THURSDAY, JULY 21, 2011

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will come to order.

Aloha and welcome to the Committee’s oversight hearing on Facing Floods and Fires: Emergency Preparedness for Natural Disasters in Native Communities.

This is an incredibly important issue to Tribes and Native peoples. In just the past few months, Native communities in New Mexico, Montana, Washington, Nebraska, and South Dakota have faced floods, fires, tornadoes, and severe storms. Lives were lost, homes destroyed, and sacred sites endangered.

Pertinent to the hearing, the monitor displayed pictures of disasters. A map displayed also shows many of the natural disasters in Native communities over the past 10 years. I think we can all agree that these visuals are very, very moving.

I have a lifetime of experience in dealing with effects of natural disasters. In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, Hawaii can be affected by disasters all around the Pacific Rim. Hawaii was reminded of its vulnerability in March when a tsunami warning and evacuations were issued following the devastating earthquake in Japan. Small tropical storms can quickly turn into hurricanes and devastate whole communities and islands.

Hawaii also experiences thousands of earthquakes from volcanic activity every year. They can cause loss of life, property, and electricity throughout the islands.

Disasters like these can have lasting effects on people and can undermine our sense of community and safety.

In Hawaii, we have learned time and again the value of being prepared and importance of quick and coordinated responses when a natural disaster strikes. We have the same fears for safety of all people as other Native communities and some of the same frustra-

(1)

Frm 00005

tions dealing with coordination and collaboration. In Hawaii, we have to coordinate Federal, State, and local efforts among the seven inhabited islands.

Here in the Continental United States, Tribes deal with at least that many agencies in getting aid to their people and communities. Today we are fortunate to have six Federal witnesses to examine the role of each agency in responding to natural disasters. We want to hear what is working well and where improvements are needed. We will also hear from a Tribal witness who knows firsthand the devastating effects of natural disasters.

From this hearing we hope to identify ways Federal response can be improved, both administratively and legislatively, so Tribes can prepare for and respond to the natural disasters in a way that protects their members, their infrastructure, and their cultural resources and homelands.

At this moment, I want to ask my partner here, Senator Barrasso, for his opening statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I was actually out in the hall studying that map, another map like that out in the hallway, and I really do want to thank you for holding this hearing today on emergency preparedness in Indian Country.

Often we don’t pay much attention to the need for emergency preparedness until after there is a disaster, but the risk of one form or another of natural disaster in Indian Country is not theoretical and, as we can see, it is real, and Indian communities need to be prepared to deal with this reality. Each year, many Indian communities face the threats of tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, fires, and even blizzards. Recent events in the Southwest and in Montana and elsewhere have demonstrated how serious these kinds of events can be. In some Indian communities there are other risks with a potential for great damage, from active volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis. Given all of these risks, it is critical that there be adequate preparation and contingency plans in place.

Now, Mr. Chairman, as we know, Interior’s Office of the Inspector General recently released a report and that report identified inadequacies in the BIA’s monitoring of wildland fire suppression program costs. Reading some of the findings in the Inspector General’s report, one can’t help but wonder if the inadequacies are limited to just cost monitoring.

So I look forward to hearing from the agencies on how they are working with each other and with the Tribes to prepare for these serious risks.

So thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your opening statement, Senator Barrasso. Senator Johnson.

Frm 00006

STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON,

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

Senator JOHNSON. Welcome, and I would like to thank you, Chairman Akaka and Vice Chairman Barrasso, for holding this hearing. This hearing is timely as we are facing unprecedented flooding in my home state of South Dakota. These floods are impacting the five Tribes along the Missouri River and frequently, in recent years, we have had our share of disasters in South Dakota, from blizzards to droughts to tornadoes. Indian Country has been affected by all of these disasters.

From most reports I can tell you that cooperation and consultation have been positive in this latest disaster. However, this has not always been the case. As we examine the response and outcome of these disasters, we should also examine the possibility of providing our Tribes with the ability to appeal directly to the Federal Government for assistance, as opposed to working through the State. This would be in line with the Federal Government’s treaty and trust responsibility to American Indians.

The agencies represented here today have crucial roles in responding to disasters in our Indian communities. Though not here today, the Department of Transportation also has a role. Sadly, one month ago today we lost two Tribal members in the Lower Brule Indian reservation when an outdated culvert failed and a major artery to the reservation washed out. This is a terrible tragedy that could possibly have been prevented if the culvert had been upgraded.

I understand the Federal Government is working with the Tribe to repair this critical access road, but may only be able to restore the road to its original specifications. We need to examine if this needs to be changed, if this road previously needed an upgrade culvert, or why are we replacing the culvert with a culvert that we know to be insufficient.

As we move ahead, I look forward to working with you, Chairman Akaka, and your staff to see what needs to be done to get the Tribes the tools they need to respond to disasters that hit their reservations.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Johnson.

Senator Udall, please proceed with your statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much, Chairman Akaka, and thank you also to Vice Chairman Barrasso for holding this timely hearing.

As the Chairman knows, my state of New Mexico has experienced an unprecedented fire season this year, after months and months without rain. The actual numbers are startling. The U.S. Forest Service calls this the driest year in 117 years. They have been keeping numbers for 117 years; they have never seen anything this dry. The largest fire in New Mexico’s history, the Las Conchas fire, still burning and after almost a month is only 80 percent contained. The fire has burned more than 160 acres. That is more than 244 square miles of forest service, Tribal, private, DOE, and BIA land, and it has cost almost $45 million to date.

Frm 00007

The Las Conchas fire has burned over 100 homes and other structures, hundreds of sacred sites, and damaged natural resources. The Jemez Mountains historically burned completely in a healthy 30- to 40-year cycle, with fires clearing out the underbrush and debris below all Ponderosa pines stands, but because of decades of forest fire suppression, some of that dating back 100 years or more, the forest of the Jemez Mountains have become unhealthy, filled with fuel and overcrowded with trees. Much of the Las Conchas fire was a catastrophic crown fire, the kind of fire that leaves nothing but ash and vitrified impermeable soil behind.

Now, as the New Mexico monsoon season begins, flooding, debris flows, and mud slides are threatening communities below the burn watersheds. Many of these communities are Native American communities.

One of these communities is the Santa Clara Pueblo, and I look forward to our Santa Clara governor, Governor Walter Dasheno, speaking to the Committee during the second panel about his Tribe’s experiences and efforts to protect homes and sacred sites.

Over 16,600 acres of Santa Clara land was burned by the Las Conchas fire in an intensely hot crown fire. Much of the Pueblo’s forest was burned and the fire came within miles of the Santa Clara village. Santa Clara’s excellent fire crews helped throughout the fire and was on the front lines protecting their land and other Federal and private land. When the town of Los Alamos was evacuated, the Pueblo of Santa Clara and other nearby Tribes opened their doors and facilities to the evacuees.

But as the fire dies down, the work is just getting started for Santa Clara and other Pueblos. Already there have been several mud slides in Santa Clara Canyon and the debris ponds, their fishing ponds are filling with debris. The Army Corps of Engineers helped provide 47,000 sandbags to protect structures and the Interagency Burn Area Emergency Response Teams continue to assess the canyon and do emergency treatments. These Interagency BAER Teams continue to assess the threats of erosion and flooding, and are taking emergency actions, including reseeding severely burned watersheds, creating erosion barriers, removing debris, including dead trees, cleaning and lining culverts, creating debris ponds, putting in floating booms to catch ash in the reservoirs, road and culvert repair, and bridge removal.

There is a lot of work and coordination going into these teams and I hope that Governor Dasheno can shed some light on how that process is moving forward when he testifies.

Again, I thank Chairman Akaka for holding this hearing and inviting Santa Clara’s strong leader, Governor Walter Dasheno, to come and give testimony.

I would also, Chairman Akaka, ask permission. There are many other Pueblos that have been impacted by this, and I know you generally welcome written testimony, that they might be able to give and submit written testimony on the impacts of disasters and fires with them. So thank you very much, again, for holding this hearing, and look forward to hearing all the witnesses.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Udall.

Senator Tester, would you please proceed?

Frm 00008

STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

Senator TESTER. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking Member Barrasso for holding this hearing. I think it is a very important hearing. I want to welcome the Committee members. This is a great panel, half a dozen folks who can really answer, I think, a lot of questions that need to be answered as we address issues of natural disasters in Indian Country, and I appreciate the work each and every one of you do. I think we see one another too often. So thank you.

In my state of Montana, American Indians deal with everything from severe winter storms, tornadoes, to wildfires, to flooding. Right now we are being flooded pretty hard in different areas of the State of Montana. Montana always dries out; I am sure wildfires will come soon thereafter.

We had record-breaking rainfall this spring on top of recordbreaking snow. You know that is a recipe for floods and, sure enough, that is exactly what happened; flooded homes, flooded hospitals, flooded schools, and flooded businesses. There are still places in Montana that are extremely wet. They will be wet, probably, into the fall. Then they will have to deal with things like mold and other associated problems.

In fact, last year Rocky Boy, who you are very familiar with, Mr. Grinnell, had land flooding and landslides ruin a brand new health clinic in Rocky Boy’s Indian Reservation that took 20 years to get built, and it was taken out in a month. In fact, less than a week. And having it wiped out after all the work to get it built was pretty devastating.

These natural disasters not only devastate resources, they devastate people and spirit, and it is not good, especially with folks who are living in third-world conditions right now.

Most of us in the room are aware of the Government’s responsibility, trust obligations for American Indians. In those treaties that were signed decades ago, Tribes gave up vast quantities of land and resources in exchange for promises from the United States Government.

In preparation for this hearing, I was happy to see that various agencies take these situations in their work very seriously. However, there are always concerns, and I have several. One concern comes directly from Tribal leaders, as they tell me that all too often, depending on the situation, different programs at different agencies apply and they get ping-ponged around a bit. It is very confusing and very time-intensive.

They also tell me all too often they are not partners working in a true government-to-government relationship, and you guys all know what that means. Instead, they have to wait for people within the bureaucracy to decide or potentially even the State of Montana to decide.

I am also concerned about efficiency. When you have several different agencies that overlap in their work, oftentimes there are extra dollars spent on administration when in fact that money needs to be put on the ground and should be put on the ground. Quite honestly, I would just tell you from my perspective, at this level, that is an issue we can talk about, but it is really an issue

Frm 00009

that the folks at the table right here need to really work to do, and that is don’t worry about the turf, just make sure the money gets to ground so that the job gets done. I think that is critically important.

Now, in Crow Reservation earlier this year they were devastated by early spring rains that I just described and today Tribal officials still report that 200 families are displaced; they are living day-today with family members or friends or in temporary housing. Most of those folks don’t have a lot of dough, and their capacity to navigate through a complicated Federal bureaucracy and figure out where they should go and who is going to pay for what, it ain’t gonna happen. That is all there is to it. So they need help. And the longer we wait, the more expensive it gets to recover.

So I very much appreciate the work you guys do. I want to go back and say that we can always be critical of your work, but I very much appreciate the work you do. We just need to work on making things more efficient, more streamlined, and more userfriendly.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I have to say I am going to have to leave early today, but thank you very, very much for this hearing.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Tester. Senator Murkowski, please proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you having this hearing this afternoon. I know many of us on the Committee are interested in hearing from our witnesses today. My comments will be very brief.

When I came in, I noted the very, very inaccurate map that you have displayed for us. Alaska, as we all know, is not a tiny ittybitty little State up in the upper lefthand corner of the United States of America. But I will note to those who are looking at it that we have our share of push pins; severe storms, flooding, and the fires. The good news for us is we do not have any of the yellow or the green push pins, which would indicate tornadoes or hurricanes. If we get to that point, I would suggest that we all move somewhere else, because we get a lot of natural disasters but, fortunately, hurricanes and tornadoes are not among them.

We have learned, we didn’t actually need to learn it from the GAO reports that have been out there, but most Alaskan villages, in fact, 86 percent of our Alaskan villages are affected by some level of erosion or flooding, but few qualify for Federal assistance. Most of our small villages don’t qualify for the assistance under the program because they don’t meet the cost-benefit criteria. This is an issue that we have discussed. I will be looking forward to exchanging some comments with Administrator Fugate, Mr. Black as we explore some of these issues.

I have had a sit-down with those within FEMA, some others within agencies to understand how Alaska, recognizing that we are not connected to the rest of the Country, when we face a natural disaster, we need to have our own contingency plan because we don’t have the availability of the neighbors around us. Our closest neighbor is Canada, and ensuring that we are able to respond to

Frm 00010

the needs, but recognizing, if you will, that most of those push pins out there are in remote communities that are not accessible by road, that are very limited in their infrastructure, we have some unique problems.

I look forward to working not only with you, Mr. Chairman, and the other Members of the Committee, but with the fine panel that we have assembled here as to how we address it. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski.

Now we will receive the statement of Senator Hoeven.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HOEVEN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will keep my opening comments brief. I look forward to the opportunity to ask some questions of each of our witnesses. I want to thank you for being here today; thank the Chairman for arranging this opportunity to meet with you.

I don’t have to tell at least a number of you that we have truly had record flooding in North Dakota and it has affected us tremendously, both on our reservations and off. I want to thank you up front for the help that we have received, important help that we have received from FEMA, in conversations, Director Fugate, you and I have had. I guess I also want to emphasize that your ongoing help and support is going to be incredibly important, and I am going to want to go through some of the programs and make sure that we are maximizing all possible help and support for individuals that have been affected by terrible flooding up to this year.

Also, General McMahon, good to see you again. Appreciate you being up in our state and the protection measures that the Corps is undertaking, and, likewise, will want to go through and make sure that we are utilizing all of the protection measures available at your disposal.

And certainly, Mr. Black, get your thoughts as well on anything else that you think we need to do, but also that we can do to help the members of our reservation who this year, particularly, have been hit by flooding, as well as, like I say, people throughout the State of North Dakota.

So, again, thanks for being here. I am looking forward to your testimony and the opportunity to discuss these important issues.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Hoeven.

I again welcome the first panel of witnesses to the Committee today. With that, I appreciate all of the agencies who play a major role in responding to natural disasters and are with us today. It is important to have you all at the table so we can paint a comprehensive picture of the Federal Government’s response to natural disasters in Native communities.

I want to remind you again, reiterating what Senator Udall asked, I want to remind you the record for the hearing will remain open for two weeks from today, so we welcome any additional written comments for the Committee.

On the panel we have Mr. Michael Black. He is the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Department of Interior; Mr.

Craig Fugate is the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Man-

Frm 00011

agement Agency at the Department of Homeland Security.; Ms. Mary Wagner is Associate Chief of Forest Service at the Department of Agriculture; Brigadier General McMahon is the Commander of the Northwestern Division of the Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Randy Grinnell is the Deputy Director of Indian Health Service at the Department of Health and Human Services; and Mr. Fred Tombar is the Senior Advisor for Disaster Recovery in the Office of the Secretary at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Again, welcome to every one of you.

Mr. Black, we will please proceed with your testimony.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL S. BLACK, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. BLACK. Good afternoon, Chairman Akaka, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and Members of the Committee. As you said, my name is Mike Black, and I am the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs with the Department of Interior. Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department on Facing Floods and Fires, Emergency Preparedness for Natural Disasters in Native American Communities.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs provides services directly through contracts, grants, or compacts to a service population where about 1.7 million American Indians and Alaska Natives who are enrolled members of 565 federally recognized Tribes living on or near Indian reservations in the 48 contiguous United States and Alaska. Programs are funded and operated in a highly decentralized manner, with almost 90 percent of all appropriations expended at the local level and approximately 63 percent of appropriations provided directly to Tribes and Tribal organizations through grants, contracts, and compacts. Tribes and Tribal organizations use the contracted funds to employ Tribal police officers, social workers, school teachers, foresters, and firefighters, amongst many other professions. In addition, Indian Tribes look to the BIA for a broad spectrum of services, including emergency response to natural disasters in Indian Country.

Given the Secretary’s commitment to improving the safety of Indian communities, the DOI Office of Emergency Management, OEM, commissioned an expert study on how to improve the BIA’s ability to support Tribal preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation efforts. The report is expected to be finalized at the end of this month.

As illustrated by the examples in my written testimony, the BIA responds to natural disasters, which can vary significantly in size and scope, for events as large as Hurricane Katrina to small fires on Indian lands. Responses to natural disasters in Indian Country require extensive coordination among the affected Tribes, Federal agencies, State and local governments. While the BIA’s role is somewhat limited, BIA personnel are most often the first responders to natural disasters in Indian Country.

Fighting fires on Indian land is distinctive from the response of other natural disasters in Indian Country. For fighting fires, the BIA works within an extensive interagency network to provide the needed aircraft engines, dozers, crews, overhead and logistical sup-

Frm 00012

port. The BIA provides both direct service to Tribes and technical assistance to Tribes who have compacted and/or contracts BIA fire programs. The Tribes have the flexibility to compact 638 contract and provide additional resources through cooperative agreements for fire suppression. Roughly one-third of the fire programs are compacted or contracted under the authority of Public Law 93–638.

