Suggested Citation: Morris, L.L. (2016). Ports Resilience Index: Three Case Studies in the Gulf of Mexico. Unpublished manuscript. Contact the author at: [email protected]

Ports Resilience Index: Three Case Studies in the Gulf of Mexico

Introduction

Ports and Planning for Resilience

Coastal and inland ports provide the connection between users of the sea and users of the land. Given the location of ports at the interface of land and water, port and waterway managers and operators live with the constant threat of natural hazards. Disruption from natural hazards has impacts beyond the port to communities and users along maritime transportation networks.

In the United States, 360 commercial ports handle two billion tons of domestic, import and export cargo on an annual basis, providing 23.1 million jobs and generating $4.6 trillion of economic activity in 2014 (Martin Associates, 2015). Risks to ports include natural coastal hazards, waterway hazards, organizational challenges, and technological interruptions. Research on port resilience typically falls under engineering and technical disciplines, and strategies to reduce interruptions to port operations generally focus on emergency response planning.

Ports face unique challenges for long-term resilience planning because of the push and pull between global and domestic market forces and inevitable exposure to natural hazards. In terms of preparing for and reducing damage from natural hazards, the most reported challenges for ports include problems with communication, personnel, and coordination with local, state, and federal stakeholders, both in the response phase and for days to weeks after an event (U.S.

GAO, 2007). While ports have instituted coordination mechanisms and discussion forums with external stakeholders, challenges still exist for the ports and maritime industry in terms of

1 disaster response and recovery, including hazard mitigation for waterfront buildings (Smythe,

2013).

Port stakeholders have a vested interest in the long-term function and viability of ports, but no standardized measures for performance or resilience exist for ports. An approach to measuring resilience must be adaptable to the specific needs of the community using it, which quickly renders a national-scale resilience metric nearly impossible. Driven by global economic forces, ports have unique needs that should inform indicators to assess resilience over time.

Quantitative methods and tools, stemming from engineering science and vulnerability studies, provide quick assessments of “resilience” at broad spatial scales, but do not dip below the surface into local scale, place-based, community resilience. Qualitative methods, on the other hand, help answer research questions that cannot be addressed with numerical data and dive into questions of attitude, perception, and social interaction.

Given the nature of resilience as a dynamic process, methods of developing tools to assess place-based resilience may, in fact, build capacity for resilience and adaptation. A process leading to greater resilience involves multiple stakeholders, recognizes local citizen input and knowledge, addresses the needs of the target community, and seeks resources to implement strategies to promote resilience (Cote and Nightingale, 2012; MacKinnon and Derickson, 2013;

Weichselgartner and Kelman, 2014). The value of a qualitative approach includes engaging people in a conversation about resilience. Therefore, a participatory approach to developing indicators for port resilience might bridge the gap between developing tools to assess resilience and understanding the process of resilience at the Port Authority.

Origin of the Ports Resilience Index Project

2 After the hurricanes of 2005 struck the Gulf Coast, the Mississippi- Sea Grant

Consortium and Sea Grant collaborated to develop the Coastal Community Resilience

Index (CRI). The CRI aims to help a community assess and understand its level of resilience under six different categories, including critical infrastructure, transportation, community plans, mitigation measures and social systems (Sempier, 2010). A researcher or community extension agent usually facilitates the process with members of a local government (i.e., parish police jury, county council, etc). The CRI has value in the process of facilitating a discussion and encouraging critical discussion of community resilience. The participatory approach focuses on facilitating a discussion of local resilience in order to establish a list of steps to enhance resilience. No element of the index receives a particular weight or aggregates up into one single composite index. The focus of the CRI is not the “score” but rather the conversation that takes place. The facilitator aims to guide the community toward identifying a list of action items to work on to improve resilience in certain areas before participating again in the CRI.

After several years of implementation of the CRI along the Gulf Coast, participating communities often commented on the absence of ports in the discussion of community resilience.

In 2013, the Gulf of Mexico Alliance (GOMA) received a grant from NOAA to extend the successful CRI model to several industry-specific sectors, including tourism, commercial fisheries, and ports and harbors. Through a partnership with GOMA, Louisiana Sea Grant coordinated the development of the Ports Resilience Index to to produce a tool that port and marine transportation leaders can use to self-assess their level of resilience.

