[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
ENSURING EFFECTIVE PREPAREDNESS AND
RESPONSE: LESSONS LEARNED FROM HURRICANE IRENE AND TROPICAL STORM LEE
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE,
AND COMMUNICATIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 29, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-59
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
74-535 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the
GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
__________
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Peter T. King, New York, Chairman
Lamar Smith, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Daniel E. Lungren, California Loretta Sanchez, California
Mike Rogers, Alabama Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Michael T. McCaul, Texas Henry Cuellar, Texas
Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Paul C. Broun, Georgia Laura Richardson, California
Candice S. Miller, Michigan Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Tim Walberg, Michigan Brian Higgins, New York
Chip Cravaack, Minnesota Jackie Speier, California
Joe Walsh, Illinois Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Patrick Meehan, Pennsylvania Hansen Clarke, Michigan
Ben Quayle, Arizona William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Scott Rigell, Virginia Kathleen C. Hochul, New York
Billy Long, Missouri Janice Hahn, California
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania
Blake Farenthold, Texas
Robert L. Turner, New York
Michael J. Russell, Staff Director/Chief Counsel
Kerry Ann Watkins, Senior Policy Director
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
I. Lanier Avant, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND COMMUNICATIONS
Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida, Chairman
Joe Walsh, Illinois Laura Richardson, California
Scott Rigell, Virginia Hansen Clarke, Michigan
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania, Vice Kathleen C. Hochul, New York
Chair Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Blake Farenthold, Texas (Ex Officio)
Peter T. King, New York (Ex
Officio)
Kerry A. Kinirons, Staff Director
Natalie Nixon, Deputy Chief Clerk
Curtis Brown, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Gus M. Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Florida, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency
Preparedness, Response, and Communications..................... 1
The Honorable Tom Marino, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Pennsylvania.......................................... 2
Witnesses
Mrs. MaryAnn Tierney, Regional Administrator, Region 3, Federal
Emergency Management Agency:
Oral Statement................................................. 6
Joint Prepared Statement....................................... 9
Colonel David E. Anderson, District Commander, Baltimore
District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
Oral Statement................................................. 12
Joint Prepared Statement....................................... 13
Mr. Glenn M. Cannon, Director, Pennsylvania Emergency Management
Agency:
Oral Statement................................................. 18
Joint Prepared Statement....................................... 24
Ms. Marita C. Wenner, Volunteer Chair, Pennsylvania State
Disaster Committee, American Red Cross:
Oral Statement................................................. 23
Joint Prepared Statement....................................... 25
Mr. James J. Brozena, P.E., Executive Director, Luzerne County
Flood Protection Authority:
Oral Statement................................................. 29
Joint Prepared Statement....................................... 32
Mr. James Good, Owner, Arey Building Supply...................... 34
For the Record
The Honorable Gus M. Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Florida, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency
Preparedness, Response, and Communications:
Article, The Daily Review...................................... 36
ENSURING EFFECTIVE PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE: LESSONS LEARNED FROM
HURRICANE IRENE AND TROPICAL STORM LEE
----------
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response,
and Communications,
Committee on Homeland Security,
La Plume, PA.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:07 a.m., in
the Theatre in Brooks, Keystone College, Brooks Hall, College
Road, La Plume, Pennsylvania, Hon. Gus M. Bilirakis [Chairman
of the subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Bilirakis and Marino.
Mr. Calpin. My name is Fran Calpin and I am the Senior
Director of College Relations here at Keystone. On behalf of
Keystone President Dr. Edward G. Boehm, Jr., and all of the
Keystone students, faculty, and staff, it is my great pleasure
to welcome you to Keystone today for this morning's
Congressional hearing. We extend a special welcome to
Congressman Tom Marino and Congressman Gus Bilirakis and to the
witnesses providing testimony here this morning.
As a leading educational institution in northeastern
Pennsylvania, founded by families, for families, immediately
following the Civil War, we are honored to provide this hearing
to gain additional information and insight into the horrific
devastation inflicted upon our area after Hurricane Irene and
Tropical Storm Lee.
So once again, on behalf of everyone at Keystone, we
welcome you this morning. Thank you.
Mr. Bilirakis. The Committee on Homeland Security, the
Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and
Communications will come to order.
The subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony on
the impact of Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee and the
efforts of Federal, State, local, and non-governmental
organizations to respond and recover from these disasters.
I appreciate the effort taken by all those involved to have
this important field hearing. This is an official Congressional
hearing, as opposed to a town hall meeting, and as such, we
must abide by the certain rules of the Committee on Homeland
Security and the House of Representatives. I kindly wish to
remind our guests that any demonstrations from the audience
including applause and verbal outbursts as well as the use of
signs or placards are a violation of the rules of the House of
Representatives. It is important that we respect the decorum
and the rules of this committee. I have also been requested to
state that photography and cameras are limited to accredited
press only. I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
I am Congressman Gus Bilirakis. I am pleased to be here in
La Plume this morning, and I thank Congressman Marino, your
great Congressman, and Keystone College for hosting this
subcommittee, and I have the right colors on here today, orange
and blue. I went to the University of Florida, so I like to
wear my orange and blue, but it fits pretty well here this
morning.
This year, the subcommittee has focused on ensuring this
country has effective preparedness response and recovery
capabilities at all levels of government, and the private
sector among individuals and communities. This subcommittee has
assessed the response and recovery efforts to the many storms
this country has experienced this year. This hearing will
continue those efforts by assessing the impact of Hurricane
Irene and Storm Lee, particularly on this area, because this
area was greatly impacted, and we want to consider the lessons
learned from those storms so we can continue to enhance our
preparedness, response, and recovery capabilities.
Last month, the subcommittee held a hearing at which FEMA
Administrator Craig Fugate testified to assess FEMA's
preparedness and response capabilities since the passage of the
Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act. I think we can
all agree that FEMA has made great strides over the past 5
years and it is a far more nimble and forward-leaning
organization.
Of course, there is always more work that can be done to
further improve our capabilities, a point on which of course
Administrator Fugate agrees. I think he is doing a very good
job. That is why is so important again that Congressman Marino
proposed this hearing. I appreciate that, Congressman. We must
also assess what worked well and should be replicated in future
disaster response and recovery efforts. We must also address
any shortcomings so they do not happen again.
We have a distinguished panel of witnesses here today that
will help us with this assessment. I look forward to your
testimony and to working with you to enhance our preparedness
and response and recovery capabilities.
Now I recognize my very good friend, the vice chairman of
this subcommittee, Mr. Tom Marino, for any opening statement he
may have. He has been working tirelessly to ensure this area is
well on the road to recovery. I would like to recognize him. I
know that Tom has been working very hard, and his heart is
right here in this Congressional district with his
constituents. So I recognize you, Tom, for as much time as you
would like to consume.
Mr. Marino. Thank you, Chairman, and I really appreciate
the efforts. Chairman Bilirakis is from Florida, and like
myself, we are not really morning people but it was very nice
of you to agree to have this hearing, this official
Congressional hearing right here in the 10th Congressional
District, and I thank you on behalf of my constituents.
I also want to thank the college for having us here as a
guest. This is my second or third time here. I want to thank
the president. Thank you so much, sir, for accommodating us.
The staffs, my staff, Rob, who was instrumental in putting this
together, the Chairman's staff as well, our committee staff,
thank you so much. We cannot do this without their work. I want
to thank the committee Members, the witnesses who are going to
testify for being here, and you people for coming and seeing
how the process works. We wanted to bring Washington to the
district, and I think this is a great opportunity to do that.
I want to start out by thanking the Chairman again for
holding this hearing and by welcoming all our witnesses to
Pennsylvania's 10th Congressional District. I also want to
thank you all in attendance for taking the time to come and
hear the important matters we are addressing today at this
field hearing.
At the end of August 2011, Hurricane Irene caused severe
flooding and widespread power outages in eastern Pennsylvania
and some flooding in central Pennsylvania. With the ground
saturated and waterways at a very high level, Tropical Storm
Lee arrived about 1 week later, causing historic widespread
flooding in most of central and eastern Pennsylvania,
particularly here in the 10th Congressional district. Ten of
the 14 counties in the district were impacted by the flood.
Thousands of residents were evacuated. Many are still living in
temporary shelters. The storm knew no boundaries. It hit
individuals and businesses, Government offices and schools,
farms, cemeteries, and churches.
I had just been back in Washington, DC, for a few days
after Labor Day when I learned that the communities in the
district were threatened by severe flooding. My staff and I
immediately left Washington and headed back to the district so
we could be here in person to assess the damage and do all I
could to help. I flew over damaged communities several times to
assess the damage from an aerial perspective. I then spent the
next few weeks in the district visiting flood victims in every
affected county in the 10th Congressional district. During that
time, I saw entire bridges and roads washed away in Wyoming
County, sinkholes and roads completely washed away in
Northumberland County. I walked the cracked levee in Forty
Fort, Luzerne County. I watched the effects of broken river
gauges in Luzerne County and the fear in all the people in
Wyoming Valley. I walked the streets of Athens and saw blocks
of homes that were completely, completely destroyed. I visited
homes in Shamokin and Coal Township that had water up to the
second floor. I stood in a cemetery in Susquehanna County that
had uprooted coffins and vaults. I listened to children in
Union County asking me to help their mom and dad fix their home
that had 5 feet of water in the living room.
I traveled to many businesses, both large and small, that
were affected like Knoebels Amusement Park in Northumberland. I
watched the workers and owners clean up 4 inches of flood mud
that covered the entire park. I stood in the Danville Middle
School that had water in the entire school. I watched the
destruction from the Susquehanna River in Sunbury. I spoke to
people in Sullivan County who watched half of their property
washed away. I stood in a VFW in Halstead that had 6 feet of
water in the basement. I walked through a trailer park that was
just completely washed away.
I have seen the destruction the floodwaters caused in
Selinsgrove and I have heard the stories from across the
district that echoed the same concerns: My stream is filled
with debris deposited over past years, we are overflowing the
banks, resulting in damage to homes, roads, and bridges.
While I was personally seeing and hearing from residents
the devastation caused by the flooding, I and my staff remained
in constant contact with representatives of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett,
PEMA, Members of Congress in neighboring districts, State
legislators, and officials at the State, county, and municipal
level. I am extremely impressed with the way officials on all
levels worked so well together, given the extremely difficult
circumstances. I have never seen Federal Government, the State
governments, and the local governments work so closely together
than we saw over the last several months. I thank everyone
involved for this tremendous effort and work that has been done
to protect and help the citizens and communities that have been
so terribly affected. Our first responders and rescue teams
were heroes who went beyond the call of duty to save lives, and
an example of that: I was in a town that was completely
flooded. I was standing out in front of, I think it was a fire
chief's home that was lost, just completely lost. But he wasn't
working in his home, he was helping the neighbors try and save
what they had.
The Red Cross workers and volunteers provided desperately
needed aid and comfort to the victims of the flood.
Additionally, the cooperation and coordination among State,
county, local, and Federal entities truly has been remarkable.
I am hopeful that we can all use the lessons learned from this
disaster to further improve response capabilities for the next
disaster. I realize that the road to recovery may be a long one
but I believe that the spirit I saw in visiting with those
affected by the flooding will lead the way.
I want to make clear that this is not a finger-point or
blame-casting hearing. This is a hearing whereby we know we are
not going to be able to stop flooding but what can we do to
lessen the damage and become more efficient and more effective.
Chairman, thank so much for allowing me to make an opening
statement.
Mr. Bilirakis. My pleasure. Thank you.
We are pleased now to have a very distinguished panel of
witnesses before us today on this important topic.
Our first witness is Mrs. MaryAnn Tierney. Mrs. Tierney is
the Regional Administrator for FEMA Region 3. She hasn't
arrived yet, but she will be here pretty soon. She has been
delayed, but I understand in the next 5 minutes she will be
here, but I will go ahead and read her background anyway. Mrs.