To date, there have been over 2,100 fires that have burned approximately 138,000 acres of Indian land this U.S. calendar year. DOI’s Office of Wildland Fire Coordination funds fire preparedness, readiness, suppression, and rehabilitation activities performed by the Land Management Agencies and the BIA. The BIA’s Wildland Fire and Aviation Management Program, also known as BIA– NIFC, was implemented through the branch of Wildland Fire Management based at the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho. BIA–NIFC represents Indian Country on fire management issues addressed at the national interagency level. In addition, BIA–NIFC provides guidance to BIA regional directors and their fire staff regarding wildland fire and aviation management.

For other non-fire types of natural disasters, such as floods, tornadoes, and winter storms, the BIA provides assistance with available resources such as personnel, equipment, funding, and technical assistance to the Tribes. In addition, the BIA assists Tribes in coordination with other Federal, State, local agencies and governments in emergency and recovery efforts. For example, record winter snowfall in the Northern Rocky Mountains, combined with record snow melt and spring precipitation, has resulted in record flooding throughout the Missouri River basin. The flooding has impacted communities and reservations in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Iowa, including at least 20 Tribal governments.

Recently, Crow Agency was hit hard by flooding, and the BIA was able to assist the Tribe with the procurement of clean drinking water, assisted in boat rescues, provided cots and blankets to shelters, inspected BIA dams and transportation infrastructure on the reservation, helped to fill and place sandbags, and made BIA equipment and personnel resources available to the Tribe.

The BIA continues to provide assistance with ongoing flooding and fire situations affecting many of the Tribes today.

This concludes my statement, and I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

[ The prepared statement of Mr. Black follows :]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL S. BLACK, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

I. Introduction

Good afternoon Chairman Akaka, Vice-Chairman Barrasso, and Members of the Committee, my name is Mike Black and I am the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior. Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior (DOI) on Facing Floods and Fires— Emergency Preparedness for Natural Disasters in Native Communities.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) provides services directly or through contracts, grants, or compacts to a service population of about 1.7 million American Indians and Alaska Natives who are enrolled members of 565 Federally recognized Tribes living on or near Indian reservations in the 48 contiguous United States and Alaska. Programs are funded and operated in a highly decentralized manner, with almost

90 percent of all appropriations expended at the local level, and approximately 63

Frm 00013

percent of appropriations provided directly to Tribes and Tribal organizations through grants, contracts, and compacts. Tribes and Tribal organizations use the contracted funds to employ Tribal police officers, social workers, school teachers, foresters, and firefighters. In addition, Indian Tribes look to the BIA for a broad spectrum of services, including emergency response to natural disasters in Indian Country.

Given the Secretary’s commitment to improving the safety of Indian communities, the DOI Office of Emergency Management (OEM) commissioned an expert study on how to improve the BIA’s ability to support Tribal preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation efforts. The report is expected to be finalized at the end of this month.

II.     The Department’s Response to Natural Disasters Occurring in Native Communities

As illustrated in the examples below, the BIA responds to natural disasters of significant variety in size and scope, from events as large as Hurricane Katrina to small fires on Indian lands. Responses to natural disasters in Indian Country require extensive coordination among, the Indian Tribe affected, the Department of Interior components including the BIA, local governments and a number of state agencies and federal agencies. While the BIA’s role is somewhat limited, BIA personnel are the first-responder to natural disasters in Indian Country. Moreover, the BIA often provides assistance to Tribal governments before, during and after an incident. In most instances, BIA responds by deploying human resources, equipment, funding, providing technical assistance to Tribes and assisting other federal agencies.

III.   Hurricane

A. Hurricane Katrina

Hurricane Katrina affected six federally recognized Tribes, located in Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi. The BIA responded by sending police officers, forestry and firefighters to assist Tribes in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

For example, BIA police officers assisted the Tribal police department and supported local relief efforts such as conducting house-to-house searches and investigating local crimes. The BIA forestry and firefighters provided chainsaws and heavy equipment to clear fallen trees and other debris from the roads in order for trucks to bring in much-needed supplies to the region.

The BIA’s Eastern Regional Office, headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee, and the BIA Choctaw Agency in Philadelphia, Mississippi, assisted the recovery efforts of the Mississippi Choctaw Tribal government, which included arranging for fresh water to be delivered to the reservation.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, BIA deployed personnel to Mississippi to work with the federal agencies and the Tribes. These teams operated in the disaster zone for six months.

IV. Wildland Fires

To date, there have been over 2,100 fires that have burned approximately 138,000 acres of Indian lands this calendar year.^[1] The fires have affected BIA offices in the following regions—Northwest, Pacific, Rocky Mountain, Southwest Western, Eastern Oklahoma, Southern Plains, Eastern and Midwest. Wildland fire suppression on federal lands is an interagency effort with assistance provided by federal, Tribal, state and local cooperators. No single department, bureau, Tribal government or agency can go it alone to provide the needed aircraft, engines, dozers, crews, overhead and logistical support.

The BIA provides both direct service to Tribes and technical assistance to Tribes who have compacted and contracted BIA fire programs. The Tribes have the flexibility to compact, 638-contract and provide additional resources through cooperative agreements for fire suppression. Roughly one-third of the fire programs are compacted or contracted under the authority of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Pub. L. No. 93–638, as amended.

DOI’s Office of Wildland Fire Coordination funds fire preparedness, readiness, suppression, and rehabilitation activities performed by the land management agencies and the BIA. The BIA’s Wildland Fire and Aviation Management Program (BIA–NIFC) is implemented through the Branch of Wildland Fire Management, based at the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) in Boise, Idaho. BIA–NIFC represents Indian Country on fire management issues addressed at the national interagency level. In addition, BIA–NIFC provides guidance to BIA Regional Directors and their fire staff regarding wildland fire and aviation management. This program provides protection for nearly 56 million acres of trust and/or protected lands for Tribal governments. BIA–NIFC’s first priority is to provide for firefighter and public safety in every wildland fire management activity. BIA–NIFC provides for effective wildland fire protection, fire use and hazardous fuels management, and timely rehabilitation on Indian forest and range lands held in trust by the United States, based on management plans approved by the Indian land owner.

BIA–NIFC works with various interagency wildland fire coordination organizations including DOI’s Office of Wildland Fire Coordination (OWFC), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), National Association of State Foresters (NASF), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG), National Multi-Agency Coordination Group, and various Geographic Area Coordination Centers (GACC) located throughout the United States. International assistance and coordination occur as needed.

The Fire Management Plan (FMP) process, which identifies and integrates all wildland fire management and related activities within the context of approved land/resource management plans, provides decision support to aid managers in making informed decisions in response to unplanned ignitions. The types of resources assigned to wildland fires are dependent on fire complexity. Simple fires with low complexities are considered Type 5 fires and the most complex fires are designated Type 1 fires.

The BIA’s Wildland Fire budget is separated into the following accounts or programs:

Preparedness

Includes the range of deliberate, critical tasks, and activities necessary to build, sustain, and improve the capability to protect against, respond to, and recover from wildland fire incidents.

Suppression

Suppression funding supports a range of suppression management actions from intensive suppression of wildfires to monitoring wildfires in areas in which burning accomplishes resource benefits or where it is too dangerous to place firefighters. Emergency stabilization actions are taken during and immediately following a wildfire to reduce the effects of floods, landslides and erosion. Severity funding is the authorized use of suppression funding for extraordinary preparedness activities. It is used to improve initial response capabilities when abnormal, severe wildfire conditions occur, and it is subject to strict controls to better manage the expenditure of funds.

In the event of severe abnormal conditions, agencies and Tribal governments in the same geographic region are encouraged to work together to request severity funding. Each request must describe the current fire situation and include a cost estimate. The completed request is submitted to the BIA–NIFC by the Agency/Tribal government with concurrence of the BIA Regional Director. Authorization to use severity funding is valid for 30 days. Severity extension request are allowable and approvals are normally made in 30 day increments.

Hazardous Fuels Reduction

DOI funds the treatment of hazardous fuels across Indian Country. These treatments can occur within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), primarily with DOI wildland fire hazardous fuels funding and outside the Wildland Urban Interface (non-WUI) with other BIA land management funds. The WUI are fire-prone areas where wildland fuels meet and mix with homes and other urban fuels.

Burned Area Rehabilitation (BAR)

This program has funding to stabilize and prevent unacceptable degradation to natural and cultural resource, to minimize threats to life or property resulting from the effects of a fire, or to repair, replace, or construct physical improvements necessary to prevent degradation of land or resources.

Emergency Stabilization (ES)

This program is for emergency treatments to minimize threats to life or property or to stabilize and prevent unacceptable degradation to natural and cultural resources resulting from the effects of a wildfire.

A. Las Conchas Fire—New Mexico

The Las Conchas Fire is a very complex wildfire fire that was managed by as many as three Type I Teams at its peak. Last month, the Las Conchas Fire burned onto the Santa Clara Pueblo Indian Reservation, located in New Mexico, and burned 16,000 acres of the Santa Clara Canyon watershed. The fire also burned over 3,100

Frm 00015

acres of the Jemez Pueblo Reservation, and 63 acres on the Kewa Pueblo Reservation (formerly known as Santo Domingo). As of the writing of this testimony, the Las Conchas Fire is 75 percent contained.^[2] The fire threatens animal and fish habitats, air quality, water quality, cultural sites, and medicinal and food gathering sites. The fire also created an additional loss of commercial timber base. In addition, the fire puts village and Tribal residents at risk to flooding from coming monsoon rains.

The BIA Southwest Region currently has fire crews deployed to the Las Conchas Fire. The Regional and Agency Fire Management Officers (FMO) and Assistant FMO’s coordinated the information flow with local agencies and provided resource advisors to the Type 1 Incident Management Teams (IMT). The BIA Southwest Regional Director served as the Point of Contact for the Type 1 IMT and Area Command Team (ACT), and the BIA Agency Superintendents attended the daily briefings of the Type 1 IMTs.

In response to the Las Conchas Fire, DOI’s Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) Team assessed the damage to and potential threats to Indian lands. The Team’s first priority has been the Santa Clara Canyon. The DOI BAER Team joined other BAER teams to make up the Las Conches BAER Team. The Las Conches BAER Team has divided the fire into the North Zone and South Zone. The task of the Team is to collaborate and share resources to provide a unified approach to assessing fire effects.

The BIA assigned a Pub. L. No. 93–638 Contract Self Determination Specialist to work with the Santa Clara Pueblo to speed contracting procedures for emergency stabilization projects.

B. White Swan Fire—Washington

On February 12, 2011 the White Swan Community on the Yakama Reservation was hit with gale force winds causing damage to 262 homes and structures. As a result of the winds, a small chimney fire grew out of control and pushed a fire through the community of White Swan. The fire burned 225 acres and made over 80 Tribal members homeless. The White Swan Fire was a Type 3 fire.

During the White Swan Fire incident, BIA Yakama Agency personnel coordinated with the Yakama Tribe and county fire districts to contain and control the White Swan Fire. Personnel from the BIA Northwest Regional Office (NWRO) and the Yakama Agency provided direct services to organize and implement post-fire community support and relief. The NWRO provided over 75 person-hours of direct support and the Yakama Agency staff provided over 460 person-hours of direct support. In addition, to assist the Yakama Nation and its members, the BIA transferred $20,000 to the Tribe via a Pub. L. No. 93–638 contract for repairs to damages homes owned by enrolled members of the Yakama Nation.

Agencies contributing to the recovery effort included the Yakama Tribal Government, the Tribe’s Emergency Management Team, the BIA, the Indian Health Service (IHS), FEMA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Yakima County, utility companies and numerous faith-based volunteer organizations.

V. Floods

Record winter snowfall in the Northern Rocky Mountains combined with record snowmelt and spring precipitation has resulted in record flooding throughout the Missouri River Basin. The flooding has impacted communities and reservations in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska and Iowa. The flooding has affected at least 20 Tribal governments.

A.  Flooding of Crow Tribe Reservation, Montana

In May, Crow Tribe’s Reservation experienced severe flooding. The Tribe quickly established a Unified Command and the Incident Command Team included officials from the Crow Tribe, the BIA, Indian Health Service and Big Horn County Department of Emergency Services (Big Horn DES). The BIA procured clean drinking water, assisted in boat rescues, provided cots and blankets to shelters, inspected BIA dams on the Reservation, helped to fill and place sandbags and made BIA equipment available.

Agencies contributing to the recovery effort included the BIA, Big Horn DES, Indian Health Service, BLM, National Weather Service, Montana Highway Patrol, Montana Department of Transportation, U.S. Geological Survey, Environmental Protection Agency, American Red Cross, Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, Farm Service Agency, and the National Park Service (NPS), to name a few.

B.  Flooding of the Spirit Lake Reservation, North Dakota

On May 10, 2011, the President declared the State of North Dakota a major disaster area and included reservations for the Spirit Lake, Fort Berthold and Turtle Mountain.^[3] Rising waters of the Devils Lake inundated three key BIA roads and resulted in the loss of access to one residence. The total estimated damages for the three roads are $800,000.

The BIA and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), under Pub. L. No. 93–638, obligated $5.9 million during the spring of 2011 to construct three-footemergency berms along the entire seven miles of roads and perimeter levees located on the Spirit Lake Reservation. With funding made available through the FHWA and through a partnership with the Bureau of Reclamation, which provides on-site technical dam construction expertise, the seven miles of roads and perimeter levees have been re-designed and are in the process of being re-constructed to serve as permanent ‘‘dams’’ to current federal standards.

Roughly 1,200 plus hours have been expended by BIA personnel at the Fort Totten Agency and the Great Plains Regional Office including resources from Trust Services, Transportation, and Natural Resources.

Agencies contributing to the recovery effort include the Spirit Lake Tribe, the BIA, the IHS, FEMA, the American Red Cross, North Dakota Department of Transportation, State Division of Emergency Management, and county and city officials.

VI. Conclusion

This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Black.

Mr. Fugate, would you please proceed with your testimony?

STATEMENT OF CRAIG FUGATE, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Mr. FUGATE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senators.

Mr. Chairman, I think the last time we really had a conversation was during my confirmation, and at that time you pointed out the issues and challenges of our territories and trusts in the Pacific. When I got to FEMA, one of the early opportunities I had was to begin working with listening sessions, listen to different constituency groups. One of the issues that came up very early in dealing with Tribal issues and the federally recognized Tribes was the perception, which is probably more real than I would have liked to admit at the time, that FEMA did not recognize the nation-to-nation relationship between the Tribes and the Federal Government, and I think it was because of our overriding legislation that provides disaster assistance does not recognize that relationship.

The Stafford Act, currently as written, only identifies that the governor of a State or territory can request a declaration of a disaster from the President of the United States. That means that federally recognized Tribes were oftentimes depended upon the governor to make that decision, and it was also based upon the impact statewide, not Tribal; and several here in their previous roles dealt with this where they had requested disaster declarations to include Tribal areas, but those Tribes also had areas of impact outside of their State that was not declared.

We have taken the following steps at FEMA. The first is in recognizing the sovereignty of the Tribes previously, Tribal governments were oftentimes required to be a sub-grantee to the State of which the declaration was issued to. This produced tremendous challenges, particularly in States that have constitutional requirements that they do not provide any assistance to Tribal governments, but also affected the sovereignty of the Tribes that many of them felt that they were not in a subservient relationship to the State by being a sub-grantee.

We did changed under the CFR the requirements that allow selfdetermination of the Tribes, once a declaration is issued, to be the direct grantee from FEMA for disaster assistance, and we have been able to execute that in several recent disasters where the Tribe elected to be the direct grantee and not a sub-grantee.

We firmly believe that our responsibility is to continue to recognize this is a nation-to-nation relationship, and we also must recognize that Tribal governments must have self-determination. Through history and practice in some States, they work very well and enjoy cost-share and other benefits from the State that would not benefit them if they were the grantee. Many Tribes don’t have the ability, because of the complexity of the programs and the size of the Tribe, to serve as a grantee because of the financial oversight requirements. But where we can and have, we want to recognize that self-determination.

The other areas that we administer are in our grant programs. This body, after recognizing the Tribal governments initially and homeland security grants weren’t getting funding, established a minimum of $2 million in the Tribal Homeland Security Grant Program. Secretary Napolitano, upon entering her office, having served as governor of Arizona and having recognized unique challenges that Tribal government has in homeland security, under her own authority, directed us to increase that to $10 million to provide even greater funding to those Tribes seeking those funds.

We work with Tribal governments to do training specific to their needs. Over 2,000 members of over 300 Tribes have been through our Emergency Management Institute. We are taking our Ready Program, which is our initiative for citizen preparedness, and have been working with Tribal leaders and elders to develop Ready Indian Country to take preparedness tools into the communities.

But we also work very closely with our Federal partners. And again, I think, as you pointed out, sometimes our difficulties in working interagency is oftentimes where our legislation comes from, the oversight of our committees, and the history of our programs.