In this report, “we” represents the team for the PRI project: the regional program coordinator for GOMA and an Extension Specialist from Louisiana Sea Grant. Over a year and a half, we facilitated a process to engage participants in a two-way conversation to develop a self-

3 assessment tool for port leaders that provided a simple and inexpensive method of predicting their ability to reach and maintain an acceptable level of functionality during and after disasters caused by coastal hazards, specifically hurricanes. Such an assessment would help ports identify strengths and weaknesses in their operations and identify action items to work towards ensuring maximum functionality during and after disaster.

Methods

As a research strategy, participatory research engages research subjects as participants in a two-way conversation to move the research process toward useful results for real-world application. This provides opportunity for participants to engage in conversation, bounce ideas off of each other, and generate knowledge. The Delphi method represents one example of participant research techniques to collect experience and expert opinion on challenging concepts.

While traditionally used for quantifying variables of uncertainty and reaching a statistical consensus, the Delphi Method can be used to help clarify or develop conceptual frameworks

(Pill, 1971; Linstone and Turoff, 1975; Okoli and Pawlowski, 2004). The format of the Delphi

Method as a process of communication lends itself well to the development of qualitative tools.

We used the Delphi method to develop the Ports Resilience Index (PRI), which serves as a conversation starter to identify and encourage action steps that contribute to and develop port resilience, at least as it applies to ports along the Gulf of Mexico. When asked the question

“resilience of what, to what”, we would answer: resilience of Port organizations to coastal hazards.

The final PRI consists of eight sections, each with questions that can be answered by yes, no, or non-applicable (N/A) (Morris et al., 2016). For each section, the number of “yes” answers relative to the number of total questions answered yields a percentage, which corresponds to a

4 range of resilience decided by the project team (i.e., 0-49% = low; 50-75% = medium; and 76-

100% = high). We consider the questions within each section to be indicators of port resilience.

While the questions do not yield a numerical value that can be drawn to existing engineering, economic or social indicators, the “yes” or “no” answers to the questions do indicate a direction toward an element of port resilience.

For the development of the PRI, we wanted to ensure stakeholder input to the research process. Given the wide variety of stakeholders involved in marine transportation systems and port networks, full representation of every possible stakeholder on the expert committee would yield a group too large to facilitate effectively. For the purpose of developing a tool to be used by port management organizations, we chose to target stakeholders defined as those internal to the port management structure, such as an Executive Director, Director of Operations, or any Port staff member involved in emergency management at the port.

The Ports Resilience Expert Committee (PREC) included thirteen members, mostly with representation from port authorities across the Gulf Coast (Table 1). These ports function as public agencies of the state in which they are located and act as a landlord by leasing facilities and property to tenants. To represent geographic diversity, the PREC included deep-draft and shallow-draft ports from to with operations including produce and grain imports and exports, military shipbuilding, and petrochemical refining and shipping. The PREC also included people with port-specific expertise, including port insurance, port engineering, and federal maritime administration.

Title Organization Chair / Port Director Gulf Ports Association of the Americas (GPAA) / Port of Pascagoula (Mississippi)

Deputy Director of Port Operations Port of Corpus Christi (Texas)

Harbor Police Department Port of New Orleans (Louisiana)

5 Manager of Economic Port of Morgan City (Louisiana) Development Associate Coastal Engineer Hatch Mott MacDonald Port Risk Specialist McGriff, Seibels & Williams of Texas, Inc.

Port Director Twin Parish Port District (Louisiana) Port Director Port of West St. Mary (Louisiana) Executive Director GPAA Manager – Operations, Port of Pensacola (Florida) Maintenance & Security National Director Ready Communities Partnership

Director of Finance and Port of Lake Charles (Louisiana) Administration New Orleans Gateway Officer U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD)

Table 1. Members of the Ports Resilience Expert Committee (PREC). Individual names have been withheld to protect participant confidentiality.

We convened the PREC to hold a project kickoff meeting, during which we discussed the challenges and opportunities for developing the PRI. The challenge was to develop something broad enough to be widely applicable to all types of ports but specific enough to be useful to an individual port. The PREC noted the opportunity of using already existing materials to develop a reference checklist for new Port staff and new leadership. In 2006, the managing director of Port

Freeport in Texas developed the Emergency Preparedness and Continuity of Operations

Planning Manual for Best Practices as part of the AAPA Professional Port Manager

Certification Program. This 253-page manual provides a “resource to improve emergency preparedness and continuity of operations planning of individual ports” (from the Foreword of the Manual). At the suggestion of the PREC, we read the manual and rephrased suggested actions and best practices for ports as yes/no questions to maintain consistent style and format with other resilience indices developed by GOMA efforts. We also wrote questions where the answer would indicate the steps of how certain best practices might be achieved.

