![]() |
U.S. Department of Defense Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) News Transcript |
Presenter: Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lt. Gen. Carl Strock | Thursday, September 15, 2005 |
GEN. STROCK: Good morning. What I'd like to do here today is about three things: first, to review the role of the Corps of Engineers in responding to natural disasters in general and then specifically what we're doing here in response to Katrina. I'd like to talk a bit about how those various missions are unfolding. And I'd like to spend a bit of time on the dewatering mission, the unwatering mission of New Orleans, which I know everyone's interested in and also on the navigation -- the state of navigation across the coast of the Gulf there, a very, very important part of what the Corps does.
Well, to begin with, we respond really in three ways here. First of all, we respond as part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. We also respond as part of the Department of Defense in support of military response that goes in. And finally, we have our own inherent mission responsibilities which have to do with flood control and navigation, principally, in the area there.
So to work through each one of those sequentially, in support of FEMA, we are Emergency Support Function 3, one of 15 Emergency Support Functions that comes together, actually, prior to and during a disaster. Under the National Response Plan -- which is a revision of the old Federal Response Plan which used to only cover natural disasters with the inclusion of FEMA in the Department of Homeland Security -- that response plan has now been broadened to include response of terrorist attacks. And the name of that plan is the National Response Plan. Our role is to remain essentially the same. Regardless of the cause of the catastrophe, the consequences are always the same where the Corps of Engineers is concerned. We have displaced people in need of food and water and shelter and that sort of thing. And so we respond regardless of the cause of the catastrophe.
Under Emergency Support Function 3, we have a number of missions. We have the mission to provide ice, water and temporary power. We also provide temporary roofing and debris removal. And normally, we have the temporary housing mission, but because of the size of the mission in this case, FEMA has elected to stand up a task force called the Housing Area Command, and that's under the specific, direct control of FEMA. We'll continue to support that with technical expertise and execution, but FEMA is actually handling the temporary housing mission now.
Each of these missions is performed by groups of Corps of Engineers employees who are trained and ready prior to the advent of a disaster and know that when they -- when the disaster occurs, they will be called in to respond. We have them standing in various stages of readiness. So for example, we know that a team in
We also know that where a disaster occurs, we have a district, and typically that district can be a victim of the disaster as well. So we flow in people from around the Corps of Engineers to respond to a specific location.
In the case of
We also provide technical assistance, things like structural surveys and that sort of thing, on an as-needed basis. Of particular interest in this disaster has been the impact on water and sewage treatment plants across the impacted area, and the Corps of Engineers will go in and provide advice and assistance in bringing those systems back into operation.
We also have a very visible mission in the unwatering of the city, and I'll talk to you at length about that later on.
Let me just explain very quickly -- if I have the first slide up here, please -- our missions going into the disaster. We have what are called pre-scripted missions. We have standing contracts with certain contractors -- ice, water and temporary power. And prior to landfall, we actually move these capabilities forward.
We have two major mobilization sites: at Barksdale Air Force Base and at Craig Field --
Q General, I'm sorry.
GEN. STROCK: I'm sorry.
Q You're supposed to be near the microphone, sir.
GEN. STROCK: I understand that mikes were catching me -- hooked on --
Q Oh, I see. All right. Thanks.
GEN. STROCK: Okay. Okay.
Q Sorry.
GEN. STROCK: Barksdale Air Force Base and Craig Field, our mobilization sites. We select these sites that are hopefully outside of the impacted area, so we can begin staging commodities there. So ice and water were moved into there several days before landfall.
From there, we have operational support areas that are throughout the disaster area, where we -- and flow the commodities when they're needed. And that's the way the system normally works and did work, in fact, in Katrina.
We also provide levels of leadership, command and control and so forth, as we man various operations centers in preparation for landfall.
Next, please.
Let me shift now to what we're doing for our own inherent Corps of Engineers missions. We are responsible for maintaining navigation in federal channels and harbors. The two big factors there are the Gulf Intercoastal Waterway, which runs from
We were able to open that for the most part, except for in the inner harbor here in downtown
The other very important artery here is the
Keep in mind,
The Mississippi Gulf Outlet is a 36-foot channel that receives some shoaling. It's open to 22 feet now. And then we have various ports along the
A very import port down here is Port Fourchon, which supports the offshore oil industry. We have that port operational with some restrictions, but that has been a critical effort to make sure that port was up and operating.