We work very well in Stafford Act declarations because we have a clear direction of the national response framework utilizing our functional supports to do that. But when we are not in a declaration, when we don’t have the Stafford Act, our programs are much more limited because we don’t have a prior relationship, financially or otherwise, in the Stafford Act to provide assistance in disasters that did not warrant a Stafford Act declaration.

So we recognize those challenges. We continue to work these issues. But we also understand that dealing with these programs have oftentimes complex financial reimbursement models is still impact on Tribal governments, particularly when it comes to cost share and other activities. So we recognize that and continue to work within the authorities we have to streamline that process, but we also still recognize that under the Stafford Act it is limited to

Frm 00018             Sfmt 6601

the governor of the State or territory to request a disaster declaration of the President, and that requirement must be met before any financial assistance or direct service provision under assistance from the Federal programs can be implemented once the President has declared a disaster.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[ The prepared statement of Mr. Fugate follows :]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CRAIG FUGATE, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

I.     Introduction

Good afternoon Chairman Akaka, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and distinguished Members of the Committee. My name is Craig Fugate and I am the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It is an honor to appear before you today on behalf of FEMA to discuss Tribal communities and emergency preparedness.

II.   FEMA’s Tribal Policy reflects the ‘‘Whole Community’’

To address the demands and challenges of emergency management, the work of FEMA is interconnected with all our partners and stakeholders in an effort we call the ‘‘Whole Community.’’ As part of this effort, FEMA and its partners at the federal level; state, local, and Tribal governments; non-governmental organizations in the non-profit, faith-based, and private sector communities; as well as individuals and communities work together to leverage our strengths to support emergency management efforts in communities across the country.

FEMA‘s leadership in emergency management comes from diverse backgrounds, but we share something vital: direct, on-the-ground experience in state, local, and Tribal emergency management. Our experiences have helped us realize and appreciate the important role that our partners play in disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. FEMA‘s success is heavily dependent upon our ability to communicate, coordinate, support, and work closely with these groups.

FEMA continues to build on past Tribal partnerships while developing new relationships. Tribal communities, with their long history in community disaster response and recovery, are a particularly important stakeholder in our whole community initiative. FEMA recognizes the consistent participation and partnership of American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal governments is vital in assisting FEMA to achieve its mission.

FEMA and the Department are committed to enhancing nation-to-nation relations with Tribal governments. The first FEMA Tribal Policy was created in 1998 after Tribal communities reached out to then-Administrator James Lee Witt. The policy forged a commitment to building strong and lasting partnerships and assisting Tribes in preparing for hazards, reducing vulnerabilities, and recovering from disasters.

Under the current Administration, and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, FEMA updated and strengthened its Tribal Policy, which I signed in June 2010. The new FEMA Tribal Policy is even more robust than the previous version and details a more collaborative engagement between FEMA and the 565 federally-recognized Tribes across the country.

In the 2010 policy, FEMA commits to nation-to-nation relationships, collaboration with Tribes on FEMA policy development with Tribal implications, and to minimizing the imposition of unfunded mandates upon American Indian Tribes.

The updated policy reiterates the Agency’s view of Tribal governments as inherently sovereign nations and not political subdivisions of states. To this end, and to the extent permitted by law, FEMA consults with Tribal governments and addresses any concerns before taking actions that may affect those nations.

In addition, the new policy expressly states that FEMA will identify and take reasonable, appropriate steps to eliminate or diminish procedural impediments to working directly and effectively with Tribal governments. In particular, the policy states that FEMA will review portions of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief & Emergency Assistance Act, and other laws, policies, and administrative rules in emergency management activities to determine how FEMA may work more directly with local Tribal communities.

FEMA’s efforts to work with, and support, the Whole Community are echoed in our coordination efforts across the entire emergency management team, which is required daily by the National Response Framework (NRF) during a federally de-

Frm 00019             Sfmt 6621

clared disaster. Through this framework, FEMA leads the coordination of communities, Tribes, states, the federal government, and private-sector and nongovernmental partners to provide effective national responses to emergencies. To support Tribal communities, as they face the same range of disasters that other jurisdictions face, FEMA Tribal affairs specialists maintains daily working relationships with Tribal liaisons at our partner agencies. In addition, during active disaster responses and recovery efforts, FEMA may use this authority to issue ‘‘mission assignments’’ that bring specialty assistance from many of our federal partners, such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Health and Human Services, and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

III. Increased Outreach to Tribal Partners

The updated FEMA Tribal Policy I signed in 2010 was accompanied by further outreach and support for American Indian and Alaskan Native Tribal governments.

In my role as the FEMA Administrator, I have tried to engage Tribal communities directly and was honored to be a keynote speaker at the National Congress of American Indians conferences in 2009 and 2010. I also conducted Tribal leader listening sessions after these presentations to explain FEMA programs and listen to Tribal issues and concerns.

In December 2010, I participated in a White House Tribal Nations Conference attended by representatives of more than 400 Tribes and hosted by President Obama, several cabinet secretaries, and other senior administration officials. During the event, I participated in a breakout session on Criminal Justice and Security for Secretary Napolitano that emphasized the new Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 (P.L. 111–211), designed to improve the effectiveness of Tribal justice systems.

These direct interactions with Tribal representatives have helped me to both learn more about what FEMA can do to support these important partners, and provide increased support to Tribal communities. Since I came to FEMA, FEMA has increased the number of employees dedicated to working with Tribal governments on disaster response, recovery, mitigation, and preparedness issues. Even before this increase, FEMA had a cadre of Tribal Affairs Stafford Act employees in place who were employed and assigned on an as-needed basis to support Federal Coordinating Officers during the recovery phase of a disaster response.

In 2010, FEMA hired ten new permanent, full-time employees as Intergovernmental Tribal Affairs Specialists to work out of each of the FEMA Regions. This new group of specialized FEMA employees works directly with all federally-recognized Tribes within a region to help the communities develop disaster mitigation plans and enhance emergency management capabilities. They also serve as ambassadors for FEMA and the federal government within the Tribal communities by providing support in navigating technical requirements and policies.

FEMA also hired an attorney within the Agency’s Office of Chief Counsel (OCC) who is trained and experienced in Federal Indian Law. FEMA also sponsors a comprehensive training program through the Emergency Management Institute (EMI) in Emmitsburg, MD with four courses targeted specifically to the Tribal emergency management community.

To further strengthen Tribal communities’ emergency management capacity, DHS/FEMA in 2010 raised the nationwide total for the Tribal Homeland Security Grant Program (THSGP) from less than $2 million, the minimum required under the law, to $10 million. The THSGP grants are designed to enhance the ability of Tribal nations to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from potential terrorist attacks and other hazards. Tribes are also regular recipients of DHS/FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds, Emergency Operations Center funds, Operation Stonegarden Funds, and Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant funds.

IV. Success Stories

As stated in FEMA’s Tribal policy and demonstrated by ongoing nation-to-nation relationship building, the Agency is deeply committed to honoring the trust relationship and sovereignty of Tribal governments. While working within legal constraints that may require certain approvals from U.S. States in which a Tribal nation is located, FEMA strives for direct communication and collaboration wherever possible to ensure that no damage or potential eligibility is overlooked, especially as it pertains to the FEMA Public Assistance program.

FEMA Tribal Affairs staff and Regional staff strive to include Tribal representatives in day-today emergency management, so that when disaster strikes, the Tribal community knows its rights and options when applying for federal disaster assistance. Currently, only States can request a major disaster or emergency declaration from the President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief & Emergency Assistance Act. But, as sovereign nations, Tribes may elect to apply for federal disaster

Frm 00020             Sfmt 6621

assistance either directly or as part of a state’s disaster request. As direct grantees, Tribes manage their own projects and work directly with FEMA officials through the recovery process.

In 2010, the Chippewa Cree Tribe on the Rocky Boy’s Reservation of north central Montana forged a new direct grantee relationship with FEMA after surviving a flood disaster. The community suffered through the destruction of substantial Tribal infrastructure when a foot of rain and snowmelt caused more than $31 million worth of damage to roads; water and sanitation lines; and their local health clinic. The Tribe tried to fund the losses internally but soon went to the state to add its request to the state’s appeal to the President for a federal disaster declaration.

In June 2010, the President approved the Governor’s full request for the acknowledged damages at the Rocky Boy’s Reservation, enabling the Tribe to begin its work as a direct federal disaster assistance grantee. As a direct grantee, a Tribe must sign an agreement with FEMA, develop a Public Assistance Administrative Plan, comply with audit requirements, and pay any required non-federal cost share. Due to the severity of the flooding, in the case of the Rocky Boy’s Reservation the approved declaration was for 100 percent of the approved cost and did not require the usual 25 percent state cost share.

FEMA has also partnered with other federal agencies to support Tribes with their housing needs. In a successful one-time program that began in 2007, Tribal governments across the nation partnered with FEMA to use government excess manufactured housing. In accordance with Congressional guidelines and following excess property regulations, unused manufactured homes were transferred to Tribal governments. FEMA worked in consultation with the General Services Administration and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), as well as Tribal governments, to develop a distribution plan so that all Tribes had an equitable chance to participate.

These homes met all HUD housing regulations for air quality with specifications equivalent to units purchased off-the-lot. As a component of the partnership, Tribal governments did not pay to purchase the units, but were responsible for transportation and unit set up. HUD determined that the costs were considered eligible for reimbursement under the Indian Housing Block Grant program.

V. Conclusion and Looking Ahead

Efforts to enhance FEMA’s relationships with Tribal nations are ongoing and FEMA is committed to working closely with this important community. In the coming weeks, FEMA will announce a new campaign for FEMA’s Ready.gov Campaign called Ready Indian Country.

Ready Indian Country is an initiative designed to promote preparedness within Tribal communities through education and outreach in an effort to save lives and prevent property losses. The program will use public outreach and the support of Tribal elders to encourage individuals and families in Indian Country to take the basic steps necessary to prepare themselves for potential emergencies. Ready Indian Country will provide a foundation for Tribal communities to enhance citizen preparedness while serving as a resource for the development and implementation of community pre-disaster policies and procedures.

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss emergency preparedness and Tribal communities, I am happy to address any questions from the Committee at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Fugate.

Ms. Wagner, will you please proceed with your testimony?

STATEMENT OF MARY WAGNER, ASSOCIATE CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Ms. WAGNER. Chairman Akaka, Members of the Committee, I am Mary Wagner, Associate Chief of the Forest Service. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to present on this important topic.

I am going to leave you with a few nuggets. The work we do with relationships. The Forest Service and the USDA recognize the inherent sovereign status and reserved rights of Tribes. We see consultation as the cornerstone of the Federal-Tribal relationship and Forest Service line officers from the district level, the forest level,

Frm 00021             Sfmt 6601

the regional level, and the national level frequently meet and consult with Tribal leaders that have treaty and other federally protected rights on national forest system lands.

I want to talk a little bit about the work we do before the incident or in this case I am going to use fire as an example.

Fuels treatment is an important preparedness strategy for public lands. The implementation and utilization of vegetative fuels treatment is critical for land management agencies, including Tribal nations, to reduce the risk of wildland fires. Because Arizona and New Mexico have gotten so much attention of late, in the Southwest region, as an example, over the last five years, $200 million has been invested, resulting in over 835,000 acres treated to reduce hazardous fuels and make landscapes more resilient to fire.

Congress has recognized the importance, the utility and value of fuels treatment and has created legislation to assist land management agencies to become more effective in implementing fuels treatments. Examples like the Collaborative Forest Restoration Program in New Mexico, which also created the Southwestern Ecological Restoration Institute, the Tribal Forest Protection Act, and the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Act are among those pieces of legislation that Congress has recognized as important.

I want to talk a little bit about preparedness, what we do before the incident. Preparedness for us is really to set the stage for success and build relationships before an invent. We conduct it in an interagency environment and it includes activities with Federal agencies, Tribal, local, and State resources to prepare for an upcoming season.

Taking actions to determine priorities for firefighter and public safety, identifying resources at risk, to stage or preposition assets when conditions indicate; to seek severity funding to augment assets so they are available in high fire danger situations. We host pre-season training; we work in the interagency environment to do that. We provide the interagency community with daily and longterm weather forecasts so people can be prepared. It is all work that is conducted in partnership with interagency cooperators and partners.

The work we do during the fire: The Forest Service and the Department of the Interior manage the primary Federal wildland fire suppression crews and assets. Tribes, State foresters, and local fire protection districts also provide fire suppression crews and assets to the interagency effort and service partners to the Federal agencies. Fire suppression crews and firefighting assets are shared and assigned by an interagency system. Incident management teams show up to a fire when one breaks. They arrive at an incident often with Tribal liaison specialists to initiate consultation with Tribes and develop management strategies for the incident. Tribes also reciprocate often by providing dedicated Tribal resource advisors to the incident management team.

The work we do after the fire, importantly, is the Burned Area Emergency Response, and, Mr. Udall, you described that very, very well. Common posted fire threats include flash flooding, mud flows, rock fall, hazard trees, and high-impact erosion. As an example, to assist and coordinate the BAER activities of the Los Conchas fire,

Frm 00022             Sfmt 6601

an interagency group of managers was assigned to an area command team. The group includes Pueblos affected by both the Los Conchas and Pacheco fires, and includes Pueblo government officials, New Mexico State Forestry, Bureau of Indian Affairs, National Park Service Bureau of Land Management, and the Forest Service. Meetings are convened and all the interagency representatives come to discuss the issue of recovery and coordination.

Through mutual agreement, all of the parties agree to a national incident management organization being assigned to coordinate all of the BAER efforts among various jurisdictions. Tribal consultation is a key part of that. Tribes help us identify sacred sites, cultural sites, and traditional cultural properties, and help us mitigate and stabilize treatments for those important sites.

USDA agencies and programs assist with post-burn watershedwide consequences to soil and vegetation resources, as well as impacts to Tribe and private lands. We have nutrition and food programs, land conservation programs, crop and livestock loss programs, loan programs and housing assistance. We stand at the ready to assist.

This concludes my testimony and I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

[ The prepared statement of Ms. Wagner follows :]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARY WAGNER, ASSOCIATE CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Introduction

Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Barrasso and members of the Committee, I am Mary Wagner, Associate Chief of the U. S. Forest Service. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to present the role of United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Forest Service in assisting Native American communities to prepare for and respond to natural disasters such as wildfires and floods.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

Native Americans have a unique status established by the Constitution. The Forest Service and USDA are committed to a government-to-government relationship with federally recognized Native American Tribes. At the Forest Service, we recognize that Tribal people were the original stewards of the lands that now comprise the National Forest System. In addition, for some National Forest System lands the Forest Service is responsible for fulfilling treaty obligations of the United States. Much National Forest System land now shares borders with Tribal land. As part of the government-to-government relationship, the Forest Service often consults and coordinates with Tribes in the management of National Forest System lands and the provision of Forest Service program services. Through this process, the Forest Service seeks to understand and identify areas for common management objectives, as well as to recognize differing landownership and management objectives. The Forest Service intends to be good neighbors and foster beneficial collaborative relationships and partnerships with Tribes in the management of common landscapes and ecosystems.

There are a number of Federal laws that build upon the Constitutional bedrock of the sovereignty of Tribal governments. Key among those laws for the Forest Service are the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, both of which provide opportunities for consultation and coordination and commit agency employees to seek and encourage active Tribal participation in many aspects of land management and program services administration and delivery. In the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) land management planning process, the Forest Service consults with Tribes and invites their participation In addition, Forest Service line officers (Chief, Associate Chief, Deputy Chiefs, Regional Foresters, Station Directors, Area Director, Forest Supervisor and District Rangers), in accordance with agency policy, frequently meet and consult with the leaders of Tribes that have treaty and other

Frm 00023

Federally protected rights on National Forest System lands. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, requires Federal agencies to develop an ‘‘accountable process’’ for ensuring meaningful and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Tribal implications. Forest Service Manual (FSM) and Forest Service Handbooks (FSH) further define and clarify agency policy with respect to Tribes and are used extensively throughout the agency.

Forest Service—Fire Preparedness

The Forest Service is responsible for managing nearly 193 million acres of National Forest System lands in 42 states and Puerto Rico. We manage these lands mindful of the role they play in providing clean water, wildlife and wildlife habitat and other resources valued by communities and neighboring landowners, including Tribes. The Forest Service has a long and largely successful history of consulting and coordinating with Tribes in a government-to-government relationship on all aspects of forest and natural resource conservation and management, including wildland fire preparedness and wildfire suppression response. In the interagency environment of wildland fire management, the wildland fire management agencies of Tribes and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) are full partners in managing wildland fires, including coordinating and allocating assets to prepare for and suppress wildland fire.

The Forest Service also assists Tribes prepare for wildland fire through the Cooperative Fire Assistance Program. Tribes may apply to for assistance in training wildland fire fighters and acquiring firefighting equipment through the State Forester.