Tierney is the Regional Administrator for FEMA Region 3 based
in Philadelphia, a position she has held since August 30, 2010.
As Regional Administrator, she is responsible for coordinating
FEMA's emergency preparedness, mitigation, and disaster
response and recovery activities in Pennsylvania, Delaware,
Washington, DC, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia. Wow.
Prior to joining FEMA, Mrs. Tierney held leadership positions
in both the Philadelphia and New York City offices of emergency
management, having managed more than 60 EOC activations in New
York and Philadelphia. She is a principal member of the
National Fire Protection Association's technical committee on
disaster, emergency management and business continuity
programs. She also has served as an adjunct professor teaching
graduate-level courses on emergency preparedness. Mrs. Tierney
received her bachelor's degree in political science from
American University and her master's of public administration
from NYU. She has also graduated from the Center for Homeland
Defense and Security's executive leadership program at the
Naval Post Graduate School.
Our next witness is Colonel David Anderson. Colonel
Anderson is the Commander of the United States Army Corps of
Engineers, Baltimore district, a position he assumed on July
17, 2009. In this capacity, Colonel Anderson oversees the 1,300
employees of the Baltimore district engauged in military
construction, civil works, and international interagency and
emergency support. Colonel Anderson previously served as a
lieutenant in the 17th Engineer Battalion, 2nd Armored Division
at Fort Hood, commanded an airborne bridge company in the 20th
Engineer Brigade at Fort Bragg, and was the executive officer
of the 2nd Engineer Battalion, 2nd Infantry Division at Camp
Castle in South Korea. Colonel Anderson has also served in the
Army Congressional Liaison Office as a Legislative Assistant to
the Secretary of the Army and as the Vice Chief of Staff of the
Army. Colonel Anderson is a graduate of the United States
Military Academy and the Industrial College of the Armed
Forces, where he completed a master's of science degree in
National security resource strategy. He also earned a master's
of science degree in engineering from the University of Texas
at Austin. Welcome, sir.
Following Colonel Anderson, we will hear from Mr. Glenn
Cannon. Mr. Cannon is the Director of the Pennsylvania
Emergency Management Agency, a position to which he was
appointed by Governor Corbett on January 18, 2011. In this
capacity, he coordinates FEMA support of county and local
governments in the areas of civil defense, disaster
preparedness, planning and response to and recovering from man-
made and natural disasters. Prior to joining PEMA, Mr. Cannon
served as administrative assistant in the Federal Emergency
Management Agency where he was in charge of disaster operations
and was responsible for the development and execution of
interagency plans and procedures in response to Presidential
disaster and emergency declarations. Mr. Cannon has also served
as the County Manager and Chief Operating Officer of Allegheny
County, the Executive Director of the Pittsburgh Water and
Sewer Authority, and the Director of the City of Pittsburgh's
Department of Public Safety. I am partial to Pittsburgh. My dad
is from Pittsburgh, so I have some Pennsylvanian blood in me.
Mr. Cannon received his bachelor's degree from Indiana
University of Pennsylvania, his master's degree from Carnegie
Mellon University, and his juris doctor degree from Duquesne
University School of law. Welcome, sir.
Our next witness will be Ms. Marita Wenner. I hope I am
pronouncing that right. Ms. Wenner is the volunteer chair of
the American Red Cross Pennsylvania State Disaster Committee, a
position she has held since 2008. She is also currently serving
as the volunteer chairman of the board of the Wayne Pike
chapter of the American Red Cross. Ms. Wenner has been a member
of the Disaster Services Human Resources serving as the
operations manager directorate for Hurricane Irene and Tropical
Storm Lee in Pennsylvania. Ms. Wenner previously served as the
executive director of the Wayne Pike chapter of the American
Red Cross and is a past President of the Association of
Pennsylvania Red Cross Executives. Welcome.
Our next witness is Mr. James Brozena. Mr. Brozena is the
executive director of the Luzerne County Flood Protection
Authority, a position he assumed in 2007. Prior to this
position, Mr. Brozena was the County Engineer for more than 20
years. He has served as Project Manager for Luzerne County on
the Wyoming Valley levee-raising project, a project he
continues to oversee as Executive Director. Mr. Brozena has a
bachelor's in civil engineering from Penn State University and
is a registered Professional Engineer in Pennsylvania. Thank
you. Welcome, sir.
Finally, we will receive testimony from Mr. James Good. Mr.
Good is the owner of Arey Building Supply and a member of the
Wysox Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Good also owns several other
businesses in northern Pennsylvania. Mr. Good is a graduate of
the Williamsport Area Community College and served in the
United States Army. Welcome, sir.
Your entire written statements will appear in the record. I
ask that you each summarize your testimony for approximately 5
minutes, and since Mrs. Tierney is here, we will recognize you
for 5 minutes. Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF MARYANN TIERNEY, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, REGION 3,
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Mrs. Tierney. Thank you. First, Mr. Chairman, I want to
apologize for being 45 minutes early to the Towanda campus,
which is a lovely campus. I recommend that you go there if you
have a chance.
Good morning, Chairman Bilirakis, Vice Chairman Marino,
Director Cannon, and guests. My name is MaryAnn Tierney and I
am the Regional Administrator for Region 3 of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency headquartered in Philadelphia. It
is an honor to appear before you today on behalf of FEMA to
discuss our response and recovery efforts in Pennsylvania
before, during, and after Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm
Lee.
In my testimony, I will share some of our successes,
challenges, and lessons learned from these two disasters and
FEMA's on-going efforts to apply lessons learned to operations
moving forward.
Let me begin by reporting that there is consensus that the
partnership between the Commonwealth and Federal emergency
response teams generally meet the community's needs and
expectations in the aftermath of the disaster. I attribute this
initial success to the teamwork established among key
stakeholders in the public and private sectors, what we at FEMA
commonly refer to as the whole community approach to emergency
management. At this very early stage in the process, we have
awarded well over a quarter-billion dollars in disaster relief
to Pennsylvanians.
I especially welcome the opportunity to speak with you,
Chairman Bilirakis, and Vice Chairman Marino after we last met
at FEMA headquarters. The briefing was co-hosted by
Administrator Craig Fugate and Deputy Administrator Richard
Serino this past February 8 where we discussed the agency's
capabilities to respond to and recover from disasters.
It is unfortunate that these recent disasters have so
heavily impacted the Commonwealth but I thank you for being
here to discuss the practical applications of those
capabilities after seeing the impact the recent storms have had
on Pennsylvania's families and communities.
Strategic decisionmaking, preparedness measures, and
decisive preemptive action well before the storm hit were
essential in ensuring a successful recovery. FEMA worked
closely with State and local officials including Director
Cannon and his team to prepare and assist impacted communities
and individuals. FEMA pre-positioned its incident management
assistance team in Pennsylvania to assist operations at the
Initial Operating Facility, or IOF, as soon as they were
needed. FEMA strategically staged resources in several
locations to ensure maximum flexibility and distribution based
on the storm's eventual track. This enabled FEMA to promptly
support the Commonwealth's request for disaster assistance
including the activation of 6 National urban search and rescue
teams and 20 community relations teams deployed within 12 hours
of the declaration. FEMA worked with State emergency management
officials to quickly conduct Preliminary Damage Assessments, or
PDAs, in order to get Federal disaster assistance approved
expeditiously.
From August 3 to October 7, along with our State and local
partners, we performed PDAs in 39 Pennsylvania counties.
Pennsylvania was granted two major and two emergency disaster
declarations as a result of these PDAs. The declarations
allowed FEMA to provide supplemental Federal assistance to the
Commonwealth under three major programs: Public Assistance, or
PA, for the repair of damage infrastructure; Individual
Assistance, or IA, for individuals and business disaster
relief; and hazard mitigation for the prevention of future
flooding incidents. In total, 29 counties have been designated
to receive disaster relief under the IA programs, 35 for Public
Assistance, and all counties for hazard mitigation. To support
this effort, FEMA currently has 600 employees working out of
the Harrisburg Joint Field Office, or JFO, and in the affected
counties.
Since the initial declaration for Hurricane Irene, FEMA has
provided support to our Commonwealth partners by providing
applicant briefings and kickoff meetings. Of the 1,057 kickoff
meetings scheduled, 697 have been completed. The Commonwealth
is expecting between 1,500 and 2,000 applications which will
result in the writing of approximately 6,000 project
worksheets.
An effort of this magnitude does not occur without
challenges and lessons learned. Although quick is never quick
enough, as of today, FEMA has obligated more than $2.6 million
for Tropical Storm Lee and $417,000 for Hurricane Irene. In
addition to the PA program, 29 counties have been designated
for assistance through the Individuals and Households Program,
or IHP. Part of the IA program for both disasters. IHP provides
housing assistance and other needs assistance through financial
or direct housing assistance. As of November 27, more than $129
million has been awarded to individuals and families in
Pennsylvania through the IHP program.
To ensure that all eligible survivors have access to
disaster assistance, FEMA supported the Commonwealth in opening
23 Disaster Recovery Centers, or DRCs. The first DRC was opened
less than 72 hours after Tropical Storm Lee was declared. Since
then, more than 27,000 survivors have visited and received
assistance at these locations.
One of FEMA's top priorities Nation-wide is to provide
temporary housing to disaster survivors. In April 2011, FEMA
decided to use only Department of Housing and Urban
Development-regulated manufactured homes. These manufactured
homes are built to HUD-certified standards and are the same as
any manufactured housing units consumers across the country may
purchase. Today, more than 7 million people throughout the
United States live in HUD-regulated manufactured homes as their
primary residence.
We continue to streamline the way we coordinate with our
emergency management partners, modifying our preparedness
response and recovery strategies in light of lessons learned.
Earlier, I mentioned whole community. This is an approach that
recognizes that FEMA is only a part of the Nation's emergency
management team. To successfully prepare for, protect against,
respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards, we must
work with the entire emergency management community including
governments, businesses, and the public.
This September's National Recovery Tabletop Exercise held
in Region 3 was our first opportunity to explore the
application of the National Disaster Recovery Framework, or
NDRF using a large-scale multi-State catastrophic disaster
scenario. The NDRF defines coordination structures, leadership
roles, and responsibilities, and guidance for Federal agencies,
State, and local and Tribal and territorial governments, and
other partners involved in disaster planning and recovery.
From the earliest moments, FEMA worked closely with PEMA to
identify obstacles or challenges to response and recovery
effort. We included Commonwealth staff in the JFO, in the DRC
and on our PA teams, which greatly enhanced our effective
collaboration and essential local knowledge.
Although mission assignment requests, which are the means
by which we test other Federal agencies, were handled capably
through regional office coordination, we want to make the
process even faster. In the future, the mission assignment
manager will be embedded with the IMAT team to streamline and
expedite the process of engaging our Federal partners in
response efforts.
As we continue to support the Commonwealth in on-going
recovery efforts, FEMA's priority will be addressing survivors'
unmet needs and rebuilding impacted communities. Realize that
some of the best ideas for local response and recovery come
from outside FEMA. Any constructive suggestions that the
committee and our partners can offer will no doubt contribute
to an even more robust response and recovery during future
disasters.
I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today,
and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The statement of Mrs. Tierney follows:]
Prepared Statement of MaryAnn Tierney
November 29, 2011
INTRODUCTION
Chairman Bilirakis and distinguished Members of the subcommittee,
my name is MaryAnn Tierney and I am the Regional Administrator for the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region III Office. It is an
honor to appear before you today on behalf of FEMA to discuss our
response and recovery efforts in Pennsylvania before, during, and after
Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee. In my testimony today, I will
discuss our successes, challenges, and lessons learned from these two
disasters and FEMA's on-going efforts to apply lessons learned to
improve the way we do business.