6 We convened the PREC a second time to have a facilitated discussion where PREC members reviewed and critiqued a draft list of 251 indicator questions. Following this work session, we took the revised PRI to three ports to pilot-test the instrument. The purpose of the pilot tests was to conduct a simulated facilitation of the PRI with staff and stakeholders of the

Port Authority in order to collect feedback to improve the tool. Leading up to the visits, I worked with the pilot test representatives from the PREC to plan the agenda and develop the list of invitees for the facilitated focus group discussions. We planned Port Resiliency Pilot Meetings for the Port of Corpus Christi Authority in Texas, the Jackson County Port Authority in

Mississippi, and the Port of Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal District in Louisiana. We wanted attendees to have representation from the Port Authority but also from external stakeholders, including other federal agencies and port tenants. After incorporating comments and changes from the pilot visits, we sent the PRI to the PREC for final review and organized a webinar to allow for final discussion and any last comments.

The following report provides descriptive information about each pilot port organization that we visited to test the PRI; describes the total of 40 participants that attended the focus group discussion; offers best management practices for resilience from each port; and provides a glimpse into lessons learned from hazard experiences in the past. Local newspaper sources provided the background information to construct stories of lessons learned during Hurricane

Celia (1970), (2005), and (2005).

Each pilot port was eager to participate and provide insight and suggestions for the PRI.

Without this feedback, the tool would not be considered useful. A common request from focus group participants was to learn about what other ports are doing to increase resilience in their operations and management. This report seeks to satisfy that request.

7 Case Studies

Port of Corpus Christi – Texas

Location & Characteristics

The Port of Corpus Christi is located in Nueces County in southeastern Texas, on the western coast of the Gulf of Mexico. In 1922, the Nueces County Commissioners Court created the Nueces County Navigation District No. 1, whose boundaries coincided with the political boundaries of Nueces County and would include a new port. Upon completion of a 25-foot deep ship channel and four cargo docks, the port officially opened for business in 1926. In 1981, the

Texas legislature changed the name of the Navigation District to the Port of Corpus Christi

Authority (POCCA).

POCCA leases waterfront space to a variety of public and private organizations.

Currently, POCCA facilities include twelve public oil docks, six public cargo docks, several intermodal facilities, numerous private docks, and the Ortiz Conference Center. POCCA operates and manages the Corpus Christi Ship Channel, which is 45 feet deep and 29.4 nautical miles long, and the La Quinta Channel, which is 45 feet deep and 18.4 nautical miles long. In the year

2014, POCCA reported 100.6 million tons in annual cargo volume moving through the port.

Operating as a petrochemical refinery and port, top commodities include crude oil, fuel oil, gas oil, gasoline, and diesel.

Focus Group Participants

Position Title Affiliation

Director of Operations POCCA Executive Staff

Deputy Director of Operations POCCA Executive Staff Director of Information Technology POCCA Executive Staff Director of Human Resources POCAA Executive Staff Director of Community Relations POCCA Executive Staff

8 Director of Business Development POCCA Executive Staff Director of Communications POCCA Executive Staff Foreign Trade Zone Manager POCCA Office of Chief Commercial Officer

Risk Management Coordinator POCCA Finance and Administration

Financial Analysis & Procurement Manager POCCA Finance and Administration

Harbormaster POCCA Operations

Safety Manager POCCA Operations

Maintenance Foreman POCCA Operations

Senior Engineer Planner POCCA Engineering

Environmental Compliance Manager POCCA Engineering

Marine Transportation System Port Recovery U.S. Coast Guard – Sector Corpus Christi Resilience Planner Assistant Division Chief of Incident U.S. Coast Guard – Sector Corpus Christi Management Incident Management U.S. Coast Guard – Sector Corpus Christi

Table 2. Nineteen individuals participated in the focus group discussion at the Port of Corpus Christi, including representatives from the U.S. Coast Guard.

Best Management Practices

Annual Meetings. Each year, POCCA holds a hurricane readiness meeting, which includes reviewing the last major hurricane and predictions for the upcoming hurricane season.

Structural Resilience. POCCA considers changes to FEMA flood maps and the impact to port buildings (i.e., adding or removing them from FEMA flood zones). POCCA coordinates with the

City of Corpus Christi to look at flood maps and port infrastructure, identify necessary upgrades, and make decisions to implement flood-resistant design standards.