Through coordination and unified command within a geographical area, interagency leaders determine priorities for fire fighter and public safety, identify resources at-risk to wildland fire, and identify post-burn fire rehabilitation needs. For example, in the Southwest Area, interagency wildland firefighting resources are coordinated by the Southwest Coordinating Group (SWCG) which includes agency representatives from the Forest Service (USDA), the four Bureaus of the U.S. Department of the Interior (the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Fish and Wildlife Service), as well as the States of Arizona and New Mexico. In the Southwest Area, the Bureau of Indian Affairs represents Tribes with three members on the nine members SWCG. The SWCG manages the Southwest Coordination Center (SWCC), which is responsible for coordinating and facilitating the movement of wildland firefighting assets within the Southwest Area or as needed nationally through the National Interagency Coordination Center (NICC) in Boise, Idaho.

In the extreme fire season of 2011, the Southwest Area engaged in daily coordination efforts. Resource allocation decisions between fires were made by the SWCG in Multi-Agency Coordination (MAC) meetings. The MAC is comprised of representatives from all wildland fire management agencies. This information was used in assigning fire fighting assets to specific areas or jurisdictions, including Tribal lands where they would be able to safely and effectively suppress ignitions in the initial attack phase.

MAC meetings were conducted daily as the Southwest Area reached Preparedness Level 5, the highest level of fire suppression preparedness. The Intelligence and Predictive Services Program, which assesses long-term weather forecasts to determine winter season moisture regimes, provided the MAC group with daily and long-term weather forecasts as part of the preparedness effort. This information is used to set priorities. For example, critical suppression assets, such as hotshot crews, are allocated based on expected or forecasted weather and/or fire ranking and priority. Wildfire ranking is based on the fire’s threat to communities, including Tribal communities and municipal watersheds; property, including Tribal and private lands, as well as, historic and cultural resources; and critical natural resources such as threatened and endangered species habitat.

Forest Service—Fire Suppression

The Forest Service and the Department of the Interior agencies manage the primary Federal wildland fire suppression crews and assets. The State Foresters and local fire protection districts also provide fire suppression crews and assets to the interagency effort and serve as partners with the Federal agencies. Fire suppression crews and firefighting assets are shared and assigned by an interagency system that includes priority for human health and safety, socio-cultural attributes and biological/natural resources. In periods of high fire danger or during a wildfire incident, Tribal lands are assigned fire prevention and/or suppression crews and assets as fire ignition danger increases. When a critical fire ignites or a fire builds into a large

Frm 00024

fire on Tribal lands, interagency fire suppression crews and assets are directed to the Tribal agencies that manage the affected lands. Incident Management Teams (IMTs) arrive at an incident with Tribal Liaison Specialists to initiate consultation with affected Tribes on a government-to-government basis as management strategies are developed for the incident.

In 2011, the Southwest Area MAC assigned an Area Command IMT to supervise the multiple IMTs assigned to suppress each of the large wildfires. One of the missions for the Area Command is to provide responsive service to and coordination with government officials and community leaders, including Tribal leaders for the affected Nations. Several national Type 1 IMTs were assigned to the record-setting Wallow Fire in Arizona, including one IMT assigned to manage and suppress the Wallow Fire on the San Carlos Apache Reservation. For the New Mexico Las Conchas Fire, additional IMTs were ordered and inserted due to the multiple jurisdictions affected by the fire and a desire by the host agencies to ensure adequate attention was given to Tribal lands.

Forest Service—Burned Area Emergency Response

The Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) is a program that addresses postfire emergencies to human life, safety and property, as well as, critical natural and cultural resources in the immediate post-fire environment on federal lands. Common post-fire threats include flash flooding, mudflows, rock fall, hazard trees and high impact erosion.

Under the BAER program, scientists and other specialists quickly evaluate postfire threats to human life, safety, property and critical natural or cultural resources including traditional cultural properties and sacred sites and take immediate actions to manage unacceptable risks. BAER assessments begin when it is safe to enter the burned area, but usually before the fire is completely contained. BAER may include soil stabilization treatments (e.g., seeding and mulching,) or structure stabilization treatments such as road storm proofing (e.g., constructing rolling dips, and removing undersized culverts, to pass water and avoid damage).

For example, to assist and coordinate BAER assessments and prescriptions in the complex jurisdictional environment of the Las Conchas Fire, an interagency group of managers was assigned to the Area Command Team. The group includes the Pueblos affected by both the Las Conchas and Pacheco fires and specifically includes Pueblo government officials, New Mexico State Forestry, Bureau Indian Affairs, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the Forest Service. Meetings were convened with all the interagency representatives to discuss the issues of coordination. Through consultation, the Regional Forester for the Southwest Region introduced the idea of using a National Incident Management Organization (NIMO) Team to coordinate all of the BAER efforts among the various jurisdictions. All of the Federal agencies, including the Pueblo governments agreed to the NIMO structure of coordination and implementation. Indeed, for some areas of the Las Conchas Fire BAER assessment and prescriptions are completed.

Tribal consultation is an important part of Forest Service BAER assessments. BAER team personnel and the forest supervisor consult with Tribal governments including elders designated by the Nation to identify sacred sites, cultural sites and traditional cultural properties and to address mitigation or stabilization treatments for those sites.

For example, in response to the Las Conchas and Pacheco fires, the Forest Service provided one of its full-time National Incident Management Organization (NIMO) teams to assist all agencies and jurisdictions affected by the fire by establishing a unified interagency organization structure for burn recovery planning and implementation. This included numerous agency Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) teams and development of an internal and external communication plan.

To assist and coordinate BAER assessments and projects for the Las Conchas and Pacheco fires, an interagency group of managers was assigned to the Area Command. The group includes the Pueblos affected by the fires and specifically includes officials of the Tribal government, New Mexico State Forestry, DOI (Bureau Indian Affairs, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management), and the Forest Service. Because of the large area burned by both fires, when the BAER teams started to come on-line, it was recognized that an organized structure was needed to ensure that the different BAER teams were connected, coordinated, and that there was a central point for communication with all the Federal, Tribal and state, and local officials. Meetings were convened with all the interagency representatives to discuss the issues of coordination. The Regional Forester for the Southwest Region introduced the idea of using a NIMO Team to coordinate all of the BAER efforts. All of the Federal and state agencies, including the Tribal governments, agreed to the

Frm 00025

NIMO structure. The team has been in place for a few weeks now and reports back to the interagency team.

USDA agencies and programs assist with post-burn, watershed-wide consequences to soil and vegetation resources as well as appurtenances and real property on Tribal, and private lands. USDA is acting to provide aid, assistance and expertise, both technical and financial to the people and property owners affected by the fires or the post-burn effects of flooding and erosion. Attached is an appendix of USDA agencies, which can support post-fire recovery efforts.

Forest Service—Fuels Treatments

The implementation and utilization of vegetative fuels treatments is critical for the wildland management agencies including Tribal Nations to reduce the risk of severe wildland fires. The Forest Service consults as government-to-government with Tribal Nations to design and implement purposeful fuels treatments. Fuels treatments must be carried out in anticipation of a wildland fire event. It is not practicable to commence fuels reduction work when a wildland fire is burning.

Wildfire, a landscape scale phenomenon, acknowledges no political or national boundary. Fuels treatments are an on-going fire preparedness effort, the purpose of which is to alter fire behavior; and the value of which, is only realized when a wildland fire roars to existence. Years of arduous efforts with many partners and governments in the proposal, planning and implementation stages for fuels treatment yield great benefits when a wildfire ignites. Fuels treatments are effective in disrupting the alignment of wildfires because the fuel structure and arrangement has been modified or changed, and as a result fire behavior lessens its intensity thus allowing wildland suppression personnel to effectively directly attack the fire. Fuels treatments serve as strategic anchor points on the landscape from which to implement suppression operations and/or protect property and other societal attributes. Congress has recognized the utility and value of fuels treatments and has enacted legislation to assist land management agencies become more effective in implementing fuels treatments. Two examples are: the Collaborative Forest Restoration Program and the Tribal Forest Protection Act.

The Community Forest Restoration Act of 2000 authorized the New Mexico Collaborative Forest Restoration Program (CFRP). Since 2001, this program has reduced fuels and restored forests, rangelands and watersheds on approximately 23,744 of acres in New Mexico including approximately 7,137 acres of Tribal lands.

The Tribal Forest Protection Act of (TFPA) of 2004 provides Indian Tribes the opportunity to apply for and enter into stewardship contracts to protect Indian forest land, including projects on Federal land that borders on or is adjacent to Indian forest land and poses a fire or other threat to Indian forest land under the jurisdiction of the Indian Tribe or a Tribal community.

In New Mexico, the Sixteen Springs TFPA project is a forest health improvement project designed to reduce hazardous fuels and fire risk to a large wildland urban interface community. The Mescalero Apache Tribe, a partner in the Greater Ruidoso Area Wildland-Urban Interface Working Group, is implementing and managing the stewardship contract on Lincoln National Forest. In 2008, the Mescalero Apache Tribe received an additional 5,000 acres for their forest stewardship contract in the Perk-Grindstone project area situated directly adjacent to Ruidoso, NM. When the fuels treatments are completed, the Perk-Grindstone project will provide a critical anchor point for wildland fire community protection in the Greater Ruidoso area, as well as critical access for future forest restoration and fuels reduction projects on the Mescalero Apache Reservation.

Conclusion

USDA is ready to assist Tribal governments and communities to avoid, mitigate or replace lost natural resources, crops, infrastructure developments or property due directly to the occurrence of the wildfire or the post-burn environmental and social consequences. We are committed to our government-to-government relationship as Sovereigns with Tribes and welcome the opportunity to consult with Tribal governments as the post-fire recovery begins for the land and the people. Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Barrasso, this concludes my testimony today; I am happy to answer any question that you or the Committee Members may have.

Attachment

FACT SHEET: USDA PROGRAMS THAT ASSIST INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES

FOLLOWING DISASTER—JULY 2011

USDA’s authority to provide emergency assistance for its various disaster relief programs exists under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assist-

Frm 00026

ance Act, Agriculture Secretary Disaster declarations, Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as well as other authorizing legislation.

Nutrition Assistance

USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) provides food assistance to those in need in areas affected by a disaster. This Federal assistance is in addition to that provided by State and local governments.

USDA provides disaster food assistance in three ways:

•   Provides USDA Foods to State agencies for distribution to shelters and other mass feeding sites;

•   Provides USDA Foods to State agencies for distribution directly to households in need in certain limited situations;

•   Authorizes State agencies to issue Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (D–SNAP) benefits. www.fns.usda.gov/disasters/disaster.htm

USDA Foods for Disaster Assistance—Under the National Response Framework, FNS provides USDA Foods to disaster relief agencies to feed people at shelters and mass feeding sites. States can also, with FNS approval, release USDA Foods to disaster relief agencies to distribute directly to households that are in need. Such direct distribution takes place when normal commercial food supplies channels such as grocery stores have been disrupted, damaged or destroyed, or are unable to function. [Triggering event: With respect to authority provided by the Stafford Act, a request by a State Governor and a Presidential disaster declaration are required to trigger such authority. No such Presidential declaration is required to invoke Section 416 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 or the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973.]

D–SNAP—FNS can authorize the issuance of D–SNAP when the President declares a major disaster with individual assistance. States must request that FNS allow them to issue emergency benefits in areas affected by a disaster. FNS works closely with States to prepare plans for D–SNAP.

•   People who might not ordinarily qualify for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) may be eligible for D–SNAP if they had expenses related to protecting, repairing, or evacuating their homes; or if they have lost income as a result of the disaster.

•   People who are already participating in the regular SNAP may be eligible for additional benefits under the D–SNAP.

•   Disaster benefits are provided similar to regular program benefits—through an EBT card that can be used at authorized food retailers to buy food. [Triggering event: Presidential disaster declaration for individual assistance under the Stafford Act.]

Landowners, Farmers, Ranchers and Producers Assistance

Conservation Programs

Emergency Conservation Program (ECP)—ECP provides funding for farmers and ranchers to rehabilitate farmland damaged by wind erosion, floods, hurricanes, or other natural disasters, and for carrying out emergency water conservation measures during periods of severe drought. The natural disaster must create new conservation problems, which, if not treated, would: impair or endanger the land; materially affect the productive capacity of the land; represent unusual damage which, except for wind erosion, is not the type likely to recur frequently in the same area; and be so costly to repair that Federal assistance is or will be required to return the land to productive agricultural use. Program availability is subject to the availability of funding. [ No Presidential or Secretarial declarations required. ] http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=copr&topic=ecp

Emergency Watershed Protection Program (EWP)—The NRCS EWP program helps protect lives and property threatened by natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires. The program provides technical and financial assistance to preserve life and property threatened by excessive erosion and flooding. Owners, managers, and users of public, private, or Tribal lands are eligible for EWP assistance if their watershed area has been damaged by a natural disaster. Program availability is subject to the availability of funding. [No Presidential or Secretarial declarations required.] http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ewp/

Frm 00027

Emergency Watershed Protection Program—Floodplain Easements—The NRCS Emergency Watershed Protection Program Floodplain Easements provides for the purchase of floodplain easements as an emergency measure. Floodplain easements restore, protect, maintain, and enhance the functions of the floodplain; conserve natural values including fish and wildlife habitat, water quality, flood water retention, ground water recharge, and open space; reduce long-term federal disaster assistance; and safeguard lives and property from floods, drought, and the products of erosion. Program availability is subject to the availability of funding. [No Presidential or Secretarial declarations required.] http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ewp/Floodplain/index.html

Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP)—EFRP provides payments to eligible owners of nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) land in order to carry out emergency measures to restore land damaged by a natural disaster. Program availability is subject to the availability of funding. [No Presidential or Secretarial declarations required.] http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/ webapp?area=home&subject=diap&topic=efrpCrops

Assistance with Crop or Livestock Loss

Crop Insurance—Producers should contact their crop insurance agent or provider as soon as possible to report any losses or prevented planting.

Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP)—NAP provides financial assistance to eligible producers affected by drought, flood, hurricane, or other natural disasters. NAP covers noninsurable crop losses and planting prevented by disasters. Landowners, tenants, or sharecroppers who share in the risk of producing an eligible crop are eligible. Eligible crops include commercial crops and other agricultural commodities produced for food, including livestock feed or fiber for which the catastrophic level of crop insurance is unavailable. Also, eligible for NAP coverage are controlled-environment crops (mushroom and floriculture), specialty crops (honey and maple sap), and value loss crops (aquaculture, Christmas trees, ginseng, ornamental nursery, and turf grass sod). [No Presidential or Secretarial declarations required.] http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=diap&topic=nap

Tree Assistance Program (TAP)—TAP was authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill and provides partial reimbursement to orchardists and nursery tree growers for replanting, salvage, pruning, debris removal and land preparation if losses due to natural disasters exceed 15 percent. [No Presidential or Secretarial declarations required.] http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=diap&topic=tap

Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments Program (SURE)—SURE was authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill and covers crop revenue losses from quantity or quality deficiencies only those counties and contiguous counties declared disaster areas by the Agriculture Secretary or in cases where the overall production loss exceeds 50 percent. [Requires a natural disaster declaration by the Secretary for production losses under 7 U.S.C. 1961(a)] http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=diap&topic=sure

Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees, and Farm Raised Fish (ELAP)— ELAP was authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill to provide emergency relief to producers of livestock, honeybees, and farm-raised fish and covers losses from disaster such as adverse weather or other conditions, such as blizzards and wildfires not adequately covered by any other disaster program. [No Presidential or Secretarial declarations required.] http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=diap&topic=elap

Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP)—LFP was authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill to provide assistance to livestock producers for forage losses due to drought and losses due to wildfire on public lands. [No Presidential or Secretarial declarations required.] http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=diap&topic=lfp

Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP)—LIP was authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill to provide assistance to livestock producers for livestock deaths from disaster events, in excess of normal mortality. [No Presidential or Secretarial declarations required.] http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=diap&topic=lip

Frm 00028

Loans

Emergency Loan Program (ELP)—FSA provides emergency loans to help producers recover from production and physical losses due to drought, flooding, other natural disasters, or quarantine. Emergency loans may be made to farmers and ranchers who own or operate land located in a county declared by the President as a disaster area or designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as a disaster area or quarantine area (for physical losses only, the FSA Administrator may authorize emergency loan assistance). Emergency loan funds may be used to: restore or replace essential property; pay all or part of production costs associated with the disaster year; pay essential family living expenses; reorganize the farming operation; and refinance certain debts. [Triggering event: A quarantine imposed by the Secretary, a natural disaster, or a natural disaster or emergency designated by the

President under the Stafford Act.] http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=fmlp&topic=efl

Housing Assistance

Single-Family Housing—For emergency assistance with immediate housing contact FEMA. http://www.fema.gov/.

Once the emergency is over, those wishing to buy or repair a home in an eligible rural area may qualify for a loan or loan guarantee through USDA. Please contact your local USDA Service Center for additional information.

Loan servicing options are available to help families who experience financial problems as a result of the disaster. Servicing options include:

•   Moratoriums—a temporary period where no payment is required—for 6 to 24 months for borrowers who have lost employment, sustained severe property damage or medical expenses.

•   Reamortization—rescheduling loan payments to determine a new monthly payment amount—if needed following a moratorium or to resolve account delinquency.