In addition to our navigation mission, under Public Law 8499, the Corps of Engineers can operate as an independent agency. And what we will do is go and conduct surveys of all the structures in the area, both navigation and flood control, and then begin to make repairs on those. So we're working under those authorities with the local parishes to repair the levee systems that were damaged during the event.
Now let me turn to the unwatering, which I know is of great interest right now.
May I have the next slide?
What you see here on this slide in the pink-shaded areas is the extent of flooding that we had immediately following the overtopping and breaching of the levees. In the blue is the current status of the drainage. So the blue are those places which still have water on them that we're not prepared to give access to.
We're having very good success, and just yesterday afternoon, we adjusted our estimated timeline on when we would have these areas dewatered. And you can see here in the
The same thing down here on the
Most of these pump stations rely on gravity-fed canals to get the water to them, and in a couple of cases they will pump water to other pump stations for discharge into the lake.
One of the questions that we are dealing with now is the status of the levees. It's a very important question for two reasons. Number one, we want to make sure that if there are weakened portions of the levee or there are breaches that we haven't identified yet, we know about those. Because as the decisions are made to move back in to these parishes, we need to understand the level of vulnerability that our citizens have moving back in. So we've got a very intense effort going out to assess the condition of the levee systems and put in repairs where it makes sense.
The other thing, of course, is we're looking down range a little bit and we realized when we get through our response and the initial stages of recovery, we've really got to understand exactly what occurred here. So part of our project condition survey is to capture the conditions as the water recedes so we can do the analysis later on to ensure we have the right engineering and we're doing the right steps to protect the people in the future.
So that's it. It's a sort of a forensic aspect of the effort now, principally for operational and safety purposes, but also so we can go back and understand what happened. And that's an ongoing effort.
As we do that, we are identifying some breaches in levees we did not see initially. Our attention was really drawn to
This is
There is concern over the quality of the water that is being moved into
And also, really, it's the locals as well. The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality is involved in that, and the local parish officials are right there with us trying to understand this.
There will be unavoidable ecological impacts from Katrina as a result of moving this water. We don't have those quantified yet, but a big part of what we're doing now is gathering data so we can try to understand what we have done and then how to mitigate it in the future.
I think that's probably about it as far as the water quality is concerned. I might add that so far we -- we do not see alarming rates of -- alarming water quality concerns here. We do have some elevated levels that we're concerned about. For example, dissolved oxygen levels, we are exceeding the minimums for those in some cases, but we are taking measures to correct that by installing aerators on pumps so that we can put more in as we -- as we discover that's an issue. We're also floating booms, absorbent booms, across the intakes of the pumps and across the discharges of the pumps to try to catch as much of the pollutants as we can as the water is discharged.
So in summary, we have a pretty good plan here, I think. And every day it gets a little more focused in terms of our ability to predict how well we're doing and what the consequences will be in the long term. We are turning now, though, to reconstitution of our
I can tell you this - for Ophelia, we watched that very closely. FEMA stood up the command and control centers. We prepositioned ice, water and other commodities along I-95 ready to respond, if necessary. And fortunately, the eye of the storm has not made landfall yet. But we are prepared to respond to Ophelia, should that storm develop in a more significant fashion.
With that, I will be happy to take any questions you have about anything I've covered or about anything in general that the Corps of Engineers is involved in.
You know, before I go there, let me, again, emphasize that while I am the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as -- I'm a soldier -- 34,000 people in the Corps of Engineers, most of them are civilians. We only have about 600 soldiers in the Corps, half of whom are in 249th Prime Power Battalion, which provides emergency power generation.
But when you talk about the Corps of Engineers, it's not soldiers out on the ground there. It's civilian public servants that come from all over the country to respond in this way.
And we do respond through FEMA. So when we're talking about the unwatering plan of New Orleans, that is a FEMA operation that is conducted by the Corps in conjunction with the local parishes and with private industry to get that done. I want to underscore that, that we are part of FEMA in most of the work we're doing here.
Yes, sir?
