recorded by the USGS stage
gage on Huron River at the Charter Township of Ann Arbor. These floods had estimated
recurrence intervals of 38, 19 and 15 years respectively based on flood frequency analyses. A
heavy rain will produce sudden high discharges. Based on the USGS gage records for the Huron
River at the Charter Township of Ann Arbor, the June 1968 storm produced a flow increase of
3,800 cubic feet within a period of two to three hours after precipitation. The probability of
flooding in the Huron River is further increased by the constrictive bridges and debris
accumulated near these structures.
In the City of Ypsilanti, the probability of severe flooding in Paint Creek is increased due
to constrictive culverts under Interstate Highway 94. During the March 1918 flood, Peninsular
Dam failed and inundated Michigan Ave (a major thoroughfare). During the April 1947 flood,
the municipal pump, sewage treatment plant and high service pumping station were surrounded
with water and the city’s well field was also inundated. During the 1968 flood, commercial and
residential areas located within the Huron River floodplain were damaged. These types of
flooding events have direct impacts on the University in terms of services provided and access to
the University.
There are no flood protection measures for the Huron River and Paint Creek within the
City of Ypsilanti. The combined capacity of dams on the Huron River is not available for large
stage flood reduction.
73
Eastern Michigan University is located in eastern Washtenaw County. The Ypsilanti
Water Tower, which is located directly across from campus, sits at the highest point of elevation
in the city. The EMU Corporate Education Center and Eagle Crest Golf Center is located several
miles to the south of the main campus.
Most flooding issues on campus are the result of urban runoff. A portion of the Eagle
Crest Golf Course borders Ford Lake, a segment of the Huron River chain, and is in a flood
prone area. However, the land is recreation use and no structures are impacted. While not
campus owned, there are housing units (apartments, single family homes) downstream of the
Peninsular Park Dam spillway. Many EMU students live in this downstream area and in the
event of an emergency situation; the University would provide support to students. This
represents an indirect consequence for the University to plan for.
Flood Hazard Areas
City of Ypsilanti: Community Number 260216
As of May 3, 2012, Ypsilanti was re-instated as a participating National Flood Insurance
Program community.
The flood hazard areas of the city are subject to periodic inundation which may result in
safety hazards, loss of life, property and health, disruption of commerce and governmental
services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the
tax base, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare. The flood losses are
caused by the cumulative effects of obstructions in floodplains causing increased flood heights
and velocities, and by the occupancy in flood hazard areas by uses vulnerable to floods or
hazardous to other lands which are inadequately elevated, flood-proofed or otherwise protected
from flood damages.
74
The boundaries of the flood hazard areas shall coincide with the boundaries of the areas
indicated as within the limits of the 100 year flood in the report entitled "The Flood Insurance
Study", City of Ypsilanti, dated January 1980, with accompanying Flood Insurance Rate maps
and Flood Boundary and Floodway maps, as well as the report entitled "The Flood Insurance
Study", Township of Ypsilanti, dated December 15, 1980, with accompanying flood insurance
rate maps and flood boundary and floodway maps.
Figure 5-7.
The University is not directly impacted by flooding occurring along the Huron River. No
Eastern Michigan University main campus property falls within the identified 100 Year
floodplain for the city. The University does not have any repetitive loss properties. However,
75
flooding can produce secondary impacts for the University such as the impact of flooding on
EMU students residing in private housing located in flood prone areas near campus. If flooding
did occur, these students may be displaced and the University may be asked to provide support.
The previously effective FIS for the City of Ypsilanti is dated September 1982. The
hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for the study were performed by USACE Detroit District for
FIA under Inter-Agency Agreement No. IAA-H-10-77, Project Order No. 15, Amendment No. 2.
The following streams were studied in detail: Huron River and Paint Creek. This study was
completed in September 1978. Current Flood Insurance Study Number: 26161CV001A.
Charter Township of Ypsilanti: Community Number 260542
The flood hazard areas of the township are subject to periodic inundation which could
result in potential loss of life, property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and
governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and
impairment of the tax base, all of which would adversely affect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
These potential flood loses are caused by the cumulative effect of obstructions in
floodplains causing increases in flood heights and velocities, and by the occupancy in flood
hazard areas by uses vulnerable to floods or hazardous to other lands which are inadequately
elevated, flood-proofed or otherwise protected from flood damages.
In the Charter Township of Ypsilanti, the probability of severe flooding in the Huron
River is increased by the constrictive bridges and the debris accumulated near these structures. A
similar effect occurs on Fleming Creek, Paint Creek and Traver Creek with constrictive culverts
and poor alignment. During the June 1960 flood, Paint Creek extended itself throughout its
floodplain and flowed over Michigan Avenue and Textile Road.
76
The combined flood control capability of dams in Huron River is minor because the pool
levels must be maintained for water supply, waste disposal and recreation. Reservoir capacity is
not enough for large flood stage reduction. On the Paint Creek, a retention basin has been built
just south of Interstate Highway 94 to reduce the impact of flooding on the downstream
properties within the township. Between Interstate Highway 94 and Congress Street, the channel
has been cleaned, widened and straightened.
The previously effective FIS for the Charter Township of Ypsilanti is dated December
15, 1980. The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for the study were performed by USACE
Detroit District for FIA under Inter-Agency Agreement No. IAA-H-10-77, Project Order No. 15,
Amendment No. 2. The following streams were studied by detailed methods: Huron River, Paint
Creek and West Branch of Paint Creek. This study was completed in November 1979. Current
Flood Insurance Study Number: 26161CV001A.
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is a Federal program created by Congress
to mitigate future flood losses nationwide through sound, community-enforced building and
zoning ordinances and to provide access to affordable, federally backed flood insurance
protection for property owners. The NFIP is designed to provide an insurance alternative to
disaster assistance to meet the escalating costs of repairing damage to buildings and their
contents caused by floods.
Both the City of Ypsilanti and the Charter township of Ypsilanti are participating
communities. Eastern Michigan University does not participate in the NFIP because university
properties are not located within flood-prone areas.
77
Earthquake
An earthquake is a sudden movement in the earth’s surface caused by the breaking and
shifting of rock beneath the surface. Michigan is susceptible to minor earthquakes which can
occur thousands of times per year. The likelihood of earthquakes in Michigan is low enough that
safety drills are not performed, however from time to time the state will feel be able to feel
tremors.
Within Washtenaw County there are two potential sources of earthquakes including The
Greenville Front fault zone and The New Madrid Fault. The New Madrid Fault is predicted to
have a major earthquake within the next few decades. The results of a potential 6.0-7.6 within
the county could affect the EMU Campus Community as well with potential affects seen in the
natural gas and petroleum pipelines as well as water supply mains.
History
Michigan can and has experienced the tremors from earthquakes originating outside the
state; however in 1947 the state experienced its largest earthquake that originated within the
state. The epicenter of the 1947 earthquake was located southeast of Kalamazoo but damage was
reported as far away as Cleveland, Ohio; Cadillac, Michigan; Chicago, Illinoi; and Muncie,
Indiana. The effects can be seen below in Figure 5-7.
78
Figure 5-8.
The earliest recorded earthquake tremors felt in Michigan were a result of the New Madrid fault
and occurred in 1811 and 1812; reports of the tremors being felt came from those in Detroit. In
1883 an earthquake cracked windows and shook buildings in Kalamazoo; this shock was also felt
in southern Michigan and northern Indiana.
79
Hazard Zones near Michigan
East of the Rockies the most hazardous earthquake zones are located about 350 to 600
miles from Michigan in the Mississippi ad Ohio Rivers region. In addition, some of the most
hazardous seismic regions near Michigan are in Eastern Canada.
The USGS database shows that there is a 0.528% chance of a major earthquake within 50
kilometers of Ypsilanti within the next 50 years. The largest earthquake within 100 miles of
Ypsilanti was a 3.5 magnitude in 1994.
Recent Historical Earthquake Data (Within 100 Miles of Ypsilanti)
All distances and depths in the table below are measured in miles.
Date
04/26/2011
02/23/2011
05/14/2010
03/08/2010
02/25/2010
09/02/1994
08/20/1980
02/02/1976
09/29/1974
Distance
95.50
60.81
60.98
28.35
72.49
63.38
37.27
52.10
70.39
Magnitude
2.4
3
2.7
2.5
2.4
3.5
3.2
3.4
3
Depth
5
5
5
18
5
5
5
10
1
Table 5-8.
Probability of earthquakes within the next 50 years
Within 31 Miles / 50km Ypsilanti
Magnitude
5.0
Probability
0.528%
6.0
0.098%
7.0
0.002%
Table 5-9.
80
Mold
Based on the number of surfaces on which mold is able to grow (and subsequently
reproduce), the threat of the mold hazard affects all buildings on the Eastern Michigan
University campus.
Molds are fungi that can form both indoors and outdoors; their growth is spurred by the
presence of excess moisture, as well as the presence of standing water. Continued humid and
damp conditions contribute to further growth of molds; this is likely to occur as the result of the
effects of natural hazards such as tropical storms, hurricanes, and floods. However, once mold
spores are formed, they have the ability to thrive in the absence of moist and humid conditions.
Mold in its early stages is known as mildew. Outdoors, mold tends to grow in shady or damp
areas or places where leaves and other vegetation are decomposing. Indoors, mold tends to grow
where humidity levels are the highest, such as basements and showers. Molds digest organic
material, and they usually grow on surfaces such as wood, ceiling tiles, cardboard, wallpaper,
carpets, drywall, fabric, plants, food, and insulation.
Molds pose a problem to the University following water intrusion, most often from
storm-water runoff during heavy rains but also as a result of mechanical system failures (leaks,
pipe breaks, etc).
Mildew and molds continue to grow and reproduce until measures are taken to eliminate
the source of the problem (typically moisture). On a university campus with maintenance staff,
the sources of mold problems can be dealt with swiftly and efficiently. However, if there is no
electricity and thus no ability to ventilate building, molds will continue to grow and cause
damage to the surfaces on which they have formed.
81
Thousands of molds exist, and mildew and molds can grow and reproduce on a number
of surfaces and in a number of environments. Under the right conditions, and when found in high
concentration, all molds can be hazardous to human health. People who are allergic to mold may
exhibit a number of mild symptoms, including nasal stuffiness, eye irritation, wheezing, or skin
irritation. More serious side effects of exposure to mold include fever and shortness of breath.
People at higher risk for adverse health effects from mold are infants, children, immune
compromised individuals, pregnant women, individuals with respiratory illnesses, and the
elderly.
Seeing and smelling mold is a good indication of a mold problem. There may be hidden
molds if a building smells moldy, or if you know there has been water damage. Molds may be
hidden in places such as the back side of drywall, wallpaper, or paneling; the top side of ceiling
panels; or the underside of carpets and pads. Other possible locations of hidden mold include
areas inside walls around pipes (with leaking or condensing pipes), the surface of walls behind
furniture (where condensation forms), inside ductwork, and in roof materials above ceiling tiles
(due to roof leaks or insufficient insulation). Cleaning must remove – not just kill – the molds,
because dead spores can still lead to health problems.
Impacts

Property
Damage by mold is not so much related to the value of the building because most of the
buildings have similar construction and interiors. Rather, the impact relates to the associated
cost of remediation and impact on university operations. To date, mold remediation has cost
the University in excess of $250,000.
82

People
Mold has a low impact on the safety of individuals and a moderate impact on health and
mental health of individuals. For some people, even a relatively small number of mold spores
can cause health problems.

University Operations
Damage from mold has a moderate impact on university operations. Mold can disrupt
different aspects of university operations. Some disrupted operations may resume in other
buildings on campus that do not contain mold. However, specific function buildings, such as
Halle Library, cannot have the function easily duplicated elsewhere on campus.
Mold grows on many different materials in high humidity environments which are not air
conditioned for a long period of time. Because some people may be negatively affected by high
concentrations of mold spores in the air, mold problems in public facilities are regarded very
seriously, generally requiring specialized personnel and equipment for treatment. Further,
removing mold from University property can prove to be very expensive.
The probability of future mold growth interfering with EMU operations can be reduced by:

Improving back-up power sources to insure continuous HVAC System operation necessary
to control temperature and humidity.

It may also be possible to reduce the use of “mold friendly” materials in favor of “mold
unfriendly materials such a concrete block, concrete board, treated wood and new “sheet
rock” materials. However, utilizing mold unfriendly materials in new construction or to
replace materials removed for other reasons may be justified.

Buildings with known water intrusion issues should be inspected to identify all possible
sources of water infiltration and corrective actions identified.
83
Technological Hazards
IT Systems Failure
Information Technology (IT) provides both products and services that support the
efficient operation of today’s global information-based society. These products and services are
integral to the operations and services provided by the University and to other external
organizations.
Threats to IT are complex and varied. In addition to the risks presented by natural
hazards— such as catastrophic weather or seismic events—IT also faces threats from criminals,
hackers, terrorists, and nation-states, all of whom have demonstrated a varying degree of
capabilities and intentions to attack critical IT functions. Additionally, manmade threats to IT
functions are also rapidly evolving from simple automated worms and viruses to complex social
engineering attacks that exploit known and unknown vulnerabilities in products and services.
As with most organizations today, Eastern Michigan University is critically dependent on
Information Technology in its day-to-day operations. The role of the Eastern Michigan
University Division of Information Technology (DoIT) is ever changing. Critical functions7 of
the DoIT include:
7

Critical data backup and recovery

Internet-based content, information and communications services

Internet and network routing, access and connection services

Information storage, management and security

Identity and access management

Incident response, management and recovery
Functions are sets of processes that produce, provide, and maintain products and services.
84
Many different scenarios may be identified as disasters from the loss of data, loss of a
single machine, to the loss of the following facilities; DoIT Data Center, Pray-Harrold Building,
and/or Halle Building. These scenarios include:
1. Any outage to computer operations. The outage may be caused by:

Server malfunction

Network outage

Power outage to the Data Center

Fire, water or smoke damage to the Data Center, DoIT facility or supporting
infrastructure

Acts of nature

Terrorism
2. A regional disaster (one affecting SE Michigan) could potentially cause business
interruption to all local sites and the Data Center. The Data Center may not need to be
operational due to the destruction of the business it supports. A detailed assessment by
University executive leadership of the situation will be required prior to determining the
level of DoIT recovery to be implemented if one of these events occur.

Long-term power outage to the University

Acts of nature that affect the entire campus

Regional acts of terrorism
Examples of Types of Risks
The Internet is an open and global system, providing a variety of opportunities for attacking
the University’s IT infrastructure. Actors attack the infrastructure for various motivations and
85
objectives. Risk assessment subject matter experts have identified four primary objectives for
manmade deliberate threats to cause policy, governance, or knowledge failures in the
information technology function:

Politically-motivated attempts to influence or disrupt operations;

Desire for financial gain;

Demonstration of technical superiority; and

Gratuitous defacement or damage.
Loss/Denial-of-Service can occur by a number of attacks against the DNS infrastructure.
Potential attacks could be either physical, logical/cyber, or a combination of both. Attacks may
occur at any time since the DNS is continuously available. However, because DNS is a
distributed system, an attack on one part of it would not necessarily paralyze the system.
A DNS failure could be the direct result of both hardware and software vulnerabilities and
may be impacted by manmade deliberate, manmade unintentional, and natural threats. Risk
assessment professionals have identified three major concerns that could cause a loss or denialof-service:

Damage or attacks to the infrastructure supporting the DNS system, such as routing
protocols, computer hardware, power supply lines, or phishing attacks

Lack of assessment, testing, and preparation for the simultaneous introduction of new
technologies and protocols such as Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6), Domain Name
System Security Extension (DNSSEC) and Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)

Poor or negligent software development practices, the lack of comprehensive code
review, testing, reckless or negligent deployment procedures, and the lack of fully
understanding the ramifications of a particular configuration change.
86
Protecting the confidentiality of information is critical at higher education institutions.
Typically, there are two methods by which information could be disclosed: 1) recursive
infrastructure and 2) cache disclosure. Many of the security compromises and breaches that have
occurred in recent years have been related to vulnerabilities in the recursive or caching DNS
server code.
Risks to the Internet routing function include outages to communications links caused by
construction, excavation, or accidents (i.e., Notre Dame University utility tunnel fire).
Complete loss of Internet routing infrastructure is unlikely due to the distributed nature of its
physical and operational underpinnings, but varying degrees of impact could be caused by
localized damage at specific portions of the routing infrastructure. Damage to hardware and
facilities supporting the network and the concentration of infrastructure within exchanges,
collocation, and hotelling environments could cause significant and lasting national security and
economic consequences. Two key areas of focus regarding physical damage or loss of this
function:

Partial or complete loss of key fiber optic, coaxial, satellite, and/or microwave trunks;
and