To request loan servicing assistance, borrowers should contact the Centralized Servicing Center at:

USDA Rural Development

Centralized Servicing Center

Post Office Box 66889

St. Louis, MO 63166

Phone: (800) 414–1226 TDD: (800) 438–1832

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rd/disasters/disassistance.html

Multi-Family Housing—Residents in Rural Development-financed apartment complexes who are displaced by a natural disaster may apply for occupancy at any USDA-financed apartment complex and receive special priority consideration for the next available unit. Displaced tenants who are receiving Rental Assistance may have their subsidy transferred if the complex they move to is eligible for the Rental Assistance program.

Although Rural Development expects borrowers’ hazard insurance to cover damage costs associated with the disaster, we can consider temporary measures to reduce borrowers’ financial burdens and work with them, if needed, to develop a servicing workout plan.

To request loan servicing assistance, borrowers should contact Multi-Family Housing Specialists in their State Office. Other Links that highlight USDA Rural Development program assistance:

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/ usdahome?navtype=MS&navid=SAFETY http://www.disasterassistance.gov/daip_len.portal

Community Utility Assistance

Emergency Community Water Assistance Grants—Grants are designed for rural communities with a significant decline in quantity or quality of drinking water. The population must not exceed 10,000 and median household incomes of 100 percent of a State’s non-metropolitan median household income. Grants may be made for 100 percent of project costs. The maximum grant is $500,000 when a significant decline in quantity, imminent source shortage or quality of water occurred within 2 years, or $150,000 to make emergency repairs and replacement of facilities on existing systems.

Frm 00029

To apply, community leaders should contact Utilities Program Specialists in their State Office. [No Presidential or Secretarial declarations required.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Wagner.

General McMahon, would you please proceed with your testimony?

STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN R. MCMAHON,

COMMANDER, NORTHWESTERN DIVISION, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Mr. MCMAHON. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am Brigadier General John McMahon, the commander of the Northwestern Division of the Army Corps of Engineers, and I am very pleased to be here today to testify on the matter of emergency preparedness for natural disasters in Native communities, particularly as it relates to flooding.

As you know, 2011 has been an extremely challenging year for the Nation in terms of tornadoes, fires, and flooding across multiState areas. Along with other Federal agencies, Tribes, States, and numerous local entities, the Corps has undertaken a multitude of response activities to mitigate the risk to the public and its infrastructure.

The Corps has authority under Public Law 84–99 for emergency management activities. Under this authority, the Chief of Engineers is authorized to undertake activities including disaster preparedness, advanced measures, emergency operations such as flood response and post-flood response, rehabilitation of flood control works threatened or destroyed by flood, protection or repair of federally authorized shore protective works threatened or damaged by coastal storms, and provisions of emergency water due to drought or contaminated source.

Corps emergency assistance during a flood event is temporary in nature to meet the immediate threats and may only be undertaken to supplement non-Federal efforts. The assistance is to mitigate risk to life and public safety by providing protection of critical public infrastructure against flood waters. Therefore, the use of Public Law 84–99 precludes the protection of private residences and other developments unless such protection must be afforded to protect critical public facilities and infrastructure within that area. Under the law, Tribes and States must commit all available resources such as supplies, equipment, funds, and labor, as a general condition to receive Corps assistance. These Corps emergency efforts are not intended to provide permanent solutions to flood risks.

To request assistance from the Corps, the Tribe may come directly to the Corps with a request that includes a detailed assessment of the resources committed, the current actions in which the Tribe is engaged, and the type and description of assistance being requested, for example, technical or direct.

The Corps Flood Control and Coastal Emergency appropriation account funds preparedness for emergency response to natural disasters. Prior to spring flooding, flood packets are sent to Tribes in multiple Corps districts. These flood packets contain information on Corps authorities under Public Law 84–99, sample request letters, information on innovative flood fight equipment, a sandbag brochure, and other related flood fight information. Information is

Frm 00030             Sfmt 6601

also placed on the Corps’ public Internet site and a 24-hour emergency operations phone line is distributed.

Our district commanders, Tribal liaisons and emergency management staff personally meet with interested Tribes to discuss Corps authorities under Public Law 84–99, share lessons learned from previous flood events, conduct tabletop exercises, review sandbagging techniques, and strengthen the relationship between the Corps and the Tribes.

The Corps coordinates very closely with all Tribal Nations. The Corps has adopted and continues to reinforce a Tribal policy principle set consistent with the Department of Defense and the Department of the Army guidance. Fundamental to this Tribal policy is the Corps’ continued recognition of the sovereign status of Tribal governments, our obligation to consult on a government-to-government basis, and a commitment to fulfill our Nation’s trust responsibilities to Tribes in accordance with the Constitution, treaties, executive orders, statutes, and Supreme Court decisions that define that responsibility.

We continue to reach out to Tribes in as many venues as possible, including participation by Corps leadership in the annual National Conference of American Indians. Although Tribes can come directly to the Corps for assistance, close coordination also occurs with appropriate State emergency management offices. The Corps has also participated in national workshops held by Tribal assistance coordination groups which provide Federal, Tribal, State, and local agencies an opportunity to plan for natural disasters in Native American communities and to learn how to work with each other during a natural disaster and to learn about partner agency capabilities, resources, and responsibilities.

This year, 23 Tribes located within flood-prone areas in the Northwestern Division in both the Columbia and Missouri River basins were consulted with in preparation for the 2011 flood season. From February through July, the Corps responded to requests from 17 Tribal Nations across, again, the Columbia and Missouri River basins by providing over 300,000 sandbags, over 80 rolls of plastic, numerous one-ton sandbags, and numerous Crisafulli pumps to protect critical Tribal public infrastructure from the threat of flooding. The Corps is also engaged with numerous Federal, State, and Tribal agencies to coordinate its flood fight response.

These consultations resulted in multiple Tribes understanding the Corps’ capabilities and authorities, which further facilitated success with the ongoing flood fight. One example of the interagency coordination is in North Dakota, where the Corps was provided access to the Bureau of Indian Affairs communications network in an area with limited availability to help ensure reliable communications.

The Corps fully recognizes the Federal Government’s trust responsibilities to the Tribes. Tribal liaisons and other Corps staff have been and continue to be deployed in the field, working directly with Tribes to ensure that the Corps is fully aware of and understands the issues and concerns with regard to response to flooding response. The Corps will continue to engage Tribes in order to be responsive to the needs and requests for assistance, and as flooding

Frm 00031             Sfmt 6601

events occur response efforts are and continue to be a priority, and coordination will occur to the conclusion of such events.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing, and I would be pleased to answer questions of you or other Committee members. Thank you.

[ The prepared statement of General McMahon follows :]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN R. MCMAHON, COMMANDER, NORTHWESTERN DIVISION, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Introduction

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Brigadier General John R. McMahon, Commander of the Northwestern Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). I am pleased to be here today to testify on the matter of emergency preparedness for natural disasters in native communities, particularly as it relates to facing floods. The year 2011 has been an extremely challenging time for the nation, in terms of tornados and flooding across multi-state areas. Along with other federal agencies, Tribes, States and numerous local entities, the Corps has a multitude of response activities ongoing to best mitigate the public risk from these multiple and inordinate severe weather events.

In regards to response, the Corps has authority under Public Law (PL) 84–99, Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies (FCCE) (33 U.S.C. § 701n) (69 Stat. 186), for emergency management activities. Under PL 84–99, the Chief of Engineers, acting for the Secretary of the Army, is authorized to undertake activities including disaster preparedness, Advanced Measures, emergency operations (Flood Response and Post Flood Response), rehabilitation of flood control works threatened or destroyed by flood, protection or repair of federally authorized shore protective works threatened or damaged by coastal storm, and provisions of emergency water due to drought or contaminated source.

Response Activities

Corps emergency assistance under PL 84–99 during a flood event is temporary in nature to meet an immediate threat and may only be undertaken to supplement non-federal efforts. The assistance is to mitigate risk to life and public safety by providing protection to critical public infrastructure against flood waters. Therefore, the use of PL 84–99 precludes the protection of private residences or other developments unless such protection must be afforded to protect critical public facilities and infrastructure within the area. Tribes and States must commit all available resources such as supplies, equipment, funds and labor as a general condition to receive Corps assistance. Furthermore, Corps emergency efforts are not intended to provide permanent solutions to flood risks. Therefore, all flood fight material removed at the conclusion of a flood event is the responsibility of the respective Tribe or State.

To request assistance from the Corps, the Tribe may come directly to the Corps with a request that includes a detailed assessment of the resources committed, the current actions in which the Tribe is engaged, the type of assistance the Tribe is requesting (technical or direct), a point of contact, and specific details with regard to what the Tribe is exactly looking for in the way of assistance. Tribes may also request assistance from the Corps through appropriate state emergency operation centers.

Preparedness

The Flood Control and Coastal Emergency appropriation account funds preparedness with regard to emergency response to natural disasters, flood fighting and search-and-rescue operations, and rehabilitation of flood control and hurricane protection structures. Disaster preparedness activities include coordination, planning, training, and conducting response exercises with local, state, and federal agencies. Prior to spring flooding, flood packets are sent to Tribes in multiple Corps Districts. Flood packets contain information on Corps authorities under PL 84–99, sample request letters, information on innovative flood fight equipment, a sandbag brochure, and other related flood fight information. Information is also placed on the Corps’ public Internet site and a 24-hour emergency operations phone line is distributed. District Commanders, Tribal Liaisons, and Emergency Management staff personally meet with interested Tribes to discuss Corps authorities under PL 84–99, share les-

sons learned from previous flood events, conduct tabletop exercises, review sandbagging techniques, and strengthen the relationship between the Corps and the Tribes.

Coordination

The Corps coordinates very closely with all federal, Tribal, and state partners. Although Tribes can come directly to the Corps for assistance, close coordination also occurs with appropriate state emergency management offices. This year, the Corps used a joint information center to coordinate among all response agencies and transparently communicates to all affected parties to include Tribes. The Corps has also participated in national workshops held by the Tribal assistance coordination group which provides federal, Tribal, state, and local agencies an opportunity to plan for natural disasters in Native communities, to learn how to work with each other during a natural disaster in Native communities, and to learn about partner agency capabilities, resources, and responsibilities.

2011 Operations

This year, twenty-three Tribes located within flood prone areas of the Northwestern Division were visited to prepare for the upcoming flood season. From February through July, the Corps responded to requests from seventeen Tribal Nations located across the Columbia and Missouri river basins by providing over 300,000 sandbags, over eighty rolls of plastic, numerous one-ton sandbags, and utilizing Crisafulli pumps to protect critical Tribal infrastructure from flood threats. The Corps was also engaged with numerous federal, state, and Tribal agencies to coordinate its flood fight response. This resulted in multiple partners understanding the Corps’ capabilities and PL 84–99 authorities, which further helped in the sharing of information with Tribal leaders. Additionally, in North Dakota, the Corps was provided access to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)/Department of Interior) (DOI) communications network in an area with limited availability, to help ensure reliable communications. Staff attended and participated in multiple briefings with regional, state, and Tribal leadership, attended a variety of public meetings, and also reached out to Tribal members via Tribal talk radio.

Conclusion

Finally, I would like to emphasize that the Corps fully recognizes the Federal Government’s trust responsibilities to the Tribes. Tribal Liaisons and other Corps staff have been, and continue to be, deployed, working directly with Tribes to ensure that the Corps is fully aware of and understands the issues and concerns with regard to flooding events. The Corps will continue to engage Tribes in this manner to be responsive to needs and requests for assistance. As flooding events occur, coordination efforts are a priority and coordination will occur through to the conclusion of such events.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate having the opportunity to participate in this hearing. This concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or the Committee may have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, General McMahon. Now we ask Mr. Grinnell for your testimony.

STATEMENT OF RANDY GRINNELL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Mr. GRINNELL. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, good afternoon. My name is Randy Grinnell. I am the Deputy Director of the Indian Health Service. I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you today and discuss the important issue of emergency and disaster preparedness and response in Indian Country.

IHS plays a unique role within the Department of Health and Human Services to meet the special Federal trust responsibility of providing health care services and resources to the 565 federallyrecognized Tribes. This comprehensive program is provided through a system of IHS-operated, Tribally-operated, and urban-operated programs based on authorities founded in treaties, judicial determinations, and acts of Congress.

Frm 00033             Sfmt 6601

With its headquarters in Rockville, Maryland, IHS has 12 area offices that include over 600 IHS and Tribally-operated hospitals and ambulatory facilities, as well as 34 urban Indian health programs located in 36 States. Most of these are located on or near reservations and, along with the urban programs, they work in partnership with Tribes and Tribal leadership to provide patient care and public health services.

Tribal governance decisions determine the role and relationship that IHS has with each Tribe and how these programs are provided. Currently, 54 percent of the resources that IHS receives from Congress is now managed by Tribes, as evidenced by, in Alaska, 100 percent of the program is now managed by the Tribes and the Native corporations in Alaska.

IHS clinical and program staff have well-established, ongoing relationships with Tribes, Tribal organizations, and Tribal health programs. These relationships and program interactions between IHS and Tribal staff are invaluable during emergency responses to disasters. The need to plan and prepare for emergencies and disasters is a responsibility of Federal, State, local, and Tribal officials. IHS plays a support role in disaster preparedness, response, and recovery in Indian Country. We recognize how important that role is and our staff works to ensure the provision and continuity of health services to our patients and communities, regardless of conditions.

IHS is also committed to improving our technical assistance, communication and coordination with Tribal emergency preparedness and management programs, and those of our Federal partners. IHS medical, environmental health, engineering, and behavioral health staff frequently work with the Tribes and the health care facilities to plan and prepare for things such as floods, wildfires, tornadoes, and hurricanes.

In response to a disaster, IHS staff will help Tribes assist damage and needs, locate necessary support and resources, and serve as liaisons between Tribal emergency management leadership and other Federal partners. If a Federal emergency or disaster is declared, IHS then will assume the role of Tribal liaisons in support of HHS responses under the ESF–8 public health and medical services that contribute to a broader Federal response.

Each of our 12 area offices varies in staff capability and capacity. Some of the services at these area offices include medical care and medicines; medical logistics and patient transport; physical and environmental health safety; potable water and sewage system engineering; acquisition and operational support; food safety inspection; assessment of dwellings, structures, and infrastructure; addressing emotional and behavioral health needs, including suicide prevention and cluster response.

Although IHS’s primary role is not emergency and disaster preparedness, response and recovery planning and operations, events may result in a temporary deployment of IHS staff and resources between area offices and health care facilities. Regardless of the status of any Federal or State emergency declaration, IHS headquarters, area office, and local staff work to maintain good communication and coordination between Tribes and other resources. De-

Frm 00034             Sfmt 6601

partment of Human Health and Services and IHS also provide support during non-declared emergency.

IHS seeks to provide the best culturally acceptable health services to all federally recognized Tribes, while respecting their sovereignty and self-determination, and we remain committed to providing comprehensive health care services to Indian Country in response to emergencies and disasters. Finally, IHS is a willing partner to participate in forums to help improve this overall process.

This concludes my remarks and I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

[ The prepared statement of Mr. Grinnell follows :]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANDY GRINNELL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

Good afternoon. My name is Randy Grinnell, and I am the Deputy Director of the Indian Health Service (IHS). I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you today, and discuss the important issue of emergency and disaster preparedness and response in Indian Country.

The need to plan and prepare for naturally occurring and manmade emergencies and disasters is the responsibility of Federal, State, local and Tribal officials, as well as individual communities and families. Potential threats, risks, and response methodologies may vary across the country, but the core principles of having well integrated and coordinated preparedness, training, response, and recovery plans and programs in place before disaster strikes, is essential, regardless of where we live.

Compared to our Federal, State, local and Tribal partners, IHS has a relatively small and limited support role in emergency and disaster preparedness, response, and recovery in Indian Country. However, we recognize the importance of that role, and strive to ensure the provision and continuity of health services to American Indian and Alaskan Native (AI/AN) communities, regardless of conditions on the ground. IHS is committed to provide the delivery of these services, no matter the hazard or environment. Likewise, IHS is committed to improving our communication, integration, and coordination with Tribal emergency preparedness and management programs, and those of our Federal, State, local and non-government organization (NGO) partners.

I would like to provide a short overview of IHS special trust responsibilities to the Tribes, and our support role in emergency and disaster preparedness, response, and recovery.

IHS/Federal Special Trust Responsibilities

The IHS plays a unique role within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to meet the Federal special trust responsibility by providing health services and resources to the five-hundred-sixty-five (565) Federally recognized AI/ AN Tribes. IHS provides comprehensive health services to approximately 1.9 million AI/ANs through a system of IHS, Tribal, and Urban Indian (I/T/U) operated health service units and programs, based on authorities founded in treaties, judicial determinations, and Acts of Congress.

The mission of the Agency is to raise the physical, mental, social, and spiritual health of AI/ANs to the highest level, in partnership with the population we serve. The Agency aims to assure that comprehensive, culturally acceptable personal and public health services, including traditional medicine, are available and accessible to the service population. Our obligation is to promote healthy AI/AN people, communities, and cultures, and to honor the inherent sovereign rights of Tribes.