RESPONSE AND RECOVERY EFFORTS IN PENNSYLVANIA
FEMA worked closely with State officials before, during, and after
Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee to prepare and then assist the
affected communities and individuals. This included ensuring FEMA
representatives were on scene with the appropriate State and local
officials prior to Hurricane Irene's impact, which began late on August
26, 2011. We also provided continued support to State and local
officials during response and recovery operations.
Days before Irene made landfall, FEMA pre-positioned numerous
Incident Management Assistance Teams (IMAT) along the Eastern Seaboard
to coordinate with State, Tribal, and local officials to identify needs
and shortfalls affecting potential disaster response and recovery
efforts. In Pennsylvania, the IMATs had pre-designated support staff
ready to be deployed to assist operations at the FEMA Initial Operating
Facility (IOF) as soon as they were needed. FEMA also strategically
staged resources in several locations before Irene's landfall in order
to be able to react quickly to the storm's eventual track. For example,
the necessary equipment and work space--located in the Pennsylvania
Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) building--was ready prior to the
staffing of the facility. This enabled FEMA to promptly support the
Commonwealth's request for Federal assistance, including the activation
of six National Urban Search and Rescue Teams.
FEMA also deployed Community Relations (CR) Teams to assist with
response and recovery. CR Specialists build working relationships among
FEMA and our partners at the State and local level. In Pennsylvania,
once the Presidential Disaster Declarations were announced, these CR
teams were on the ground within 12 hours, making contact with
individuals, businesses, community leaders and local officials to
assist them in dealing with the events. CR Specialists were also
deployed to support Disaster Recovery Centers (DRC) and assist with the
closing of shelters.
Currently, there are two active Emergency Declarations, one which
was signed by President Obama on August 29, 2011, due to Hurricane
Irene, and the second, which he signed on September 8, 2011, due to
Tropical Storm Lee. Both Emergency Declarations authorized FEMA to
provide Emergency Protective Measures including Direct Federal
Assistance under the Public Assistance program to the counties
identified by Governor Corbett.
In addition, there are two active major disaster declarations, one
which was signed by the President on September 3, 2011, in response to
Hurricane Irene, and the second which he signed on September 12, 2011,
in response to Tropical Storm Lee. The major disaster declaration
issued for Hurricane Irene authorizes Individual Assistance for 11
counties, Public Assistance for 14 counties and Hazard Mitigation for
the entire Commonwealth. The major disaster declaration issued for
Tropical Storm Lee authorizes Individual Assistance for 28 counties,
Public Assistance for 25 counties, and Hazard Mitigation for the entire
Commonwealth.
Given the wide area of the Commonwealth affected, FEMA worked with
State emergency management officials to quickly conduct Preliminary
Damage Assessments (PDA) to get Federal disaster assistance approved as
fast as possible. From August 30 to October 7, 2011, FEMA, working with
State and local officials, performed PDAs for 39 counties in
Pennsylvania. Subsequent to the declarations, FEMA has worked to
obligate the funding to eligible communities and individuals. This is
especially crucial for Public Assistance construction projects like
road repair, which, if not completed in the next couple of months, will
not be able to commence until spring of 2012 due to winter conditions.
To support this effort, FEMA currently has 600 employees working in
the Joint Field Office (JFO) and in the affected counties to respond to
the needs of the citizens and the local governments. Our PA staff is
working diligently with the PEMA to prioritize local government
projects and support the writing of the project worksheets. Since the
initial declaration for Hurricane Irene, Commonwealth officials have
worked with county Emergency Managers to schedule and conduct Applicant
Briefings, where local officials in all designated counties learn about
available assistance and eligibility requirements. FEMA also supported
PEMA staff at applicant Kickoff Meetings. At these meetings, each
applicant's needs are assessed and a plan for the repair of the
applicant's facilities is prepared. There are 1,057 Kickoff Meetings
scheduled in the months of October through December and to date, 697
have been completed. The Commonwealth is expecting between 1,500-2,000
applications, which will result in the writing of approximately 6,000
project worksheets.
FEMA is working closely with the Commonwealth to prioritize
assistance to those communities most in need of immediate assistance.
For example, we are working to increase our knowledge and awareness of
local conditions by leveraging the information local officials have to
increase the speed with which we can provide them the money they need
to repair and rebuild. As of November 16, 2011, we have obligated
$921,840 for Tropical Storm Lee, and we are continuing to work with the
Commonwealth to swiftly approve and award projects for Hurricane Irene.
In addition to the Public Assistance program, a combined total of
30 counties have been designated for assistance through the Individuals
and Households Program (IHP), part of the Individual Assistance
program, for both disasters. IHP provides housing assistance and grants
for other serious, disaster-related needs through financial assistance
or direct housing assistance. Housing assistance includes temporary
housing (rental or temporary housing unit), repair, and/or replacement
assistance. IHP also authorizes FEMA to construct permanent housing
under certain circumstances, in cases where alternative housing
resources are unavailable, or other forms of FEMA temporary housing
assistance are not feasible or cost-effective. As of November 16, in
response to both major disaster declarations, a combined total of $126
million has been provided to individuals and families in Pennsylvania
through the IHP program.
Since the beginning of these disasters, we supported the
Commonwealth in opening 22 DRCs, with the first DRCs opening less than
72 hours after Tropical Storm Lee was declared a major disaster. A DRC
is a readily accessible facility, staffed by Federal, State, local, and
voluntary agencies, where disaster assistance applicants may go for
information about FEMA and other disaster assistance programs, for
questions related to their case, or for the status of applications
being processed by FEMA. DRCs also provide individuals with information
on Small Business Administration (SBA) and National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) assistance programs. We will continue to support the
Commonwealth and its citizens in recovery efforts and identify lessons
learned to increase the speed and effectiveness of providing assistance
to disaster survivors.
APPLYING LESSONS LEARNED TO IMPROVE PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND
RECOVERY
As we have done in the past, we will continue to learn from our
experiences to improve the way we do business. One of FEMA's top
priorities is to provide temporary housing for disaster survivors. In
the past, this effort has been hindered by an inability to quickly
obtain quality housing for survivors. In April 2011, FEMA decided that
going forward, only Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-
regulated manufactured homes would be procured. These manufactured
homes are built to HUD-certified standards and are the same as any
manufactured housing units consumers across the country may purchase.
Today, more than 7 million people throughout the United States live in
HUD-regulated manufactured homes as their primary residence. HUD
regulations for these units set stringent standards for construction
materials and also require a health notice to be posted in the kitchen
of each unit.
Understanding that the effects of winter weather could
significantly delay the delivery of manufactured homes, PEMA requested
FEMA move rapidly in meeting the housing needs of disaster survivors.
Throughout the summer, FEMA has purchased 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom mobile
home units built to HUD standards to support on-going housing missions
and begin backfilling our inventory levels. However, as new units are
being produced, FEMA continues to deplete our existing inventory of
units comprised of tested Park Models and Mobile Homes, which meet the
highest standard of quality. FEMA is also providing the same code-
compliant park models and manufactured homes that comply with the
Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards, the guidelines that ensure
buildings and structures are accessible for people with physical
disabilities.
We also continue to improve the way we coordinate with our
emergency management partners, modifying our preparedness, response,
and recovery strategies in light of lessons learned. This ``Whole
Community'' approach recognizes that FEMA is only a part of the
Nation's emergency management team. In order to successfully prepare
for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all
hazards, we must work with the entire emergency management community.
The Whole Community includes FEMA and our partners at the Federal,
State, local, Tribal, and territorial governmental levels, non-
governmental organizations such as faith-based and non-profit groups,
the private sector and industry, and most importantly, individuals,
families, and communities, who continue to be our greatest assets and
the key to our success.
We learned that our partners need to be more involved in our
preparedness activities in order to maximize their effectiveness in
response and recovery. Since 2005, FEMA has sponsored over 750
National, Federal, regional, State, and local direct support exercises
in coordination with its partners. This September, we held a National
Recovery Tabletop Exercise (Recovery TTX) in the Washington
metropolitan area. This exercise involved the whole community, with
over 200 participants from Federal, State, Tribal, and non-governmental
organizations. The Recovery TTX consisted of both plenary and breakout
group sessions and focused on three planning horizons: Short-term,
intermediate, and long-term recovery.
This exercise was also the first opportunity to explore the
applications of the National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF) using a
large-scale, multi-State catastrophic disaster scenario. The NDRF
defines coordination structures, leadership roles and responsibilities,
and guidance for Federal agencies, State, local, territorial, and
Tribal governments, and other partners involved in disaster planning
and recovery. The NDRF reflects input gathered through extensive
stakeholder discussions which included outreach sessions conducted by
FEMA and the Department of Housing and Urban Development in each of the
ten FEMA Regions, and forums held in five cities across the country.
The final NDRF incorporates comments, lessons learned, and
recommendations from discussion roundtables held with professional
associations, academic experts, and more than 600 stakeholders
representing Federal, Tribal, State, and local governments, as well as
public and private organizations.
In Pennsylvania, we identified both best practices and areas for
improvement in coordinating with our partners during response and
recovery. From the earliest moments, FEMA worked closely with PEMA to
identify obstacles or challenges to the response and recovery effort.
Incorporation of Commonwealth staff on JFO, DRC, and PA teams greatly
enhanced our effectiveness and local knowledge. Having clearly defined
responsibilities allowed us to deliver services smoothly and
efficiently. For example, the staging of commodities at Fort Indiantown
Gap during the response phase was successful because the point at which
responsibility switched from FEMA to the Commonwealth was clear and
explicit.
With time being of the essence during the initial stages of an
event, we should be moving as quickly as possible to engauge other
Federal agencies in the response effort. In Pennsylvania, Mission
Assignment requests--which are the means by which we task other Federal
agencies--were handled capably through regional office coordination,
but we want to make this process even faster. We will do this in the
future by imbedding a Mission Assignment Manager with the IMAT team to
streamline and expedite the process of engaging our Federal partners in
response efforts.
CONCLUSION
FEMA is committed to improving its effectiveness in supporting its
partners in the wake of disasters. A key way we can improve is by
identifying best practices and lessons learned from our response to
disasters and incorporating these lessons into our standards and
guidance. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today and am happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mrs. Tierney.
I now call on Colonel Anderson. Sir, you are recognized for
5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF COLONEL DAVID E. ANDERSON, DISTRICT COMMANDER,
BALTIMORE DISTRICT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Colonel Anderson. Chairman Bilirakis, Congressman Marino, I
am Colonel David Anderson, Commander of the U.S. Army District
in Baltimore. Thanks very much for the opportunity to testify
today about how our organization plans for, responds to, and
recovers from high-water events with specific regard to
Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee.
The Corps is a very unique organization. The Baltimore
District had responsibility in the civil works arena for the
entire Susquehanna River Basin including the majority of
central Pennsylvania. To our west, the Pittsburgh District has
that portion of Pennsylvania that lies outside the Susquehanna
River Basin and the Ohio Basin, and to our east, the
Philadelphia District is responsible for the area of the
Commonwealth that lies within the Delaware Basin, so three
districts the Corps of Engineers all serve we believe
seamlessly the citizens of Pennsylvania.
Responsibility for flood risk management in the United
States, the topic here today, is of shared responsibility
between multiple Federal, State, and local government agencies
including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. State and local
governments are responsible for requesting Federal assistance
to address flooding for establishing floodplain zoning
regulations and for enforcing those flood-wise requirements.
These State and local policies in turn affect the performance
of flood risk management projects that are constructed and
maintained either by the Commonwealth or the State governments
or the Federal Government. In addition, all levels of
government must ensure the public is educated as to the risk
they face and actions they should take at times of emergency.
In late August and early September, the Susquehanna River
Basin experienced a series of significant precipitation events
that caused historic flood through the East Coast. First, it
was Hurricane Irene in late August, and then only a week and a
half later, Tropical Storm Lee moved up from the Gulf and
stalled over the basin. The Baltimore District and the Corps of
Engineers exercised its full range of flood risk management
programs to address these events as part of the community, this
team sport that we call emergency response.