Partial or complete destruction of collocation, hotelling, and/or exchange facilities.
The IT DR committee conducted an IT risk assessment by first identifying all possible
disaster scenarios by category. Each disaster scenario will be assigned a Probability Rating and
an Impact Rating. Each rating will be assigned a numerical value:
High = 3 Moderate = 2 Low = 1.
For each disaster scenario, an overall Risk Score will be calculated by multiplying the
numerical Probability Rating by the numerical Impact Rating. Detailed response scenarios will
87
be defined disaster scenarios based on their overall Risk Score. The results of the IT Risk
Assessment survey conducted in May 2011 (ordered by Risk Score) are:
Probability
Rating
2.4
2.3
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.1
1.7
1.8
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.6
2.1
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.9
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.2
1.2
1.5
1.2
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.2
Incident Type
Departure of key staff
Equipment theft
Malicious unauthorized access
Power disruption
Software malfunction
Process malfunction
Malware requiring user interaction
Social engineering
Hardware malfunction
Loss of data
Equipment loss
Self-replicating malware
Implementation error
Malicious authorized access
Fire
Sprinkler pipe break in data center
Sprinkler water from upper floors
Other plumbing problem
Temp/humidity extremes
Malicious scan
Process violation
Physical break-in
Networking eavesdropping
Lightning
Use of generic accounts
Epidemic/pandemic
Physical attack
Blizzards/ice storms
Nuclear accident
Aircraft accident
Damaging wind
Electronic emanation/EMP
Earthquake
Rain/Huron River flood
Hazardous material
Contamination from train derailment
Table 5-10.
88
Impact
Rating
2.1
1.8
2.2
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.4
2.0
1.9
2.0
2.4
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.2
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.9
1.9
2.0
1.8
2.3
2.1
1.7
2.4
2.3
1.8
2.2
2.4
2.0
2.0
1.9
Risk
Score
4.9
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.7
3.9
3.6
3.8
3.9
3.9
3.6
3.5
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.1
3.1
2.9
2.9
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.3
EMU systems will be restored according to the following priority matrix:
1.
Core systems
a) Banner
b) Web/Internet infrastructure (for www.emich.edu)
c) VoIP telephony
d) EagleMail (via Merit Network)
e) Learning/Course Management Systems (via eCollege)
2.
Tier 2 systems (to be defined by University BCP initiative)
3.
Tier 3 systems (to be defined by University BCP initiative)
4.
Non-critical systems
Response scenarios will depend on the status of the data center environmental systems
(electricity and cooling), physical access to the data center facility, and operational status of the
computer systems and servers in the data center.
Fire-structural
Structure fires have many causes including smoking, arson, industrial accidents, electrical
malfunctions, laboratory accidents, and lightning and other hazard events. A large fire has the
potential to cause high casualties and can result in secondary impacts such as hazardous material
release and damaged utilities. Older buildings that were constructed without fire evacuation
routes are at a higher risk for casualties. Residence halls are at the highest risk for structural fire
due to students living in close proximity and the residential activities that can cause fires.
Residence hall fires are often ignited by faulty appliances, lamps, overloaded outlets, smoking,
cooking or candles. Many of the residence halls are older, masonry and block construction and
do not have sprinkler fire suppression systems in place.
89
According to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), in 2005-2009, U.S. fire
departments responded to an estimated average of 3,840 structure fires in dormitories,
fraternities, sororities, and barracks. These fires caused an annual average of 3 civilian deaths, 38
civilian fire injuries, and $20.9 million in direct property damage. Between 2005 and 2009,
cooking equipment was involved in 81% of the reported dormitory fires; this includes confined
or contained fires. Structure fires in dormitories, fraternities, sororities, and barracks are more
common during the evening hours between 5-11 p.m., as well as on weekends. Only 9% of fires
in these properties began in the bedroom, but these fires accounted for almost one-quarter (26%)
of the civilian injuries.
All Eastern Michigan University main campus residence halls are covered by an
integrated automatic fire detection and fire alarm system, which is monitored 24 hours a day,
seven days a week by the EMU PD. Some residence halls (The Village, Buell, and Downing) are
equipped with integrated sprinkler systems. Existence of building sprinkler systems are the
primary factor that determines the vulnerability from and overall impact of structural fires. Lack
of sprinkler systems puts some EMU buildings at a high risk for structure fire. University
apartment complexes and rental properties have different systems unique to each unit or
complex.
90
EMU Fire Safety Systems Matrix
Table 5-11.
Electric Infrastructure Failure
In the event of a prolonged utility disruption which has a negative impact, or has the
potential to cause a negative impact, on the university’s ability to provide needed life safety
services, restoration of services is critical. Local community and regional energy system
providers will act to restore their individual systems according to their established emergency
plans and procedures.
91
Regardless of the cause of an energy emergency, the prompt restoration of energy
production and distribution systems is vital to the well being of the campus community and to
the execution of the University’s mission.
There are basically two types of electric system emergencies:

Damage to or destruction of electrical systems (generation, transmission or distribution)
because of natural catastrophes (tornadoes, ice storms, high winds), technological
emergencies (component failure) or man-made disasters (throwing the wrong switch or
pushing the wrong button).

Blackouts - Electric grid system failure because of electrical or mechanical problems that
result in massive power outages.
The extent of a service disruption and its expected duration time help define the tasks that
must be undertaken by the University to protect health and safety and property. Where it appears
that electrical outages will be long term and thus have a major impact on the campus, the
University must take measures to provide food, water, heat, and other essential needs to the
affected campus population (i.e., students, faculty staff in university housing) by expedient
means. If that is unfeasible, it may be necessary to evacuate and relocate the affected people.
EMU receives its normal electrical source directly from the DTE Energy via two (2), 40kV
primary feeds at the Coral Substation. Typically, the switch gear at Coral Substation is
configured so that each feed is carrying approximately one-half of the campus. The feeds are
sized so that if a problem occurs with one feed, the other feed can carry the entire campus.
Annual system maintenance is performed and these outages are scheduled in advance and at
times when they will have the least impact or inconvenience on University services or facilities.
92
Electrical Shop
The electrical shop is responsible for installation, maintenance, and repair of all building
electrical systems, underground and overhead distribution systems and sixty two elevators.
Electric utilities shall follow their pre-established "Power Outage Recovery Plans" and
"Emergency Operations Procedures Manuals” during the restoration process. Typically these
restoration plans prioritize recovery in the following manner:
1. Transmission;
2. Substation;
3. Feeder (main artery);
4. Laterals; and
5. Service (individual).
Heating Plant
The Heating Plant is staffed 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. More than 90% of the
electricity, fuel oil and natural gas used on campus pass through this facility. The Heating Plant,
built in 1951, is a modern and efficient energy conversion facility. In 1987 with the installation
of a “Co-Generation” system, the Heating Plant also began to generate electricity. In this system,
natural gas is burned in an industrial grade gas turbine coupled to a generator producing roughly
half of the electricity consumed on Campus at an efficiency of 30%. In addition, another 40% of
the natural gas input is in the turbine exhaust and is converted to steam used for campus heating
and cooling. When this system is not being used, campus steam needs are supplied by
conventional steam boilers.
93
In the event of an unscheduled utility failure, immediate action is required to determine
the cause and estimated time to complete any corrective action needed to respond to the
unanticipated event.
Every attempt will be made to restore services as fast as possible. Services will be
restored in the general priority below:
1. Immediate Health & Safety, including Life Safety Systems
2. Residential Life
3. Research Areas
4. Auxiliary Areas
5. Classrooms and Offices
Whenever electrical switching is to occur, which will result in one or more buildings being
shutdown, the Heating Plant must be informed and included in planning and notifications.
During Primary Electrical Switching, direct communication with the heating Plant is required via
cell phone immediate prior to opening or closing a switch and immediately after the operation is
completed.
94
Figure 5-9.
Infrastructure Failure (non IT or electric)
Water System
The Ypsilanti Community Utilities Authority (YCUA) provides water service to Eastern
Michigan University. The Authority purchases water from the Detroit Water and Sewerage
Department (DWSD). The Authority is responsible for operation and maintenance of the public
water supply facilities within the Charter Township of Ypsilanti and the City of Ypsilanti. This
includes approximately 24 miles of transmission mains, approximately 297 miles of distribution
95
mains, 6 booster pump stations, 4 ground storage reservoirs with a total capacity of 15 million
gallons and 2 elevated storage tanks with a total capacity of 1.25 million gallons.
YCUA Existing Water Supply System
Figure 5-10.
Eastern Michigan University uses approximately 27,732,500 cubic feet of water per year.
It is the largest consumer of water in the YCUA service area. Water is brought into the Eastern
Michigan University Ypsilanti Campus through 24” mains.
Whenever a water main shutdown, planned or unplanned, is to occur, particularly on the
West perimeter of campus, the Heating Plant must be contacted to assure that a continuous
source of water is available to the plant. Loss of water will cause the plant to shut down.
96
Sanitary Sewer System
Sanitary Sewer means a sewer which carries sewage and to which storm, surface and
ground waters are not intentionally admitted.
The Ypsilanti Community Utilities Authority provides sewage collection and treatment
service to Eastern Michigan University. The Authority is responsible for operation and
maintenance of the public wastewater facilities within the Charter Township of Ypsilanti and the
City of Ypsilanti as well as the pressure sewer pipe that transports the effluent from the
wastewater treatment plant to the discharge location along the Rouge River in Wayne County.
The Authority wastewater system includes more than 200 miles of collection sewers, more than
60 miles of interceptor sewers, almost 23 miles of sanitary force mains, 32 pump stations, and
the wastewater treatment plant. The wastewater treatment plant provides tertiary treatment and
disinfection before discharge to the Lower Rouge River. The design treatment capacity of the
wastewater treatment plant is 45.9 million gallons per day (MGD).
The Ypsilanti Community Utilities Authority (YCUA) is responsible for preventing,
mitigating and repairing any situations that result in a decreased capacity to provide wastewater
services.
97
YCUA Existing Wastewater System
Figure 5-11.
Steam System
The main source of heat at Eastern Michigan University is steam, which is generated at
the Heating Plant located on Oakwood. When this system is not being used, campus steam needs
are supplied by conventional steam boilers.
Natural Gas System
Eastern Michigan University receives its natural gas supply from Michigan Consolidated
Gas Company (MichCon). MichCon is engaged in the purchase, storage, transmission,
distribution and sale of natural gas to approximately 1.2 million customers in Michigan. The
company owns and operates 278 storage wells representing approximately 34 percent of the
98
underground working capacity in Michigan. There is more gas storage capacity in Michigan than
in any other state.
Figure 5-12.
Hazardous Materials Incident
Hazardous materials include hundreds of substances that can potentially pose a
significant risk to the general population if released. These substances may be highly toxic,
reactive, corrosive, flammable, radioactive or infectious. They are present in nearly every
community in the U.S., where they may be manufactured, used, stored, transported, or disposed.
Hazardous material releases may occur from any of the following:
Fixed-Site - Includes all releases involving the production and manufacturing, handling,
and storage of a hazardous product at a single facility as well as any releases that may occur at a
99
designated hazardous waste disposal site. These types of releases can occur at on-campus
facilities and at nearby off-campus locations
On-campus locations include the labs in Mark Jefferson Science building, art studios and
physical plant storage locations. Most chemicals at these locations are of small quantity and past
spills have been handled with campus resources. Off-campus, there are three facilities near the
EMU main Campus and the College of Business
1. Crown Tumbling Metals Finishing
924 Minion St., Ypsilanti, MI
2. Marsh Plating
103 North Grove Street • Ypsilanti, MI
3. Finishing Services, Inc.
877 Ann Street, Ypsilanti, Michigan
Figure 5-13.
100
All three of these facilities are involved in providing services related to coatings,
cleaning, plating and pickling of metals using various chemicals classified as hazardous
materials.
While incidents have been infrequent, Marsh plating did have a chemical accident in May
of 2003 involving a cloud of potentially harmful vapors being released.
Based on wind direction and speed, and on the chemicals known to be on the premises, a
coordinated decision was made to activate the Emergency Alert System. Citizens were advised
to "shelter in-place" if they were located in the City of Ypsilanti North of Michigan Ave and East
of River Street. HazMat crews were able to activate a shut-off valve to a tank of hydrochloric
acid inside the facility, suspected to be responsible for the leak and subsequent vapor cloud
release.
Finishing Services, Inc. is immediately adjacent the main campus, next to the Physical
Plant offices and the First Year residential complex.
Transportation - Includes all releases that occur while the product is in transit. There are
major highways and state-road thoroughfares located in Ypsilanti that make the community and
the campus community particularly vulnerable to hazardous materials transportation accidents.
The most vulnerable areas are major highways and interchanges including I-94, Huron
River Drive and Michigan Avenue. In particular, I-94 is the major east-west corridor for all of
southeast Michigan, and large quantities of hazardous material travel this road daily.
Running parallel to Huron River Drive, and directly north of the main campus, are rail
lines. Trains carrying hazardous materials use these lines daily and present the potential for a
hazardous materials incident. Willow Run Airport also transports hazardous materials.
101
Intentional Spills and Releases - Includes all criminal acts and acts of terrorism in
which a hazardous material is used to intentionally cause injuries and/or fatalities, damage the
environment and/or property, or advance a political or social agenda.
The highest potential for a hazardous material incident is through transportation.
Hazardous materials, as well as radioactive materials, are transported in the area, which poses a
hazard should there be loss of containment.
Biological Hazard Incident
Today, the nation is facing a new challenge in safeguarding the public health from
dangerous biological agents or toxins. Existing standards and practices may require adaptation to
ensure protection from accidental exposures or hostile acts. In addition, recent federal regulations
mandate increased security within the microbiological and biomedical community in order to
protect biological pathogens and toxins from theft, loss, or misuse.
The principal hazardous characteristics of a biological agent are: its capability to infect
and cause disease in a susceptible human or animal host, its virulence as measured by the
severity of disease, and the availability of preventive measures and effective treatments for the
disease.
EMU currently operates at a Biosafety level 2 (BSL-2). The primary risk criteria used to
define the four ascending levels of containment, referred to as biosafety levels 1 through 4, are
infectivity, severity of disease, transmissibility, and the nature of the work being conducted.
Biosafety level 2 (BSL-2) is appropriate for handling moderate-risk agents (agents associated
with human disease that is rarely serious and for which preventive or therapeutic interventions
are often available).
102
Each level of containment describes the microbiological practices, safety equipment and
facility safeguards for the corresponding level of risk associated with handling a particular agent.
The basic practices and equipment are appropriate for protocols common to most research and
clinical laboratories. The facility safeguards help protect non-laboratory occupants of the
building and the public health and environment.
Faculty and students are the first line of defense for protecting themselves, others in the
laboratory, and the campus community from exposure to hazardous biological agents. Protection
depends on the conscientious and proficient use of good microbiological practices and the
correct use of safety equipment.
There may be hazards that require specialized personal protective equipment in addition
to safety glasses, laboratory gowns, and gloves. For example, a procedure that presents a splash
hazard may require the use of a mask and a face shield to provide adequate protection.
Inadequate training in the proper use of personal protective equipment may reduce its
effectiveness, provide a false sense of security, and could increase the risk to the person in the
laboratory.
A biological incident occurring as a result of an event on campus is considered low
probability.
Radiological Materials Incident
The University uses small amounts of radiological materials in the laboratories located in
the Mark Jefferson Science Complex. A Radiation Safety Officer is designated for the University
and there is a Radiation Safety Committee that meets as needed.
Radiological materials incidents and subsequent radiological contamination are not
events of high occurrence anywhere in the United States, however, it was considered due to the
103
fact that the EMU campus uses radiological isotopes in research activities and that there are two
major hospitals nearby that receive shipments of radiological materials (radiopharmaceuticals
and research isotopes) as well as having diagnostic equipment containing radiological isotopes.
Therefore, the possibility of a radiological materials incident (either fixed or
transportation based) and subsequent radiological contamination was considered a possible event
Another location considered was the Fermi II Nuclear Plant; a DTE owned and operated
plant. This nuclear plant has a 50 mile radius “planning zone” surrounding it EMU is located
within this 50 mile planning zone. However, effects from an event at Fermi II would most likely
be negligible in Ypsilanti.
Other threats include “dirty” bombs created from a radiological theft and then released at
any location on campus. However, all radioactive material is accounted for by a Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) license and any loss of stolen material would be reported
immediately.
Aircraft Crash on Campus
Aviation accidents can occur for a multitude of reasons from mechanical failure to poor
weather conditions to intentional causes. Accidents can vary from small single engine aircraft to
large commercial or military jets. The EMU Ypsilanti campus is located 4.89 miles from the
Willow Run Airport which serves cargo, corporate, and general aviation clients. The airport
offers four runways 24-hour FAA Tower and U.S. Customs operations. Willow Run Airport has
over 65,000 operations per year. Approximately 200 million pounds of cargo are transferred
through the airport annually, making Willow Run the fourth largest airport in the state of
Michigan.
104
Willow Run’s annual air show brings vintage and acrobatic aircraft to the airport. During
these events, flight paths bring planes over campus at altitudes lower than during commercial
operations.
EMU is only 11 miles from Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport, the largest
airport in the State of Michigan. Total aircraft operations at DTW were 443,028 in 2011 with
455,169,670 lbs of cargo passed through.
Emergency helicopters serve St. Joseph Mercy Hospital which is immediately across
Huron River Drive from the University’s athletic campus.
According to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), 22 percent of aircraft
accidents occur during takeoff and the initial ascent which occurs within a few miles of an
airport. Twenty-nine percent of aircraft accidents occur during initial approach and final
approach which also occur within a few miles of the airport (NTSB 2006). The NTSB aviation
accident database contains information from 1962 and later about civil aviation accidents and
selected incidents within the United States.
The large volume of aircraft activity over and near the campus creates a potential risk of
an aircraft related incident. However, the probability of this happening is considered infrequent
(less than one event every 10 years).
An aircraft related incident on campus would occur with little or no warning. The greatest
threat an aircraft accident poses would be a direct impact to a structure which could result in
fatalities or injuries and possibly a structure fire.
105
Societal Hazards
Armed Suspect/Active Shooter/ Hostage Situation
A violent crime is committed in the United States every 22 seconds and unfortunately,
this crime is occurring increasingly in higher education facilities. Episodes of students, faculty,
staff and visitors being assaulted, shot, or even killed are well documented.
An armed suspect refers to a suspicious individual on campus that the University
reasonably believes possesses a dangerous weapon and presently dangerous to members of the
campus community. This type of situation has the potential to very quickly change to a hostage
or active shooter situation.
Active shooter attacks are dynamic incidents that vary greatly from one attack to another.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) defines an active shooter as “an individual
actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area.”
In its definition, DHS notes that, “in most cases, active shooters use firearms(s) and there is no
pattern or method to their selection of victims.
A hostage situation refers to the unlawful abduction or restraint of one or more
individuals with intent to restrict their freedom. These situations can be among the tensest
episodes for any college campus or law enforcement operation.
While it is impossible to predict when such incidents will occur, the University has
opportunities to prepare and mitigate the consequences for these types of incidents. This includes
making sure that notification systems are effective for warning the campus community, outreach
on response actions is provided, security assessments are conducted and training exercises are
conducted on a regular basis.
106
Civil Disturbance
Also known as civil unrest or civil strife, a civil disturbance is any public movement that
disrupts essential functions including: riots, looting, demonstrations or other unlawful behavior.
Civil disturbances can be due to a public event such as a sporting event; or political rallies and
demonstrations. Riots have the potential to involve large numbers of people and can be a risk to
the surrounding property as well as the wellbeing of those in the general vicinity.
College campuses and the surrounding communities are no stranger to the potential
outbreak of civil disturbance situations. Between the increased likelihood of extreme activism
and alcohol infused sports fans, communities like Eastern Michigan need to be prepared for the
potential break out of such an event.
Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, MI have the largest population centers in the county which
increases the chances of being chosen by demonstrators. In addition, college sporting teams have
been known to incite riots after both big wins and big losses. Within the city of Ypsilanti
however, there are no significant civil unrest instances to date. Ann Arbor, MI has experienced
riots in the past due primarily to sporting events; some demonstrations have caused damage in
the past.
Despite the lack of past occurrences Eastern Michigan University would be remise to not
prepare due to the correlation of educational institutions and situations involving civil unrest.
Colleges and Universities are often areas for demonstrations, especially of political nature.
Today, many of these occurrences surround sporting events, such as the 1999 Michigan State
University riot that occurred after MSU lost to Duke in the NCAA Final Four.
Prior to any major events on campus the EMU Police Department is involved in order to
gain their advice, presence and support in needed situations. This forethought and prior
107
preparation is one method already in place to help minimize the potential outbreak of a civil
disturbance. In the event an event is too large for EMU to handle on its own, it can also correlate
with area police departments to enlist additional assistance.
Influenza Outbreak/Pandemic
A pandemic is a global disease outbreak. A Pandemic flu is a virulent human flu that
causes a global outbreak, or pandemic, of serious illness. A flu pandemic occurs when a new
influenza virus emerges for which people have little or no immunity, and for which there is no
vaccine. This disease spreads easily person-to-person, causes serious illness, and can sweep
across the country and around the world in very short time. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) has been working closely with other countries and the World Health
Organization (WHO) to strengthen systems to detect outbreaks of influenza that might cause a
pandemic and to assist with pandemic planning and preparation.
Most recently, health professionals are concerned by the possibility of an Avian (or bird)
flue pandemic associated with a highly pathogenic avian H5N1 virus. Since 2003, Avian
Influenza has been spreading through Asia. A growing number of human H5N1 cases contracted
directly from handling infected poultry have been reported in Asia, Europe, and Africa, and more
than half the infected people have died. There has been no sustained human-to-human
transmission of the disease, but the concern is that H5N1 will evolve into a virus capable of
human-to-human transmission.
An especially sever influenza pandemic could lead to high levels of illness, death, social
disruption, and economic loss. Impacts can range from school and business closings to the
interruption of basic services such as public transportation and food delivery. For EMU, the most
important issues will be the impacts of absenteeism and supply disruption on the campus.
108
Past Occurrences
1918-19 Spanish Flu (H1N1). This flu is estimated to have sickened 20-40% of the world’s
population, and over 20 million people died. Between September 1918 and April 1919, 500,000
Americans died. It spread rapidly; many died within a few days of infection, others from
secondary complications. The attack rate and mortality was highest among adults 20-50 years
old, although the reasons for this are uncertain.
1957-58 Asian Flu (H2N2). This virus was quickly identified due to advances in technology,
and a vaccine was produced. Infection rates were highest among school children, young adults,
and pregnant women. The elderly had the highest rates of death. A second wave developed in
1958. In total, there were about 70,000 deaths in the United States. Worldwide deaths were
estimated between 1,000,000 to - 2,000,000.
1968-69 Hong Kong Flu (H3N2). This strain caused approximately 34,000 deaths in the
U.S. and 700,000 + deaths worldwide. This virus was first detected in Hong Kong in early
1968 and spread to the United States later that year. Those over age 65 were most likely to die.
This virus returned in 1970 and 1972 and still circulates today.
2009 -10 Swine Flu (H1N1). This was an influenza pandemic, and the second of the two
pandemics involving H1N1 virus (the first of them was the 1918 flu pandemic), albeit in a new
version. First described in April 2009, the virus appeared to be a new strain of H1N1 which
resulted when a previous triple reassortment of bird, swine and human flu viruses further
combined with a Eurasian pig flu virus, leading to the term "swine flu" to be used for this
pandemic.
Unlike most strains of influenza, H1N1 does not disproportionately infect adults older
than 60 years; this was an unusual and characteristic feature of the H1N1 pandemic. Initially
109
coined an "outbreak", it began in the state of Veracruz, Mexico, with evidence that there had
been an ongoing epidemic for months before it was officially recognized as such. In June, the
World Health Organization (WHO) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) stopped counting cases and declared the outbreak a pandemic.
The pandemic began to taper off in November 2009, and by May 2010, the number of
cases was in steep decline. On 10 August 2010, the Director-General of the World Health
Organization announced the end of the H1N1 pandemic, and announced that the H1N1 influenza
event has moved into the post-pandemic period. According to the latest WHO statistics (July
2010), the virus has killed more than 18,000 people since it appeared in April 2009, however
they state that the total mortality (including deaths unconfirmed or unreported) from the H1N1
strain is "unquestionably higher".
Likelihood of Future Occurrences
No one predicted the emergence of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic virus and it is doubtful that
anyone will be able to accurately predict any future pandemic either, including when or where it
will occur, what subtype it will be, and what morbidity/mortality impact it will have. While
concern over the emergence of an H5N1 pandemic is clearly warranted, if for no other reason
than its current high case fatality rate, many other possibilities for future pandemic emergence
must also be anticipated and planned for.
The majority of the world's population (those younger than age 41) has no protective
immunity to the H2 subtype-bearing influenza viruses that circulated between 1957 and 1968.
Isolates of H2N2 viruses from that era are still maintained in countless laboratory freezers, while
circulating human-adapted H3N2 viruses presumably remain susceptible to importation of avian
H2 by reassortment; this suggests obvious potential origins of future pandemics. Current H9N2
110
viruses, some with the ability to bind to human receptors, and already capable of causing human
disease, are another potential source of a future pandemic.
Evidence suggests that H5N1 viruses are evolving rapidly; however, the direction of this
evolution, which is driven by incompletely understood selection pressures, is unclear. While
current strains of Southeast Asian H5N1 HPAI viruses are descendants of the 1996 Chinese
epizootic virus, significant genetic and antigenic evolution has since occurred, involving drift in
the H5 HA, mutations in other genes, and reassortment with other avian influenza viruses.
Nevertheless, there are limited data relating to whether any H5N1 influenza strain is evolving in
the direction of human adaptation.
Food Contamination
There are many forms and causes of contamination. Contamination can occur naturally, by
human error or intentionally. The main concern with food contamination is the possibility of a
food-borne illness outbreak.
Current estimates indicate that almost 50 million cases of food-borne illness occur
annually in the United States, of which the infectious agents norovirus, Salmonella,
Campylobacter, Shiga toxin-producing E. coli, and Shigella are the principal known causes.
Produce, followed by fish, poultry, meat, and shellfish, are the leading vehicles of recent foodborne outbreaks. Fresh fruits and vegetables have become major vehicles of food-borne illnesses
in the United States and Europe. About one-fourth of food-borne outbreaks reported in the U.S.
in 2006 were associated with produce, and most were from leafy greens that were fresh-cut,
bagged, and ready-to-eat.
An outbreak of the vomiting, diarrhea and stomach cramp-inducing Norovirus caused
Hope College's campus to be shut down for three days in November of 2008. More than 400
111
students reported flu-like symptoms throughout the weekend, according to an article by The
Grand Rapids Press. The outbreak on the campus of 3,200 prompted Hope to close for an
investigation by the Ottawa County Health Department.
Public Health Emergency
A public health emergency involves a widespread and/or severe epidemic, incident of
contamination or other situation that presents a danger to or otherwise impacts the general health
and well-being of the public.
Communicable disease is a concern for campuses across the nation. With students
coming from all over the country and internationally, the chances for disease spread increases.
Communal living in residence halls also increases the risk of communicable disease. Residential
and social circumstances within the college environment create a high risk environment for
transmission or exposure if an outbreak were to occur. Communicable diseases of concern to
college campuses include chickenpox, diphtheria, seasonal influenza, influenza strains, measles,
mumps and rubella, bacterial meningitis, meningococcal disease, infectious mononucleosis,
pertussis (whooping cough), severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Norovirus and
tuberculosis.
The most serious communicable disease on U.S. campuses is meningococcal disease.
Meningococcal disease is a potentially life threatening bacterial infection. The disease is most
commonly expressed as either meningococcal meningitis, an inflammation of the membranes
surrounding the brain and spinal cord, or meningococcemia, a presence of bacteria in the blood.
It is estimated that 100 to 125 cases of meningococcal disease occur annually on college
campuses and 5 to 15 students die as a result. The U.S. Department of Public Health and Human
Services Center for Disease Control (CDC) reports that freshman living in residence halls are the
112
highest risk group and are six times more likely than any other risk group to contract
meningococcal disease (CDC 1999).
Communicable disease has not had a significant impact on the EMU campus in recent
years. A major communicable disease outbreak on campus would have direct impacts to the
health of students, staff, and faculty. The percentage of the campus population affected by an
outbreak and the number of fatalities would be highly dependent on the disease itself and amount
of advanced warning of a possible outbreak. A major communicable disease outbreak could also
disrupt the ability of the school to conduct classes. In the case of a severe outbreak event, the
campus would shut down. This could result in a significant economic impact to the students,
faculty, and staff and the region.
Improvised Explosive Device Detonation
IEDs are technically defined as “…devices placed or fabricated in an improvised manner
incorporating destructive, lethal, noxious, pyrotechnic or incendiary chemicals, designed to
destroy, disfigure, distract or harass. They may incorporate military stores, but are normally
devised from non-military components.”8 More generally speaking, IEDs are bombs constructed
from readily available materials, which may include conventional or homemade explosives.
While the term “conventional explosives” generally refers to commercial products or military
ordnance, IEDs can include explosive materials or other components scavenged from such
sources, or they may be fashioned using legitimate consumer products and materials intended for
innocuous use, such as propane, diesel fuel, and fertilizer.
8
Director for Operational Plans and Joint Force Development, Joint Chiefs of Staff. Joint Publication 1-02,
Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. April 12, 2001. As amended through
November 9, 2006. Washington, DC: United States Department of Defense.
113
Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) are relatively simple to assemble and employ, and
provide perpetrators an operational flexibility that poses great challenges for those responsible
with preventing their use or mitigating their effects. Furthermore, tactics used to employ IEDs
are continually evolving. Suicide bombers, vehicle-borne devices, simultaneous and coordinated
attacks, and the targeting of emergency responders with secondary devices are a few of the
creative methods used to increase the disruption and fear caused by IEDs.
Figure 5-14.
Past efforts to mitigate the effects of an IED on campus included training for the campus
police department. EMU arranged for the New Mexico Tech’s Energetic Materials Research and
Testing Center (EMRTC) to provide training on campus in 2010. EMRTC delivered two courses:


Initial Response to Terrorist Bombings
Prevention and response to Suicide Bombing Incidents
Invitation to attend the classes was extended to other agencies and institutions in Michigan
and the classes were well attended.
Bomb Threat
A bomb threat is an effective means of disrupting university functions. The problems are
intensified when the incident involves an actual explosive or incendiary device. Although there is
no foolproof means of securing a premises against a bomb threat (or bomb attack), good security
114
and response plans, will enable the University to deal with an incident properly. Examples of the
impacts of bomb threats can be found by reviewing recent events at other institutions
The 145 bomb threats that occurred over the course of 10 weeks at the University of
Pittsburgh presented a unique challenge to university and law enforcement officials. Starting in
mid-February 2012, dozens of bomb threats at the University of Pittsburgh disrupted classes and
dormitory life and prompted some students to find housing off campus just weeks before the
semester ends. Since the first warning about a hidden explosive device was found scrawled on
the wall of a public women’s bathroom on Feb. 13, there have been 56 more — some written on
walls and some sent by anonymous e-mail to Pittsburgh news outlets.
From strictly a monetary perspective, the cost of bomb searches, increased security, and
teaching hours lost will likely bump this series of threats into the million-dollar range. But
considering the impact in the unlikely event of an actual bomb detonation, the University
probably saw this as a fair trade-off.
In August 2007 Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU) in Murfreesboro was among
five universities across the country to receive bomb threats on the first day of the fall semester.
Three MTSU employees received e-mails saying there were explosive devices on campus.
Authorities checked several buildings, but didn't find anything. Princeton University, Clemson
University, Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Alaska at Anchorage also received
bomb threats. (News Channel5.Com, Bomb Threat Raises Concern on Local College Campus,
August 27, 2007).
On March 12, 2008, administrators and police at the Levelland campus of South Plains
College in Texas evacuated three buildings after an unknown person made two phone calls to
Levelland police saying there were bombs in three on-campus buildings. South Plains College
115
administrators and local police evacuated the administration building, science building and
technical arts building in response to the threat. Police, however, did not find bombs after a
thorough search of the buildings, said Tom McCain, assistant chief of the Levelland Police
Department. Though all three buildings had been cleared by the Lubbock Sheriff's Department's
bomb squad and bomb-sniffing dogs, administrators canceled afternoon classes in the buildings.
(The Daily Toreador, Bomb threat causes evacuations, class cancellations at South Plains
College by Matt McGowan, March 12, 2008)
On January 26, 2009, fire fighters say a plastic bottle containing chemicals exploded in a
dormitory stairwell at Wittenberg University in Springfield, Ohio. No one was injured when the
homemade device exploded in a residence hall. Assistant Springfield Fire Chief Nick Heimlich
said the device consisted of a plastic water bottle containing over-the-counter ingredients such as
drain cleaner, and the bottle exploded when the combined ingredients created an expanding gas.
(WDN2.Com, Bottle bomb explodes on college campus, January 27, 2009).
Planning efforts for bomb threats begin with a vulnerability assessment of the facilities.
An estimate of the risk of attack is required, based on location, past threats, and current trends.
Management must establish procedures before an incident occurs, so that a bomb threat can be
handled with the least risk of creating panic. Employees must be trained in the proper procedures
to follow in handling bomb threats, conducting bomb searches and evacuating a building.
In the past, the majority of bomb threats turned out to be hoaxes. However, today more of
the threats are materializing. Thus, the University’s first consideration must be for the safety of
people. It is practically impossible to determine immediately whether a bomb threat is real or a
hoax.
116
Hazard Priority Rating
The first step in any disaster preparedness activity for the University is an assessment of
its risks. It is impossible to prepare for everything and limited resources make it important that
the energy in preparing for an event be reflective of the likelihood of that event occurring. A risk
assessment must also consider the resilience, or coping capabilities, of the University.
Risk is defined as the product of probability of the hazard and its potential impact.
Risk =Probability x Impact / Resilience
Probability
Probability may be expressed as the likelihood of an event occurring within a given time
period; for example, the probability of event x occurring at a given location in the next year is y.
For the assessment survey, probability was defined as the likelihood of a specific type of
emergency situation happening on campus and used the following rating scale:
1
Will not
occur
2
3
4
5
Unlikely
Possible
Likely
Almost Certain
Impact
The impact of each hazard is considered in three categories: human impact, impact on
property (general building stock including critical facilities), and business impact. The three
categories are defined as follows:

Human Impact: The impact in terms of loss of life, injuries, and suffering imposed upon
individuals or groups within the campus community.
117

Property Impact: The impact in terms of loss of buildings, class space, research
facilities, equipment, infrastructure and other physical assets of the university.

Business Impact: The impact in terms of interruption or loss of critical business
functions based on duration, availability of alternative processes, and impact of not
performing the functions. This can be measured against regulatory, legal, financial,
operations or customer service requirements.
An impact rating was assigned for each hazard of concern based on the following scale:
1
None
2
Low
3
Moderate
4
High
5
Critical
In addition, a weighting factor is assigned to each impact category: three (3) for
population, two (2) for property, and one (1) for economy. This gives the impact on population
the greatest weight in evaluating the impact of a hazard. Most events will impact the University
and the campus community to varying degrees. An overall impact rating gives a picture of the
effect on the University.
Human Impact(x3) + Property Impact(x2) + Business Impact(x1) = Overall Impact
Resilience
Resilience is the ability of the campus community to respond and recover from an
emergency/disaster. A higher level of response capability present on campus and in off-campus
contributes to resiliency in the provision of critical services and the restoration of lifelines, thus
reducing the impact.