Continuity of Operations. POCCA is using American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) references to develop a business continuity plan. The private

9 sector uses business continuity plans, but this is new territory for public management entities, such as port authorities. Ports should consider business continuity plans, however, in order to keep operations going as long as possible, despite physical interruption to navigation from a hazard.

POCCA manages an alternative operations location (called the Continuity of Operations

(COOP) site), which is located 40 feet above sea level in Corpus Christi. The IT department is working on plans to back up data to servers in other cities outside of the storm surge risk area of

Corpus Christi. In addition, the IT department is working with HR to develop a plan to ensure that employees continue to be paid throughout an emergency, despite interruptions to electrical power at the port.

POCCA works with a consultant who communicates with the local power company regarding the status of the port after disaster and the need to get power back up and running as soon as possible. Additionally, POCCA has a service contract with Garner Environmental

Services, a company that provides assistance in emergency response and recovery for oil spills and disasters. This service contract allows the Port to make progress on debris cleanup and service restoration without relying on the federal government for assistance.

POCCA also participates in the Corpus Christi Marine Transportation System Recovery

Unit (MTSRU). The Corpus Christi MTSRU, facilitated by the USCG, is a forum focused on restoring functionality and maintaining operation of the Corpus Christi Ship Channel. Terminal operators and tenants who have a vested interest in the channel remaining functional participate in the MTSRU.

Communications. POCCA has enrolled Port Authority employees in a Reverse Alert System that communicates emergency warnings and related messages through email, text, and voice. Along

10 with the COOP site, POCCA has a Hurricane Readiness Plan that details the categories of

Essential Personnel and their responsibilities before, during, and after a hurricane. In addition,

POCCA maintains an emergency hotline that provides information on evacuation and return-to- work procedures for POCCA employees. To address talking with the media, the

Communications department has a Crisis Communications Plan, which designates the Executive

Director or the Director of Communications as the point-of-contact for inquiries regarding the status of the port after a disruption.

Lessons Learned from the Past

For Corpus Christi, the last major hurricane to make landfall was Hurricane Celia in

1970, which was primarily a wind event, inflicting damage to homes and commercial buildings resembling that of a tornado (NOAA NWS Hurricane Page, Alex Tardy, WFO Corpus Christi,

August 2015). Corpus Christi experienced some inundation, with storm tides ranging from 3.9 to

5.6 feet above mean sea level (U.S. ACE Post Disaster Report, 1970).

About a month after the storm, damage estimates to the port amounted to $2.5 million

(Corpus Christi Caller-Times, September 4, 1970). Corpus Christi Main Harbor sustained damages of $1.2 million, which included damage by shoaling to federal navigation projects, destruction of entrance jetties at Aransas Pass, and removal of lights and aids to navigation (U.S.

ACE Post Disaster Report, 1970). Despite rumors of long-term inoperability, the Port actually resumed ship traffic and navigation a day and a half after Celia’s landfall (Corpus Christi Caller-

Times, September 4, 1970). The Navigation Commission granted permission to the port director to forego the required 30-day bid period in order to proceed with securing emergency bids to conduct repairs to transit sheds. Two months after the storm, the Port reported that there remained no major obstructions to navigation and that shipping and commerce were doing well

11 overall, even though repairs and rebuilding were estimated to take a year (Corpus Christi Caller-

Times, October 4, 1970).

In 1970, total tonnage moving through ports along the Texas Gulf Coast decreased by 2.2 million tons (Corpus Christi Caller-Times, July 30, 1971). Even though overall tonnage increased at Port of Corpus Christi in 1970, the coast wide decrease was attributed to damage from Hurricane Celia to terminal loading facilities in the Corpus Christi area (Corpus Christi

Caller-Times, July 24 and July 30, 1971). In addition, the Port of Corpus Christi lost two liquid refineries to hurricane damage (Corpus Christi Caller-Times, August 2, 1972). In the Port’s

Annual Report for 1971, the Port director reported a 12% decrease in tonnage between 1970 and

1971 because of the refineries’ closures (Port Annual Report, 1971). Port tonnage reached pre-

Celia levels in 1973, with 30.0 million tons (Corpus Christi Caller-Times, January 29, 1974).

Each year after 1973, port tonnage has steadily increased, reaching a record of over 100 million tons in 2014. While Hurricane Celia did have impacts to tonnage at the port, those impacts were not realized beyond 1972.