Q General, a couple of questions, one now and one more to the future. Number one, you speak of other levee breaks. Have those been repaired?
GEN. STROCK: Sir, not all of them. What we're doing is a risk analysis and determining where to focus our attention. The ones in Plaquemines Parish are being repaired now. Certainly the ones that we've been focused on here in the city of
Q So water is no longer flowing into
GEN. STROCK: No, no water is currently flowing to
Q And more to the future, there's obviously been a decision to rebuild
GEN. STROCK: Sir, there's a ballpark figure out there. We have been doing a study of what it would take to provide Category 4 and 5 protection to the city. That study has been going -- ongoing since about 1999. And without getting into the esoterics of how we do these things, we have completed the reconnaissance phase of that study, and that looks at the general engineering feasibility, the economic justification and the potential environmental implications, and also whether there's a federal interest, because we do these projects with a local sponsor who pays part of the cost of these projects.
The results of that reconnaissance study indicate that there is a federal interest and that we think we should move into the next formal stage of the study, which is going into the actual engineering, economics and environmental aspects of this in a deliberate way. So we're right at that tipping point of going into the deliberate study. And the ballpark that I think I recall was about $2.5 billion to raise to [Category] 4 and 5, but if I've got that wrong, I'll correct that. But it's something along that order. Now, with this storm, the approach we take may change, and it may be a more costly activity than that, but I think it's something along those lines that we talked about.
Q Well, how long could that take, sir?
GEN. STROCK: Well, the study could take actually -- just the study itself could take years, and the actual implementation of the study could take many more years. Just to put this in context, the current hurricane protection system around
When you build a levee, you have to understand that the soils in the area -- and in the area of
Q Thank you.
Q General --
GEN. STROCK: Yes, sir?
Q One of the challenges you faced with this storm was repairing the levee under extremely difficult conditions with the massive flooding that's taken place. We were told that part of the problem was the -- just the logistics of getting things there, assessing what was going on. I know this is a once in a 200-year or 100-year event, but if it were to happen again, what could you do in terms of -- what have you considered about the challenge of emergency levee repair in the midst of a disaster? Is there any consideration of prepositioning more helicopters, doing more of these massive sandbags, and having them ready to go, since that, apparently, turned out to be the most effective way of affecting emergency repairs? What are you thinking about in terms of the next time, how you might be able to accomplish that even quicker than you were able to do this?
GEN. STROCK: Well, clearly, we need to learn from this experience that the fundamental approach to flood fighting, it deals with exactly that approach. We preposition the materials that we think we'll need in a flood fight, and this is a flood fight. So we position sandbags, generators, plastic screens -- all the things you need to stop small problems before they become big problems, and that's essentially what happened here.
The challenge in
Q Well, but could you or should you have had, in retrospect, perhaps, more helicopters, more sandbags all ready -- of the giant 3,000-pound sandbags ready to go so that you could have moved maybe a few days earlier than you were able to?
GEN. STROCK: Could we or should we? In retrospect, I would say -- in retrospect I would say yes, we could have, we should have in anticipation of this. It should have been part of the overall response plan, recognize the city would be evacuated. In fact, it may have been. There's a plan, and then there's the execution of that plan, and I'm not sure about that specific detail. There was a plan to evacuate the city. That may have been a component of the plan, but I'm not sure if it was or not. But it clearly should be.
Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Q Yes. General, can you talk a bit about the east flank of Bernard parish levee right now, which, I guess, that -- that levee is really seriously damaged. Some of your engineers have been saying that it could be months and months, well beyond the two months that are remaining in the hurricane season, before that can be repaired. And in relation to that, what risks are there in these last couple of months of the hurricane season to the city of
GEN. STROCK: Well, that's what we're trying to figure out right now. I can't give you specifics on that particular east bank levee. I've seen some rather extensive writings about it, but I haven't seen summaries which would be able to give me -- able for me to give you a short answer to that. That's one of the most important elements of whether to move people back in. I think clearly the city would like to allow people to certainly access it on a temporary basis to retrieve belongings and that sort of thing. But the long-term reoccupation of areas will be founded on those kinds of analyses. And that's what we're doing right now. We recognize the urgency of doing that. I don't have a specific answer on level of protection afforded by the levees today. But we're working very hard to do that.