Internal Response Resources: Those resources and capabilities available within the
university’s departments and units to address an emergency event.
118

External Response Resources: Those resources and capabilities available from offcampus organizations, or through mutual aid, to address an emergency event.
1
None
2
Marginal
3
Adequate
4
Strong
5
Very Strong
Normally, available internal response resources can be accessed quicker than external
resources, especially if an emergency impacts the off-campus community as well as campus.
Therefore a weighting factor of x2 is assigned to internal response resources.
Internal Response Resources Value (x2) + External Response Resources = Overall Response Value
Total Risk Score
The risk ranking for each hazard is then calculated by multiplying the numerical value for
probability of occurrence by the sum of the numerical values for impact. The equation is as
follows:
Probability Value (1,2, 3,4 or 5) X Overall Impact Value (6
to 30)
Overall Response Capability Value (3 to 15)
119
= Total Risk Score
Hazard Summary
The following chart displays the results of the hazard priority ranking. Based on the total
for each hazard, a priority ranking is assigned to each hazard of concern (high, medium, or low).
4.58
Population
Impact Value
(Weighted 3)
2.95
Property
Impact Value
(Weighted 2)
2.98
Business
Impact Value
(Weighted 1)
3.47
Response
Capability
Value (/)
9.88
Total
Risk
Rating
8.47
Ice Storm
4.23
2.94
3.19
3.45
9.96
7.92
Tornado/Microburst
3.52
3.31
4.06
3.68
10.47
7.30
Wind Storm
3.73
2.78
3.34
3.19
9.67
7.02
IT Systems Failure*
3.98
2.68
2.47
3.85
9.9
6.76
Fire-Structural
Armed Suspect on
Campus
3.31
3.62
4.25
3.91
11.47
6.71
3.68
3.94
2.2
3.61
11.51
6.34
Civil Disturbance
Influenza
Outbreak/Pandemic
3.39
3.28
2.71
3.34
10.61
5.94
3.27
3.72
1.9
3.47
10.27
5.86
Food Contamination
Electric
Infrastructure
Failure
Infrastructure
Failure (non IT or
electric)**
3.23
3.55
1.94
3.1
9.75
5.84
3.19
2.89
3.08
3.83
10.28
5.79
3.25
2.72
2.84
3.67
9.93
5.73
Bomb Threat
Public Health
Emergency
Chemical Hazard
Incident
3.12
3.65
3.1
3.58
11.29
5.72
3.11
3.56
2.09
3.47
10.31
5.53
2.9
3.53
3.12
3.6
10.97
5.40
Active Shooter
Improvised
Explosive Device
Detonation
Biological Hazard
Incident
2.83
4.51
2.38
3.92
11.9
5.28
2.5
3.86
3.92
3.92
11.14
5.24
2.75
3.74
2.96
3.7
11.11
5.16
Hostage Situation
Flood/Riverine
Urban Runoff
Radiological Hazard
Incident
Aircraft Crash on
Campus
Earthquake
2.69
4.01
2.24
3.65
11.6
4.68
2.31
2.76
3.45
3.32
9.94
4.30
2.26
3.44
3.02
3.64
10.6
4.26
1.99
3.92
4.13
3.99
11.63
4.11
1.85
3
3.91
3.59
10.83
3.50
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
Rank
Hazard
Probability
Severe Snow Storm
Table 5-9.
120
The results show that the top eight (high) priority hazards for Eastern Michigan University
include:

Severe Snow Storm

Ice Storm

Tornado/Microburst

Wind Storm

IT Systems Failure

Fire-Structural

Armed Suspect on Campus

Civil Disturbance
This is not to say that the remaining hazards will not occur and that their potential impact
would not be detrimental but simply that those within the ‘High’ category will be the primary
focus of mitigation activities.
Section 6: Mitigation Strategies





Introduction
Eastern Michigan University Mitigation Goals
Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Recommendation and Prioritization of Mitigation Actions
Potential Funding Sources
Introduction
In the last decade, disasters have affected university and college campuses with disturbing
frequency, sometimes causing death and injury, but always imposing monetary losses and
disruption of the institution’s teaching, research, and public service.
121
The effects from natural, human caused and technological hazards directly impact the safety
and wellbeing of university faculty, staff and students.
Depending on the degree of severity, disasters can result in loss of educational time for
students and economic hardship for the university and community. Significant losses can result
from damage to campus buildings and infrastructure as well as interruption to the institutional
mission. These losses can be measured by faculty and student departures, decreases in research
funding, and increases in insurance premiums. While most hazards cannot be eliminated, the
effects and losses can be substantially reduced through comprehensive pre-disaster planning and
mitigation actions.
This section presents mitigation actions for
the University to reduce potential exposure and losses
identified as concerns in the Risk Assessment portion
of this plan. The mitigation strategies were developed
through a collaborative group process and consist of
goals, objectives, and mitigation actions.
Hazard mitigation reduces the potential
impacts of, and costs associated with, emergency and
disaster related events. Mitigation actions address a
FEMA definitions –
Goals: general guidelines that
explain what should be achieved.
Goals are usually broad, long-term,
policy statements, and represent a
global vision.
Objectives: strategies or
implementation steps to attain
mitigation goals. Unlike goals,
objectives are specific and
measurable, where feasible.
Mitigation Actions: specific actions
that help to achieve the mitigation
goals and objectives.
range of impacts, including impacts on the
population, property, the economy, and the environment. Mitigation actions can include
activities such as: revisions to and enforcement of best practices in building and land use,
training and education, and structural and nonstructural safety measures.
122
Eastern Michigan University Mitigation Goals
The purpose of this section is to provide an outline for Eastern Michigan University to
follow to become less vulnerable to hazards. EMU’s mitigation goals were derived from
descriptions of potential damage from hazards in the hazard profile section, discussions with
University Physical Plant personnel, members of the Health & Safety Committee/Mitigation
Advisory Committee and City and County emergency management representatives.
Through the preparation of the mitigation plan, emergency management considered
EMU’s overall risk, vulnerability, and capacity to mitigate the effects of identified hazards.
There was careful consideration of undertaking feasible mitigation projects.
The mitigation goals provide an outline for Eastern Michigan University to follow to
become less vulnerable to identified hazards. EMU’s mitigation goals are broad statements, but
are achieved through more specific objectives and implementation steps. They are based upon
the results of the risk assessment and a review of goals and objectives from other state and local
plans, specifically, the Michigan Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, the Washtenaw County
Mitigation Plan and the City of Ypsilanti Mitigation Plan.
Going through the process, the University was guided by four principles for mitigation.
These four principles provide a foundation for mitigation by establishing the key elements by
which mitigation aims to manage risk with the goal of reducing risk and increasing resilience
throughout the campus community.
123
1. Resilience and Sustainability
Preparing the campus community, its property and critical infrastructure resources
to absorb the impact of a threatening event and bounce back in a manner that sustains it
mission and functions in the aftermath of a disaster, makes it more resilient.
Sustainability employs a longer-term approach through plans, policies, and
actions that reflect a comprehensive understanding of the economic, social, and
environmental systems within the campus community and its host communities.
2. Leadership and Campus-focused Implementation
Mitigation empowers university leaders and members to embrace their ownership
of building a resilient and sustainable campus. Effective, ongoing mitigation is led by the
campus community, working together to identify, plan for, and reduce vulnerabilities and
promote long-term personal and community resilience and sustainability. Everyday
discussions and actions can have unexpected implications for risk management and
therefore should be viewed through the mitigation lens.
3. Partnerships and Inclusiveness
Mitigation is advanced through the collective actions of many groups. No one
entity can accomplish these goals. These partnerships may include: staff, faculty,
students, local government, the private sector and area non-profit organizations.
Establishing trusted relationships prior to a disaster is essential to campus
resilience and sustainability. These relationships enhance and strengthen day-to-day
mitigation efforts and are critical for timely and effective response and recovery activities
during and after a disaster event.
124
4. Risk-conscious Culture
The campus community is bolstered and made more resilient by anticipating,
communicating, and preparing for threats and hazards—both internal and external—
through comprehensive and deliberate risk management. The value of a risk management
approach or strategy to decision makers is not in the promotion of a particular course of
action, but rather in the ability to distinguish between various risk management choices
for accepting, avoiding, reducing, or transferring the risk within the larger context.
A risk-conscious culture involves providing clear, meaningful, consistent, accessible
(including for those with limited English proficiency and individuals with functional
needs) messaging, so that the whole campus community embraces mitigation and
reduces its exposure and vulnerability to risk.
EMU’s mitigation goals were derived from descriptions of potential damage from
hazards in the hazard profile section, discussions with Physical Plant personnel and other
departments, input from the Mitigation Advisory Committee (aka Health & Safety Committee)
and City and County emergency management representatives. The goals are listed, but not
prioritized, below:
125
Goal 1: Create a safe and secure environment for students, faculty, staff and
visitors.
Objective 1-1: Implement mitigation actions that will assist in protecting lives and
property by making buildings, infrastructure, critical facilities and individuals more
resistant to hazards.
Objective 1-2: Better characterize hazard events by conducting additional hazard studies.
Objective 1-3: Review existing university policies, plans and procedures, safety inspection
procedures, and other processes to help ensure that they address the most recent and
generally accepted standards for the protection of buildings and environmental resources.
Objective 1-4: Implement mitigation actions that encourage environmental stewardship
and protection of the environment.
Objective 1-5: Implement mitigation programs that protect critical university facilities and
services and promote reliability of lifeline systems to minimize impacts from hazards,
maintain operations, and expedite recovery in an emergency.
126
Goal 2: Enhance emergency communications systems to provide the campus
community with appropriate protective action and mitigation information.
Objective 2-1: Harden communications capabilities to ensure post event functionality.
Objective 2-2: Enhance alert and notification procedures/system to improve notice to the
campus community and off-campus partners.
Objective 2-3: Establish and maintain good working relationships with off-campus
departments and agencies in identifying warning sources and coordinating emergency
notifications.
Goal 3: Strengthen University continuity of operations through integration with
emergency response plans and procedures, including the mitigation plan.
Objective 3-1: Encourage the establishment of policies to help ensure the prioritization
and implementation of mitigation actions and/or projects designed to benefit essential
facilities, services, and infrastructure.
Objective 3-2: Where appropriate, coordinate and integrate hazard mitigation actions with
existing University and local emergency operations plans.
Objective 3-3: Implement mitigation actions that enhance the technological capabilities of
the University to better profile and assess exposure of hazards.
127
Goal 4: Be proactive in identifying mitigation opportunities into capital
improvement and infrastructure planning projects and other campus functions and
programs.
Objective 4-1: Identify and pursue funding opportunities to develop and implement
mitigation activities.
Objective 4-2: Strengthen communication, coordination, and community partnerships to
foster hazard mitigation actions and/or projects.
Objective 4-3: Identify the need for, and acquire, any special emergency services, training,
or equipment to enhance response capabilities for specific hazards.
Goal 5: Enhance emergency preparedness, increase awareness, and promote risk
reduction activities through education of and outreach to the campus community.
Objective 5-1: Develop and implement additional education and outreach programs to
increase campus community awareness of the risks associated with hazards and to educate
the public on specific, individual preparedness activities.
Objective 5-2: Provide information on tools, partnership opportunities, funding resources,
and current initiatives to assist in implementing mitigation activities.
Objective 5-3: Provide comprehensive information to the campus community, local
emergency service providers, the media and the public during and following disaster and
hazard events.
128
Identification & Analysis of Mitigation Actions
Mitigation strategies have been developed and prioritized to address the vulnerabilities
identified in the plan. Going through the process, the University was guided by four principles
for mitigation. These four principles provide a foundation for mitigation by establishing the key
elements by which mitigation aims to manage risk with the goal of reducing risk and increasing
resilience throughout the campus community.
1. Resilience and Sustainability
Preparing the campus community, its property and critical infrastructure resources to
absorb the impact of a threatening event and bounce back in a manner that sustains it
mission and functions in the aftermath of a disaster, makes it more resilient.
Sustainability employs a longer-term approach through plans, policies, and actions that
reflect a comprehensive understanding of the economic, social, and environmental
systems within the campus community and its host communities.
2. Leadership and Campus-focused Implementation
Mitigation empowers university leaders and members to embrace their ownership of
building a resilient and sustainable campus. Effective, ongoing mitigation is led by the
campus community, working together to identify, plan for, and reduce vulnerabilities and
promote long-term personal and community resilience and sustainability. Everyday
discussions and actions can have unexpected implications for risk management and
therefore should be viewed through the mitigation lens.
129
3. Partnerships and Inclusiveness
Mitigation is advanced through the collective actions of many groups. No one entity can
accomplish these goals. These partnerships may include: staff, faculty, students, local
government, the private sector and area non-profit organizations.
Establishing trusted relationships prior to a disaster is essential to campus resilience and
sustainability. These relationships enhance and strengthen day-to-day mitigation efforts
and are critical for timely and effective response and recovery activities during and after a
disaster event.
4. Risk-conscious Culture
The campus community is bolstered and made more resilient by anticipating,
communicating, and preparing for threats and hazards—both internal and external—
through comprehensive and deliberate risk management. The value of a risk management
approach or strategy to decision makers is not in the promotion of a particular course of
action, but rather in the ability to distinguish between various risk management choices
for accepting, avoiding, reducing, or transferring the risk within the larger context.
A risk-conscious culture involves providing clear, meaningful, consistent, accessible
(including for those with limited English proficiency and individuals with functional
needs) messaging, so that the whole campus community embraces mitigation and
reduces its exposure and vulnerability to risk.
A wide range of mitigation actions can be considered in order to help achieve established
mitigation goals to create a feasible mitigation strategy and action plan. Mitigation
activities can fall into a number of categories, including preventative measures, property
130
protection, public education & awareness, natural resource protection, emergency
services, and structural projects.
The following is an overview of potential activities by category:
1. Preventative Measures
Preventative measures protect new development from hazards and ensure that
potential loss is not increased. Preventative measures are guided through University
programs and policies or external enforcement actions that influence the way campus
open space is developed, buildings are constructed, or how people respond.
Prevention activities can be particularly effective where development has not yet
occurred or where capital improvements have not been significant. Preventative
mitigation activities include:

Planning & Design

Stormwater Management

Public Safety

Facilities Construction

Capital Improvement Programming
2. Property Protection
Property protection measures prevent a hazard from damaging a building.
Property protection measures are typically implemented by the university, but
government can often provide technical and sometimes financial assistance. There are
five general activities that can be classified as property protection:

Building Relocation/Building Elevation

Retrofitting (security enhancements, wind-proofing, fireproofing, etc.)
131

Insurance Coverage

Demolition

Barriers (safe rooms, impact resistant glass)
3. Public Education and Awareness
Public education and awareness is a mitigation strategy that has a broad reaching
impact across both the university and community. Activities that provide university
faculty, staff, students, visitors and the off-campus community with information on
how to protect themselves and others from potential hazards that may have the
greatest impact on people to protect their own property and lives. Examples of public
education include:

Outreach Projects

Speaker Series

Training & Exercises

Hazard Map Information
4. Natural Resource Protection
Resource protection mitigation activities are a way to enable land to function in a
natural way. Because many natural areas have been affected by development and will
be affected by development in the future, there are a number of ways to protect and
restore the environment. This measure is important when considering activities for the
Eagle Crest Golf Center, the EMU Parsons Center in Lake Ann and the EMU Kresge
Environmental Center (Fish Lake) in Lapeer.
132
Resource protection activities can include:

Wetlands Protection

Erosion & Sedimentation Control

Watershed Management

Best Forest & Vegetation Management Practices

Habitat Preservation
There are many benefits to naturally functioning watersheds, floodplains, and
wetlands and they can include:

Reduction in runoff from rainwater and snowmelt

Infiltration and velocity control during overland flow

Filtering of excess nutrients, pollutants and sediments

Floodwater storage

Water quality improvement

Groundwater recharge

Habitat availability

Recreation and aesthetic qualities
5. Emergency Services
A thorough emergency services program addresses all hazards and involves all
response departments and facilities, including those beyond the university in the
community. While not typically considered a “mitigation” technique, emergency
service measures do minimize the impact of a hazard event on people and property.
133
There are a number of components to emergency services and they include:

Threat Recognition

Warning

Response

Critical Facilities Protection

Post-Disaster Recovery & Mitigation
6. Structural Projects
Structural projects are intended to protect people and infrastructure from damage
due to natural hazards. The complexity and cost of structural projects can vary greatly
and are dependent on individual circumstances. Structural projects are undertaken
where non-structural measures would not be effective. Structural projects may
include:

Reservoirs and Detention Areas

Roadway & Pedestrian Pathway Improvements

Drainage and Storm water Improvements/Maintenance
Recommendation & Prioritization of Mitigation Actions
The mitigation strategy includes a wide range of mitigation actions that will reduce
vulnerabilities to hazard events. Mitigation actions are typically presented in general terms
without specific project details. Developing a mitigation project from these mitigation actions
may require a great deal of effort. Not all mitigation actions identified in the plan will necessarily
134
become fully developed projects. Some actions may be deleted from the mitigation strategy or
deferred for implementation when the plan is updated.
After plan approval and implementation, when mitigation opportunities arise, the
University will follow a seven-step process for developing proposed mitigation actions into welldefined mitigation projects.
The first step in the process is a review of the actions specified in the mitigation strategy
and the information contained in the Risk Assessment section of the hazard mitigation plan to
identify opportunities to develop mitigation projects.
The second step in the process is to specify the problem and identify alternative projects
that will solve the problem.
The third step is to conduct a feasibility review to identify obstacles to implementing the
project and to determine the best alternative for the community. The feasibility review should
include a preliminary evaluation of mitigation funding opportunities to determine whether
funding beyond existing community resources might be available. Potentially negative
environmental impacts of the proposed project should be identified at this stage of the process.
The fourth step is to select a project and to fully develop the project scope of work by
establishing the exact specifications and costs of the project.
The fifth step is to obtain sufficient funding to implement and maintain the proposed
mitigation project. This step may entail completing and submitting an application for funding to
FEMA or another agency.
The sixth step is to implement, manage, and maintain the mitigation project.
Communities receiving FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance must also comply with all
reporting and administrative requirements.
135
The seventh and final step is to update the community’s hazard mitigation plan.
Selected mitigation actions will be evaluated using various criteria as recommended by
FEMA. This includes using the “STAPLEE”9 evaluation criteria.
STAPLEE Evaluation Criteria
Socially Acceptable
Is the proposed activity socially acceptable to the University
community? Is the activity compatible with present and future
University values? Are there disparity issues that would leave
one part of the University community adversely affected?
Technically Feasible
Will the proposed activity be effective in the long run? Will it
create negative secondary impacts? Will it create more
problems than it solves? Will it solve the problem or only the
symptom?
Administratively Possible
Does the University have the capability to implement the
proposed activity? Is there someone who will coordinate,
implement, and maintain the activity?
Politically Acceptable
Is there political support to implement the proposed activity?
Is there enough University and/or community support to
ensure the success of the activity?
Legal
Does the University have the authority to implement the
proposed activity? Is there a clear legal precedent, and are
there any potential legal consequences of the activity?
Economically Sound
Are there current sources of funding to implement the
proposed activity? Do the benefits outweigh the costs of the
activity? Is the activity compatible with other economic goals
of the University?
Environmentally Sound
How will the proposed activity affect the environment? Will
this activity comply with local, state, and federal
environmental laws and regulations? Is the activity consistent
with University environmental goals?
Table 6-1.
9
Using the Hazard Mitigation Plan to Prepare Successful Mitigation Projects: State and Local Mitigation
Planning Guide. FEMA 386-9. August 2008. p.15.
136
Mitigation Actions
Mitigation Actions
Provide outreach and awareness campaigns
to the campus community to promote
mitigation and preparedness efforts.
Expand Mass Notification capabilities to
high use/critical facilities such as the
Student Center, Convocation Center,
McKenny Union and Fletcher School.
Identify structural fire suppression measures
in residence halls.10
Identify critical facilities/infrastructure
needing backup power sources and means to
provide backup power.
Expand hazard identification and risk
assessment and mitigation planning to Fish
Lake and Parsons Center.
Identify opportunity for the creation of a
dual-use storm shelter for the athletic
(West) campus.
Goals/Objectives
Supported
Responsibility
Goal 5, Obj.5-1 &
5-4
Emergency
Management Office
Goal 1, Obj.1-1
Goal 2, Obj.2-2
Emergency
Management Office
Goal 1, Obj.1-1
Physical Plant
Physical Plant
Goal 3, Obj.3-1
Goal 4, Obj.4-3
Goal 1, Obj.1-1
Goal 3, Obj.3-1
Emergency
Management Office
Emergency
Management Office
Physical Plant
Goal 1, Obj.1-1
Athletics
Goal 3, Obj.3-1
Emergency
Management Office
Identify opportunity for installation on an
automated lightning detection system for
the athletic (west) campus, main campus
mall and Eagle Crest.
Emergency
Management Office
Goal 1, Obj.1-1
Goal 3, Obj.3-1
10
Physical Plant
Tracking pending legislation - H.R. 3250: Honorable Stephanie Tubbs Jones College Fire Prevention Act.
112th Congress, 2011–2012 to establish the Honorable Stephanie Tubbs Jones Fire Suppression Demonstration
Incentive Program within the Department of Education to promote installation of fire sprinkler systems, or other fire
suppression or prevention technologies, in qualified student housing and dormitories, and for other purposes.
137
Goals/Objectives
Supported
Mitigation Actions
Identify storm water projects such as rain
gardens and detention areas to help reduce
and control runoff and to promote
protection of the Huron River Watershed
Review and revise the Multi-Hazard
Mitigation Plan to reflect changes in
development, progress in mitigation efforts,
and changes in priorities on an annual basis.
Resubmit to state and FEMA every 5 years.
Responsibility
Physical Plant
Goal 1, Obj.1-4
Emergency
Management Office
Goal 1, Obj.1-3
Goal 3, Obj.3-1
Emergency
Management Office
Table 6-2.
Benefit-Cost Analysis
Projects identified and selected for implementation will be selected based on a costbenefit review to maximize benefits. Benefits can be classified as avoided damages and losses.
To calculate the benefit of implementing mitigation recommendations, one would first calculate
the likely damage without the mitigation action. Next, one would calculate the likely damage
after the implementation of the mitigation recommendation. Then, the losses after mitigation are
subtracted from the losses without mitigation to calculate net benefits. Finally, the useful life of
the project and the time value of money (discount rate) are used to convert those average annual
losses to their present value using the following Net Present Value (NPV) equation:
NPV = -M + B*[(1-(1 + i)-T ) / i]
Where M is the cost of the mitigation measure, B is the net benefit (loss without
mitigation - loss with mitigation), T is the useful life of the asset (years), and i is the interest rate
to calculate the present day value (%).
138
The net benefits of mitigation are compared to the direct costs of implementing the
mitigation action. This relationship is expressed as the ratio of benefits to costs.
Benefit / Cost = (NPV of expected benefit) / (mitigation cost)
A ratio of greater than 1.0 is considered a worthwhile mitigation investment.
Since the Benefit-Cost Analysis is an integral part of obtaining grant money from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency for mitigation efforts, the University will follow the
requirements for classifying benefits for select mitigation projects as outlined in FEMA’s
Using Benefit-Cost Review in Mitigation Planning, State and Local Mitigation Planning How-To
Guide Number Five, FEMA 386-5 May 2007.
While specific mitigation actions are identified to prevent future losses; current funding is
not identified for all of these actions at present. The University has limited resources to take on
new responsibilities or projects. The implementation of these mitigation actions is dependent on
the approval this plan, the securing of funding and the approval of the University’s executive
leadership.
In general, mitigation actions ranked as high priorities will be addressed first. However,
medium or even low priority mitigation actions will be considered for concurrent
implementation. Therefore, the ranking levels should be considered as a first-cut, preliminary
ranking and will evolve based on input from University departments and representatives, the City
of Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County, EMHSD, and FEMA as the plan is implemented.
139
The Mitigation Advisory Committee will initially prioritize mitigation actions using the
following worksheet:
Mitigation Action (Describe):
Category:
.






Preventative Measures
Property Protection
Public Education and Awareness
Natural Resource Protection
Emergency Services
Structural Projects
Hazard(s):
Lead Division/Department:
Estimated Cost:
Funding Method:
Implementation Schedule:
Priority:
 High
 Medium
 Low
Socially Acceptable
 Yes
No
Note:
Technically Feasible
 Yes
No
Note:
Administratively Possible
 Yes
No
Note:
Politically Acceptable
 Yes
No
Note:
Legal
 Yes
No
Note:
Economically Sound
 Yes
No
Note:
Environmentally Sound
 Yes
No
Note:
Table 6-3.
140
Potential Funding Sources
A number of governmental and non-governmental sources provide funding assistance for
qualifying mitigation projects. Each funding source has its own criteria for eligibility and
evaluative criteria for awarding funds. The following list is intended to provide examples of
funding sources for future mitigation projects and should not be considered comprehensive. New
sources for mitigation funding will be added as they are identified.
Creative financing is encouraged and is made possible when partnering with other
agencies or businesses to achieve common or complementary goals. There may be opportunities
for mitigation funding through foundations or philanthropic organizations.

The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program11: is a competitive grant program
developed to assist communities implement hazard mitigation related activities in order
to avert future disasters. PDM is a proactive program that aims to reduce natural and
technological risks to populations and structures before a disaster occurs.

Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program - A federal program that provides annual
funding for projects to protect flooded structures that are insured by the National Flood
Insurance Program.

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) - A federal, post-disaster program that
funds projects to protect public or private property from future disasters.

Repetitive Flood Claims Program (RFC) - A competitive federal program that provides
non-disaster funding for flood mitigation projects at 100% federal funding in
communities that meet certain eligibility limitations.
11
The grant is targeted for elimination as a grant in 2013. It possibly will be combined with the Hazard
Mitigation grant Program.
141

Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) Program - A federal program created to mitigate NFIPinsured residential buildings that have experienced severe flood damage.

Homeland Security Grants (through Region 2) - Multiple grants that provide funding
for homeland security activities.

Assistance to Firefighters Grants - Provides funding for fire prevention and safety
activities and firefighting equipment (possible partnership opportunity with the City of
Ypsilanti).

Public Assistance (PA) Program – Provides supplemental assistance to States, local
governments, and certain nonprofit organizations to alleviate suffering and hardship
resulting from major disasters or emergencies declared by the President. Under Section
406, PA funds may be used to mitigate the impact of future disasters.

Emergency Watershed Protection (USDA/NRCS) – Provides emergency technical and
financial assistance to install or repair structures that reduce runoff and prevent soil
erosion to safeguard life and property.

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention (USDA/NRCS) – Provides technical and
financial assistance in planning and executing works of improvement to protect, develop,
and use land and water resources in small watersheds.
142
Section 7: Plan Implementation and Maintenance Procedures
 Adoption and Implementation
 Monitoring, Reviewing and Amending
 Continued Public Involvement
Adoption & Implementation
Adoption and implementation are critical to the mitigation plan’s overall success. While the
plan makes many important recommendations, the University will need to decide which action(s)
to undertake first. Two factors will help with making that decision: the priority assigned the
actions in the planning process and funding availability.
Adoption of the plan is accomplished by the approval the President and promulgation of the
plan to the campus community.
An important implementation mechanism that is highly effective and low-cost is
incorporation of the hazard mitigation plan recommendations and their underlying principles into
other plans and mechanisms such as University comprehensive plans, continuity of operations
plans, and capital improvement planning and budgeting.
Mitigation is most successful when it is incorporated in the day-to-day functions and
priorities of the university. This integration can be accomplished through identifying multiobjective, win-win programs and projects and through the routine actions of monitoring agendas,
attending meetings, and promoting a safe, sustainable campus environment.
Simultaneous to these efforts, it is important to maintain a constant monitoring of funding
opportunities that can be leveraged to implement some of the more costly recommended actions.
This will include creating and maintaining a bank of ideas on how to meet local match or
participation requirements. When funding does become available, the University will be in a
position to capitalize on the opportunity.
143
Monitoring, Reviewing & Amending
The plan maintenance process shall include monitoring, evaluating, and updating the
mitigation plan within a five-year cycle. The long-term success of the Eastern Michigan
University Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan depends first on the success in implementing the plan
and, second, in establishing a process to ensure that the plan is monitored, evaluated, and
updated on a periodic basis. Responsibility for the overall maintenance of the mitigation plan
rests primarily with the EMU Emergency Management Office. The office will review the goals,
objectives, and action items listed in the plan on a yearly basis. Campus community feedback
will be solicited during the annual review process. A five-year written update of the plan will be
submitted to the Michigan Emergency Management & Homeland Security Division and FEMA
Region V, unless disaster or other circumstances (e.g., changing regulations) require a change to
this schedule.
Evaluation of progress can be achieved by monitoring changes in vulnerabilities identified in
the plan. Changes in vulnerability can be identified by noting:

Decreased vulnerability as a result of implementing recommended actions

Increased vulnerability as a result of failed or ineffective mitigation actions

Increased vulnerability as a result of new development, renovation projects or changes in
the campus community profile.
Updates to this plan will:

Consider changes in vulnerability due to action implementation,

Document success stories where mitigation efforts have proven effective,

Document areas where mitigation actions were not effective,

Document any new hazards that may arise or were previously overlooked,
144

Incorporate new data or studies on hazards and risks,

Incorporate new capabilities or changes in capabilities,

Incorporate new action recommendations or changes in action prioritization.
To best evaluate any changes in vulnerability as a result of plan implementation, ongoing
participation of the Hazard Mitigation Committee (Health & Safety Committee) will be solicited.
Changes will be made to the plan to accommodate for actions that have failed or are not
considered feasible after a review of their consistency with established criteria, timeframe,
priorities or funding resources.
Continued Public Involvement
Continued public involvement is critical to the successful implementation of the plan.
Eastern Michigan University invited university departments, the City of Ypsilanti and
Washtenaw County to participate in the planning process. At kick-off and review meetings, the
broader campus community was invited to the meetings. As the plan is revised and updated, the
EMU Emergency Management Office will hold a public meeting to present the changes and give
participants an opportunity to comment and provide input to the process.
Comments from the public on the plan will be received by the Emergency Management
Office and forwarded to the MHMP planning committee for discussion. Education efforts for
hazard mitigation will be ongoing. The public will be notified of periodic planning meetings
through notices in EMU Today (campus online news and event calendar).
After approval and final adoption of the approved pan, the plan will be made available
online. Hard copy for review and comment by the public, other agencies and interested
stakeholders, will be made available by request.
145
Section 8: References
Documents
Hazard Mitigation Plan for the City of Ypsilanti
Hazard Mitigation Plan for Washtenaw County
Michigan Hazard Mitigation Plan
Eastern Michigan University, Emergency Response Procedures (ERP)
The EMU Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP)
The EMU Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
EMU Building Emergency Plans (BEP)
The EMU Crisis Communications Plan
EMU Emergency Alert Systems Policy and Procedures
The State of Michigan Hazard Analysis
2000 and 2010 US census data
EMU Statement of Values
Eastern Michigan University's Annual Security Report and Annual Fire Safety Report
Building a Disaster Resistant University (FEMA 443)
Getting Started: Building Support for Mitigation Planning (FEMA386-1)
Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses (FEMA 386-2)
Developing the Mitigation Plan: Identifying Mitigation Actions and Implementation Strategies
(FEMA 386-3)
Bringing the Plan to Life: Implementing the Hazard Mitigation Plan (FEMA 386-4)
Using Benefit-Cost Review in Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-5),
Websites
146
www.emich.edu
http://cityofypsilanti.com/Government/Departments/PoliceDepartment
http://cityofypsilanti.com/Government/Departments/FireDepartment
http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters.fema
2012-2014 FEMA Mitigation and Insurance Strategic Plan
http://www.fema.gov/government/mitigation.shtm
http://www.emich.edu/maps/
http://www.cityofypsilanti.com/
www.michigan.gov
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/hazard/map/declarationsmap2000_07.pdf
http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/saferoom/tsfs02_torn_activity.shtm
147
Section 9: Appendices
EMU 2011 Risk Assessment Survey
EMU Hazard Mitigation Risk

Assessment Results 2011
Department of Public Safety
Emergency Management Office
1200 Oakwood, Suite 204
Ypsilanti, Michigan 48197
(734) 487-0799
emergency.management@emich.edu
Prepared by Cat Griebe, GA
July 2011

This survey, supporting activities and the subsequent plan were funded by FEMA and the Michigan
Homeland Security and Emergency Management Division through a Hazard Mitigation Grant.
148
Introduction
Eastern Michigan University is subject to a broad range of natural and humancaused hazards that threaten life and health and can cause significant property damage to the
campus community. To better understand these hazards and their impacts on the University
community, and to identify ways to reduce those impacts, the Emergency Management Office
has put forth an integrated approach to addressing hazards and their impacts. The first step was
to survey the campus community.
The Eastern Michigan University Emergency Management Office conducted an online
hazard assessment survey from January 27, 2011 until February 26, 2011. The survey was made
available for students, staff and faculty via www.surveymonkey.com an online survey hosting
website. The purpose of the survey was to identify relevant threats to the campus community.
The information gathered from the responses to this survey supports the development of the
Eastern Michigan University Hazard Mitigation Plan.
The survey was sent out to various members of email mailing lists, was posted on EMU
Today and word of mouth was used to increase awareness of the surveys existence. In total there
were 350 respondents, which included faculty, staff and both undergraduate and graduate
students. The survey consisted of 12 multiple choice questions and 1 optional question regarding
additional commentary suggesting any improvements the university might be able to make in the
area of emergency preparedness and mitigation.
The results of this survey, used in conjunction with previously existing data from the City
of Ypsilanti and Washtenaw County Hazard Mitigation Plans and data from past natural and
manmade events that have occurred on and around campus, provide the main body of
information in developing the hazard identification and threat assessment for Eastern Michigan
University. The survey supports the creation of an extensive profile of potential hazards affecting
the University based on historical accounts, existing emergency plans, and knowledge of
students, faculty, and staff. The various hazards identified through the risk assessment process
will then be prioritized based on the likelihood of occurrence, severity of the hazard and cost of
damage to the University.
149
Survey Design
The survey consisted of four parts:
1. Demographics
o What is your role on campus?
o Gender
o Where do you work or live on campus?
2. Probabilities
o What is the likelihood of certain events happening on campus?
3. Level of Impact
o What impact do you believe certain events will have on the universities
internal response resources?
o What impact do you believe certain events will have on the universities need
for external response resources?
4. Preparedness/Suggestions
o How prepared is EMU to deal with an emergency situation?
o Any suggestions?
Impact Areas
For the purpose of this hazard assessment survey, impacts were assessed along three aspects of
how the hazard being considered will affect the ability of eastern Michigan University to deliver
an appropriate level of service: the human impact, the property impact and the business impact.
The following definitions and ratings were used in conducting the assessment:

Type of Hazard: A source or a situation with a potential for harm in terms of human
injury or ill-health, damage to property, damage to the environment, or a combination of
these. Universities that anticipate and understand types of hazards are able to ensure that
appropriate resources are in place during a crisis. Four categories encompass the wide
range of hazards that pose threats to the campus. Each requires different considerations
for preparation, impact, relief, and recovery. The categories are natural disasters, health
emergencies, terrorism/random acts of violence, and technical hazards.

Probability: The likelihood of a specific type of emergency situation happening on
campus.
1
Will not
occur

2
3
4
5
Unlikely
Possible
Likely
Almost Certain
Human Impact: The impact in terms of loss of life, injuries, and suffering imposed upon
individuals or groups within the campus community.
150

Property Impact: The impact in terms of loss of buildings, class space, research
facilities, equipment, infrastructure and other physical assets of the university.