Each year that passes without delivering a damaging blow to the Corpus Christi area still brings action that encourages preparedness. On August 29, 2005, the day that Katrina made landfall on the northern Gulf Coast, the Corpus Christi Caller-Times published an article about essential personnel and the rights of employees to evacuate during times of emergency. As of

2005, a Texas state law gives authority to local mayors and county judges to recommend or mandate evacuation orders for areas in danger of being hit by hurricanes (Corpus Christi Caller-

Times, August 29, 2005). The article highlights the Port of Corpus Christi and the Deputy

Director of Operations for having designated essential personnel in order to keep ship traffic moving. The Deputy Director of Operations and 24 other essential personnel always remain at

12 the port to remove potential flying debris before a storm hits. When the storm passes, these same essential personnel survey the Ship Channel to identify and begin removing obstructions to navigation (Corpus Christi Caller-Times, August 29, 2005).

Port of Pascagoula – Mississippi

Port Location & Port Characteristics

The Port of Pascagoula, split into the West Harbor and East Harbor, is a deep water port located on the southeastern coast of Mississippi. In 1956, the Mississippi state legislature created the Jackson County Port Authority (JCPA), which is the management entity for the Port of

Pascagoula and for Jackson County, Mississippi. JCPA has the authority to manage and promote the industrial and economic development of the Port of Pascagoula; manage the Jackson County

Industrial Water System; partner with the Jackson County Economic Development Foundation to manage industrial parks and Singing River Island; and support the federal navigation project of the Pascagoula and Bayou Casotte Channels.

The 38-foot deep Pascagoula Channel leads to the West Harbor, which is home to five public terminals, cold storage facilities, and two private terminals, including Ingalls

Shipbuilding. The 42-foot deep Bayou Casotte Channel leads to the East Harbor, which is home to five public terminals and six private terminals, including Gulf LNG Energy, LLC. The Port of

Pascagoula consistently ranks in the top tier of ports in the nation related to foreign trade, ranking 17th in total imports (11.2 million tons) and 20th in total exports (18.3 million tons) in

2014 (U.S. ACE Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center). Primary exports include frozen foods, general cargo, grains, machinery, forest products, fertilizer, and petroleum products.

Focus Group Participants

Port of Pascagoula Deputy Port Director Port of Pascagoula Operations & Facilities

13 Deputy Port Director Port of Pascagoula Administration Harbormaster Port of Pascagoula Finance Manager Port of Pascagoula Facilities Manager Port of Pascagoula Government Affairs & Public Relations Port of Pascagoula Manager Engineer & Utilities Manager Port of Pascagoula Port of Pascagoula Advisory Group Chairman Operations Manager for Kinder Morgan, Inc. Table 3. Eight individuals participated in the focus group session at the Port of Pascagoula, including the Port of Pascagoula Advisory Group’s chairman, who is also a port tenant with Kinder Morgan.

Best Management Practices

Throughout the discussion, participants presented several best practices. First and foremost, JCPA’s Hurricane Action Plan emphasizes that port employees first take care of their families and home situation before, during, and after an event. Once family needs are satisfied, then the person will be a better port employee.

Annual Meetings. JCPA conducts an annual preseason hurricane meeting and an annual port security exercise. For the annual hurricane preparedness meeting, attendees include the Port

Authority, the Port of Pascagoula Advisory Group, private industry, and the U.S. Coast Guard.

During this time, each group cross-checks its hurricane plan and talks about lessons learned.

Continuity of Operations. Prior to an anticipated event, JCPA sets a daily meeting time and location for all port employees and industry representatives to meet and assess the situation after the event passes. For example, meet at the port office at 9:00 AM every day. Singing River

Island, which houses business offices and Coast Guard offices, could be used as an evacuation site for port personnel, if they were able to reach the location (i.e., if the access road is not flooded).

JCPA backs up all documents on a server and has a contract with a company that routinely checks the firewall on the computer servers. JCPA also pays for an added service from

14 their website manager to prevent cyber security hacks. Before a storm, JCPA gets case checks from the bank to handwrite checks for payroll, in the event of a power loss.

Communications. JCPA participates in the Port Emergency Action Team (PEAT), organized by the Coast Guard. The PEAT will have daily conference calls between the port, USCG, USACE, and industry to address damage assessments and to coordinate and prioritize repairs. The Port of

Pascagoula Advisory Group also has daily calls and meetings to address local concerns.

JCPA participates in the county emergency management agency group and is working on adding all port employees to the Jackson County Emergency Communications Network, which communicates all hazards and interruptions in the county through text and voice, if requested.

JCPA’s Trade Development Director is a full-time employee located in Miami who can post information updates to the website if JCPA loses both power and internet.