The IHS seeks to work in partnership with the Tribal communities it serves and, as such, IHS health care facilities and their administration includes Tribal representatives who closely participate, as key stakeholders, in the health services preparedness and delivery system. Current public laws, Federal policies, and individual Tribal governance decisions determine the role and relationship IHS has with each Tribe, and the corresponding level and methods of health services delivery, support, oversight, control, and resources IHS provides. These governing authorities often affect Federal-level support to Indian Country during emergencies and disasters.

Frm 00035             Sfmt 6621

IHS Organization and Capabilities

The IHS Headquarters (IHS–HQ) is located in Rockville, Maryland. The Agency has twelve (12) strategically located Area Offices across the United States, which includes IHS and Tribally operated hospitals and ambulatory health centers, as well as 34 Urban Indian health programs, located in thirty-six (36) states. The I/T/U health care system provides patient care and public health services within Indian reservations and communities, and has well-established ongoing partnerships with Tribal governments and programs. These daily interactions between the IHS and Tribal staff have proved to be invaluable during emergency responses to disasters.

Based on a number of variables, the IHS Area Offices vary in staff capabilities of essential health service, including: preventive, clinical, surgical, and trauma medicine; behavioral health; environmental and public health; facilities, water, and sanitation engineering; and, to a very limited extent, emergency and disaster management.

Provision of Health Services in Indian Country, in the Context of Emergency and Disaster Preparedness and Response

IHS and Tribally operated health care facilities are generally located on or near Tribal lands, along with the 34 Urban Indian health programs, to provide the most convenient and accessible health resources and services to local Tribal eligible populations. As emergencies and disasters occur in their respective areas, the health care programs will continue operations, often in highly stressed environments, for as long as they can sustain the operations-tempo, and for as long as it remains safe for staff and patients to work and receive care at the primary health care facility. Due to their location however, and depending on the scope of the emergency or disaster, these facilities and staff may be: quickly overwhelmed by the volume of patients seeking aid and assistance; understaffed during a disaster or emergency period; or often, forced to evacuate their primary facility with little or no notice and relocate health services and patients to alternate commercial or private care facilities away from the hazard, and generally outside of the I/T/U health services system.

For preparation of plans and training, and in preparation for and response to actual emergencies and disasters, IHS staff work with Tribal emergency management programs and provide essential technical advice, services, and on-scene support. IHS medical, environmental health, engineering, and behavioral health staff frequently work with the health care facilities and Tribes to help prepare for known seasonal and recurring events such as flooding, wildfires, tornados, and hurricanes. In the event of unforeseen emergencies and disasters, IHS staff may respond to help Tribes assess damage and needs, locate necessary support and resources, and serve as liaisons between Tribal emergency management leadership and teams, and other Federal partners responding to the incident. If a Federal emergency or disaster is declared, IHS staff will assume the role of Tribal liaison in support of the HHS led Emergency Support Function (ESF#8; Public Health and Medical Services) contributing to the broader Federal response.

Regardless of the status of a Federal declaration, IHS support to Tribes includes, but is not limited to the provision of: medical care and medicines; physical and environmental health safety; potable water and sewage system engineering, acquisition, and operational support; food safety inspection; assessment of dwellings, structures, and infrastructure; satisfying emotional and behavioral health needs, including suicide prevention and cluster response; and, medical logistics and patient transport. IHS staff also support the relocation of medical records and health services equipment to temporary or alternate facilities of opportunity outside the hazard areas. The primary purpose of the IHS is not to provide for emergency and disaster preparedness, response, or recovery planning and operations. However, surge events, may result in the temporary deployment of staffing and resources between Area Offices and local health care facilities.

Inherent in all aspects of the above discussions, and regardless of the status of any given State or Federal emergency or disaster declaration, IHS HQ, Area Offices, and I/T/U staff seek to maintain proactive communication and coordination with all appropriate Tribal, local, State and Federal partners to maximize assured integration, efficacy, and efficiency of plans and response.

Complexities Affecting Health Service, and Emergency and Disaster Support to Tribes

Under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), many Tribes across the country have assumed responsibility for health care delivery and emergency preparedness within their communities during emergency situations. IHS Area Office and HQs staff provide technical assistance and support, as appropriate.

Frm 00036

When an emergency or disaster does not receive a Stafford Act Presidential emergency or disaster declaration, Tribes may not independently request a Presidential emergency or disaster declaration. Rather, in such circumstances, Tribes would only be authorized to request support and resources from Federal, State, local, NGO and private sources. If there is a Presidential declaration, Tribes may become direct grantees.

It is important to note that Tribal leadership and emergency management program leaders may find governing statutes, policies, regulations, and procedures confusing, and have expressed their frustration at times during Tribal listening sessions with Federal departments and agencies. IHS also appreciates the attention this Committee has given to these expressed concerns by working with Tribes to better understand various policies and authorities in how they intersect or overlap.

Summary

In summary, IHS seeks to provide the best culturally acceptable health services to all Federally recognized Tribes, while respecting their sovereignty, and self-determination. IHS is committed to providing comprehensive health services to Indian Country in response to emergencies and disasters, whether Presidentially declared, or not. In addition, IHS will continually seek opportunities to improve our communication, integration, and coordination with all Federal, State, local, Tribal and NGO partners.

Finally, IHS participates in forums to review, discuss, and improve Federal-level coordination, resourcing, and response to Indian Country emergencies and disasters.

This concludes my remarks, and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Grinnell. Now we will take the testimony of Mr. Tombar.

STATEMENT OF FRED TOMBAR, SENIOR ADVISOR FOR DISASTER RECOVERY, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. TOMBAR. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, good afternoon. On behalf of Secretary Donovan, I would like to thank you for inviting HUD to provide comments today. My name is Fred Tombar, and I am a Senior Advisor for Disaster Recovery in the Office of the Secretary.

Let me first reaffirm HUD’s support for the government-to-government relations with federally organized Native American Tribes. HUD is committed to honoring this core principle in our work with American Indians and Alaska Natives.

As you stated, Mr. Chairman, one goal of this hearing is to set the stage for greater collaboration among Federal agencies and Tribes in preparing for and mitigating against natural disasters. To put this into perspective, I would like to first describe HUD’s programs for assisting Tribes that can be used to assist in disaster recovery.

The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996, as amended, or NAHASDA, provides formula-based housing block grant assistance for Indian Tribes or their Tribally designated housing entities. NAHASDA’s Indian Housing Block Grant, IHBG, program continues to be the largest single source of housing capital in Indian Country. From 1998 to 2011, over $9.4 billion has been allocated to Tribes for affordable housing.

Our Office of Native American Programs, or ONAP, also administers two very successful loan guaranty programs for Tribes. As a block grant, the IHBG program is flexible. HUD encourages and insists grant recipients to amend their Indian housing plans to redirect funds to mitigate damage when disasters occur. For example,

Frm 00037             Sfmt 6601

Tribes with damage from fires or floods could reprogram existing IHBG dollars to assist Indian families whose homes were damaged or destroyed. In addition, NAHASDA permits Tribes to submit proposals at any time of the year for model activities to serve residents of affordable housing. Under this authority, if approved, Tribes may carry out activities to mitigate the effects of disasters that would not otherwise be eligible for the program.

Another HUD program is the Indian Community Development Block Grant program that provides Federal aid for Indian Tribes and Alaska Native villages to develop viable Native American communities. Grants are awarded competitively to eligible Indian Tribes and Alaska Native villages to improve the housing stock, provide community facilities, make infrastructure improvements, fund micro-enterprises, and expand job opportunities. Over the last several years, approximately $65 million has been appropriated for this program annually. Grants are awarded to Tribes and qualified Tribal organizations pursuant to authorizing legislation. Singlepurpose grants are awarded competitively pursuant to an annual NOFA, or Notice of Fund Availability.

A key resource available to Tribes to address disasters is the imminent threat, or IT component of the ICDBG program. Over the last several years, Congress has set aside a portion of the ICDBG funds appropriated for emergencies that constitute imminent threats to health and safety. For this fiscal year, $3.3 million were available. These IT grants alleviate or remove threats to health and safety that require an immediate solution. IT requests are available on a first come, first served basis at any time after NOFA publication. HUD funds are available for all eligible requests until expended. Since fiscal year 2001, HUD has awarded 75 IT grants, totaling $25 million. Of those, eight were for Tribes resulting from presidentially declared disasters.

In addition, IT grants that specifically address emergency Tribes and Tribal organizations may also reprogram some of the existing single-purpose ICDBG funds to address emergency and other disaster situations. The ICDBG regulations allow a grantee to amend its single-purpose ICDBG to address the threats of public safety. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments today, and I am available for any questions.

[ The prepared statement of Mr. Tombar follows :]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRED TOMBAR, SENIOR ADVISOR FOR DISASTER RECOVERY,

OFFICE     OF                   THE                SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT      OF                   HOUSING     AND               URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Introduction

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, and Members of the Committee; good afternoon. On behalf of Secretary Shaun Donovan, I would like to thank you for inviting HUD to provide comments on the challenges facing Native communities and federal agencies in addressing emergency responses and preparedness for natural disasters.

My name is Fred Tombar, and I am Senior Advisor for Disaster Recovery in the Office of the Secretary. My comments today will focus primarily on the emergency preparedness and disaster mitigation actions taken by HUD’s Office of Native American Programs (ONAP). ONAP is located within the Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH).

PIH is responsible for the management, operation and oversight of HUD’s Native American and Native Hawaiian housing and community development programs. These programs are available to 565 federally recognized Indian Tribes and the

State of Hawaii’s Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. We serve these entities di-

Frm 00038

rectly, or through their Tribally designated housing entities (TDHE), by providing formula-based housing block grants and loan guarantees designed to support affordable housing and community development. Our partners are diverse; they are located on Indian reservations, in Alaska Native Villages, and on the Hawaiian Home Lands.

It is a pleasure to appear before you, and I would like to express my appreciation for your continuing efforts to improve the housing conditions of American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian peoples. From HUD’s perspective, much progress has been made. Tribes are taking advantage of new opportunities to improve the housing conditions of the Native American families residing in Indian Country. This momentum needs to be sustained as we continue to work together toward creating a better living environment in Native American communities.

Let me first reaffirm the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s support for government-to-government relations with federally recognized Native American Tribes. HUD is committed to honoring this core principle in our work with American Indians and Alaska Natives.

Purpose of the Hearing

One goal of this hearing is to set the stage for greater collaboration among federal agencies and Tribes in preparing for and mitigating natural disasters. I will begin with an overview of how HUD’s Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) has coordinated the mobilization of its Area ONAPs to respond to disasters, give some actual examples of how the Department has responded to recent and past natural disasters, and then provide a list of HUD’s Native American housing and community development programs that can be used to fund these efforts.

HUD/ONAP Coordination Efforts

ONAP Area Office Disaster Assistance (Tribal Special Assistance) Teams

In response to unprecedented flood damage on reservations in their jurisdiction, HUD’s Northern Plains Area ONAP, in conjunction with its HUD Region VIII Field Policy Management and Federal partners, took a proactive leadership role in bringing together resources and support for Tribes. The approach also addressed the Department’s Strategic Goal to Facilitate Disaster Preparedness, Recovery, and Resiliency. For the last several months, in anticipation of the severe flooding conditions that are now affecting the area, Northern Plains ONAP has hosted, facilitated, and participated in intra- and interagency meetings and conference calls to plan a coordinated response.

Northern Plains ONAP also reached out to the 32 federally recognized Indian Tribes located in that region to get updates on any flooding damage that occurred. As information and updates were obtained, it was shared internally with the other HUD program offices and HUD Field Policy Management leadership in the Department’s regional and field offices, as well as with our sister and partner federal agencies.

The recent flooding impacted 13 Tribes: six Tribes in Montana (Crow, Blackfeet, Fort Belknap, Fort Peck, Chippewa Cree and Northern Cheyenne), one in Nebraska (Omaha), four in North Dakota (Turtle Mountain, Fort Berthold, Standing Rock and Spirit Lake), and two Tribes in South Dakota (Sisseton and Yankton).

In addition to this year’s flooding events, there is ongoing flooding occurring at the Spirit Lake (formerly Devil’s Lake) Nation in North Dakota. Devil’s Lake and the surrounding bodies of water have been rising for approximately 17 years. Water in the Devil’s Lake Basin continues to rise because there is no outlet. A release of water from the basin would have a significant impact on neighboring agricultural areas, as well as for Canada. If released, the water would flow into Canada. Because of concerns regarding water quality, Canada is unwilling to accept an outflow from this water source.

In a coordinated effort, the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Department of Transportation (DOT), Indian Health Service (IHS), the Department of Agriculture (USDA), HUD, and several other state and federal agencies have been collaborating to assist the Tribe and area non-Tribal communities for years. ONAP, IHS, and USDA continue working together to cooperatively fund a lagoon to replace one that is in danger of flooding the community.

A Model for Coordinated Flood Mitigation: The Spirit Lake Long-Term Flood Recovery Plan

Although several Northern Plains Tribes are now experiencing flood damage, the North Dakota Spirit Lake Tribe has suffered flood damage to its communities for an extensive period of time. In December 2010, the Spirit Lake Recovery Plan was

Frm 00039

issued to provide focused cost- and time-efficient strategies to address the 17-plus years of flooding experienced by the Tribe. The Plan was generated as a part of FEMA’s Emergency Support Function 14 (ESF 14 Long-Term Community Recovery), and involves numerous Recovery Plan partners at the Tribal, federal, state, and local levels. Northern Plains ONAP staff traveled to Spirit Lake during September and December to assist in finalizing and ‘‘kicking off’’ the Recovery Plan implementation.

In March, the Northern Plains ONAP established a Tribal Special Assistance (TSA) Team to provide the highest level of focused technical assistance and funding to assist the Spirit Lake Tribe in addressing the goals identified in its Long-Term Recovery Plan generated as part of the FEMA ESF#14, developed to address flood damage resulting from rising lake levels at Spirit Lake.

The most pressing issue identified by the Tribe is the relocation of the sanitation lagoon at St. Michaels. Northern Plains ONAP provided intensive on-site and remote technical assistance to the Tribe, and was successful in obtaining approval for $900,000 in Indian Community Development Block Grant Imminent Threat funds to be used as ‘‘gap financing,’’ in conjunction with USDA and IHS funds, to relocate the lagoon.

The Northern Plains ONAP TSA Team and its partners are also working with the Tribe to address other priority goals in the Recovery Plan. For example, there is the need for the Tribe to hire an Economic Recovery Manager (using Economic Development Administration funds) to assist in coordinating recovery actions on the reservation.

Northern Plains ONAP and its Region VIII Federal partners (Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), United States Department of Agriculture—Rural Development (USDA–RD), Indian Health Service (IHS), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Department of Commerce-Economic Development Administration ( DOC– EDA)) are following up by partnering with the Tribe and state and local organizations to conduct an on-site Hazard Mitigation Assistance Implementation Training and Workshop at Spirit Lake. This will occur August 2–4, 2011. This will also provide a valuable opportunity for the ESF 14 federal partners to brief new Tribal political leadership and assist in orienting the new Spirit Lake Long-Term Community Recovery Manager, a new position created by the Tribe.

The HUD Region VIII Administrator traveled to Spirit Lake with his counterpart EPA Regional Administrator to view firsthand the flooding impact on the Tribal communities, and they provided leadership and support in our interagency partnerships to support the Tribe in accomplishing its disaster recovery goals.

The Spirit Lake Long-Term Recovery Plan will be used as a guide when assisting pother Tribal governments in disaster planning and recovery. Through regular communication with the Recovery Plan partners, the TSA Team collaborates to share information, and identify, access, and leverage funding needed to accomplish the Tribe’s goals. The TSA Team also locates and coordinates technical assistance resources to enhance the Tribal capacity to plan, implement strategies, and sustain its progress towardrecovery. The establishment of the TSA Team is a valuable resource that ONAP is in the process of replicating in each of its six Area Offices.

ESF 14—Additional Outreach and Coordination

In addition to support for the successful Tribal-specific ESF 14 partnership, Northern Plains ONAP has reached out to the national natural hazards academic and professional community to share information regarding the unique challenges, opportunities, and best practices of applying the ESF 14 principles to Indian Country. Last week, the Northern Plains ONAP Administrator was a joint presenter, along with representatives from Spirit Lake, Department of Commerce, and EPA at the 36th Annual Natural Hazards Research and Applications Workshop, hosted by the University of Colorado Natural Hazards Center. The panel, moderated by the FEMA National ESF 14 Coordinator, used the Spirit Lake Recovery Plan as a case study for illustrating best practices in using ESF 14 as a model for working with Tribal communities to address long-term disaster recovery.

EPA and FEMA Coordination

The Northern Plains ONAP has formed partnerships with several federal agencies, including EPA, USDA, BIA, Commerce, Army Corp of Engineers, and FEMA. Regular and ongoing communication occurs with the EPA Region VIII Tribal Liaison, and the EPA Region VIII ESF 14 coordinator. In addition, the Northern Plains ONAP participated in a planning and coordinating conference call with the FEMA Federal Coordinating Officer for South Dakota to share information and resources in support of Tribes impacted by floods in that state.