First, under the flood control and coastal emergency
authority, we dispatched engineers, construction experts, and
even public affairs officers to area levees and dams to monitor
water levels, to activate emergency operations procedures and
to help communicate important lifesaving information to the
public. During the height of the storm, we had a 10-person team
of engineers in central Pennsylvania to assist the evaluation
of conditions of levees and floodwalls, to provide technical
assistance and to support in flood fighting, and Congressman
Marino, this was the Wilkes-Barre and the Forty Fort area where
you saw the cracked levee, significant and, frankly, very
dramatic evening for the local flood protection authority for
our team that was supporting them. We fully staffed our dams to
respond to any necessary actions and we had a staff of
engineers monitoring weather and river stage conditions around
the clock to make sure that decisions regarding storage and
release of water from the reservoirs were both timely and
prudent.
At the same time, and in support of FEMA, with the Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act authorities, we
had 45 experts from various time frames providing assistance
with debris, damage assessment, dam assessments, emergency
temporary power, and temporary housing support. Again, that is
part of the FEMA team under the National Response Plan.
Rain events in the river--the rain events along the 57
miles of Federally-built levees as well as higher water
elevations throughout our systems of reservoirs created
historic conditions but our projects prevented an estimated
$4.1 billion in damages within the Susquehanna River Basin. Let
me repeat that. The projects that we constructed in the Federal
Government prevented an estimated $4.1 billion in damages
within the basin. This included about $173 million in damages
prevented by our reservoirs by holding water back during times
of high water and $3.9 billion in damages prevented by our
levees and floodwalls.
In the future as we work with local and State partners to
address flood risks, we aim to reduce the probability of
flooding by incorporating structural as well as non-structural
solutions. While levees and floodwalls represent the
traditional structural built solution, we also need to strongly
consider non-structural solutions such as flood warning
systems, emergency evacuation plans, floodproofing of
structures and, frankly, relocations and buyouts, getting
people away from the water.
So as new projects are being formulated, we focus on the
most effective combination of all tools available to help lower
risk.
Sir, I am out of time, but thank you very much for this
opportunity to appear before the committee and I look forward
to your questions.
[The statement of Colonel Anderson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Colonel David E. Anderson
November 29, 2011
Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, I am Colonel David
Anderson, Commander of the Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps). Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
about our how our organization plans, responds to, and recovers from
high-water events, and with specific regard to the recent Hurricane
Irene and Tropical Storm Lee events.
OVERVIEW
The Corps is a unique organization, with a diverse military and
civil works mission. The Baltimore District is 1,200 employees strong
and executes its Civil Works mission primarily in flood risk
management, ecosystem restoration, and navigation throughout the
Chesapeake Bay watershed, from its headwaters in New York through
Pennsylvania to the shorelines of Maryland and Virginia and to the
Atlantic coastline.
The Corps owns or operates 692 dams that provide hydropower, water
supply, and crucial flood damage reduction throughout the United
States, including 17 dams in the Susquehanna River and Potomac River
Basins, 11 of which are in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The Corps is also responsible for executing an important regulatory
program that helps protect tens of thousands of acres of aquatic
resources per year, and we work with the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) to provide valuable engineering expertise during times of
National emergencies.
We are the Army's engineers, focusing our expertise on building
training facilities, hospitals, barracks, and other assets across the
Department of Defense that help improve the lives of our service
members and increase our military's ability to protect and defend our
Nation.
Included in our diverse missions, and related to the topic here, is
our role and responsibility in flood risk management and emergency
response.
Responsibility for flood risk management in the United States is a
shared responsibility among multiple Federal, State, and local
government agencies with a complex set of programs and authorities. The
authority to determine how land is used in floodplains and to enforce
flood-wise requirements is entirely the responsibility of State and
local governments. Floodplain management choices made by State and
local officials, in turn, impact the effectiveness of Federal programs
to mitigate flood risk and the performance of Federal flood risk
management infrastructure. Importantly, we must ensure the public is
educated both as to the risks they face and actions they can take to
reduce their risks.
AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2011 FLOODING
The Baltimore District, which has responsibility for the
Susquehanna River Basin, exercised its full range of flood risk
management programs in response to Hurricane Irene in August 2011 and
Tropical Storm Lee in September 2011. These two events produced
significant precipitation in the Susquehanna River Basin and caused
flooding throughout the East Coast. First, Hurricane Irene passed
through the Northeast Corridor, making landfall on August 26-28, 2011.
Then, only a week and a half later, Tropical Storm Lee moved up from
the Gulf of Mexico and stalled over the Northeast, creating moderate to
major flooding along the Upper Susquehanna and mainstem Susquehanna
Rivers. In some locations, the flood stage was exceeded by more than 15
feet, with numerous river gauges exceeding previous records set mostly
during Tropical Storm Agnes in June 1972 and during the storm of June
2006.
Rainfall totals ranged from 6-15 inches, mostly from Tropical Storm
Lee, during the period of September 6-9, 2011. The heaviest rain fell
over the mainstem Susquehanna and Upper Susquehanna River Basins,
generally in a north-south band running from Binghamton, New York to
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Some of these areas had already been affected
by heavy rains associated with Hurricane Irene.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND PREPAREDNESS
The Corps' emergency response authorities derive from the Stafford
Act, the authority of 33 U.S.C. 701n (referred to as Pub. L. 84-99 or
PL 84-99) and our regulatory statutes. The Corps also provides
reimbursable emergency response and recovery support to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93-288, as
amended), and in emergencies the Corps can expedite permitting through
its own regulatory program.
Under Pub. L. 84-99, the Corps is authorized to undertake
activities that include disaster preparedness, advance measures,
emergency operations, and rehabilitation of eligible flood damage
reduction projects damaged by flood or rehabilitation of Federally
authorized shore protection projects.
Disaster preparedness consists of functions required to ensure that
the Corps is ready to respond to a broad range of disasters and
emergencies. Corps flood preparedness includes coordination, planning,
training, and conducting response exercises with key local, State, and
Tribal stakeholders/partners. Establishing and maintaining good working
relationships benefits both the Corps and its partner and improves
communications during a flood response. Also, confirming points of
contact for both State and local partners and the Corps on a periodic
basis allows for an exchange of information and updating on key areas
of interest. Being aware of State and local authorities, requirements,
capabilities, and expectations helps the Corps determine how it can
best supplement State and local needs. Conversely, educating State and
local entities about Corps authorities, requirements, and expectations
eliminates potential gaps and overlaps. These activities ensure Corps
personnel assigned emergency assistance responsibilities are trained
and equipped to accomplish their missions.
The Rehabilitation and Inspection Program (RIP) provides for the
inspection and rehabilitation of Federal and non-Federal flood risk
management projects damaged or destroyed by floods, and the
rehabilitation of Federally authorized and constructed hurricane and
storm damage reduction projects damaged or destroyed by wind, wave, or
water action other than that of an ordinary nature. A project in the
program remains eligible for acceptance into the program for future
rehabilitation as long as it is properly operated and maintained as
determined by a Corps inspection, which is conducted annually.
In accordance with the Department of Homeland Security's National
Response Framework, the Corps is the executing agency under Emergency
Support Function No. 3 (Public Works and Engineering), on behalf of the
Department of Defense. Typical mission assignments include Emergency
Temporary Power, Debris Removal, Commodities/Water, Temporary Housing/
Roofing, Infrastructure Assessments, Urban Search and Rescue, among
others. As a result of Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee, the
Baltimore District supported FEMA by deploying 45 experts for various
time frames for assistance.
The Corps responded to the high-water event by immediately
dispatching engineers, construction experts, and public affairs
officials to area levees and dams, monitoring water levels, activating
emergency operations procedures in preparation for potential flooding,
and helping to communicate important life-saving information to the
public. For example, during the height of the storm, we deployed a 10-
person team of engineers to central Pennsylvania to assist in
evaluating the condition of levees and floodwalls, providing technical
assistance, and supporting the flood fight.
One example of the measures taken occurred in Wilkes-Barre, where
the river gauge recorded 42.66 feet of water at its peak, a full 1.75
feet higher than Tropical Storm Agnes in 1972, which reached 40.91
feet. The Wyoming Valley Levee System, originally constructed in 1936,
consists of three levee systems at Plymouth, Kingston-Exeter, and
Wilkes-Barre-Hanover Township. The levees extend for approximately 15
miles with 13 storm water pump stations. Tropical Storm Lee tested this
system with tremendous flows and water pressure placed on the
structure.
On-site patrols identified two locations in Forty-Fort that
required interim solutions in order to reduce the risk of damage to the
levee system. The first incident occurred late in the day Thursday,
September 8, where rising waters caused cracks to develop on the
system's floodwall. In order to stabilize the wall and maintain flood
protection, we provided on-site expertise and made recommendations to
the local flood authority to add ballast--or weight--to the land side
of the wall. By building up additional material on the land side, a
flood wall is stabilized against the pressure of the rising water. A
local contractor provided the necessary equipment, staff, and
truckloads of material to perform the repairs, and they, along with the
flood authority and the Corps, worked throughout the night and finished
the repairs around 2 a.m.
A few hours after repairing the floodwall, the Corps was called to
a second location in Forty-Fort that needed repairs. A large boil, an
area where differential pressure allows seepage and the possible
transport of fine grained material, measuring 50 feet in diameter was
occurring on the landside toe of the levee. Boils are typical during a
high-water event, and if not properly monitored, they can destabilize
the levee. Our engineers again recommended covering the area with a
specialized material and loading it with additional fill to prevent
further degradation of the levee. By adding additional fill, weight is
added to the land side of the levee, increasing its stability. The
repair was completed and further damage was avoided.
As described in Wilkes-Barre, teams of engineers perform 24-hour
levee patrols at the Federal projects, walking the levees and examining
the flood walls and pump stations to ensure proper performance during
significant flow events. Typically, our engineers look for cracking,
tilting, and soft foundation conditions around the floodwall. They also
look for boils and properly working closure structures, drainage
structures, and pump stations. They work in partnership with State and
local officials to provide technical assistance and support for levees
that are not operated by the Corps. This intensive effort is conducted
so that issues can be identified and resolved early, reducing the risk
of a more serious problem to structures or people.
Although flood damages in the entire Northeast region were
devastating, in many areas where Corps projects exist, their operation
by the Corps effectively reduced an additional estimated $6 billion of
damages to the residents in the Northeast.
PUB. L. 84-99--FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES
Following a significant event, the Corps has the authority to
rehabilitate flood risk management projects as authorized by Pub. L.
84-99, which is funded by the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
(FCCE) Appropriation. It includes responsibility for disaster
preparedness, emergency operations, rehabilitation of flood damage
reduction projects, provision of emergency water, advance measures when
the threat of flooding is imminent, and participation in FEMA-led
hazard mitigation teams. The Corps has the ability to execute emergency
response operations and specific activities under this authority; a
Presidential declaration is not required. Following an event, the Corps
releases a public notice to Federal and non-Federal sponsors, who can
submit a formal/written request for assistance.
Rehabilitation is limited to those projects that have been
previously and regularly inspected (called ``active'' projects) and
determined to be in acceptable condition. In most cases, these projects
are maintained by local jurisdictions. In accordance with Corps'
regulations, assistance for ``active'' projects is limited to repair to
pre-disaster condition and level of protection, must be beyond normal
operation and maintenance, must have construction repair costs greater
than $15,000, and must have a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.0 or greater.
Channel restoration, within the project limits, to pre-flood hydraulic
capacity may be eligible when the channel capacity has been decreased
to 75 percent or less of pre-event capacity.