Lessons Learned from the Past

The Port of Pascagoula recently experienced damaging winds and storm tides from

Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Thirteen feet of storm surge reached the Bayou Casotte terminals, but the damages to Port of Pascagoula were mostly related to high winds to metal walls and roofs of warehouse buildings.

The Port of Pascagoula, through the JCPA, enabled coastal community recovery by providing berth space for emergency response and relief vessels. On September 9, 2005, the

USNS Comfort docked at the East Harbor. A crew of more than 270 doctors, nurses, and technicians treated hurricane victims suffering external injuries or gastrointestinal distress (Sun

Herald – Biloxi, September 12, 2005). Within ten days of docking, the USNS Comfort treated more than 680 patients (Sun Herald – Biloxi, September 19, 2005). The Navy Hospital Ship provided a necessary service while Gulf Coast hospitals recovered and rebuilt.

15 The Port of Pascagoula also provided docking space to a Carnival Holiday cruise ship, which was one of three cruise ships under contract by FEMA to provide housing to victims displaced by Hurricane Katrina. When the Carnival Holiday reached Mississippi on October 29, it housed almost 1600 residents, 55% of whom were from Jackson County (Sun Herald – Biloxi,

November 11, 2005). This action helped the Pascagoula School District retain 74% of its student population upon reopening its schools, six weeks after Hurricane Katrina (Sun Herald – Biloxi,

October 7, 2005).

In mid-October of 2005, the JCPA Board of Commissioners voted to approve emergency repair contracts for Katrina-related damages, including repairs to security fences, water and sewer lines, and the railroad (Sun Herald – Biloxi, October 22, 2005). Despite damages to port infrastructure, the Port of Pascagoula’s export trade increased by almost 59% from 2005 to 2006

(The Mississippi Press, March 8, 2008). For several years after Hurricane Katrina, total cargo tonnage at the port increased. Port Director McAndrews attributed this increase to the broad and diverse assemblage of exports at the port (The Mississippi Press, March 8, 2008). Exports and foreign trade help to grow jobs and local economies, and Port of Pascagoula showed this relationship in the years following Hurricane Katrina.

Port of Lake Charles – Louisiana

Port Location & Port Characteristics

The Port of Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal District is located in southwest Louisiana,

36 miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico coast. In 1924, the Louisiana state legislature created the Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal District, and the Port of Lake Charles officially opened as a deep draft coastal port in November 1930. The establishment of the Port responded to the need for marine transportation for lumber and rice cargoes, but over the years, the Port has grown into

16 an industrial facility, moving 56.8 million tons of cargo in 2014 (U.S. ACE Waterborne

Commerce Statistics Center). Principal cargoes include bagged rice, flour, and other food products; forest products; aluminum; petroleum coke and other petroleum products.

The Port district includes an area of 5,000 acres and provides space to 40 tenants while also owning and operating two marine terminals and two industrial parks. All along the

Calcasieu River Ship Channel, industrial plants and refineries have opened up and created an economic magnet for the petrochemical industry, including the nation’s fourth largest refinery and two of the largest liquefied natural gas facilities.

Focus Group Participants

Port of Lake Charles Executive Director Port of Lake Charles Director of Navigation Port of Lake Charles Director of Engineering, Maintenance & Development Port of Lake Charles Director of Administration & Finance Port of Lake Charles Director of Operations Port of Lake Charles

Director of Marketing & Trade Development Port of Lake Charles General Counsel Port of Lake Charles Assistant General Counsel & Director of Security Port of Lake Charles Assistant to Administration & Finance / Marketing Port of Lake Charles

IT Technical Support Specialist Port of Lake Charles Executive Director Port Rail of Lake Charles General Manager Federal Marine Terminals, Inc. Response & Security U.S. Coast Guard Table 4. Thirteen individuals participated in the focus group discussion at the Port of Lake Charles, including a terminal operator representative from Federal Marine Terminals, Inc.

Best Management Practices

Annual Meetings. The Port of Lake Charles (PLC) has a Hurricane Preparation, Response and

Recovery Plan, which is reviewed each year and is made available to the public for their awareness. In addition, the Port sends the hurricane plan to all its tenants in mid-May and reminds them to make sure that they have their preparedness plans in order.

17 Communications. PLC participates in two groups facilitated by the U.S. Coast Guard – the Port

Coordination Team and the Calcasieu River Waterway Harbor Safety Committee. The Port

Coordination Team activates before, during, and after an emergency whereas the Harbor Safety

Committee meets regularly throughout the year. The Port also participates in regular emergency planning exercises with the local parish Emergency Operations Center.