Frm 00040

HUD Coordination

The Northern Plains ONAP ensures that HUD Region VIII Field Policy Management and program office leadership are kept apprised of the latest information about Tribes impacted by floods and other disasters in their states. They hosted a Region VIII briefing session with the Regional Administrator and Program Directors to update them on flooding conditions, and to identify additional non-ONAP program resources that may be made available to assist Tribes. The Northern Plains ONAP also conducts conference calls with the HUD field office directors located in the seven states where our Tribal clients are located to update and coordinate recovery assistance efforts.

HUD Disaster Coordination Team

A Northern Plains ONAP employee is being deployed to a Disaster Recovery Center to provide individual assistance to families impacted by the floods in Minot, North Dakota. Although off-reservation, some of the affected families requiring assistance will be members of nearby federally recognized Tribes.

HUD Region VIII Field Policy Management has a Disaster Recovery Team, which includes Northern Plains ONAP staff, to provide immediate assistance to families displaced as a result of a disaster. Using flexibilities allowed under its existing authorities, HUD can provide waivers to facilitate the provision of temporary housing assistance. For example, it can provide housing authorities with additional time to submit tenant verification, flexibilities in assessments and cost limitations, and waivers to increase the flexibility of existing grant programs.

In addition to assisting disaster victims, the Region VIII Field Policy Management Disaster Team builds and coordinates cooperative relationships and promotes effective partnerships with federal, state, and local counterparts including Congressional staff, local and state authorities, and community-based organizations so that HUD’s disaster relief efforts are optimally coordinated. The team develops and implements strategy on emergency preparedness planning and training with internal and external stakeholders at the field level. Expert advice in evaluating HUD’s regional and field offices overall capability in responding to disasters is provided by the Disaster Team. The Disaster Team establishes a coordinated capacity within the operating environment that demonstrates HUD’s proper role and responsibility during disasters to ensure that available HUD programs and services are provided to victims. It also provides necessary embedded support and assistance to headquarters, regional, and field office management in order for the agency to respond effectively to disasters.

Tribal Outreach

The Northern Plains ONAP is in regular communication with all affected Tribes to provide technical assistance and obtain the latest information regarding the impact of disaster events on homes, families, infrastructure, and the Tribal communities as a whole. They provide this information to Headquarters each Thursday for inclusion in the Department’s Disaster Report to the Secretary.

Another Model: ONAP’s Response to Damage from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita

Five federally recognized Indian Tribes reported damage within their service areas due to Hurricanes Katrina (August 29, 2005) and Rita (September 24, 2005). Those Tribes are located in the service areas covered by two ONAP Area Offices; the Southern Plains Area ONAP located in Oklahoma City, and the Eastern Woodlands Area ONAP located in Chicago. The Chitimacha, Tunica-Biloxi, and the Alabama Coushatta Tribes are served by ONAP’s office in Oklahoma City, and the Poarch Band of Creek Indians and the Mississippi Band of Choctaws are served by the Chicago office. In response to the disasters, the two Area ONAPs contacted all affected Tribes on a regular and recurring basis to determine the extent of the damages in an effort to help coordinate a comprehensive and meaningful response. These efforts included providing technical assistance in preparing applications for financial assistance.

Hurricane-related damages at the five Tribes totaled $6,957,000. ONAP was able to provide $1,980,278 in assistance through the Imminent Threat provisions of the Indian Community Development Block Grant Program.

In May 2006, following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing conducted a survey of public housing agencies, Indian Tribes and Tribally designated housing entities to determine their level of preparedness for natural disasters and similar events. Included in the survey were questions designed to determine the level of related insurance coverage.

Twelve Tribes were used as a representative sampling. This sample size is small, but survey results are consistent with the perceptions of HUD staff. Survey results

Frm 00041

indicated that over 80 percent of Tribes had a disaster response/recovery plan, but less than half felt that they had sufficient resources to respond to a disaster situation. Half of the responders stated that wildfires, tornadoes, or flood-related disasters were not specifically identified in their current emergency preparedness plan. The survey indicated that all Tribes had property insurance based on replacement cost.

Native American Programs Available to Address Disasters

Indian Housing Block Grant Program

The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996, as amended, or NAHASDA, provides formula-based housing block grant assistance to Indian Tribes or their TDHEs. NAHASDA’s Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) program continues to be the largest single source of housing capital in Indian Country. From FY 1998 through FY 2011, over $9.4 billion has been allocated to Tribes for affordable housing. ONAP also administers two very successful loan guarantee programs for Tribes.

As a block grant, the IHBG program is flexible. HUD encourages and assists grant recipients to amend their Indian Housing Plans to redirect funds to mitigate damage when disasters occur.

Indian Community Development Block Grant Program

The Indian Community Development Block Grant (ICDBG) program provides federal aid for Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages to develop viable Native American communities. Grants are awarded competitively to eligible Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages to improve the housing stock, provide community facilities, make infrastructure improvements, fund micro-enterprises, and expand job opportunities.

Eligible activities include housing rehabilitation, acquisition of land for housing, and assistance for homeownership opportunities for low- and moderate-income persons, construction of single- or multi-use facilities, streets and public facilities, and economic development projects—especially those sponsored by nonprofit Tribal organizations or local development corporations.

The ICDBG program was authorized in Section 106(a)(1) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. Over the last several years, approximately $65 million has been appropriated for the program annually.

The purpose of the ICDBG program is the development of viable Indian and Alaska Native communities, including the creation of decent housing, suitable living environments, and economic opportunities primarily for persons with low- and moderate-incomes (defined as 80 percent of the area median).

Funds can be used for acquisition of real property, housing rehabilitation (and new construction in certain cases), public facilities, and infrastructure. Grants are awarded to Tribes and qualified Tribal organizations. Pursuant to the authorizing legislation, single-purpose grants are awarded competitively pursuant to an annual Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA).

ICDBG Imminent Threat Grants

A key resource available for Tribes to address disasters is the Imminent Threat (IT) component of the ICDBG program. Over the last several years, Congress has set-aside a portion of the ICDBG funds appropriated for emergencies that constitute imminent threats to health and safety. For fiscal year 2011, $3,301,080 was available. These IT grants are intended to alleviate or remove threats to health or safety that require an immediate solution. IT requests are available on a first come, first served basis. Applications may be submitted at any time after NOFA publication, and if the following criteria are met, the request may be funded until the amount set aside is expended. The IT request must include the following documentation:

•   Independent verification from a third party (i.e., Indian Health Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs) of the existence, immediacy, and urgency of the threat must be provided;

•   Evidence that the threat is not recurring in nature, i.e., it must represent a unique and unusual circumstance that has been clearly identified by the Tribe or village;

•   Evidence that the threat affects or impacts an entire service area and not solely an individual family or household; and

•   Documentation that funds are not available from other Tribal or federal sources to address the problem. The Tribe or village must verify that federal or local agencies that would normally provide assistance for such improvements have no funds available by providing a written statement to that effect. The Tribe or vil-

Frm 00042

lage must also verify in the form of a Tribal council resolution (or equivalent) that it has no available funds, including unobligated Indian Housing Block Grant funds, for this purpose. The NOFA includes a ceiling on IT grants. In the FY 2008 NOFA, for the first time, ONAP increased the IT grant ceiling for Presidentially-declared disasters to $900,000. That year and through the FY 2011  NOFA, the ceiling on other IT grants is $ 450,000.

Since FY 2001, and counting the IT grants awarded so far in FY 2011, 75 IT grants totaling $25,289,320 have been awarded. Of those, eight were made to Tribes resulting from Presidentially-declared disasters.

IT grants have been used for the following purposes: replace dry wells; relocate lagoons; address winter storm damage; repair failing sewage systems; upgrade water delivery systems; relocate homes and repair foundations; remediate mold; repair roads resulting from winter storm damage; and provide Hurricane Katrina relief.

In addition to IT grants that specifically address emergencies, Tribes and Tribal organizations may also reprogram some or all of their existing Single Purpose ICDBG funds to address emergency and/or disaster situations. The ICBDG regulations allow a grantee to amend its single purpose ICDBG to address imminent threats to health and safety.

Conclusion

This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Tombar, for your testimony.

At this time, we will take questions, and I am going to defer first to Committee members for their questions, so let me call on Senator Udall for his comments and questions.

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much, Chairman Akaka.

For all of the agencies, I want to try to get a sense of how well prepared you are in emergency situations. I think each of you mentioned, and, Mr. Tombar, you finished up with the comment about allocated money for emergency situations, and I am wondering when you have hit these kind of emergency situations, whether it is flooding or wildfires or hurricanes, tornadoes, whatever it is, how much of your budget is dedicated to emergency mitigation on an annual basis.

Do you tend to run out of funds on a regular basis, on a yearly basis, looking at that? And how often does that force you into diverting funds from other areas? And if you are headed down a road that I think some of you might be, is there a better way to approach this?

Mr. Black, why don’t we start with you down there? Anybody else that wants to answer.

Mr. BLACK. Okay, Senator, I would address that basically in two different program areas. When you talk about the wildland fire program, I think we are much better set up to deal with emergency situations there, largely because we have the programs, we have the infrastructure and we have the funding to deal with wildland fire. We also have the interagency coordination available to us.

Now, when we are dealing with non-fire incidents such floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and winter snowstorms, we are not nearly as well equipped. We don’t have those type of programs available to us; we don’t have funding specifically set aside to deal with emergency or non-fire emergency type situations. We have a limited number of staff available to us within the Indian Affairs programs. We have two emergency coordinators up at the central of-

Frm 00043

fice level. Collateral duty is how we handle it largely out at the regional and local level.

Mr. FUGATE. Well, Senator Udall, we do have a dedicated fund, it is called the Disaster Relief Fund. It is an annual appropriation that is based upon a level of disaster impact of historical precedents and also deals with outstanding disasters. Those funds are available under a Stafford Act declaration to provide, depending upon the level of impacts and the declaration itself, both programs for individual and family assistance, as well as recovery and expenses borne by the government dealing with that disaster. So those funds are designed to provide disaster response and recovery.

Under that fund we also have tasking authority to our Federal agencies, many of whom, depending upon what the needs could be, we actually, with the Corps of Engineers and others, when it is outside their authorities, have tasking authority from FEMA. An example, up in Minot, we are actually working a lot of issues where, through the Federal interagency, either through their own authorities or our tasking authority, we can get things done. But that fund is our annual appropriation that is based upon a level of disaster activity over about a five-year average.

Senator UDALL. Thank you.

Ms. Wagner?

Ms. WAGNER. Senator Udall, we have a specific account, Wildland Fire Suppression, that provides us the resources to take emergency action on suppression. The suppression account does the firefighting activity, as well as the Burned Area Emergency Response. You all know we have been in a situation at times in our past where we have not had the flexibility and we have actually transferred from different accounts to cover our fire suppression expenditures. The FLAME Act has certainly afforded us more flexibility; we appreciate that, thank you. We are working across the Nation on a cohesive wildland fire strategy with local, State, Tribal, Federal partners to make sure that we can always cover our response actions.

On presidential declared emergency disasters, the Technical Assistance Incident Management team structure and the like can be triggered when that is provided, and we provide assistance that way.

Mr. MCMAHON. Senator Udall, thank you for the question. With respect to how well prepared the agency is, I think probably the biggest constraint we face is in the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies Account, which is the appropriation through which response is funded. This account typically does not receive appropriations, so when a disaster occurs, we move money around, much like Mary just described, to accommodate the activities and response to the flood.

But I also think your question has another aspect to it, which is how well are our fellow citizens prepared. And I would argue that I think we are generally rather complacent and believe that it won’t happen to me, so we don’t always invest in insurance, as an example, or make evacuation plans or evacuation kits. It seems to me that a lot of emphasis should go there through whatever means so that people are prepared to, first and foremost, take care of themselves and their family.

Frm 00044

Thank you.

Mr. GRINNELL. Yes, Senator Udall, as far as response to disasters, Indian Health Service and Tribes, they have two key resources: their people, their staff, their medical staff, as well as funding that they are able to procure health care through the private sector. The Director also has a very limited emergency fund that is primarily used whenever there is a disaster that affects a health care facility or community, and those funds may be made available on a case-by-case basis.

We also have some funding that addresses water and wastewater facilities that usually are affected by disasters, and again that funding is limited. Also, Secretary Sebelius has at her disposal the Commission Corps of the Public Health Service. In disaster situations she can activate those and we can reach out and get additional assets to a particular location.

Mr. TOMBAR. People come to work at HUD because they care about housing people and developing communities, and post-disaster is when you see the best of HUD come to life. So in terms of the preparation of our staff, we are great there. The resources, while we do have, as I mentioned, about $3 million of an annual appropriation of $65 million that is set aside for imminent threats, unfortunately, as is the case this year, because there are so many needs to be met through disasters federally declared, presidentially declared or not, it often is insufficient to address the needs that are there.

Fortunately, Congress has provided the Secretary with some flexibility to provide waivers and meet the needs of some of these communities through other appropriations and other programs that we have, so we frequently work with Tribes and communities that are impacted to notify them of those flexibilities and make sure that, to the extent that they can, they act on those flexibilities and we provide the waivers that are requested.

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much.

I know we ran over a little bit. I apologize, Chairman Akaka and to the other Members of the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Udall.

Senator Murkowski.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the responses from each of the panelists on the previous question.

Administrator Fugate, I want to ask you just very briefly. When we were together before the Homeland Security Appropriation Committee several weeks back now, I brought up the flooding that had affected Crooked Creek and Red Devil, which are both Alaska Native villages in Western Alaska. The President had declared a disaster, as was requested by our governor, but the Individual Assistance program was denied, and we followed up with the State. They clearly believe that the magnitude of loss that was suffered there merited the Individual Assistance program.

But I understand that this situation is not unique, that we have many small communities that feel that perhaps they have been discriminated or the treatment is just not on a level playing field when it comes to the individual assistance, when they see the damage to these very isolated communities.

Frm 00045

So two questions to you, really, on this issue: Why do you figure individual assistance was not made available? And do you agree that we see a situation more often than not with our smaller, more rural communities, including some of our Alaska Native communities that are disadvantaged when it comes to FEMA providing the individual assistance?

Mr. FUGATE. Senator, the assistance is based upon impact to the State. And again, when you deal with small communities, those numbers oftentimes don’t show that it has overwhelmed the State’s capability. And I recognize many States do not have programs for individual assistance, but, again, it is based upon, as much as we look at these disasters, we oftentimes find ourselves saying this did not exceed the capability of the State and we do not issue a disaster declaration.

That never takes away from the impact to the homes and the people that were impacted, but it is a recognition that the Stafford Act was not designed to be the first line of provision of assistance for any level of disaster. So there are many disasters that occur in this Country that will not be declared by the President, or they may only be declared for one area or category.

But you do point out one of the challenges that we have, that in these reviews we do try to look at and factor in the unique case of the ruralness, the impacts to the communities, but it is judged based upon the way the Stafford Act directs us to, a statewide impact. So in small communities, rural communities, and coming from the State of Florida, where I have a lot of big cities, but I have some very rural counties, I saw many times, when you went and saw the damage, you are going this is really bad, but in context to the population of the State of Florida, it would not warrant the President declaring it.

Senator MURKOWSKI. It just seems like in so many situations you can read the writing before you have even made the application, that even though the consequence to that small village, that remote community is considerable, is devastating, that the way the system is built, that individual assistance just can’t be there, and your example of the Florida one is spot-on; it just causes me to wonder if we need to look at perhaps a different approach, a different model here.

I wanted to ask probably several of you, Mr. Black, Administrator, and probably you as well, Mr. Grinnell and Ms. Wagner, in terms of the encouragement to train and hire Alaska Natives, American Indians in these programs where we are responding to natural disasters, in Alaska many Alaska Natives up north in the interior are trained and quite competent in terms of their wildland firefighting.

But it seems to me that when we are talking about response to a natural disaster, particularly in more remote areas, you have a real good fit within many of your Native communities. It gives an opportunity for the Native people to travel to the disaster site, you work on the disaster, and it is not like you have folks coming from the city; you have individuals that are used to living out on the land and in some more difficult situations. Then when the disaster has been addressed, they are able to return to their community, return to a subsistence lifestyle.

Frm 00046

What is the priority that is placed on recruiting and training our first peoples for some of our emergency response teams? And I will let any of you start. Ms. Wagner, you are nodding affirmatively. Why don’t we let you begin?

Ms. WAGNER. You bet. In different places, in different regions and forests across the Country we have specific examples where there have been partnerships. I know with the economic recovery funding, a couple of Tribal examples where crews were actually put in place, given skills and training, and are continuing to work on forest restoration projects beyond the economic recovery funding. So it is something of keen interest to us. Tribal leaders and local line officers work often on how we can improve employment opportunities, skill development for crews that Tribes or BIA are staffing.