Business Impact: The impact in terms of interruption or loss of critical business
functions based on duration, availability of alternative processes, and impact of not
performing the functions. This can be measured against regulatory, legal, financial,
operations or customer service requirements.
1
None
2
Low
3
Moderate
4
High
5
Critical
An overall impact rating then gives a picture of the effect on the University. Most events will
impact both the University and the campus community to varying degrees. For the final
Mitigation Plan, a risk rating matrix will utilize the assessment results in the following rating:
Impact
Severity of
Unlikely
Possible
Catastrophic Moderate
High
Major
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Minor
Low
Moderate
Insignificant None
Low
* If identified as Will Not Occur, hazard was not rated.
Likelihood*
Likely
Critical
High
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Almost Certain
Critical
Critical
High
Moderate
Moderate
Probability + Human Impact + Property Impact + Business Impact = Overall Impact
Response Capabilities
 Internal Response Resources: Those resources and capabilities available within the
university’s departments and units to address an emergency event.

External Response Resources: Those resources and capabilities available from offcampus organizations, or through mutual aid, to address an emergency event.
1
None
2
Marginal
3
Adequate
151
4
Strong
5
Very Strong
Demographics
350 members of the Eastern Michigan University campus community completed this
survey. Below a breakdown of the respondent’s roles and general makeup can be found.
152
“Other” can include employees who work for non-academic departments as well as
faculty members who work either across departments or in a department not listed as an option.
153
A majority of respondents indicated that they commute to EMU. Employees obviously
commute, by a variety of means, to work. But, a majority of students also commute to and from
campus. This information leads to an assumption that a large portion of the campus community
is not on campus for extended periods of time. A majority of classes are offered before 5 p.m. as
of the 2010 winter semester, leaving only about 25% of total classes held to be offered after the 5
p.m. timeslot.
154
Likelihood of Event Occurring
Respondents were asked to rate the likelihood of occurrence of 23 potential
hazards both natural and manmade. The options ranged from ‘Will Not Occur’ (1) to ‘Almost
Certain’ (5).
* IT includes categories such as fiber optic systems, servers, computing capability,
communications, and internet.
** Loss of drinking water, wastewater, steam supplies, fuel supplies, financial services, other
agency services.
155
The top 5 will likely be the main focus of the mitigation strategies developed however,
this is not the only tool used to identify hazards. An example would be areas of campus
susceptible to flooding will likely be addressed as well when looking to mitigate common
campus hazards. Below is a copy of the findings from the previous survey to demonstrate the
change in opinion from the first survey to the current one.
***It is important to note that the current survey did offer more options than the previous
so the change in results may partially be due to the new options available. Also take into account
the fact that both surveys were conducted during winter months.
4 of the top 5 remain the same including; severe snow storm, sever winds/wind storm, ice
storm and IT systems failure. New to the top 5 is armed suspect on campus.
156
Below is simply the same information from the current survey but broken down by
sections of the respondents; student, faculty and staff.
For this portion of respondents the only difference in the top 5 is that ‘Civil Disturbance’
made the top 5, while ‘Armed Suspect on Campus’ is noticeably absent.
157
For this portion the top 5 is a match for the findings from the total respondents.
158
From the staff section (which had the largest number of respondents’ total) the top 5
includes the same findings as the initial chart. The only difference here is that ‘Armed Suspect
on Campus’ and ‘Wind Storm’ are in differing places.
It was found that severe snow storm were most likely to occur. This is a logical top
response considering that this year alone the University was forced to close one more than one
occasion due to severe winter storms.
Ice storms were found to be the 2nd most likely hazard. An ice storm is a type of winter
storm which is characterized by precipitation which upon falling to ground level immediately
will freeze and blanket the area with ice. It is different than the occurrence of patchy black ice or
sleet which is simply a freezing rain.
159
The other weather related hazard dealt with wind storms and came in at number 4. Wind
storms can lead to down power lines, tree branches and even damage to campus buildings
depending on the severity of the storm. Obviously, this can endanger the wellbeing of building,
power availability and of course most importantly the lives of those living and working in the
campus community.
Power outages and IT failures occur on a fairly regular basis throughout the county and
EMU is not absent from this event which accounts for potential hazard number 3; IT systems
failure. This hazard is a reality of living in a technologically dependent age and should be taken
seriously as a threat to the campus community.
Completing the top 5 is the potential for an armed suspect on campus, new to the top
hazard list from the survey conducted just over a year prior to this survey. Following the
devastating campus shootings that have occurred across the country, it is a well-known fact that
they can happen anywhere and at any time. To date on college campuses alone (meaning,
excluding shootings which have taken place at middle and high schools) there have been over 20
campus shootings in the United States including of course the most deadly in 2007 at Virginia
Tech. Respondents want to ensure that the campus is aware of this reality and that the
community is as knowledgeable and prepared as possible in the event that EMU is ever exposed
to this deadly risk.
Aside from the top hazards of the survey it is important to now that EMU has
experienced many of the other hazards on multiple occasions. In recent years the campus has
been exposed to an influenza pandemic involving the H1N1 virus in 2009. Living in a dorm
environment involves close quarters where germs can easily and rapidly spread from person to
person. Even if one does not live on campus, the risk for a disease to rapidly spread is still very
real for those who simply work in the environment. Related is the potential for illness related to
contaminated food, about 4 years ago EMU Dinning Services did suffer from 2 two food
contamination incidents which of course acts as a reminder for the potential disaster that could
result if a larger portion of campus were impacted.
Again, despite being in the lower portion of the likelihood results flooding and water
damage is a very real threat to the daily operations of EMU. Eastern Michigan is situated at a
fairly high level however flooding due to rapid winter thaw or a severe thunderstorm is a tangible
threat. In addition to that threat water damage to buildings due to pipes bursting, sprinkler leaks
and simple building aging is a reality of a maturing campus. In 2006 a water sprinkler leaked
causing damage in Bowen Field House due to lines hit during construction and in 2008 a pipe
burst leading to a flood in McKinney hall; these two instances demonstrate the reality of the
possibility for damage on a larger scale.
The potential for a fire to occur on campus is fairly high as to date there have been
multiple occurrences. Sherzer Observatory for example has had multiple large fires including
one in 1989 which destroyed over 70% of the building. In November of 2005 there was a fire in
King Hall and in December of 2009 there was a fire in Mark Jefferson Hall. Both were
extinguished fairly quickly however post-fire one needs to deal with repairs and any smoke
damage in the surrounding areas.
160
Despite it being in the bottom tier of the survey, there is also the threat for an air craft
crash on or near campus, this could endanger lives as well as the campuses power and response
resources. Main campus is located under the flight paths of Willow Run Airport and Detroit
Metro Airport. The increased air traffic in the area creates a higher likelihood of an aviation
accident occurring on or near campus.
Level of Impact
Respondents were next asked a series of multiple choice questions to determine the level
of human, property and business impact they believe each event could have in each situation.
The choices were from ‘None’ (1) to ‘Critical’ (5).
161
162
163
While it is important to gauge what the most likely hazards are it is also crucial to have
an understanding of the potential impact each situation may have. When looking to address and
plan for these events gauging their magnitude will assist in knowing what measures should be
taken to minimize the potential damage.
164
Additionally, in order to plan to address these hazards one must have an accurate idea for
the level of internal response resources needed in order to address each situation. Also,
depending on the extent of the damage or potential damage resulting from an event it should also
be understood that some situations may call for outside resources in order to most effectively
deal with the repercussions of the event.
165
166
Preparedness
The final multiple choice question that was asked was; ‘How well do you feel that EMU
as a whole is prepared and trained to properly respond to an emergency situation?’ The choices
ranged from ‘Not Prepared’ (1) to ‘Extremely Prepared’ (5). The answers have been compiled to
show the overall findings as well as the findings per respondent roles. Also, there is a copy of the
preparedness chart from the previous survey in order to gauge the progress to date.
167
It can be seen from the above charts that the sense the conclusion of the previous survey
respondents seem to believe that the University is more prepared to deal with emergent situations
at this time. Below is the breakdown chart which reveals the results of the current survey by
respondent roles.
Finally, respondents were given the optional choice to respond to an open-ended
question. The question was simply, ‘What improvements can be made?’ 78 participants chose to
answer this question which is about 22% of the total survey respondents. Answers did vary in
detail, however, below a small sampling is shown to get an idea of what people had to say.
Overall comments focused on the importance of successful communication, continuing to build
on what is already in place. They stated that it is important to ensure that faculty, staff and
students alike remain connected and informed as quickly as possible regarding any situations on
and immediately around campus. People were also interested in seeing more of a police and
SEEUS presence on campus as it increases the level of safety people feel. They also were
interested in more AED units and ER phones around campus. Additionally, respondents seemed
168
interested in increasing the training available to the campus community, as well as making the
training already available more visible for all to know about.
A few other general comments that appeared to repeat dealt with concern over the
reliability of the IT system in place and dealing with a potential on campus shooter. Overall, it
should be noted that making sure the campus community is aware of the options currently
available would probably assist in much of the concerns stated. There is a certain level of
personal responsibility that individuals and individual office need to step up and accept because
training options are offered. The amount cannot increase until there is a need to justify the
increase; a prime example would be the CERT group which is always looking to accept more
members and provides a wide array of training opportunities.
Sampling of the Open Ended Responses

“Improved safety patrols in public areas, particularly parking lots after dark.”

“Everyone should know our emergency plan. Most students and faculty probably don't.”

“Traffic flow is poor even in non-emergency situations. Mass evacuation not possible.
Not enough campus police to enforce a lock-down in the event of, say, a shooter.”

“More visible walking and bicycle patrols, inside buildings and outside. It's comforting to
see them.”

“It would really help if the university maintained buildings properly. We have had several
floods, power outages, etc. in Mark Jefferson over the past six years. I sincerely doubt we
are alone in this difficulty.”

“Actually consult and follow advice of public safety/police/fire personnel before building
and renovating.”

“In training for faculty and staff in how to handle emergency situations when students are
involved; mock drills, especially in situations where guns are involved, might be a wise
move.”

“Cross training with faculty - same page in case of an emergency instead of everyone
doing their own thing or what they think is right.”

“Better job of letting the campus community know what the campus' plan is for all
hazards preparedness and individual responsibilities. Training for individuals and
departments. Annual Campus wide table top exercise. Coordination and eventually
exercises with local, county, state and federal resources, to fully understand where we
stand in the priority list for assistance, and resources...and a realistic plan to address any
shortfalls exposed by this information. Better funding and support for the Office of
Emergency Preparedness. Fully equipped, mobile command post for DPS. Exercises in
the EOC, alternate EOC, and mobile command post, with a full after action report and
169
support to correct deficiencies exposed by the exercises...I do not believe our current
EOC is large enough and functional in a real emergency. Do we have an alternate EOC?
An assessment of current resources on campus and our ability to function for at least 3-4
days before outside assistance can get to us in a real disaster. More support and resources
for the Office of Emergency Preparedness. Again, more support and resources of the
Office of Emergency Preparedness. Remember, if it is predictable, it is preventable.”
*This answer was cut down a bit for space reasons.