PLC has enrolled port employees in Dial My Class, which is an online hosted service that sends emergency notifications to home phones and cell phones. The Port also sends updates to its tenants about weather warnings, Coast Guard alerts, obstructions in the channel, and anything else that might cause interruption to operations.

Continuity of Operations. The Port has three backup systems in place for its electronic data and requires employees to enroll in direct deposit so the Finance Department can process payroll from anywhere with an Internet connection. The Port also takes video inventory of its assets on an annual basis to assist with damage assessment and insurance claims after an event.

If Port personnel stay onsite, the Port has enough MREs and water for 20 people for seven days. The Port also sends a list of personnel to the sheriff’s department to facilitate getting back into the port after an event, even if the surrounding areas remain closed.

Emergency Preparedness Specific to Vessels. PLC provides safe harbor to vessels that need it during hurricane conditions (i.e., Condition Whiskey to 24 hours after the U.S. Coast Guard stands down). The Port gives an emergency berth application to those vessels and requires that they be manned at all times. For response vessels, the Port has a designated location on its wharf where those vessels can tie up in order to allow for easy access to the Calcasieu River Ship

Channel after an event.

Lessons Learned from the Past

18 Hurricane Rita made landfall on the border of Louisiana and Texas as a Category 3 storm in the early morning of September 24, 2005. PLC provided safe harbor to over 700 vessels at its public City Docks. Seven port officials rode out the storm in a fortified facility at the port and were able to start assessing damage immediately after the storm passed. The port sustained mostly wind damage to facilities, with doors being blown off or warehouse roofs damaged

(American Press – Lake Charles, October 13, 2005). Any water damage to cargo was less than

3% of the 40,000 tons sitting in port (American Press – Lake Charles, September 29, 2005).

Cleanup and recovery work began immediately to facilitate a speedy return to business- as-usual. On September 26th, workers began to remove debris from roadways leading into the port and around port property. On September 27th, trucks could enter and exit the port to carry cargoes of rice and lumber. In the first few days following Rita, the Port established a remote accounting office in to conduct payroll and financial operations (American Press – Lake

Charles, September 29, 2005). The Port also bought its own generators to power larger facilities.

In one case, the Port moved a generator to power a water tower that serves the local water treatment plant. The Port also worked with U.S. Coast Guard and NOAA immediately after the storm to reopen the Calcasieu Ship Channel as quickly as possible. The Ship Channel was open to shallow-draft vessels by September 28th and completely open to full-sized ships by September

30th, six days after Rita made landfall (American Press – Lake Charles, October 13, 2005).

PLC sprang into action to secure living space for displaced hurricane victims. Port officials acquired the Texas Clipper II, a cadet training ship from Texas A&M University in

Galveston (American Press – Lake Charles, October 12, 2005). As part of the Ready Reserve

Fleet, FEMA paid for the ship and the U.S. Maritime Administration controlled it. With this ship,

200 bunks became available for port employees, emergency workers, and displaced families.

19 Seventy college students from McNeese State University ended up living on the ship, to ease overcrowded dorms on campus (American Press – Lake Charles, November 7, 2005).

In another example of the Port’s action to secure living space, PLC leased 55 acres of its property to FEMA to build a trailer park with 500 mobile homes and temporary trailers

(American Press – Lake Charles, November 20, 2005). The Crying Eagle Village trailer park officially opened six months later with space for 2,000 residents (American Press – Lake

Charles, May 4, 2006).

Despite minor damage to the Port and major damage to the surrounding area, cargo moving through Port-owned and Port-leased facilities increased from 2005 to 2008 (American

Press – Lake Charles, May 27, 2008).

Action Points for Ports and Resilience Planning

Elements of the Ports Resilience Index

Upon gathering feedback from the ports used to pilot-test the PRI, the following sections make up the final Ports Resilience Index:

- Planning Documents for Hazards and Threats

- Hazard Assessment: Infrastructure and Assets

- Insurance and Risk Management

- Continuity of Operations Planning for Infrastructure and Facilities

- Internal Port Authority Communications

- Tenant and External Stakeholder Communications

- Emergency Operations Location (Physical or Virtual)

- Critical Records and Finance

20 The focus group sessions with ports provided a deep dive into understanding how Gulf Coast ports perceive resilience and enact resilience in their operations and management. All three ports show resilience in their practices by annually updating hurricane preparedness documents, identifying essential personnel and their roles and responsibilities, and participating in forums to increase communication among port staff employees and with external federal and state agencies. Each storm that approaches the coast has unique characteristics in terms of direction, speed, and associated rain and winds. Ports, especially along the northern Gulf Coast, have experienced severe coastal storms and hurricanes and have adjusted their practices to be able to continue operations as smoothly as possible.