When it comes to how far and wide do we deploy resources to an emergency or an incident, we count on the interagency coordination system to basically resource those assets where they need to be. So a lot of times we don’t see Alaska Native crews travel down to the lower 48 unless it is a really extreme situation. I think there is opportunity for us to do more, and I would be willing to explore that with you further.

Senator MURKOWSKI. I would like to do that, because I do think it is important.

Mr. Black, Mr. Fugate, what are we doing either within FEMA?

Go ahead.

Mr. FUGATE. Well, very quickly, FEMA, again, we provide training. Over 300 of the Tribes have had folks at our training institute in Emmitsburg, as well as we have had workshops with institutes of higher education and work with those organizations for providing training opportunities.

As far as hiring goes, again, our issue has always been we are geographically based, but when we go into disasters and we are in a disaster area, we try to do local hires and hire people from the community. So it is really specific to when we are in those areas whether to bring in everybody from the outside. Our goal is generally about 10 percent of being able to hire people locally, bring them into the system because of their local knowledge. So that is really dependent upon where it occurs and our ability to hire for that disaster.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Black?

Mr. BLACK. Well, within Bureau of Indian Affairs, we actively recruit and employ Native Americans and Alaska Natives throughout all of our programs, including our fire and our law enforcement programs as well, which are largely our first responders and our emergency responding programs.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, I appreciate the comments and I think it is important, particularly coming from that small State up in the upper left-hand corner in the box, because to get resources to us, if we have had an earthquake and our airports are down, if we are isolated by the natural disaster, which is not too far from a real possibility, we have to rely on ourselves, so we need to know that we have had local people that have been trained.

So I would like to make sure that as we build on these conversations that I have had with the folks from FEMA, Mr. Fugate, and

Frm 00047

I appreciate you putting that meeting together, and, Ms. Wagner, what we can do with Forest Service, I think it is important that we really do try to emphasize that local hire and making sure that we have the individuals that are trained prior to the disaster hitting us.

Thank you.

I didn’t give you a chance to speak, Mr. Grinnell, because I saw that my time was well expired.

So I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski.

Now Senator Johanns, would you please proceed? You may make remarks as well as your questions.

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE JOHANNS, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA

Senator JOHANNS. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will pass on the remarks just so I can get to questions so I can get to my next meeting. All of us have to be two places at once.

Mr. Fugate, good to see you again. If I could maybe start with you. Doing some research for the hearing, I ran across a statistic, I think it is accurate, that 45 out of the total 565 federally recognized Tribes participate in the flood insurance program as a Tribe, which seems to me to be just an abysmal rate, not good at all. I would like to ask you two things about that. Number one, what do you think is driving that low participation rate? And, secondly, are there any efforts in place to try to boost that participation and are you seeing any signs of success?

Mr. FUGATE. I’m sorry, Senator, no success. I think the first issue is to challenge that. For a government to be eligible to have flood insurance, they must first adopt ordinances that require certain practices in building codes design that would reduce future risk. I think it is in the adoption of that model legislation that requires you not build in certain areas, you build certain ways to minimize that flood risk is the first hurdle, particularly for smaller Tribes in small geographical areas. But that is still a requirement to be able to then establish the flood insurance program.

The second part is too, I think, in many cases, that until flooding has taken place and they realize that it is not covered under the other programs, and it oftentimes is the best line of defense, it is something that we oftentimes find, after a flood, there is now interest in doing that. But again, it is a program that does require the Tribe to take the first steps to adopt the ordinances. And I would agree the scenario we have to continue to work on, but it, again, requires to be able to do the mapping.

As the Corps will point out, in many cases we also have to look at existing flood control structures and their effectiveness, and then provide them with base flood maps, as well as their ordinances, before we can begin to offer flood insurance. And it would still require individuals to purchase that flood insurance to provide that benefit, and for many folks that is a cost that they just, right now, aren’t able to take.

Senator JOHANNS. You know, you are describing a problem that there are probably some Tribes out there that can address it if they make it a priority, but there would be so many Tribes that could

Frm 00048

not; they do not have the resources, the staff, the capability. I mean, that is a fairly significant undertaking even for a fair sized community, much less a Tribe with limited resources and personnel. So if you were to give us a suggestion as to an approach, is there a legislative approach that we might employ, or are we just stuck here?

Mr. FUGATE. I don’t think we are stuck here, and I think it is a very good question and I would like to respond in writing. I think there are some things that we could look at. There may be streamlining of some of that process, but, again, because much of this is based upon the jurisdictions being mapped and adopting those ordinances, and then enforcing those ordinances, which means building codes, land use, and land zoning, it is not just merely we can turn the program on. There is some overhead that, depending upon what the Tribal government already has in place, it may be an incremental increase, it may be a hurdle that is so high that it is very difficult to be able to get to the point where they could be a flood insurance community.

Senator JOHANNS. It is not like you folks don’t have a few things on your agenda at the moment, but I really would request that you put some brain power behind this one because it seems like a problem that is intractable.

Mr. FUGATE. This will actually be a good case. We updated our Tribal policy, and one of the things we recognized is that in our general counsel’s office we had nobody who specialized in Tribal law, nation-to-nation relationships. So this would actually be a good question to ask them to go back and look at the national flood insurance program as it relates to nation-to-nation relationships, and the rules and regulations and what are applicable and what may be challenges, and what FEMA can do on our own.

So I think this would be a good test case for our Tribal counsel to really look at one specific program and get some answers back to you about what that looks like.

Senator JOHANNS. That would be great. Feel free to supply that to the Chairman and the Ranking Member and the entire Committee; I think we would all be interested in how to improve that situation.

General, I would be totally remiss if I didn’t say hello again. Although this is kind of a localized question, I would like you to just give me a quick update on how things are going on the Missouri River. Obviously, we are seeing a lot of flooding there. What is your current assessment of that situation?

Mr. MCMAHON. Very briefly, Senator, the good news is we are beginning to create space in the reservoir system, and that gives us more flexibility than in monitoring release rates through the system. Generally speaking, the historical levels of releases, especially out of Gavins, which is the last dam in the system, remain at 150,000 cubic feet per second, and that is causing continued innundation downstream.

I don’t think that situation is going to change much in terms of the innundation until we really turn down the spigot to about 40,000 cubic feet per second, which will take some time through the fall, and at that time the fields will drain back into the channel and we will begin the assessment process and the follow-up repair.

Frm 00049

Senator JOHANNS. So barring heavy rain, which can change everything very, very quickly, looks like still into the fall before we start to see the water recede.

Mr. MCMAHON. Yes, sir.

Senator JOHANNS. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Johanns.

I know Senator Udall has a few questions, and I will have my questions after you.

Senator UDALL. Okay. I just have a couple more questions here directed to Ms. Wagner and Mr. Black.

Your agencies continue to participate in the Burned Area Emergency Response, the BAER effort, for the Las Conchas and Pacheco fires in New Mexico. As you mentioned, there has been extensive work on and around Santa Clara Pueblo land, but also on other Tribal land, most predominantly Nambe Lake at the Nambe Pueblo and at Cochiti Pueblo’s lake, both of which are downstream of severely burned watersheds. And it is my understanding that these BAER Teams working in these areas are in the process of proposing actions and getting approval for funding.

Last week I sent letters to your agencies urging that the process of approval be expedited with adequate funding for the proposed actions. I know some emergency measures have already been put in place, but considering the impending monsoon season, I again urge you to lend immediate attention to the efforts proposed by the BAER Teams in New Mexico.

And my question is, will you work with your regional offices to ensure that the BAER Team process moves quickly for the Las Conchas and Pacheco fires? And can you describe if there are any barriers that are in place that would prevent us from moving fairly quickly on this?

Ms. WAGNER. I appreciate the question, Senator. On both Pacheco and Las Conchas, we have approved the BAER requests that have come into the national office. Regional offices have authority up to $500 million; the Washington office has an unlimited authority, so we have been providing some oversight for those requests. The most recent approval was done on July 19th for the Las Conchas second BAER request.

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much.

Mr. Black?

Mr. BLACK. Yes, sir. The latest report I got is the north BAER Team, which is the BIA, and we have the south BAER Team, which is the Forest Service and National Parks Service, the south BAER Team has completed their assessments, and their recommendations are being provided; the north BAER Team, which is BIA, will have their assessment completed this week, and those recommendations will be coming in.

As of now, we have already approved $500,000 for immediate ES actions on the Pueblos affected by Las Conchas and $100,000 for immediate action on the Nambe Pueblo to date. Then as soon as those recommendations, that is a high priority for us to get those things moved through.

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. As I know you all are aware, sometimes you see the fire and see what happens as a re-

Frm 00050

sult of the fire and it looks like a tremendous catastrophe, but sometimes the worst is the flooding afterwards, especially when you get intense heat of these crown fires that put the soil in a condition they can’t absorb water. So we really appreciate you putting your quick attention on this and moving it, recognizing that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am finished with my questioning.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Udall.

My question is to the entire panel. In all of your testimonies you acknowledge that Tribes are sovereign governments with a government-to-government relationship with the United States, and that the United States has a trust responsibility toward Tribes. However, you also are aware that Tribes must go through the governor of a State to be eligible for Federal assistance under the Stafford Act. In your opinion, do you think the Stafford Act should be amended to allow Tribes as governments to request a declaration of emergency from the President?

Let me start with Mr. Black.

Mr. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, in my visits with the Tribal leaders over the past couple months in dealing with a lot of the emergency situations we have had, that has been a desire that has been expressed to me through the Tribes. At this point, I haven’t had the chance to vet that through the Department, as far as getting a position for the Department. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fugate?

Mr. FUGATE. Mr. Chairman, in my listening sessions, that was heard numerous times from Tribal elders and members of the Tribal governments, the frustration that they would go through the governor. Again, we have done what we could under our rules and regulations as allowing Tribes self-determination to be the grantee once a declaration is issued, and we would be willing to work with the Committee on technical language if that is the desire. But at this point the Stafford Act is, again, a governor must make that request, and that is the process that we currently process our request for disaster declarations to the President.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Ms. Wagner?

Ms. WAGNER. Mr. Chairman, thank you to my FEMA colleague for that. I would defer to his thoughts about approaches in the future, and we would be happy to work with this Committee on expanding that authority.

The CHAIRMAN. General McMahon?

Mr. MCMAHON. Mr. Chairman, the Corps is not limited from direct contact and coordination and consultation with Tribes in an active flood fight. Under Public Law 84–99, we typically receive requests that I described in my opening statement, and respond accordingly within that authority in Public Law 84–99.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Grinnell?

Mr. GRINNELL. Yes, Mr. Chairman. In terms of our listening sessions with Tribal leaders that Dr. Roubideaux has convened over the last year, the issue has come up in terms of relationships of States with Tribes and their ability to access resources in times of emergencies. It continues to be an issue that is brought up by

Frm 00051

them. Specific to IHS and the Department of Health and Human Services, the Tribes, through law, have the ability to compact and contract and assume programs, and they have direct access to any of our programs and services directly.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tombar.

Mr. TOMBAR. Mr. Chairman, I will actually defer to Administrator Fugate on this, as FEMA is the lead agency governed by the Stafford Act. But I will say that for HUD’s programs and our relationships that are directly with the Tribes, we find that that relationship works best in terms of working with the Tribes to determine what their needs are and being able to provide resources to fund those needs.

The CHAIRMAN. Here is another question for the entire panel. Is your agency part of an interagency task force or working group that brings Federal agencies together to collaborate and coordinate on Tribal policies and programs? If not, do you think such a task force would assist your agency in responding to natural disasters in Native communities?

Mr. Black?

Mr. BLACK. Thank you. We do participate in the National Interagency Fire Working Groups and those type of activities. Related to non-fire emergencies, the Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Services within Indian Affairs is working to establish a Tribal Assistance Coordination Group. It is more informal right now. Formalization of such a group would largely help the Tribes to reach some type of a one-stop shop activity and provide a unified process for the Tribes to go to to access materials and information regarding how they can access different funds and resources and stuff related to emergency situations. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Fugate.

Mr. FUGATE. Mr. Chairman, Department of Homeland Security and Secretary Napolitano obviously has a much greater portfolio than just a disaster response, so everything from borders to immigration to law enforcement issues are areas that we have liaisons within the Department that we work across the interagency with these issues. Again, when it comes to disasters, our interagency activities are based upon the form of government that is essentially a State-centric approach in working with our agencies, and we oftentimes find ourselves having to do extra effort when it comes to the issues that we run into in trying to address the sovereignty of the Tribes.

Again, when a disaster is declared, many of those mechanisms are in place, but outside of a Stafford Act declaration there is limited formal coordination because we don’t have the ability to provide assistance or direct assistance. Outside of that, in the area of grants and other programs under the Homeland Security Act as amended by the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, we are not limited in those programs that are not tied to the Stafford Act, so we continue to work through the various agencies and interagency on preparedness issue. But I agree there could be further improvement.

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Wagner?

Frm 00052

Ms. WAGNER. We also participate in the National Wildland Fire Coordinating Group, so we have a national interagency environment where we can work together, and that is replicated in geographic areas across the Country, so it is a real strength when it comes to fire response and burned area emergency response. Programs within USDA, there are resources that have been put together and are available across all USDA agencies that are available to Tribes, a guide to USDA programs, but modeling that across the Federal sector would also benefit.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. General?

Mr. MCMAHON. Mr. Chairman, in answer to the first part of your question about whether or not the agency is part of an interagency task force to collaborate on Tribal policy and programs, I am not aware of any of which the Corps or the Department of the Army is a part. However, in an active flood fight, such as that going on in the Missouri River Basin, we have very robust coordination with FEMA, with the Bureau of Reclamation and other Federal agencies as we work together to respond. We have been conducting a daily 5:00 Central standard time stakeholder call through this event that began in late May, and we have not only the Federal partners on there, but State Departments of Transportation, the NRC, another Federal commission, is present there, and we work together to coordinate our activities and response to the flood fight.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Grinnell?

Mr. GRINNELL. Indian Health Service is part of HHS. Emergency preparedness is not actually a primary focus of the health care delivery system, either directly managed by us or by Tribes. However, because our programs are at the community level, we are typically working hand-in-hand with Tribes from the very beginning, even before a disaster, during a disaster and after a disaster, and I think that that is an important asset that we bring to a disaster situation. We are very open to participating and we would love to be there because even after things happen we are still going to be there providing health care and working directly with those Tribes.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Tombar?

Mr. TOMBAR. Yes, Mr. Chairman. HUD’s role is to develop communities, and we cannot do that alone, and we recognize that it takes a community effort, and that starts first with the Federal community. Secretary Donovan has been a huge proponent of collaboration across the Federal agencies around the issues of community development. That is certainly seen in a disaster recovery context, so we have, in response to this year’s many floods and other disaster events that have happened, worked with many other Federal agencies, including some of the folks here, Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, EPA, USDA, and others, to respond to the needs of Tribes and work with them collaboratively to address those needs.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

I am going to now ask Senator Hoeven whether you have any questions to this panel.

Senator HOEVEN. I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Frm 00053

I would like to focus, if I could, for just a few minutes on flood response. On our reservations, as well as off reservation, we have had flooding across the State. It has been everything from the Red River, the James River, the Cheyenne River, the Missouri River, Souris River, Little Yellowstone, and I might be missing some, but we had just an incredible amount of flooding and that persists.

So if I could start with Director Fugate, again, thank you for the disaster declarations that we have received that have triggered both public assistance and, in some cases, individual assistance as well. Let me start on the public assistance piece, which really goes to everything; it is schools, any public infrastructure, but very often roads are a real issue, and then being proactive on roads.

If you could kind of detail for me for just a minute the assistance that you can provide on roads both to get them back up to a level where we don’t have recurring flood problems, to the extent possible, and also proactive, where, in cases like Spirit Lake Nation, where you have this flooding continuing to rise because of the continued rise of Devils Lake, what we can do proactively so that people have access to their homes and farmsteads.

And I am going to ask the same question to General McMahon as well.

Mr. FUGATE. Senator, in this case you have some very specific questions that, from Washington, D.C., I couldn’t comment directly on which roads, but in general roads that are the responsibility of the government of jurisdiction, whether it is Tribal or State or political subdivisions, that are not Federal aid highways because of non-duplication of Federal benefits, if they are damaged by the event, would be eligible under public assistance for repairs, bringing them back up to a state based upon prior conditions, intended purpose. Obviously, we don’t take unpaved roads to a paved status in those repairs.

The other part of that is looking at mitigation, and mitigation is based upon can we reduce future damages, but also with the caveat it has to reach a reasonable cost-benefit. We are not going to spend $10 million to repair a $100,000 road. So we have to also look at the cost-benefit.

It is not always practical, nor is it cost-effective, merely to restore access back to areas that have long-term flood impacts. So, again, we look at this case-by-case. But, in general, roads that are not funded by another Federal agency, that are the responsibility of the jurisdiction, whether it is a Tribal government, local or State government, would be eligible for repairs if the damage was caused by the event, and there are mitigation dollars available to provide improvements to reduce future impacts, but they all must go through the cost-benefit analysis and, again, that is something that our Federal coordinating officer working with the State is in a much better position to look