Post-storm, the Corps deployed teams to the affected areas to
conduct initial assessments of damages to our flood risk management
projects. The results from these assessments will be combined with a
sponsors' written request for assistance, and projects will be
considered for eligibility under the Pub. L. 84-99 Program. Many
projects sustained varying levels of damage, some more critical than
others.
Funding for repair of eligible damages is 100% Federal cost for
Federal projects and 80% Federal, 20 percent local sponsor for non-
Federal projects. Funding is provided through the Corps' FCCE
appropriations account.
Following Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee, a Public Notice
was issued on September 16, 2011 to Federal and non-Federal sponsors
whereby sponsors could submit a formal/written request for assistance
per the previously described criteria. The Public Notice was posted on
the Baltimore District website and the 30-day window ended October 16,
2011.
Due to the damages caused by the record flooding in 2011, the Corps
is using a prioritization process to differentiate the level of need
and to facilitate prioritized funding requirements. These are based
primarily on those projects that pose the greatest risk to life safety
and other factors.
Requirements for funding as a result of September 2011 flooding are
being evaluated by Corps Headquarters, along with requirements for
damages resulting from other major natural disasters which occurred in
2011, namely flooding in the Mississippi River and Missouri River
Basins.
FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT
The Corps shares with FEMA, both the expertise and mandate under
its respective authorities and missions to address the Nation's
vulnerabilities to flood-related disasters and damages. Since passage
of the Flood Control Act of 1936 established a Federal role in flood
management, the Corps authorized responsibilities have expanded to
include developing structural and nonstructural solutions to managing
flood risks, inspecting the condition of existing flood management
infrastructure, providing technical and planning support to States and
communities, conducting advance emergency measures to alleviate
impending flooding, providing emergency flood fight support, and
rehabilitating levees and other flood management infrastructure damaged
by flooding. In May 2006, the Corps established the National Flood Risk
Management Program to take the first step of bringing together other
Federal agencies, State and local governments and agencies, and the
private sector to develop and implement a unified National flood risk
management strategy that eliminates conflicts between different flood
risk management programs and takes advantage of all opportunities for
collaboration. In recent years, the Corps has placed an increasing
emphasis on nonstructural approaches to flood risk management.
Nonstructural alternatives focus on efforts and measures to reduce
flood damages in an area by addressing the development in the
floodplain, such as: Floodplain zoning, participating in FEMA's
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), developing and implementing
flood warning systems (coordinated with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's flood warning program) and emergency
evacuation plans, and flood-proofing individual structures as well as
removing structures from the extreme flood hazard areas. Other
measures, such as setback levees, are also being utilized by the Corps,
as they typically offer greater natural use of the floodplain while
still providing structural protection from floodwaters if completely
non-structural alternatives are not viable.
Traditionally, Corps efforts to address flooding hazards have been
through civil works projects to reduce the probability of flooding
through the construction of levees or other flood management
infrastructure. As projects are formulated, we now focus on the most
effective combination of tools available that citizens may use to lower
their flood risk, not only reducing the probability of flooding, but
also reducing the consequences should a flood occur. Furthermore, the
decision on which tools to implement involves all stakeholders.
LEVEE SAFETY PROGRAM
The Corps has had a long history of planning, designing,
constructing, and inspecting a multitude of levee systems and
conducting flood fighting throughout the Nation. The Corps established
its Levee Safety Program in 2007 with the mission to assess the
integrity and viability of levees and recommend courses of action to
make sure that levee systems do not present unacceptable risks to the
public, property, and environment. The Levee Safety Program activities
focus on public safety as its top priority. Some specific Levee Safety
Program activities involve:
Populating and maintaining the National Levee Database to
serve as a living, dynamic record of information relative to
the status and safety of the Nation's levee systems. The
National Levee Database was opened to public access on October
27, 2011 and can be found at (http://nld.usace.army.mil).
Applying a levee screening tool that combines inspection
data with a preliminary engineering assessment and maximizing
the use of existing information (inspection rates and
consequence data) and local knowledge of levee performance.
Results will be used to rank levees based on relative risk to
help inform decisions about future actions to improve public
safety associated with the levees.
Incorporating changes and improvements associated with the
state-of-the-art professional engineering practice into levee
safety policy and procedures.
Conducting both routine (every year) and periodic (every 5
years) inspections for the levees in the Corps' Levee Safety
Program--
To ensure that the levee system will perform as expected.
To identify deficiencies or areas which need monitoring or
immediate repair.
To assess the integrity of the levee system in order to
identify any changes over time.
To collect information in order to be able to make
informed decisions about future actions.
To determine eligibility for Federal rehabilitation
funding for the levee in accordance with Pub. L. 84-99.
To determine if the levee is being properly operated and
maintained.
Levees within the Corps Levee Safety Program include those which
are: (1) Federally authorized and Corps operated and maintained; (2)
Corps constructed and locally operated and maintained; and (3) locally
constructed and locally maintained, but have been accepted in to the
Corps Rehabilitation and Inspection Program (RIP). Levees within the
Corps program consist of approximately 14,600 miles or 2,000 levee
systems. The Corps will communicate the condition and associated risk
of these levee systems and recommend actions that may include immediate
repair of certain deficiencies and/or interim risk reduction measures.
The Corps will assist the local sponsor and other stakeholders to
develop the best path forward. Levees do not and cannot eliminate risk
and are not the only available flood risk reduction tool.
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES PROGRAM
Under the Floodplain Management Services Program, the Corps can
provide technical assistance with flood-related issues. Technical
assistance takes the form of hydrologic and hydraulic modeling,
inundation mapping, geographic information system analyses, assessing
structural and non-structural alternatives (including floodproofing and
stormwater management measures), determining potential benefits and
costs, assessing flood hazards and mitigation, comprehensive planning
and risk management, and other related analyses and assessments. This
program can provide concept plans for alternative solutions to flooding
problems but cannot result in design or construction of projects.
STUDY--DESIGN--CONSTRUCTION
The Corps also has a range of study, design, and construction
authorities for flood risk management. There are the ``large'' project
authorities such as that used for the Wyoming Valley and Lackawanna
River Flood Risk Management projects and ``small'' project authorities,
for projects generally less than $7 million total. The traditional and
most common way for the Corps to help a community solve a water
resource problem is through individually authorized studies and
projects. The Corps jointly conducts a cost-shared study with a non-
Federal sponsor and, if shown by the study to be feasible, constructs
the project. This approach requires that Congress provide the Corps
with authority and funds to first accomplish a reconnaissance and
feasibility study and, then, to design and construct the project. Local
sponsors share the study and construction costs with the Corps and
usually pay for all operation and maintenance costs. This approach may
be used to address any one of a variety of water resource problems,
including navigation, flood risk management, and ecosystem restoration.
PARTNERING WITH FEMA ON FLOODPLAIN MAPPING
Both the Corps and FEMA have a long history of partnering on
floodplain mapping as part of the NFIP. Over the past 30 years, the
Corps has completed more than 3,000 studies for FEMA related to
identifying the flood potential of various areas across the country.
These studies involved activities such as flood plain delineations and
detailed flood insurance studies. In August 2005, both agencies signed
an agreement that further streamlined the process for the Corps to
provide flood plain mapping and other related services to FEMA.
The Corps cooperates with FEMA and other Federal, State, and local
agencies through numerous avenues in support of FEMA's floodplain
mapping efforts. Currently, the Corps and FEMA partnership is the
strongest it has ever been. The Corps and FEMA will continue this
partnership as FEMA transitions into their Risk Mapping, Analysis, and
Planning (RiskMAP) program.
SILVER JACKETS PROGRAM--AGENCY COLLABORATION
The Silver Jackets program is an interagency team with members that
have some aspect of flood risk management/reduction as part of their
mission. Traditionally, different agencies wear different colored
jackets when responding to emergencies. The name Silver Jackets is used
to underscore the common mission of the diverse agencies involved.
Silver Jackets includes more than 12 active Federal, State,
regional, and professional agencies and organizations. Their focus over
the past year has been on flood risk management outreach and learning
others' programs. The team developed an interagency flood risk
management program guide that lists all Federal, State, and regional
flood-related programs. Most recently, the team met to discuss the
recent flooding and the actions each agency took during and after the
event. Flood-related issues and how our programs can be used continue
to be discussed among the various agencies.
The Pennsylvania Silver Jackets team recently submitted a proposal
for a flood inundation mapping project for the City of Harrisburg and
several adjacent communities. The proposed project leverages resources
from the Corps, Susquehanna River Basin Commission, U.S. Geologic
Survey, National Weather Service, Pennsylvania Emergency Management
Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and The Harrisburg
Authority. The project will provide a graphical extension to river
forecasts issued by the National Weather Service in partnership with
the Susquehanna River Flood Forecast and Warning System. The Harrisburg
pilot project was selected to move forward.
CONCLUSION
Thank you for the opportunity to provide a comprehensive review of
our role and programs for flood risk management, and an understanding
of Corps programs for flood risk management. The Corps uses its
authorities, programs, and role in flood risk management to the optimum
and maximum extent in order to reduce the risk to life, structures, and
property. We are all responsible for our safety.
This concludes my testimony and I would be happy to answer any
questions you or other Members of the subcommittee may have.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Colonel. I appreciate it very
much.
Now Mr. Cannon, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF GLENN M. CANNON, DIRECTOR, PENNSYLVANIA EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Mr. Cannon. Chairman Bilirakis, Congressman Marino, I am
Glenn Cannon, Director and Homeland Security Advisor for the
Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency. I am pleased to have
this opportunity to appear before you to discuss the response
to Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee and the lessons
learned from those storms. I very much appreciate the
committee's concern that at the Federal, State, and local level
we continue to focus on ensuring effective preparedness and
response to disasters.
As you mentioned earlier, sir, after Hurricane Katrina, I
was hired as the assistant administrator in the Department of
Homeland Security at FEMA. I was brought in to help fix the
problems that happened during FEMA's response to Hurricane
Katrina. At FEMA, I was in charge of disaster operations for 56
States and territories and was responsible for, among other
things, the development and execution of interagency plans and
procedures in response to Presidential disasters. I believe the
lessons we learned from that disaster made us better prepared
to respond to Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee.
In late August, PEMA, other State agencies, county and
local emergency management agencies, and FEMA began preparing
for Hurricane Irene. Since that time, we responded to Irene. We
started the recovery process from Irene. We prepared for
Tropical Storm Lee. We responded to Tropical Storm Lee. We
started the recovery process from Lee and are now back in the
recovery phase for both Irene and Lee. It has been a very
hectic and stressful period of time with long hours for those
at the Federal, State, county, and local level who have been
involved with both Irene and Lee. Our State Emergency
Operations Center was at elevated levels just about every day
from August 25 until the last week of September. For several
days during Tropical Storm Lee, our EOC was at level 1 the
first time since 9/11/01.
At the State level, Governor Corbett took a hands-on
approach regarding the disasters and committed all necessary
State resources. Governor Corbett, his executive staff, Lt.
Governor Cawley and our Cabinet secretaries were camped out at
PEMA during these storms and actively involved in the
operations. I think we may have set a record for Cabinet
meetings held in an agency during a 1-week period of time.
The magnitude of Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee was
immense. With regards to disaster destruction, Hurricane Agnes
in 1972 has been the benchmark in Pennsylvania. With Tropical
Storm Lee, there are areas with flood levels that exceeded
Agnes. Other areas that had flood records and across the State,
the total amount of devastation was worse than any storm since
Agnes.
Here are many of the key statistics that show the magnitude
of our storms. For Hurricane Irene, there were 11 counties
declared for individual assistance, 14 declared for public, and
13 declared for emergency protective measures. For Tropical
Storm Lee, there were 28 counties declared for individual
assistance, 30 counties declared for public assistance, and 44
counties were declared for emergency protective measures. We
have 67 counties in Pennsylvania; 44 were declared.