Q Would you -- would you say you're worried -- I mean, are you worried about even a mild storm, not even a hurricane, just a tropical storm coming into that area?
GEN. STROCK: If people -- if people were still in the city, of course I'd be worried about it. But the fact is that we have evacuated the city except for very small numbers of people. And so -- and we would see those hurricanes coming. There's certainly not going to be a hurricane that's going to hit
Q Statistically, how much of a risk is that? And is that a one-in-a-million, one-in-a-billion, is that --
GEN. STROCK: Of another storm of this magnitude?
Q Or any magnitude. Of a mild storm, even.
GEN. STROCK: Of a less than Category 4? You know, I don't know. That's up to the weather service. We rely on them to do the statistical analysis. And once they give us the predicted frequency and intensity of storms, we use those as design parameters to design protection systems.
Yes, sir.
Q One of the things that's happening right now, the city is bringing their water system back up. The Claiborne plant is up and running, but they're finding high lead levels. Do you have any idea what is causing that, how they can prevent it, and is this having a similar impact to like the outlying parishes,
GEN. STROCK: No, I mean that's really a question for the EPA, but as I work with the EPA, the toxic concerns we have, the heavy metals that we're seeing in the water are lead and chromium, but it's the analysis of the EPA that that was probably the residual chemicals in the soil of the city anyway and that's not due to some spill or exposure from an artificial source. Beyond that, I couldn't comment. So it may be as we're flushing the systems that those levels of lead that are in the storm waters will just take some time to get through the system. But don't know the answer -- right answer to that question.
Yes, ma'am?
Q General, can you estimate or give us a ballpark on how much money the Corps has spent to date on the repairs and the work in the city, and about how much more, including private contracts that you've brought on?
GEN. STROCK: Yeah, I can a little bit. First of all, under the supplemental appropriation, we have been -- we have set aside $400 million; $200 million to do the flood control and emergency response and rebuilding levees, and another $200 million to do the operation and maintenance that's necessary for things like the Gulf Intercoastal Waterway. So about $400 million has been made available to us through the supplemental account.
In terms of actual dollars spent, we have spent so far about $440 million in response to this disaster. A very large part of that has been the commodities we procured for ice and water. That amounts to about $270 million. One of the very important aspects of this is how we utilize small business and local contractors in the response and recovery, and so far, of that $440 million, over -- about 320 [million dollars] has gone to small businesses, and many of those are local businesses, to respond. I'm sorry, let me back up. Not local businesses, because it's the ice and water guys that spent most of that. But we're very carefully considering opportunities for small business and local business.
We are in the process now of awarding larger contracts, so over time, those numbers would change. I would expect that certainly over time, much more large business will be involved than small. Our agency has, targets, about 40 percent to small business. So when you're talking billions of dollars, that's quite a bit of opportunity for them, and it's very important in this response.
But that's where we are now. This afternoon we will announce the award of four very large debris contracts at $500 million each, and that will really get into the business of our largest anticipated mission of debris removal across the entire area. Our model showed us early on we could expect about, oh, 50 to 70 million cubic yards of debris, and right now we've adjusted those quantities considerably downward, to about 27 million cubic yards. It's still a lot of debris when you look at Andrew, which had 17 million and took nine months to clean up. But debris, I think, will be the largest cost in terms of the Corps of Engineers mission to recover from this disaster.
Yes?
Q Speaking of contracting, your agency -- you know, you've gotten in trouble in the past about sole-source contracts on an emergency basis. What steps are you taking this time to make sure you're insulated from that criticism by way of competition? And, you know, this $1.5 billion you're going to be announcing today, these are all competitive I take it, but what steps did you go through?
GEN. STROCK: Well, they are competitive. We have the Federal Acquisition Regulation, which we must follow. And part of using that is somewhat in conflict with our interest in using small and local, because when you acquire federal contracts, it must be full and open and available to anybody who can comply.
What we have done, though, is we have put contract clauses that permit and encourage the contractors to use small and local business. The Stafford Act, the Emergency Response Act, allows us to put that clause into that contract.