During each focus group discussion, participants brought up additional port-specific hazards that should be considered in resilience planning. These hazards include vessel collisions, shoaling and grounding in navigable waterways, train derailments, chemical explosions, and cyber security threats. While most of the questions within the Ports Resilience Index specifically address hurricanes, the suggested forethought for planning can be applied to any hazard.

Opportunities for Improvement

Participants also identified areas for improvement for resilience planning. For example, even though ports conduct on-going assessments of threats to infrastructure, a designated facility or asset management plan would be helpful because it would include the vulnerability of each facility and provide a reference baseline for improvement.

Participants suggested ways to improve communication between the Port Authority and port tenants. Ports should ask tenants to submit and share their hurricane preparedness plans. If tenant preparedness plans mirror a port’s plan, then everyone will be conducting the same actions when a hurricane condition is set. Similarly, it might be a good idea to consider having

21 tenants share their business continuity plans with port authorities. Tenants with private companies are mandated by their corporate headquarters to have a business continuity plan, and it might be worthwhile for Port Authority employees to know that these plans exist. Similarly, ports might want to coordinate their port employee re-entry procedures with tenants and terminal operators.

Scalability of the Ports Resilience Index

The methodology used to develop the Ports Resilience Index can be used in other regions of the country to adapt the tool for consideration of regional hazards. For example, if ports on the

West Coast would like to use the Ports Resilience Index, the questions can be revised to address earthquake and tsunami hazards or disruption due to labor strikes. The beauty of the participatory approach is the flexibility in addressing topics of specific interest to the target audience and end user group.

Final Reflections

The pilot tests proved essential to ground-truth the draft PRI. For the qualitative nature of our assessment tool, the pilot tests helped us gather additional on-the-ground expertise to inform the tool. To achieve the objective of developing a useful tool that would be broadly applicable to a wide variety of ports but also specific enough to be useful to one single port necessitated the collaboration and conversation of larger groups of port professionals. In the effort to understand, assess, and encourage port resilience, we needed more insight and experience into how ports might already achieve resilience and the actions needed to enable port resilience. Participants commented that having an external facilitator come in to lead the process helped them engage and be honest when providing feedback and considering their own resilience. Herein lies an opportunity for Sea Grant Extension to further serve coastal communities upon request.

22 References

Cote, M. and A. J. Nightingale (2012). "Resilience thinking meets social theory Situating social change in socio-ecological systems (SES) research." Progress in Human Geography 36(4): 475-489.

Linstone, H. A. and M. Turoff (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley Reading, MA.

MacKinnon, D. and K. D. Derickson (2013). "From resilience to resourcefulness: A critique of resilience policy and activism." Progress in Human Geography 37(2): 253-270.

Martin Associates. (2015). The 2014 National Economic Impact of the U.S. Coastal Port System. Lancaster, PA.

Morris, L. L., T. Sempier, and the Ports Resilience Expert Committee (2016). Ports Resilience Index: A Port Management Self-Assessment. GOMSG-H-16-001.

Okoli, C. and S. D. Pawlowski (2004). "The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications." Information & Management 42(1): 15-29.

Pill, J. (1971). "The Delphi method: substance, context, a critique and an annotated bibliography." Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 5(1): 57-71.

Saathoff, P. (2006). Emergency Preparedness and Continuity of Operations Planning: Manual for Best Practices, American Association of Port Authorities.

Sempier, T., D. Swann, R. Emmer, S. Sempier and M. Schneider (2010). "Coastal community resilience index: A community self-assessment." [online] http://www. masgc. org/pdf/masgp/08-014.pdf (accessed 17 June 2013).

Smythe, T. C. (2013). Assessing the Impacts of on the Port of New York and New Jersey's Maritime Responders and Response Infrastructure, Natural Hazards Center.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2007). Port Risk Management: Additional Federal Guidance Would Aid Ports in Disaster Planning and Recovery, Washington, D.C.

Weichselgartner, J. and I. Kelman (2014). "Geographies of resilience: Challenges and opportunities of a descriptive concept." Progress in Human Geography 1-19.

23