To date, there have been over 92,000 people registered for
individual assistance and over $129 million in individual
assistance has been awarded. The preliminary damage assessments
for public assistance have totaled over $200 million. The
actual PA damage number will likely double or triple that
amount. There have been over 1,800 Small Business
Administration loans approved for a total of over $73 million.
We have had over 26,000 visits to our 23 Disaster Recovery
Centers that MaryAnn mentioned.
Immediately after the storms hit, in coordination with
FEMA, over 576,000 bottles of water and over 147,000 emergency
meals were delivered to communities that needed these essential
supplies.
With the widespread destructive force of these storms
hitting not only Pennsylvania but the entire East Coast, it was
a major challenge for all in the emergency management
community. Now it is an even bigger challenge recovering from
the storms. Here are some of my thoughts on the lessons learned
and some of the things upon which we should try to improve.
First and foremost, we need to keep reminding our citizens
about preparedness in our Ready PA campaign. You probably have
seen Governor Tom Corbett on television or heard him on the
radio doing highly important public service announcements about
Ready PA. The purpose of Ready PA is to motivate Pennsylvanians
to take action to prepare for a disaster. It encourages all
Pennsylvanians to be informed, be prepared and be involved. The
on-going purpose of Ready PA is to make our citizens fully
aware of this reality and have them fully prepared if such a
situation occurs.
With regard to power outages and the aftermath in the
storms, we continue to look at the problems with power and the
extent of time that they are out. We are working with the
Public Utility Commission looking at doing tabletop exercises
to try to help them assess how to better prepare for and
respond to these situations.
We also learned, and we have had some of the discussion
about the huge benefit of flood mitigation projects. We believe
that probably as a result of these storms we will receive
requests for 400 to 500 home buyouts from the storms. In
addition, the flood levee system in Luzerne County that wasn't
there during Hurricane Agnes probably saved lives and, as we
have heard, billions of dollars of property damage. Nation-
wide, FEMA estimates that for every dollar spent on mitigation,
$4 are saved.
I would like to thank everybody that has been involved in
the preparation for and the response to and recovery from these
storms, this tremendous effort and work that has been done to
protect and help the citizens and communities that have been so
adversely affected.
One final point, and I think it is critical to where we
are. The success we had in the response to Hurricane Irene and
Tropical Storm Lee was in large part due to the prior work done
in enhancing our emergency response capabilities. The events
related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita highlighted the critical
importance of a comprehensive, all-hazard planning and training
effort across our country. In particular, the Emergency
Management Performance Grant program and the Homeland Security
Grant program have played key roles in providing the resources
needed to strengthen our response capabilities.
In light of the current budget crisis, I fully appreciate
the difficult situation faced by Members of Congress in making
budget cuts. As you know, over the past year, cuts have been
made to the Emergency Management Grant program and to the
Homeland Security Grant program. I am very concerned that
further cuts will be made to these and other programs which
would jeopardize our ability to respond effectively to future
disasters. Therefore, I strongly urge you to fight for the
resources our emergency management community, including our
first responders, needs to sustain our response capability and
protect our citizens.
Thank you very much.
[The statement of Mr. Cannon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Glenn M. Cannon
November 29, 2011
Chairman Bilirakis, Ranking Member Richardson, Congressman Marino
and Members of the committee, I am Glenn Cannon, Director and Homeland
Security Advisor for the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency
(PEMA). I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you to
discuss the response to the Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee and
lessons learned from those storms.
I very much appreciate this committee's concern that--at the
Federal, State, and local level--we continue to focus on ensuring
effective preparedness and response to disasters. As some of you may
know, after Hurricane Katrina, I was hired as an assistant
administrator in the Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). I was brought in to help fix the problems
that happened during FEMA's response to that disaster. At FEMA, I was
in charge of Disaster Operations for 56 States and territories and was
responsible for, among other things, the development and execution of
interagency plans and procedures in response to Presidential disaster
and emergency declarations. I believe the lessons we learned from that
disaster made us better prepared to respond to Hurricane Irene and
Tropical Storm Lee.
In late August, PEMA, other State agencies, county and local
emergency management agencies, and FEMA began preparing for Hurricane
Irene. Since that time, we responded to Irene, started the recovery
process from Irene, prepared for Tropical Storm Lee, responded to Lee,
started the recovery process from Lee, and now are back in the recovery
phase for both Irene and Lee. It has been a very hectic and stressful
period of time--with long hours--for those at the Federal, State,
county, and local level who have been involved with Irene and Lee. The
State Emergency Operations Center (SEOC) was at elevated levels just
about every day from August 25 until the last week of September. For
several days, the SEOC was at Level 1 for the first time since
September 11, 2001.
At the State level, Governor Corbett took a hands-on approach
regarding the disasters and committed all necessary State resources.
Governor Corbett, his executive staff, Lieutenant Governor Cawley, and
cabinet secretaries were camped out at PEMA during these storms and
actively involved in the operations. I think we may have set a record
for cabinet meetings held at an agency during a 1-week time period.
The magnitude of Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee was
immense. With regards to disaster destruction, Hurricane Agnes in 1972
has been the benchmark in Pennsylvania. With Tropical Storm Lee, there
are areas with flood levels that exceeded Agnes, other areas that had
record flood levels, and across the State the total amount of
devastation was worse than any storm since Agnes. Here are many of the
key statistics that show the magnitude of the storms:
For Hurricane Irene, there were 11 counties declared for
Individual Assistance, 14 counties declared for Public
Assistance, and 13 counties declared for Emergency Protective
Measures.
For Tropical Storm Lee, there were 28 counties declared for
Individual Assistance, 30 counties declared for Public
Assistance, and 44 counties declared for Emergency Protective
Measures.
To date, there have been over 92,000 people register for
Individual Assistance (IA) and over $128 million in IA has been
awarded.
The Preliminary Damage Assessments for Public Assistance
(PA) totaled over $180 million and the actual PA damage number
likely will be double or triple that amount. Currently, there
are about 1,650 applicants for Public Assistance.
There have been over 1,800 Small Business Administration
(SBA) loans approved for a total of over $68 million.
We have had over 26,000 visits to our 23 Disaster Recovery
Centers (DRCs).
Immediately after the storms hit, in coordination with FEMA,
over 576,000 bottles of water and over 147,000 emergency meals
were delivered to communities that needed these essential
supplies.
With the widespread destructive force of these storms hitting not
only Pennsylvania but the entire East Coast, it was a major challenge
for all in the emergency management community. Now it's an even bigger
challenge recovering from the storms. Here are some of my thoughts on
the lessons learned and some of the things upon which we should try to
improve.
First and foremost, we need to keep reminding our citizens about
preparedness and our ``ReadyPA'' campaign. You probably have seen
Governor Tom Corbett on television or heard him on the radio doing
highly important Public Service Announcements about ReadyPA. The
purpose of ReadyPA is to motivate Pennsylvanians to take action to
prepare for a disaster. ReadyPA encourages all Pennsylvanians to: Be
Informed, Be Prepared, and Be Involved. Nation-wide experience has
shown that, in major emergencies or disasters, people need to be
prepared to make it on their own for a period of time. Local officials
and emergency relief workers will respond after a disaster, but they
may not be able to reach everyone right away. As we saw with Hurricane
Irene and Tropical Storm Lee, it may take significant time after an
emergency for things such as power or water to be fully restored. That
is why it's critical for everyone to be prepared to survive on his or
her own for at least 72 hours in the event of an emergency. The on-
going purpose of ReadyPA is to make our citizens fully aware of this
reality and have them fully prepared if such a situation occurs. The
ReadyPA website can be found at: www.ReadyPA.org.
With regards to power outages, in the aftermath of the storms we
had citizens who were without power for a week to 10 days. We also had
people who experienced power outages for over a week from an early
season snow storm that hit the eastern part of the State several weeks
ago. PEMA's role is very limited regarding power outage matters and I
appreciate the challenges the utilities face in restoring power in
these situations. However, long power outage issues need to be
reviewed. It is my understanding that the Public Utility Commission is
considering doing a tabletop exercise with the utilities to try and
assess what can be done to better prepare for and respond to these
situations. I think such a tabletop exercise would be very beneficial
to see how things can be improved.
We also learned a lesson about the huge benefits--on the human
safety side and the property damage side--of flood mitigation projects.
Since 1996, PEMA has used Federal mitigation funds to acquire about
1,400 homes which removed an estimated 3,500 people from dangerous
flood areas. Acquisition is considered the ``best'' mitigation practice
because it eliminates the hazard of flooding in a risk area: No
homes=no losses. Based on the amount of homes damaged in Hurricane
Irene and Tropical Storm Lee, we anticipate that PEMA will receive
requests for 400-500 home buyouts from the storms. In addition, the
flood levee system in Luzerne County--that wasn't there during
Hurricane Agnes--probably saved lives and over a billion dollars in
property damage. Nation-wide, FEMA estimates that for every $1 spent on
mitigation, $4 are saved. I highly encourage this committee to make
funding of Federal mitigation projects a priority.
On the recovery front, there are several important matters to note.
At the beginning of the recovery, FEMA did not think it could support
the large number of DRCs that we needed opened in the State and get
them up and running as quickly as we needed. We worked jointly with
FEMA and moved aggressively on the matter. The result--we had DRCs
opened in record time and in record numbers. For future disasters, it
should be a reminder that--when it comes to helping our citizens--where
there's a will, there's a way to get things done. On the housing front,
getting citizens into Temporary Housing Units (THUs) has been the
biggest challenge during the recovery. I know that it is a very complex
matter at the Federal and local level and I hope that progress will
continue to be made to get all people in THUs as soon as possible. On
the business front, SBA's 4% interest rate continues to be a concern
for many small businesses. I would encourage this committee to see
whether SBA will lower the interest rate in light of the devastation
from these storms. The viability of the affected businesses is crucial
to the future recovery of our flood-ravaged communities.
I thank everyone involved--in the preparation for, the response to,
and the recovery from these storms--for the tremendous effort and work
that has been done to protect and help the citizens and communities
that have been so adversely affected. Our first responders and rescue
teams were heroes who went beyond the call of duty to save lives. There
were neighbors helping neighbors and strangers helping strangers. The
cooperation and coordination among State, county, local, and Federal
entities truly has been remarkable. On the political front, the
assistance given on these disasters has been so terrific and so
nonpartisan. When I was in Duryea, Luzerne County, FEMA Administrator
Craig Fugate was there to see the devastation first hand. He told me
``Glenn, whatever you need, call me and you'll have it.'' When I was in
Noxen and Forkston, Wyoming County, Congressman Marino told me he would
call the Chairman of this committee, Peter King, to absolutely make
certain we had everything we needed to help our citizens and
communities. Simply put--the worst of Mother Nature was met with the
best of human nature.
The success we had in the response to Hurricane Irene and Tropical
Storm Lee was, in large part, due to the prior work done in enhancing
our emergency response capabilities. The events related to Hurricane
Katrina and Rita highlighted the critical importance of comprehensive
all-hazard planning and training. In particular, the Emergency
Management Performance Grant (EMPG) and the Homeland Security Grant
Program (HSGP) have played key roles in providing the resources needed
to strengthen our State response capabilities. In light of the current
budget crisis, I fully appreciate the difficult situation faced by
Members of Congress in making budget cuts. As you know, over the past
year cuts have been made to EMGP and HSGP. I am very concerned that
further cuts will be made to these and other programs which will
jeopardize our ability to respond effectively to future disasters.
Therefore, I strongly urge you to fight for the resources our emergency
management community, including our first responders, need to sustain
our response capabilities and protect our citizens.
On behalf of Governor Corbett and the 12 million Pennsylvanians we
serve, I again want to thank you the Members of this committee and the
entire United States Congress for your continued support of PEMA and
our partners in public safety across the State. I would be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Bilirakis. I appreciate it very much.