So we will have them report. If we get a large business that wins the contract, they must report to us -- first of all, part of the competition selection was based on a small and local acquisition process. Within seven days, they have to show us what they're actually doing, and then they have to report to us on a weekly basis, I believe, for the first 90 days of the contract, how they're doing. We have the option to turn that contract off if we're not satisfied with the level of local engagement. The local authorities also have the opportunity to contract on their own for debris removal. And we work that directly between FEMA and the local authorities about how much to do that. So as time goes on and we get away from the emergency situation, we'll look at more tailored solutions that bring more local and small business in.
Now, how am I ensuring we don't do sole-source? Well, I don't see a need to do any sole-source from this time forward. We had some emergency responses that we had to fulfill early on right in downtown
We have done a couple of letter contracts. We did a letter contract with a firm called Beau Brothers that did the actual levee repairs on
Just to let you know how important this is to me, I carry around spreadsheets that show all of the contracts and all of the task orders, whether they are full and open, whether it's large business or small business. So I'm personally engaged in making sure that we do this in the right way. And as I look at this -- (flips through spreadsheet pages) -- that's all full and open, that's all full and open. We have some prepositioned contracts there. These are all full and open, all full and open. A small-business set-aside there. I'm getting to where you're trying to get to here. Sole source. We do have some sole-source contracts. Just to give you an example of that, we rented a five-ton service for 30 days from a firm in
Q One quick follow-up. How much money has FEMA roughly allocated to the Corps to manage and put on contracts over the next year, or whatever? You've got $1.5 billion coming out to you. Is that pretty much the
GEN. STROCK: We would -- I think some of the missions will grow. Right now, we have a total capacity of $2.8 billion of work, of that, $2.5 billion is for debris. That's the amount FEMA has set aside for us to use, and we may use more or less than that. We may use less because if counties decide to go in alone, then the Corps won't do that. That funding will go directly to the county to reimburse them for their activities.
So some of these areas could grow. In the area of technical assistance, we're seeing some growth in some of those. We were just turned on to go do some schools down in
Q But the 1.5 you're going to announce today is part of that 2.8. It's not on top.
GEN. STROCK: No. That's part of that. That is how we would execute that 2.8.
Yes, sir?
MR. WHITMAN: We've got time for about one more, if you've got one.
Q General, do you have an idea of what they'll be doing debris moving? Just like kinetically, will we see like the trucks plowing things and then setting them on fire, or what --
GEN. STROCK: Well, there are different aspects. We have the actual move of the debris, the disposal of the debris, the reduction of the debris. So for example, vegetative debris, we generally try to reduce it and recycle it, rather than burn it, so we don't cause air quality problems. So there are a lot of different approaches. We are looking at 50,000 pounds of rotted meat in a warehouse in
There's other -- a unique aspect of the
Ma'am, you had one. I'm sorry. You've been very patient.
Q The mayor of
GEN. STROCK: Well, there are a lot of factors that go into a decision like that. First of all, health and human safety, the habitability of the structures, the presence of water and sewer and those kinds of things. Someone mentioned earlier a priority for water and sewer. One of the real focuses that we have right now is to get a particular lift station that moves sewer out of that area, so the city can re-establish government and then eventually open commerce.
The French Quarter was relatively unscathed in the flooding. It stayed above the level of inundation. I don't have the map up there now, but the French Quarter stayed fairly dry, and the reports I have was there was very little looting in the French Quarter. I think the looting was mostly after commodities and not antiques and that sort of thing you'll find down there. So I -- you know, I -- I would think that the mayor would not make that kind of commitment unless he felt very comfortable with the safety of his citizens and its ability to support commerce again.
Q One fact question. You've mentioned the additional levee breaks. Do you have a number on the total number of levees that broke?
GEN. STROCK: We're working nine levee breaks right now, sir. And I -- I must say, I'm not sure if that includes the deliberate levee breaks we made. But nine -- I had heard a report of up to 17 at one time. And these are -- these take various forms. If the levee's not up to its final profile, we consider that a break. So some of them may be completely open and exposed, and some may be just slightly degraded. But nine is what we're working right now.
Q General, how soon will the rest of the city be available for rehabitation?
GEN. STROCK: Well, again, it’s a lot of factors involved in that. First, we've got to make sure there are no residual hazards that might have to do with the storm protection --
Q Do you have a timeline?