“Security in all areas i.e., video, foot patrols, building locks, adding card swipes instead
of keys, etc. Aging buildings desperately need repairing which means one small area of
damage could condemn an entire building. Using the Pray-Harrold relocation as an
example of what would happen if more than one building were condemned.”
Conclusion
It is clear that a majority of respondents feel generally safe on the campus of Eastern
Michigan University. It seems that preparedness is less of an issue than simply making people
aware of how the University is already prepared and what resources are already available to
students, faculty and staff. Communicating the plans in place, assigning specific tasks and
repetitive training seem to be the focus of improvements that the public wishes to see at this
time. The top threats to the campus community according to respondents are as follows; severe
snow storm, ice storm, IT systems failure, wind storm and armed suspect on campus. However, it
is acknowledged that there are many additional threats outside of the top five and the campus
needs to prepare and respond accordingly to all threats to the campus community. EMU has
taken many strides to communicate their response plans as well as pertinent timely information
to the community; a push for enrollment in the email/text alert system (RAVE) should be made a
priority for EMU. Aside from RAVE, the University can continue to utilize print media, social
media and of course the Universities website itself to communicate with the campus community.
170
Mass Notification and Emergency Communications
Eastern Michigan University’s emergency communication and alerting capabilities
consist of the following systems. A combination of methods may be utilized depending
on the nature, duration and severity of the emergency. Key systems are:
a) EMU Outdoor Speaker Array
This seven (7) speaker array system operates as part of Emergency Alert system,
transmitting voice intelligible emergency messages and alert tones to the outdoor campus
environment. It is not designed to penetrate buildings, but will be audible above normal
street noise.
Outdoor Speaker Arrays Coverage
Figure 9-1
171
b) In-Building Speakers - Voice over Fire Alarm (VoFA)
Current upgrades in the EMU fire alarm platform allow for the use of voice audio
communications in addition to the fire alarm indicators inside of buildings on campus
over the existing fire alarm infrastructure backbone. This system is currently available in
a limited number of buildings (19). As funding allows, the University may expand the
number of buildings with this capability.
c) EMU RAVE Text Alerting
Rave alert is a broadcast alerting interface that allows the University to quickly send
emergency notifications and important announcements via text messages, email or
recorded voice messages to register subscribers of the service.
d) Eaglemail
Eaglemail can be used to broadcast notification and information on situations to all
campus community members with an emich.edu email account.
e) EMU Website
The EMU website can be used to provide information in support of an alert and
notification activation. Message can be posted to the official EMU website or the EMU
Homepage can be replaced with an emergency website that has already been developed.
f)
Outdoor LED Displays
The outdoor LED displays reach students and visitors with an electronic medium that
allows the University to display text and images at key gateways to the EMU campus.
172
Washtenaw County Outdoor Warning Siren System
The Emergency Management Division is responsible for the activation of thirty-nine
designated outdoor warning sirens throughout Washtenaw County: Three of the sirens are
located on EMU Property. The University has no control of the sirens.
Except for scheduled testing, these sirens will be activated when significant severe
weather has been detected (a tornado or a severe thunderstorm with damaging winds
confirmed to be in excess of 70 MPH); when a hazardous materials accident occurs that
requires immediate protective action by the public or for other critical events such
homeland security emergencies.
Washtenaw County Outdoor Warning Siren Coverage as of August 2008
Figure 9-2.
173
Emergency Alert System (EAS)
The Emergency Alert System (EAS) is a national warning system, superseding the
Emergency Broadcast System. EAS has become part of IPAWS- the Integrated Public
Alert and Warning System, a program of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). The system is designed to provide rapid, reliable and effective communication
to the public in case of major emergencies such as natural disasters and terrorist attacks.
WEMU 89.1 FM is the primary EAS station (LP-1) for Washtenaw County. WEMU
will activate the EAS for any emergency identified in the EAS Operational Area Plan,
which includes EAS activation requests from authorized local, state and federal officials.
174
Mitigation Meetings
Meetings
175
176
177
178
HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES
September 17, 2010
Attendees:
Ellen Bernard - EHS
Arlene Cook - CORR
Kevin Lawson - Student Center
Mark Wesley - Emergency Mgmt.
Susan Campbell, UAW 1976 & ORD
Joanne Hansen- Woman's Commission
Jason Smith - Emergency Mgmt.
Kathryn Wilhoff - EHS
Absent:
Kevin Abbasse, Sonya Alvarado, Nancy Bowman, Michelle Campbell, Diana Good,
Caroline Gould, Nick Graham, Norman Harrington, Erica Healander, Chad Humble,
Steve Moore, Greg O'Dell, Steve Pernecky, Ray Sowers, Toni Taylor, Eric Ward,
1. Kathryn Wilhoff distributed the activity summary for August/September.
Discussion was held.
2. Kathryn Wilhoff reported the staff in Starkweather still has indoor air quality
concerns. Additional air monitoring was conducted and the results are expected next
week.
3. Kathryn Wilhoff informed the committee about visiting the Parsons Center. It is beautiful
and everyone should take the opportunity to see it.
4. Kathryn Wilhoff reported on the continuing lack of hot water at the Northwest
Center. She is working with the management company to resolve the issue.
5. Kevin Lawson reported that windows in the Student Center have been
cleaned but the contractor will be back out to address some issues.
6. Kevin Lawson stated that he is working with Mark Wesley on the building
emergency procedures. Kevin also reported that there was an issue with a
computer user not leaving the building when the fire alarm sounded.
7. Kevin Lawson inquired about the removal of the fire extinguisher sign on the
first floor directly north of Sabbaros. EHS will follow up.
8. Kevin Lawson inquired about the installation of wall covering in the cooler
area following the mold abatement. EHS will follow up to determine if this is a
maintenance or new construction project.
9. Mark Wesley reported that Emergency Management is close to having 18
building emergency plans completed.
179
10. Mark Wesley informed the committee that a meeting with Executive Council
regarding continuity of operations is scheduled for next week. Jason Smith
will be the lead for this project. Mark also stated that the Board of Reagent is
requesting this and there is an eighteen (18) month time line for completion,
excluding testing and training.
11. Mark Wesley reported that the Emergency Flipcharts have been ordered and
are due by October 8, 2010. He also stated that over 8500 Emergency Guide
cards have been given out.
12. Mark Wesley stated that the comprehensive plan for the university has been
drafted. Mark requested feedback on the plan and would like to enlist the
help of the H&S Committee for that.
13. Mark Wesley informed the committee the RAVE system will be tested on
Thursday, September 30, 2010, at noon.
14. Mark Wesley reported a grad student has been selected to work on the
Mitigation Grant. The targeted completion is June 2011.
15. Jason Smith reported that currently the CERT has 90 members. There are
10 - 12 people registered for the next class beginning October 1 in Halle.
16. Arlene Cook informed the committee that COOR has received notification that
they have received the asbestos training grant again.
17. Susan Campbell inquired about the calcification on the repaired wall at the
bottom of the stairs in Starkweather, the inability of the basement Custodial
Closet door to close and the outdoor ramp needing a railing. EHS will check
into these issues.
18. Joanne Hansen reported that there is still the emergency exit sign in Halle in
the South Commons that is deceptive and should be removed. EM and EHS
will follow up.
19. Joanne Hansen reported that a couple of slabs of the sidewalk on the south
side of Halle are sinking below the curb and one is cracked causing a trip
hazard. Grounds was contacted and it is believed the cause is that the
construction trucks are driving over this area of sidewalk. EHS will contact
Grounds for additional follow-up.
20. Kathryn Wilhoff reported that an AED program has been drafted which will
standardize the AED type, identify AED locations and coordinate AED
maintenance. The program still needs budget approval. Dr Keller will be the
Advisory Committee Chair and EHS will maintain the program.
The next meeting is Friday October 15, 2010 at 9 a.m.
in room 104 Student Center
180
HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE
MINUTES
October 15, 2010
Attendees:
Ellen Bernard - EHS
Arlene Cook - CORR
Christine Kropelnyckyj - Emer. Mgmt.
Mark Monarch - Physical Plant
Mark Wesley - Emergency Mgmt.
Susan Campbell, UAW 1976 & ORD
Joanne Hansen- Women's Commission
Kevin Lawson - Student Center
Steve Pernecky - AAUP
Kathryn Wilhoff - EHS
Absent:
Kevin Abbasse, Sonya Alvarado, Nancy Bowman, Michelle Campbell, Diana Good,
Caroline Gould, Nick Graham, Norman Harrington, Erica Healander, Chad Humble,
Steve Moore, Greg O'Dell, Jason Smith, Ray Sowers, Toni Taylor, Eric Ward,
1. Kathryn Wilhoff distributed the activity summary for September/October.
Discussion was held.
2. Kathryn Wilhoff informed the committee about the two cases of Whooping
Cough. Kathryn and Dr. Keller are conducting site visits to the classes with
affected students and faculty to provide information and answer questions on
the disease.
3. Kathryn Wilhoff reported on the continuing lack of hot water at the Northwest
Center. She is working with the management company to resolve the issue.
4. Kathryn Wilhoff reported on the additional asbestos abatement needed in
Pray-Harrold.
5. Kathryn Wilhoff stated that the chemical move at Mark Jefferson is planned
in December. After everything is moved renovation to the basement, 1st and
2nd floors will start. Kathryn commented that this is very involved and
complicated move. Some areas will have to move several times before the
project is complete.
6. Arlene Cook inquired about the crossing at College Place. Students are just
walking out into the street because they think of it as a crosswalk. Mark
Monarch stated that this is a City street and that he will discuss the issue with
Scott Storrar. It was suggested that markings and crosswalk signage should
be installed.
7. Joanne Hansen reported the need for additional bike racks due to increased
usage. Bikes are being chained to any immovable object. Mark Monarch
said that he will discuss this issue with Dieter Otto and Steve Moore.
H&S Committee Minutes - 10/10
Page 1 of 3
181
8. Mark Wesley reported Emergency Management (EM) has hired grad student,
Catherine Griebe, for the mitigation grant. Catherine will be reaching out to
the campus to develop strategies regarding flooding, among other things.
Once these plans are approved this will open up other opportunities for
funding. Mark anticipates it will take a year to complete the work. Mark also
discussed having the Health & Safety Committee as a mitigation grant
advisory committee.
9. Mark Wesley informed the committee that EM is working with the Autism
Center regarding their emergency plan. They are currently looking at the
Village Commons as an evacuation site but there will need to be
transportation assistance. This plan will have to be revisited once the
Children's Institute moves into the Fletcher Building.
10. Mark Wesley reported that the Emergency Flipcharts are due in any day. EM
is looking at ways to distribute them. In addition, 1500 of the old flipcharts
have been found and these may be distributed in the residence halls and
class rooms. Mark also stated there is no conflict between the old and new
charts.
11. Mark Wesley stated that the comprehensive plan for the university has been
drafted. Mark also stated he would like to conduct a mass casualty exercise
in May 2011. This will take a lot of coordination and training. The support of
the divisions and departments will need to be obtained. This is part of the
EHME grant requirement that needs to be completed.
12. Mark Wesley informed the committee that grant activities are going well and
that approval by the Department of Education has been received regarding
modifications to the grant. Instead of conducting drills in 57 buildings
emergency plans will be developed for 30 buildings.
13. Mark Wesley reported a drill with the IT department was conducted on
October 1, 2010. Issues identified during the drill are being addressed.
14. Susan Campbell inquired about the air monitoring in Starkweather. Kathryn
Wilhoff reported additional air monitoring for mold was conducted and the
results are expected next week. Testing for temperature, humidity, carbon
dioxide and carbon monoxide have been running for a week and results will
be available on Monday. VOC testing resulted in nothing unusual. EHS is
trying to arrange to have all of the pipes in the crawl insulated and the dirt
covered with visqueen.
15. Susan Campbell inquired about the calcification on the repaired wall at the
bottom of the stairs in Starkweather. Kathryn Wilhoff reported that the wall
was being cleaned today and EHS is trying to get a dehumidifier for the area.
H&S Committee Minutes - 10/10
Page 2 of 3
182
16. Mark Monarch reported that the Pray-Harrold project is on schedule. Mark
stated that the west mechanical room is empty and the hallway on the 2nd
floor is all open. The penthouse is in the process of being emptied.
17. Mark Monarch stated that Mark Jefferson is getting ready for the next phase
of renovation. Mark informed the committee that the contractors from the
previous phase will not be working on the next phase. This will result in
additional training for these new contractors.
18. Mark Monarch informed the committee that installation of the new kiln at the
Sculpture Studio is underway.
19. Joanne Hansen reported that the "No Smoking" signs have not been replaced
since the completion of the construction at the front entrance to Halle. Due to
the examination to the smoking policy it might be prudent to hold off on
ordering new signage. Kevin Lawson stated that he would look to see if he
has any leftover signs that were used at the Student Center. Mark Monarch
will contact Travis Temeyer regarding the sign replacement.
The next meeting is Friday November 19, 2010 at 9 a.m.
in room 104 Student Center
183
HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE
MINUTES
April 15, 2011
Attendees:
Ellen Bernard - EHS
Arlene Cook - CORR
Christine Kropelnyckyj - Emer. Mgmt.
Steve Moore - Physical Plant
Mark Wesley - Emer. Mgmt.
Susan Campbell, UAW 1976 & ORD
Joanne Hanson - Women's Commission
Kevin Lawson - Student Center
Steve Pernecky - AAUP
Kathryn Wilhoff - EHS
Absent:
Kevin Abbasse, Sonya Alvarado, Michelle Campbell, Diana Good, Caroline Gould,
Norman Harrington, Erica Healander, Chad Humble, Mark Monarch, Greg O'Dell, Jason
Smith, Ray Sowers, Toni Taylor, Mike Turner, Eric Ward.
1. Kathryn Wilhoff distributed the activity summary for March/April. Discussion
was held.
2. Kevin Lawson inquired about the status of the AED program. Kathryn Wilhoff
reported that the program/policy and budget proposal has been prepared and
submitted to John Lumm. The policy addresses standardization of
equipment. There is a need to address the Life Packs at DPS due to their
age. Kathryn Wilhoff also reported that DPS officers saved a life in March
using an AED.
3. Arlene Cook asked about the broken fluorescent bulbs. Kathryn Wilhoff
stated that one had been broken in an office and the employees were
concerned. EHS will create a clean-up procedure.
4. Kevin Lawson requested information regarding Bake Sales. Kathryn Wilhoff
reported that a draft procedure and form identifying various requirements had
been supplied to Larry Gates for review. Upon completion EHS will supply
the information to the student organizations and building administrators, and
place a notice in EMU Today. The Bake Sale procedure can be found at the
EHS website: http://www.emich.edu/publicsafety/healthand safety/ under
Written Plans.
5. Kevin Lawson inquired about the ladder marking in DC1. Kathryn Willhoff
stated EHS had placed markings on the floor and a wall sign under the ladder
to the penthouse in DC1 to prevent equipment from being stored there. This
was due to an employee's fall. Steve Moore will provide the location of other
wall ladders in need of marking to EHS.
H&S Committee Minutes - 4/11
Page 1 of 2
184
6. Christine Kropelnyckyj reported Emergency Management received
information regarding the handling of threats to and security of students
working with animals. Christine Kropelnyckyj will send Susan Campbell an
electronic copy of a paper for her to forward to the Animal Care Committee.
7. Mark Wesley asked the Health and Safety Committee members if they would
review and provide feedback on the mitigation plans that EM has researched
and prepared. EM would like comments regarding the goals and priorities of
these plans.
8. Steve Moore reported that a small bottle bomb had gone off on campus
during the previous weekend, and a custodian was asked to clean it up. Mark
Wesley will investigate this and work with DPS regarding procedures.
9. Steve Moore stated that the Mark Jefferson and Pray-Harrold projects are on
schedule. Updates to the electrical systems on campus will result in some
digging and various building power outages. Sherzer will be closed this
summer for the installation of a new HVAC system. Bowen Lot will be closed
for reconfiguration, resurfacing and installation of new storm drains. M-DOT
will be improving the intersection of Oakwood & Washtenaw for 6 weeks to 2
months this summer.
10. Arlene Cook reported that the Asbestos and Lead Awareness make-up
trainings will take place on 4/28 and 5/4, and Hazwoper training for all
campus police officers and EM on 4/21.
11. Arlene Cook inquired about a sexual assault at EMU that was reported on the
news and no warning was issued. This concern was referred to DPS. DPS
responded in this case, the suspect was arrested and lodged in jail. If there is
no on-going threat to the University community, such as when an arrest is
made, no alert will be issued.
12. Susan Campbell inquired about the lack of being able to enter work request in
Mr. Greenwrench for grounds issues. Steve Moore confirmed the situation
and stated that the entire system is being examined. Steve will check further
into it.
The next meeting is Friday May 20, 2011 at 9 a.m.
in room 104 Student Center
185
H&S Committee Minutes - 4/11
Page 2 of 2
186
187
188
189
190
191
Washtenaw County EM Partners Meeting
Ann Arbor EM Office
March 26, 2012
Purpose: Each organization was asked to bring their Hazard Vulnerability Assessment for review
and discussion. The intent was to validate hazard rankings for the organizations in Washtenaw
County. All were in general alignment of hazard rankings.
192
Eastern Michigan University
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Review- Campus Community Presentation
June 14, 2012 10:00 am
Rm. 104 EMU Student Center
Agenda
1. Welcome & Introductions
2. Overview of Mitigation Planning Process
3. Presentation of Final Draft Plan
4. Goals/ Objectives/ Mitigation Actions
5. Questions & Participant Feedback
Attachment: Mitigation Action Worksheet Example
193
EMU Mitigation Action Worksheet
Mitigation Action
Division/ Unit Name:
Action Item (Describe):
Category:
Hazard(s):
Lead Division/Department Responsible:
Estimated Cost:
Funding Method:
Implementation Schedule:
Priority:
194
Instructions for Completing the Mitigation Action Worksheet
a. Division/Department/Unit Name: Be sure to identify your Division/Departmment/Unit
name.
b. Action Item: Identify a specific action that, if accomplished, will reduce vulnerability and
risk in the impact area. Actions may be in the form of university policies, programs or structural
mitigation projects and should be consistent with any pre-identified mitigation goals and
objectives.
c. Category: Indicate the most appropriate category for the proposed action (Prevention;
Property Protection; Natural Resource Protection; Structural Projects; Emergency Services; or
Public Education and Awareness).
d. Hazard(s): List the hazard(s) the proposed action is designed to mitigate.
e. Lead Division/Department/Unit Responsible: Identify the division, department or unit that
is best suited to implement the proposed action.
f. Estimated Cost: If applicable, indicate what the total cost will be to accomplish this action.
This amount will, of course, have to be an estimate until actual final dollar amounts can be
determined. Some actions may only cost “staff time” and should be noted so.
g. Funding Method: If applicable, indicate how the cost to complete the action will be funded.
For example, funds may be provided from existing operating budgets or general funds, a
previously established contingency fund, a cost-sharing federal or state grant program, etc.
h. Implementation Schedule: Indicate when the action will begin and when the action is
expected to be completed. Remember that some actions will require only a minimum amount of
time, while others may require a long-term or continuous effort.
i. Priority: Indicate whether the action is a “high” priority, “moderate” priority or “low” priority.
Prioritization should be based on the following STAPLEE (previous attachment)
1. Effect on overall risk to life and property.
2. Ease of implementation.
3. Project costs vs. benefits
4. Political and community support.
5. Funding availability.
195
Campus Community Notice of Mitigation Plan Presentation
196
197
198
199
200
201
EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP-1777.DR). Funded through the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Emergency Management &
Homeland Security Division of the Michigan State Police (EMHSD).
Project #: 1777.10
Grant #: FEMA-DR-1527-MI- Project 1771.1P Mitigation Plan for Eastern Michigan University
Sub grantee: Eastern Michigan University
Grant Award Date: March 10, 2010
Project Completion Date: June 30, 2012
Original Grant Award: $44,167
 $29,997 Federal
 $14,170 EMU (Provided as in-kind soft match)
Amount Expended on Project: $38,385.54 (project completed under budget)
Development Team and Authors
Mark Wesley, EMU Emergency Management Director
Catherine Griebe, Graduate Assistant, EMU Public Administration Program
Robert Morford, Student Employee, EMU Emergency Management Office
Hazard Mitigation Advisory Committee for Project (2010-2012)
Kevin Abbasse, EMU Physical Plant
Cat Griebe, Mitigation GA
Sonya Alvarado, EMU Federation of
Joanne Hansen, Women's Commission
Teachers
Erica Healander, Risk Management
Ellen Bernard, EMU Environmental
Robert Heighes, EMU Department of
Health and Safety
Public Safety
Marc Breckenridge, Washtenaw County
Barbara Hopkins, Center for
Emergency Management
Organization Risk Reduction
Elizabeth Bucciarelli, American
Jon Ichesco, Chief, Ypsilanti Fire
Association of University Professors
Department
Susan Campbell, PT Union/Office of
Ken Kelly, Washtenaw County
Research & Development
Emergency Management
Akosua Dow, Provost’s Office &
Thomas Kovacs, American Association
Academic Affairs
of University Professors
John Foley, Huron River Watershed
Kevin Lawson, EMU Student Center
Nick Graham, AFSCME/Physical Plant
Mark Monarch, EMU Physical Plant
Steve Moore, EMU Physical Plant
Mark Wesley, EMU Emergency
Steve Pernicky, American Association of
Management
University Professors
Kathryn Wilhoff, Environmental Health
Bilal Sarsour, EMU Physical Plant
and Safety
Toni Taylor, Clerical Union/Academic
Gregg Wilmes, American Association of
Advising
University Professors
Eric Ward, University Health Services
202
Hazard Mitigation Overview
Hazard mitigation is defined by FEMA as “any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term
risk to human life and property from a hazard event.” The results of a three-year, congressionally
mandated independent study to assess future savings from mitigation activities provides evidence
that mitigation activities are highly cost-effective. On average, each dollar spent on mitigation saves
society an average of $4 in avoided future losses in addition to saving lives and preventing injuries
(National Institute of Building Science Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council 2005).
The Eastern Michigan University Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan was created to work towards
developing a proactive campus community. The goal of the plan is to identify risks to the campus
community and to educate university officials of the risks and possible actions to minimize associated
damages from both natural and manmade hazards.
It was prepared with input from various university departments and administrators as well as from the
City of Ypsilanti and Washtenaw County emergency programs. The plan was developed with the
support of the State of Michigan Emergency Management & Homeland Security Division (EMHSD)
and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
The Eastern Michigan University Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan has been created in accordance with
current federal rules and regulations governing local hazard mitigation planning. The plan was
prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390)
and the implementing regulations set forth by the Interim Final Rule published in the Federal Register
on February 26, 2002, (44 CFR §201.6) and finalized on October 31, 2007.
As of 2005, universities must compete with states, Indian Tribal governments and local governments
to attain funding. An approved plan is required to receive post-disaster mitigation funds under the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, information can be found in 44 CFR, Part 201 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (Revised November 2006). The Eastern Michigan multi-hazard mitigation plan is
designed to meet the requirements laid out by FEMA. As a result the university will successfully be
eligible to obtain mitigation funding before and after disasters strike the EMU campus community.
Plan Overview
The plan is divided into 9 sections including appendices, figures and tables. Below is a summation of
the sections.
Section 1: Introduction
The introduction provides a brief history on not only hazard mitigation planning but also on the
Disaster Resistant University initiative as laid out by FEMA. It connects the generalized information
on mitigation planning with the specifics of Eastern Michigan University and the risks associated with
the campus environment.
Section 2: Community Profile
Within the Community Profile, the location and demographic information specific to Eastern Michigan
University can be found. In addition, an overview of the community surrounding the university is
provided.
203
Section 3: University Profile
This section provides a brief history and a current description of the University and information
regarding the university’s impact on the region.
Section 4: Planning Process
The planning process section details the specific steps taken by the University to create the plan. It
details the process used to identify and rank the hazards to the campus community.
Section 5: Hazard Identification, Risk Analysis and Vulnerability Assessment
Details of the potential natural and manmade hazards to the community are found within this section.
A risk assessment was conducted that accounted for both the probability and potential impact level of
identified hazards. From this data, the potential risks were ranked and categorized, the highest of
which are addressed within the multi-hazard mitigation plan.
Section 6: Mitigation Strategy
The mitigation strategy identifies Eastern Michigan’s mitigation goals in response to the highest
potential risks to the campus. It identifies objectives that the university can pursue to reduce potential
losses.
Section 7: Implementation and Plan Preservation
This section details how Eastern Michigan will follow through on keeping an up to date plan and
suggested mitigation actions.
Section 8: References
This section identifies the sources that contributed to the compilation of the plan.
Section 9: Appendices
This section contains additional information useful to the plan.
Planning Process
Eastern Michigan University modeled its planning process on the Building a Disaster-Resistant
University guide published in August 2003 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The
process included:





Convening a Hazard Mitigation Advisory Committee comprised of the pre-existing University Health &
Safety Committee and off-campus emergency management officials.
Gathering and analyzing information on past and potential future impacts of hazards on Eastern
Michigan University.
Developing a capability assessment to determine the existing capabilities of Eastern Michigan
University in administering a hazard mitigation program.
Creating goals and mitigation strategies to address the risks and vulnerabilities identified in the
planning process.
Convening public forums to gather input from a broad group of stakeholders.
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
The purpose of the Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA) is to:



Identify and rank the hazards that could affect the EMU campus area.
Profile hazard events and determine what buildings and other assets are the most vulnerable to
damage from these hazards
Estimate losses and quantify potential risks to Eastern Michigan University.
204
Analysis of some hazards lent itself to quantitative methods while other hazards were analyzed using
qualitative methods. The following table demonstrates the priority of the identified hazards and the
type of analysis used in this plan.
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
Rank
4.58
Population
Impact Value
(Weighted 3)
2.95
Property
Impact Value
(Weighted 2)
2.98
Business
Impact Value
(Weighted 1)
3.47
Response
Capability
Value (/)
9.88
Total
Risk
Rating
8.47
Ice Storm
4.23
2.94
3.19
3.45
9.96
7.92
Tornado/Microburst
3.52
3.31
4.06
3.68
10.47
7.30
Wind Storm
3.73
2.78
3.34
3.19
9.67
7.02
IT Systems Failure*
3.98
2.68
2.47
3.85
9.9
6.76
Fire-Structural
Armed Suspect on
Campus
3.31
3.62
4.25
3.91
11.47
6.71
3.68
3.94
2.2
3.61
11.51
6.34
Civil Disturbance
Influenza
Outbreak/Pandemic
3.39
3.28
2.71
3.34
10.61
5.94
3.27
3.72
1.9
3.47
10.27
5.86
Food Contamination
Electric
Infrastructure
Failure
Infrastructure
Failure (non IT or
electric)**
3.23
3.55
1.94
3.1
9.75
5.84
3.19
2.89
3.08
3.83
10.28
5.79
3.25
2.72
2.84
3.67
9.93
5.73
Bomb Threat
Public Health
Emergency
Chemical Hazard
Incident
3.12
3.65
3.1
3.58
11.29
5.72
3.11
3.56
2.09
3.47
10.31
5.53
2.9
3.53
3.12
3.6
10.97
5.40
Active Shooter
Improvised
Explosive Device
Detonation
Biological Hazard
Incident
2.83
4.51
2.38
3.92
11.9
5.28
2.5
3.86
3.92
3.92
11.14
5.24
2.75
3.74
2.96
3.7
11.11
5.16
Hostage Situation
Flood/Riverine
Urban Runoff
Radiological Hazard
Incident
Aircraft Crash on
Campus
Earthquake
2.69
4.01
2.24
3.65
11.6
4.68
2.31
2.76
3.45
3.32
9.94
4.30
2.26
3.44
3.02
3.64
10.6
4.26
1.99
3.92
4.13
3.99
11.63
4.11
1.85
3
3.91
3.59
10.83
3.50
Hazard
Probability
Severe Snow Storm
205
Mitigation Strategies
EMU’s mitigation goals were derived from descriptions of potential damage from hazards in the
hazard profile section, discussions with University Physical Plant personnel, members of the Health &
Safety Committee/Mitigation Advisory Committee and City and County emergency management
representatives.
The mitigation goals provide an outline for Eastern Michigan University to follow to become less
vulnerable to identified hazards. EMU’s mitigation goals are broad statements, but are achieved
through more specific objectives and implementation steps. They are based upon the results of the
risk assessment and a review of goals and objectives from other state and local plans, specifically,
the Michigan Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, the Washtenaw County Mitigation Plan and the City of
Ypsilanti Mitigation Plan. The goals are listed, but not prioritized, below:
Goal 1: Create a safe and secure environment for students, faculty, staff and visitors.





Objective 1-1: Implement mitigation actions that will assist in protecting lives and property by making
buildings, infrastructure, critical facilities and individuals more resistant to hazards.
Objective 1-2: Better characterize hazard events by conducting additional hazard studies.
Objective 1-3: Review existing university policies, plans and procedures, safety inspection procedures,
and other processes to help ensure that they address the most recent and generally accepted
standards for the protection of buildings and environmental resources.
Objective 1-4: Implement mitigation actions that encourage environmental stewardship and protection
of the environment.
Objective 1-5: Implement mitigation programs that protect critical university facilities and services and
promote reliability of lifeline systems to minimize impacts from hazards, maintain operations, and
expedite recovery in an emergency.
Goal 2: Enhance emergency communications systems to provide the campus community with
appropriate protective action and mitigation information.



Objective 2-1: Harden communications capabilities to ensure post event functionality.
Objective 2-2: Enhance alert and notification procedures/system to improve notice to the campus
community and off-campus partners.
Objective 2-3: Establish and maintain good working relationships with off-campus departments and
agencies in identifying warning sources and coordinating emergency notifications.
Goal 3: Strengthen University continuity of operations through integration with emergency
response plans and procedures, including the mitigation plan.



Objective 3-1: Encourage the establishment of policies to help ensure the prioritization and
implementation of mitigation actions and/or projects designed to benefit essential facilities, services,
and infrastructure.
Objective 3-2: Where appropriate, coordinate and integrate hazard mitigation actions with existing
University and local emergency operations plans.
Objective 3-3: Implement mitigation actions that enhance the technological capabilities of the University
to better profile and assess exposure of hazards.
Goal 4: Be proactive in identifying mitigation opportunities into capital improvement and
infrastructure planning projects and other campus functions and programs.
206



Objective 4-1: Identify and pursue funding opportunities to develop and implement mitigation activities.
Objective 4-2: Strengthen communication, coordination, and community partnerships to foster hazard
mitigation actions and/or projects.
Objective 4-3: Identify the need for, and acquire, any special emergency services, training, or
equipment to enhance response capabilities for specific hazards.
Goal 5: Enhance emergency preparedness, increase awareness, and promote risk reduction
activities through education of and outreach to the campus community.



Objective 5-1: Develop and implement additional education and outreach programs to increase campus
community awareness of the risks associated with hazards and to educate the public on specific,
individual preparedness activities.
Objective 5-2: Provide information on tools, partnership opportunities, funding resources, and current
initiatives to assist in implementing mitigation activities.
Objective 5-3: Provide comprehensive information to the campus community, local emergency service
providers, the media and the public during and following disaster and hazard events.
Recommended Mitigation Actions

Provide outreach and awareness campaigns to the campus community to promote mitigation and
preparedness efforts.

Expand Mass Notification capabilities to high use/critical facilities such as the Student Center,
Convocation Center, McKenny Union and Fletcher School.

Identify structural fire suppression measures in residence halls.

Identify critical facilities/infrastructure needing backup power sources and means to provide backup
power.

Expand hazard identification and risk assessment and mitigation planning to Fish Lake and Parsons
Center.

Identify opportunity for the creation of a dual-use storm shelter for the athletic (West) campus.

Identify opportunity for installation on an automated lightning detection system for the athletic (west)
campus, main campus mall and Eagle Crest.

Identify storm water projects such as rain gardens and detention areas to help reduce and control
runoff and to promote protection of the Huron River Watershed

Review and revise the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan to reflect changes in development, progress in
mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities on an annual basis. Resubmit to state and FEMA every 5
years.
207
FW: Eastern Michigan University Plan
From : Mitchel A. Graham (MSP) <GrahamM5@michigan.gov>
Subject : FW: Eastern Michigan University Plan
To :
Mark Wesley (mwesley3@emich.edu) <mwesley3@emich.edu>
Mon, Jan 07, 2013 09:12 AM
1 attachment
Hi Mark,
Here is the copy of the favorable FEMA plan review of the Eastern Michigan University HMP. Tom Smith was deployed
in New York because of Hurricane Sandy for over a month, which explains why there was a long delay in the plan
review.
Mitch Graham
Hazard Mitigation Planner
MSP/EMHSD517-333-5022
From: Smith, Thomas [mailto:Thomas.Smith6@fema.dhs.gov]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 6:17 PM
To: Graham, Mitchel A. (MSP)
Cc: Sobocinski, Mike A. (MSP)
Subject: Eastern Michigan University Plan
Mitch and Mike:
Attached is the plan review for Eastern Michigan University’s hazard mitigation plan. I apologize for the delay. Due to
Hurricane Sandy, I was deployed to New York for over a month.
The EMU plan looks good. I think you folks should ask all the state universities to inventory the buildings on their
campuses. The EMU inventory describes the building size, age, history of any major renovations, it’s estimated value,
and the value of the building’s content.
I will prepare the “meets requirement” letter for our division director’s signature. After you get the “meets requirement”
letter, then the university can move forward with the plan adoption. I will e-mail the meets requirement letter.
Tom Smith
Community Planner
Mitigation Division
FEMA, Region V
208
FEMA MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW WORKSHEET
Jurisdiction:
Title of Plan:
Date of Plan:
Eastern Michigan University
EMU Multi-Hazard Mitigation
Summer, 2012
Plan
Local Point of Contact:
Address:
Mark Wesley
204c Public Safety Building
Title:
Eastern Michigan University
Emergency Management Director
Ypsilanti, MI 48197
Agency:
Eastern Michigan University
Phone Number:
E-Mail:
734-487-0799
Mwesley3@emich.edu
State Reviewer:
Title:
Date:
Mitch Graham
Local Hazard Mitigation
10-15-2012
Planner
209
FEMA Reviewer:
Title:
Date:
Tom Smith
Community Planner
1/3/2013
Date Received in FEMA Region (insert
10/25/2012
#)
Plan Not Approved
Plan Approvable Pending Adoption
XX
Plan Approved
Location in Plan
1. REGULATION CHECKLIST
Met
Regulation (44 CFR 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans)
Not
Met
(section and/or
ELEMENT A. PLANNING PROCESS
page number)
A1. Does the Plan document the planning process, including how it was prepared
and who was involved in the process for each jurisdiction? (Requirement
§201.6(c)(1))
Section 4, Planning
Process, pp. 42-50 and
X
Section 9, Appendices,
pp.172-197
A2. Does the Plan document an opportunity for neighboring communities, local and
regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, agencies that have the
authority to regulate development as well as other interests to be involved in the
planning process? (Requirement §201.6(b)(2))
Section 4, Hazard
Mitigation Planning and
X
Advisory Committee
Information, pp. 49-50.
210
Location in Plan
1. REGULATION CHECKLIST
Met
Regulation (44 CFR 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans)
Not
Met
A3. Does the Plan document how the public was involved in the planning process
during the drafting stage? (Requirement §201.6(b)(1))
(section and/or
Section 5, Initial Hazard
Identification,
pp.51-52.
page number)
X
Survey of student faculty,
and staff.
A4. Does the Plan describe the review and incorporation of existing plans, studies,
reports, and technical information? (Requirement §201.6(b)(3))
Section 4, Supporting
Plans and Procedures,
pp. 44-47; Section 8,
References, pp. 147-148
X
and see Table, 5-1, page
53. Table compares
University’s plan to state,
county, and city plans.
A5. Is there discussion of how the community (ies) will continue public participation
in the plan maintenance process? (Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(iii))
Section 7, Continued
Public Involvement,
X
page 146.
A6. Is there a description of the method and schedule for keeping the plan current
Section 7, Monitoring,
(monitoring, evaluating and updating the mitigation plan within a 5-year cycle)?
Reviewing, and
(Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(i))
Amending, pp. 144-146.
Annual plan review and
X
documentation of
successes, failures and
areas needing
improvement.
211
Location in Plan
1. REGULATION CHECKLIST
Met
Regulation (44 CFR 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans)
Not
Met
(section and/or
ELEMENT A: REQUIRED REVISIONS
page number)
ELEMENT B. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT
B1. Does the Plan include a description of the type, location, and extent of all
natural hazards that can affect each jurisdiction(s)? (Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i))
Section 5, Natural
Hazards, pp. 63-83:
X
severe snow, ice storms,
tornadoes, wind storms,
flooding, and
earthquakes.
B2. Does the Plan include information on previous occurrences of hazard events
and on the probability of future hazard events for each jurisdiction? (Requirement
§201.6(c)(2)(i))
Section 5, snow storms,
page 63; flooding, pp. 73X
74; earthquake, page 78;
B3. Is there a description of each identified hazard’s impact on the community as
well as an overall summary of the community’s vulnerability for each jurisdiction?
(Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii))
Mostly anecdotal
information—NCDC loss
X
data related to ice storms;
university closings
related to snow storms:
and damage to
surrounding communities
from flooding.
212
Location in Plan
1. REGULATION CHECKLIST
Met
Regulation (44 CFR 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans)
Not
Met
B4. Does the Plan address NFIP insured structures within the jurisdiction that have
been repetitively damaged by floods? (Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii))
(section and/or
Section 5,
Flood/Riverine
and
page number)
X
Urban Runoff, page 75.
No repetitive loss
properties on the campus.
ELEMENT B: REQUIRED REVISIONS
ELEMENT C. MITIGATION STRATEGY
C1. Does the plan document each jurisdiction’s existing authorities, policies,
programs and resources and its ability to expand on and improve these existing
policies and programs? (Requirement §201.6(c)(3))
Section 2, University
Development and Local
X
Zoning Ordinances,
page 28 and Section 2,
Police, Fire and
Emergency Facilities,
pp. 34-36.
C2. Does the Plan address each jurisdiction’s participation in the NFIP and
continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate? (Requirement
§201.6(c)(3)(ii))
Section 5,
Flood/Riverine and
X
Urban Runoff, page 77.
The University does not
participate in the NFIP
but both the City of
Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti
Charter Township do.
213
Location in Plan
1. REGULATION CHECKLIST
Met
Regulation (44 CFR 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans)
Not
Met
C3. Does the Plan include goals to reduce/avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the
identified hazards? (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(i))
(section and/or
Section 6, EMU’s
Mitigation
Goals,
pp.
page
number)
X
123-134.
C4. Does the Plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of specific mitigation
actions and projects for each jurisdiction being considered to reduce the effects of
hazards, with emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure?
(Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii))
Table 6-2, pp. 137-138.
C5. Does the Plan contain an action plan that describes how the actions identified
will be prioritized (including cost benefit review), implemented, and administered
by each jurisdiction? (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iv)); (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iii))
Section 6,
X
Recommendation and
X
Prioritization of
Mitigation Actions, pp.
134-135; and Section 6,
Benefit-Cost Analysis,
pp. 139-140; and
C6. Does the Plan describe a process by which local governments will integrate the
Plan describes how
requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms, such as
mitigation actions will be
comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate? (Requirement
integrated in to the
§201.6(c)(4)(ii))
operations, planning, and
X
budgeting of university
departments or agencies.
ELEMENT C: REQUIRED REVISIONS
ELEMENT D. PLAN REVIEW, EVALUATION, AND IMPLEMENTATION (applicable to plan updates only)
D1. Was the plan revised to reflect changes in development? (Requirement
§201.6(d)(3))
Not Applicable.
D2. Was the plan revised to reflect progress in local mitigation efforts?
(Requirement §201.6(d)(3))
Not Applicable.
214
Location in Plan
1. REGULATION CHECKLIST
Met
Regulation (44 CFR 201.6 Local Mitigation Plans)
Not
Met
D3. Was the plan revised to reflect changes in priorities? (Requirement
§201.6(d)(3))
(section and/or
Not Applicable.
page number)
ELEMENT D: REQUIRED REVISIONS
ELEMENT E. PLAN ADOPTION
E1. Does the Plan include documentation that the plan has been formally adopted
by the governing body of the jurisdiction requesting approval? (Requirement
§201.6(c)(5))
E2. For multi-jurisdictional plans, has each jurisdiction requesting approval of the
plan documented formal plan adoption? (Requirement §201.6(c)(5))
Pending
Not Applicable.
ELEMENT E: REQUIRED REVISIONS
ELEMENT F. ADDITIONAL STATE REQUIREMENTS (OPTIONAL FOR STATE REVIEWERS
ONLY; NOT TO BE COMPLETED BY FEMA)
F1.
F2.
ELEMENT F: REQUIRED REVISIONS
215
Plan Strengths
A. Excellent Inventory of University Facilities and Assets.
1. The plan includes an inventory of university facilities including a description of the size of the
building (i.e. number of stories and square footage); date of a building’s construction; history of
major renovations; and estimated replacement value. The plan highlights the length of time since
the building’s last major renovation.
2. The inventory includes an estimated value of the contents of each building.
3. The inventory include estimates of the value of other assets including parking structures, library
holdings, radio towers, electrical substations and other assets.
B. Thoughtful Hazard Priority Rating System
1. The plan describes the factors consider used to identify hazard priorities. The rating system
includes consideration of probability, impacts (i.e. impacts on lives, property and business
operations), and the university’s ability to respond and recover from events.
C. Realistic Mitigation Strategies
1. The plan includes a modest list of mitigation strategies (Table 6-2) but most of the proposed
actions appear realistic and valuable. The priorities include:
a. Expanding the university’s mass notification system.
b. Upgrading fire suppression systems in residence halls.
c. Identifying critical facilities that need back-up power sources.
d. Development of athletic and recreation facilities that can serve as a “dual-use” facility
including serving as a storm shelter in the event of major summer or winter storms.
e. Development of new rain gardens, stormwater detention facilities and other greening systems
that can help control run-off and flooding.
f.
Automated lightning systems for portions of campus with safety concerns.
216