Now we will ask Ms. Wenner to testify for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MARITA C. WENNER, VOLUNTEER CHAIR, PENNSYLVANIA
STATE DISASTER COMMITTEE, AMERICAN RED CROSS
Ms. Wenner. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members and staff
of the subcommittee. I am honored to appear here today on
behalf of the American Red Cross. My name is Marita Wenner, and
I am a resident of this community and I serve as the volunteer
chair of the Pennsylvania State Disaster Committee for the
American Red Cross.
I started my Red Cross career responding to single-family
fires in Wayne and Pike counties, helping my neighbors recover
from devastation of losing all of their belongings, having
nowhere to go, and not knowing what to do next. I am one of
thousands of Red Cross volunteers who respond to disasters
across the country when the need arises.
Over the past 20 years, I have learned that whether it is a
house fire or a catastrophic disaster event, people have the
same concerns and needs. They need information on where to go
for help, how to begin their recovery, and most of all, they
need someone to listen to their story with a caring heart. This
is a small part of what the American Red Cross does in times of
disaster, and I am fortunate to be part of this outstanding
organization.
Today's hearing's topic is of vital interest to the Red
Cross and particularly important to me and my colleagues
serving both at the National level and here in Pennsylvania.
This has been a historic year for disaster response.
Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee caused devastating
flooding and wind damage in communities from North Carolina to
New England affecting millions of residents. These storms
flooded roads, damaged and destroyed homes, caused power
outages, and prompted the evacuation of hundreds of thousands
of families. In response to the threat of Hurricane Irene, the
Red Cross mobilized a massive response. Thousands of
prepackaged meals and over 240 emergency response vehicles were
deployed across the East Coast. As Irene made landfall, more
than 27,000 people found safe haven in approximately 500
shelters. After Tropical Storm Lee hit, some residents returned
to find their homes with damage beyond repair. Red Cross
shelters remained open for several weeks in New York,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and New Jersey.
I was dispatched along with many other volunteers prior to
landfall of Hurricane Irene to the New York City chapter where
I worked directing the preparedness activities anticipating
what might be one of the worst natural disasters the city and
State had ever encountered. Post-landfall, the valuable lessons
that we have learned from past catastrophic hurricanes helped
us mount an integrated and collaborative response with our
government and non-government partners across the northeast
United States. After 2 weeks in New York, I shifted my focus to
Pennsylvania. With my experience of prior flooding events in
Pennsylvania, I understood the enormous disaster implications
of the predicated amount of rain that was falling in the area.
Over the years, the Pennsylvania Red Cross has made great
progress using our resources both material and human to our
best advantage. We have developed regional systems to respond
quickly and assess the resources we need to help our neighbors.
This disaster would test our preparedness and become an
unprecedented Pennsylvania response.
Our response to Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee was
immediate and comprehensive. We were able to rapidly move
people and supplies from unaffected areas of the State such as
Erie and Pittsburgh to affected central and northeast areas
such as Pine Grove, Bloomsburg, Wilkes-Barre, Sayre, and
Tunkhannock. As disaster needs increased and evolved, we relied
on our assets from our National system to support our State-
wide response. Shelters were open across the area in
anticipation of need to provide food, a safe place to sleep,
mental health support, and access to some basic first aid and
health care. Mobile feeding was established as soon as the
weather permitted and was safe to do so. Red Cross trucks drove
through affected neighborhoods delivering meals, snacks, and
beverages to people returning to and cleaning up their damaged
homes.
Within days, we secured donated warehouse space at the
Humboldt Industrial Park in Hazleton. The Red Cross opened a
combination operation headquarters, mobile feeding kitchen,
staff center, and storage facilities for our bulk supplies. We
distributed truckloads of supplies like clean-up kits, rakes,
shovels, garbage bags, disinfectant, gloves, masks, and
personal care items. We engauged partner agencies such as the
Boy Scouts and our corporate partners, who worked at our
warehouse assembling and distributing hundreds of coolers
packed with shelf-stable food, recovery supplies, and
information. From this site in Hazleton, we were able to serve
the affected populations from Susquehanna and Bradford counties
to the affected areas south of Harrisburg and across the
central part of the State.
Over the length of these storms, the Red Cross in
Pennsylvania provided a safe place to stay for over 8,000
people in 100 shelters and served over 400,000 meals and
snacks. Our response efforts were given by volunteers, many of
whom came from across the country. In total, the Red Cross had
1,870 workers on the ground, 1,734 of which were volunteers. We
worked closely with our colleagues in the nonprofit,
charitable, and faith-based communities along with our Federal,
State, and local officials to expand our reach.
After reviewing our Red Cross response in Pennsylvania, we
will focus on the following. We need to continuously recruit,
develop, and train local volunteers. We must continue to
provide preparedness information ahead of events. When families
are prepared, lives are saved and communities are more
resilient.
Consistent, on-going State-wide planning and collaboration
is critical to a successful response. We need to focus on
transitioning shelter residents to longer-term housing
solutions. The faster that people can transition to permanent
housing, the sooner that families including the vulnerable
populations such as children, the elderly, and those with
disabilities can return to normal activities and move towards
recovery.
Partnering remains critical to a successful response as no
one agency can meets the needs of the community in a major
event. Government, NGOs, the faith community, advocacy groups,
the private sector, and individual citizens each play a
critical role in response. We must continue to build and
strengthen these partnerships at all levels.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to provide
testimony. The Red Cross is committed to be there ready for
whatever disaster may strike. Hurricane Irene and Tropical
Storm Lee were storms that tested our communities, and I am
pleased that the American Red Cross and our volunteers and
partners could play a role in the successful response.
I am happy to address any questions you may have.
[The statement of Ms. Wenner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Marita C. Wenner
November 29, 2011
Good morning Mr. Chairman, Members and staff of the subcommittee. I
am honored to appear today on behalf of the American Red Cross. My name
is Marita C. Wenner and I serve as the volunteer chair of the
Pennsylvania State Disaster Committee of the American Red Cross. I
previously served, for 17 years, as the Executive Director of the Wayne
Pike Chapter of the American Red Cross and am currently the Chairman of
the Board. I am a resident of this community and would especially like
to acknowledge Vice Chairman Tom Marino for his leadership as we
continue to recover from the impact of Hurricane Irene and Tropical
Storm Lee as well as his role in bringing this important hearing to
Northeast Pennsylvania.
I started my Red Cross career responding to single-family house
fires in Wayne and Pike counties, helping my neighbors recover from the
devastation of losing all their belongings, having nowhere to go, not
knowing what to do next. I am one of thousands of Red Cross volunteers
who respond to disasters across the country when the need arises. Over
the past 20 years, I have learned that whether it is a house fire or a
catastrophic disaster event, people have the same concerns and needs.
They need information on where to go for help, how to begin their
recovery, and most of all they need someone to listen to their story
with a caring heart. This is a small part of what the American Red
Cross does in times of disaster and I am very fortunate to be a part of
this outstanding organization.
Since its founding in 1881, our Nation has turned to the American
Red Cross in emergency situations. As part of its mission, the Red
Cross has provided shelter, food, clothing, emotional, and other
support to those impacted by disasters in communities across the
country and around the world. We supply nearly half of the Nation's
blood. We teach life-saving skills to hundreds of thousands of people
each year, and we provide resources to the members of the military and
their families. Whether it is a hurricane or a heart attack, a call for
blood or a call for help, the Red Cross is there.
Today's hearing topic, ``Ensuring Effective Preparedness and
Response: Lessons Learned from Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee''
is of vital interest to the Red Cross and particularly important to me
and my colleagues serving both Nationally and here in Pennsylvania.
This has been a historic year for disaster response--beginning in the
spring with an unprecedented number of severe storms and tornados that
culminated with Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee. We are grateful
for the opportunity to share our operation details and thoughts on best
practices in preparation for future events.
HURRICANE IRENE AND TROPICAL STORM LEE
As you may know, Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee caused
devastating flood and wind damage in communities from North Carolina to
New England, affecting millions of residents. These historic storms
flooded roads, damaged and destroyed homes, caused power outages and
prompted the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of families across the
Eastern Seaboard.
In response to the threat of Hurricane Irene, the Red Cross
mobilized a massive response and urged residents to prepare for Irene's
impact. Thousands of pre-packaged meals were deployed from North
Carolina to Maine. In addition, approximately 250 emergency response
vehicles were placed on alert and mobilized to support disaster relief
operations in many of the coastal States. As Irene made landfall, more
than 27,000 people found a safe haven in approximately 500 shelters. By
September 7, 2011, alongside community and Government partners, the Red
Cross had provided 1.8 million meals and snacks, opened 492 shelters,
provided 22,000 health and mental health consultations, and distributed
nearly 127,000 relief items.
After Tropical Storm Lee hit, some residents returned to find homes
that were damaged beyond repair. Red Cross shelters remained open in
New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and New Jersey to house those still
displaced for several weeks after these storms made landfall. To help
families with the task of clearing their homes of debris and mud, the
Red Cross provided over 55,000 clean-up kits and hundreds of thousands
of other relief items to aid those affected.
I was dispatched along with many other volunteers prior to landfall
of Hurricane Irene to the Red Cross Chapter in New York City, where I
worked directing the preparedness activities anticipating what might be
one of the worst natural disasters the city and State had ever
encountered. Post-landfall, the valuable lessons we have learned from
past catastrophic hurricanes helped us to mount an integrated and
collaborative response with our Government and non-Government partners
across the Northeast United States. After 2 weeks in New York, I
shifted focus to Pennsylvania. I was quickly sent to help coordinate
the efforts of the Pennsylvania chapter. With my experience of prior
flooding events in Pennsylvania I understood the enormous disaster
implications of the predicted amount of rain that was falling across
the area.
Over the years, the Pennsylvania Red Cross has made great progress,
using our resources, both material and human, to our best advantage
during disasters. We have developed regional systems to respond quickly
and assess the resources needed to help our neighbors during disasters.
We work closely with our partner agencies to identify the disaster-
caused needs of our communities and work collaboratively for a timely
response. This disaster would test our preparedness and become an
unprecedented Pennsylvania response. We were able to rapidly move
people and supplies from unaffected areas of the State, such as Erie
and Pittsburgh to the affected Central and Northeast areas, such as
Pine Grove, Bloomsburg, Wilkes-Barre, Sayre, and Tunkhannock. As
disaster needs increased and evolved, we relied on assets from our
National system to support our State-wide response.
AMERICAN RED CROSS SERVICES--WHAT WE DO IN TIMES OF DISASTER
Our citizens rely on the American Red Cross to provide comfort and
care during an emergency. The American Red Cross will be there to
provide the basics of food, shelter, and a shoulder to lean on in times
of disaster. But it is important to know the details of these services
and I would like to take a moment to expand upon each service.
Sheltering.--Shelters often become a focal point for the
interaction between disaster survivors and the community at large. They
are a place of safety, refuge, and comfort for many. When a family or
individual walks through the door of a shelter operated or supported by
the Red Cross, they can expect food, a safe place to sleep, mental
health support, and access to some basic first aid and health care.
The Red Cross works closely with Government and community partners
to initiate sheltering activities in schools, churches, or other large
facilities for individuals and families. Shelters may be opened in
anticipation of a disaster, during an evacuation or post-disaster.
Shelters are not closed until the disaster-caused housing needs of all
of the occupants are met.
We coordinate all of our shelter operations with our Government
partners using a database called the American Red Cross National
Shelter System. We are committed to the important work of moving people
out of the shelter environment and into transitional and long-term
housing. This is where our communities truly depend on the
collaboration and partnerships with Federal, State, and local
government. In Pennsylvania, we were challenged by housing shortages in
our Northern counties and worked closely with our partners making sure
that shelter clients' housing needs were met.