GEN. STROCK: No, I don't. I think in terms of what we see and the condition of the levees around the Orleans east bank projects and here, we think -- we feel like we've got those back up to their final profiles, or close enough, with the exception of the London and 17th, the floodwalls are not quite where they were before. I think the grade of those levees is about 11-1/2 feet. With floodwalls, they get to 17-1/2 feet. So there's still about 6 feet of surge that we would not be able to accommodate there. So I think we'd have a tough time dealing with a class 3 right now, a cat 3 hurricane. So those -- those kinds of decisions are -- we'll -- or, those kinds of factors will be considered in the decision. And the other, then, is the ability to have clear water and sewer and the structural stability -- we don't want to put back in homes that have a danger of collapse and all that. So it's going to be a deliberate process.
As I understand it, the parish president and the mayor in some parts of the city has the final call on whether it's ready to go. So the Department of Environmental Quality from the state of
Q As for the unwatering portion of that, you said you adjusted some time lines for some of those areas. Do you have an overall when the city would be unwatered, whether or not it's habitable yet?
GEN. STROCK: In terms of habitability, I can't give you an answer on that. This is strictly --
Q Well, just a question of when the water will be gone.
GEN. STROCK: Yeah. Well, for example, here, we think that by the 2nd of October the remaining areas in Orleans East will be dry enough to go back in and really begin the assessment and the recovery. And as the water recedes, we have military forces, Guard and active, both Marines and Army, moving through the area, still in the recovery mission, still looking for people that can be rescued or evacuated, and also looking for victims of the flooding. So they're moving ahead as the water recedes to do that. And then we'll go back again, and it'll be turned over to the Guard and local police authorities to do deliberate searches of facilities. And then that process will lead to an eventual decision on when to re-occupy.
Q General, just -- just one more question on rebuilding the levees -- improving the levees to a four or five capacity. The Corps of Engineers has for years asked for more money, and -- and you haven't gotten it -- to improve the levees. Do you think that this storm will press federal and state officials to, in fact, improve those levees to a four or five capacity?
GEN. STROCK: Well, certainly I think that the decision will be brought to the table perhaps quicker than it might have been. So -- but, again, that's a call for the local, state and federal officials. My job in this is to -- if they want to raise it to Category 4 or 5, I need to say if it's engineeringly feasible, technically feasible, is it economically justified when we look at what's being protected by the levees, and whether it's environmentally acceptable. So I answer those questions, and then present them to the decision-makers on whether or not to do it. And if they decide to do it, then the Corps of Engineers would go in and execute the work. So, certainly, if -- we've made the decision, if the mayor and the governor have made the decision that
Q And -- and again, you said, you were careful to say it would take a long time to do this, because you'd have to lay a level, and then let -- let the soil be compressed, and then lay another level, you said five years between them. How long, realistically speaking, would it take to complete this if you started now with -- how long will it take you to --
GEN. STROCK: No, I'd be reluctant to give an answer on that. And part of the reluctance is, we're going to look at all possibilities. The original project for this storm protection really had to do with putting a barrier system at the head of
Could I have the navigation slide, Dan, please? And I know we need to move on here, Brian, but let me just explain it real quick.
Right down here there are two passes that come into
So how long will it take? I'm sure that we will, again, have a look at whether that would have been a better solution to handling storm surge in
The other thing is our understanding of these systems has increased since this project was authorized and constructed. So we'll be able to do a lot more sophisticated analysis. And I'm sure that whatever we select, there will be an element of urgency in putting that protection back in at a higher level as quickly as we possibly can.
Q Thank you, sir.
Q So this approach can be quicker, these two --
GEN. STROCK: Sir, I don't know. I really don't know. To say it's quicker, that was the plan in 1965. It took us 10 years to get through the litigation to actually begin what we're doing. So, quickness is determined in many ways. The NEPA clearance and all that stuff can consume sometimes as much time as actually placing structures in place. So it's an open question. But we're going to look at every possible solution, using a broad range of people, to really provide what we think will be the best approach that answers those three questions that I'm charged with answering.
Q Thank you.
GEN. STROCK: Thank you all very much.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2005/tr20050915-3905.html
NEWSLETTER
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|