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/daiplen.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