Feeding.--In addition to feeding people at shelters, the Red Cross
also provides food in affected areas for people who cannot travel to a
shelter, for those who choose to stay in their homes or for those
cleaning up after a storm. Emergency workers or other groups helping in
disaster relief efforts are provided meals, as well. Mobile feeding is
critical to meeting the immediate needs of affected communities. Red
Cross workers often drive through affected neighborhoods delivering
meals, snacks, and beverages to people returning to and cleaning up
damaged homes.
Distribution of Supplies.--In many disasters, essential items
clients need to assist their recovery might not be immediately
available in the local area. In such cases, the Red Cross distributes
throughout the affected areas items that may be needed. During
Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee the Red Cross distributed
truckloads of clean-up kits, rakes, shovels, garbage bags,
disinfectant, gloves, masks, insect repellant, sunscreen, personal
toiletries items, and ready-to-eat meals. In Pennsylvania, we engauged
partner agencies such as the Boy Scouts and our corporate partners to
work at our warehouse assembling hundreds of coolers packed with shelf-
stable food, recovery supplies, and information which were distributed
to families across the affected areas.
Disaster Mental Health Services.--Red Cross workers provide vital
mental health services helping people cope with the after-effects of a
disaster. Our mental health workers are present at shelters, feeding
sites, and aid stations. They also travel with caseworkers and visit
families in disaster-affected neighborhoods where clean-up and
rebuilding is taking place. Red Cross mental health volunteers are
licensed mental health professionals and often work with practitioners
in the community to provide services where the need is greatest. In
Pennsylvania, our mental health workers were embedded throughout our
response, working on feeding trucks, with caseworkers, and with partner
agencies. They were there listening to the stories of everyone in the
community affected by the disaster. They helped families begin their
recovery process with valuable information and guided them to seek
further help if needed. In addition to our mental health volunteers,
the Red Cross encourages all of our workers to take our Psychological
First Aid Course so that more of our volunteers are prepared to help
clients and each other in times of extreme stress.
Client Casework.--Disaster victims often need the type of one-on-
one advocacy that caseworkers can provide. Few things are more
rewarding than working with a family to help the family begin their
recovery after a disaster. Each family has unique needs that skilled
Red Cross caseworkers can help to address, and caseworkers provide
referrals to community resources and agencies as necessary. Because of
the sheer number of agencies involved in a successful response, it is
often hard to know where to get help and how to start on the road to
recovery. Caseworkers advocate on behalf of the client to access the
needed resources. They provide a caring heart and a listening ear.
Outreach to People With Disabilities.--In developing mass care and
sheltering capacity throughout the community, the American Red Cross is
making it a priority Nation-wide to ensure that services and shelters
are as accessible as possible to people with disabilities. Our Red
Cross chapters work closely with local experts on access and functional
needs issues. We strive to staff shelters with workers who have the
knowledge and experience to evaluate the needs of clients and to make
the adjustments and accommodations to ensure a safe and comfortable
stay.
RED CROSS VOLUNTEERS AND PARTNERSHIPS
Red Cross disaster responses are primarily led and delivered by
volunteers. In addition to local volunteers who respond to an average
of 200 disasters a day Nation-wide, a network of more than 70,000
trained volunteers is available to respond to larger events. The
American Red Cross also has the capacity to manage large numbers of
spontaneous volunteers (more than 230,000 volunteers participated in
the 2005 response to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma). In addition,
key partners such as Southern Baptist Disaster Relief provide an
enormous resource for helping those in need. Other key partners like
the NAACP, National Disability Rights Network (NRDN) and faith
organizations further extend service capabilities. Our model for
disaster services is collaborative; it takes the entire community to
deliver an effective response in a large-scale event.
RED CROSS RESPONSE IN PENNSYLVANIA
The Red Cross response to Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee in
Pennsylvania was immediate and comprehensive. Shelters were opened and
staffed across the area in anticipation of the need. Mobile feeding was
established as soon as weather permitted and it was safe to do so.
Within days, we secured donated warehouse space at the Humbolt
Industrial Park in Hazleton. The Red Cross opened a combination
operation headquarters, mobile feeding kitchen, staffing center, and
storage facility for bulk supplies.
From this site, we were able to deploy 98 Emergency Response
Vehicles with food and relief supplies ranging from Susquehanna and
Bradford counties to affected areas south of Harrisburg and across the
central area of the State. Over the length of these storms, the Red
Cross provided a safe place to stay for over 8,000 people in 100
shelters, and served over 400,000 meals and snacks.
Our response efforts were driven by volunteers--many of whom came
from across the country--to help provide a wide range of services.
These services included more than 4,525 mental and disaster health
consultations from volunteers who listened and helped families move
forward in their recovery. In total, the Red Cross had 1,870 workers on
the ground, 1,734 of which were volunteers.
We are working closer than ever with our colleagues in the
nonprofit, charitable, and faith-based communities to expand our reach.
We continue to focus on our coordination with Federal, State, and local
officials. Here in Pennsylvania, the partnership we have built with
State and County Emergency Management is strong. From responding to
single family fires to a major hurricane response, we strive to keep
our Emergency Management Partners well informed and cooperate and
collaborate to better serve disaster survivors.
GOVERNMENT, NONPROFIT, AND OTHER PARTNER COLLABORATION
In Pennsylvania, as is the case across the country, the American
Red Cross staffs the State and local Emergency Operation Center(s)
(EOC) with Red Cross Government Liaisons who collaborate with
Government and nonprofit agency counterparts. The Red Cross also
actively works with the local Voluntary Organizations Active in
Disaster (VOAD), which is a coalition of independent voluntary agencies
that meet regularly to ensure a coordinated community response that
addresses the needs of victims and minimizes redundancies of services.
To ensure effective disaster readiness and response, the Red Cross has
established relationships with partner community agencies. We have
partnerships with National-level agencies and organizations as well as
local agencies and organizations.
In Pennsylvania, through a community partnership with the Southern
Baptist Convention, we were able to set up two mobile kitchens units
capable of preparing 20,000 meals a day to distribute meals and snacks
throughout the Commonwealth. Several partner organizations supported
the massive Red Cross relief effort in the State. County mental health
agencies throughout Pennsylvania deployed volunteers to assist at Red
Cross emergency aid stations. The American Humane Association set up
shelters for animals so that people forced to leave their homes had
somewhere to take their family pets. Mennonite Disaster Services helped
people clean out their homes. The Teamsters helped with transporting
supplies. Countless local businesses and organizations donated over
$400,000 worth of in-kind supplies and materials to help with the
response effort. It was through this collaborative effort that we were
able to help those in need.
KEY LESSONS LEARNED
After reviewing our response in Pennsylvania, several themes
emerged.
There is a continuous need to recruit, develop, and train
local volunteers. This reduces response time and operating
costs, and it creates teams of volunteers that are already
familiar with one another prior to the disaster.
We must continue to aggressively provide preparedness
information ahead of events to those communities in the path of
the storm. When storms are bearing down on our homes, we know
from experience that our communities will listen. The
opportunity--albeit brief--is there to ensure everyone has the
information and resources they need in advance. When families
are prepared, lives are saved.
Consistent, on-going, State-wide planning and collaboration
is critical to a successful response. Over the past few years,
the numbers of agencies, community expectations, and resource
challenges have increased dramatically. The complexities and
interdependencies with all levels of Government have never been
greater, and our success in coordinating responses is directly
related to how well we staff Emergency Operations Centers and
Federal agencies.
Strengthening partnerships with other agencies and
businesses remains a key factor to our success going forward.
If a client needs a cot or a meal, it is of no consequence to
the client who provides it.
Shelters provide important social hubs, but we need to focus
on transitioning shelter residents to longer-term housing
solutions more quickly. The faster that sheltering operations
can transition to more permanent solutions, the sooner that
residents--including vulnerable populations such as children,
the elderly, and those with disabilities--can return to normal
activities and move towards recovery.
Partnering remains critical to a successful response, as no
one agency can meet the needs of the community in a major
event. Government, NGOs, the faith community, advocacy groups,
the private sector, and the individual citizen each play a
critical role in the response. We must continue to build these
partnerships at all levels.
Responses that cover a wide geography, as was the case with
Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee, test our ability to
scale and to identify key leadership. As you know, we had
significant sheltering and response activity from North
Carolina to Maine. Moving forward, we will continue to focus on
maintaining resource levels and on growing leadership within
our Disaster Services volunteer system so that we can deliver
the needed services regardless of the geographic scope of an
operation.
CLOSING REMARKS
Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, thank you once again
for this opportunity to provide testimony. The American Red Cross is
committed to being ready for whatever disaster may strike. Hurricane
Irene and Tropical Storm Lee were storms that tested our communities,
but I am pleased that the American Red Cross and our volunteers and
partners could play a role in the successful response. To mount an
effective response, entire communities need to work together, and we
need to be sure that we are ready to do our part.
I am happy to address any questions you may have.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Ms. Wenner.
Now Mr. Brozena, you are recognized for 5 minutes, sir.
STATEMENT OF JAMES J. BROZENA, P.E., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
LUZERNE COUNTY FLOOD PROTECTION AUTHORITY
Mr. Brozena. Good morning. Welcome to Pennsylvania.
My name is Jim Brozena and I am the executive director of
the Luzerne County Flood Protection Authority. Thank you for
the opportunity to provide my insights into lessons learned
during the recent Tropical Storm Lee event and my comments
regarding the Federal response to recovery efforts.
To provide you with some background, the authority operates
and maintains the Wyoming Valley levee system, which consists
of approximately 16 miles of levees and floodwalls and provides
protection for approximately 65,000 residents from the
Susquehanna River.
On Monday, September 5, the National Weather Service
provided its first briefing and the briefing continued
throughout the week as the situation worsened. The web-based
briefings provided an efficient means of informing emergency
management personnel from all counties in the region
concurrently about current and projected river conditions. The
authority contacted the Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore
District to request assistance in the emergency operations
during the event.
The Wyoming Valley was placed under a mandatory evacuation
beginning at 4 p.m. on Thursday as the river was now projected
to crest at 41 feet later that evening. Approximately 100,000
residents would be evacuated. The projected crest would match
the flood of record for Wilkes-Barre set in 1972.
The authority was fortunate to have the Corps of Engineers
as well as several professional engineers in the county
volunteer their assistance with levee patrols. In addition, a
local contractor volunteered to stage equipment and material.
All of their efforts would be required in the next 24 hours to
contain the river.
On Thursday evening, it appeared that the river had finally
crested at 38\1/2\ feet. However, the USGS gauge had actually
reached its operating limit. During a review of a repair over
in Forty Fort that evening, officials determined that the gauge
had actually failed and that the river actually crested early
Friday morning at 42.66 feet. This surpassed the previous flood
of record set in 1972, Tropical Storm Agnes, and was 1.66 feet
greater than the design of the levee system.
Residents in the protected areas were allowed to return to
their homes Saturday afternoon. The levee system had prevented
approximately $4 billion in damages. Unfortunately, though, not
all areas of the Wyoming Valley escaped unharmed. Nearly 3,000
properties in unprotected communities were flooded.
The early notification from the National Weather Service
and the river forecast centers, the expertise of the Corps and
the local engineering professionals, the skills of local
contractors and local municipal public works employees and the
dedication of hundreds of volunteers prevented Tropical Storm
Lee from becoming a much larger disaster.
Some of the lessons learned: The USGS gauge, well, they
took immediate action following the event to relocate the gauge
so that it now reads to a height higher than the actual levee
system, and in addition, they have come to the realization of
its need to make data users aware of the operating limits and
gauge heights of the features. It has spurred a movement to
accomplish this Nationally within the USGS.
The Corps of Engineers emergency management preparedness:
As local sponsors struggle with budgetary constraints, less and
less qualified staff is available for levee patrols. The
involvement of Corps engineers on-site is crucial during major
flood events. Also, the Corps should develop high-water
operations training and hold annual training sessions for local
project sponsors. Training videos should be created and made
available and would allow for additional local training
opportunities.
Interagency coordination: The Susquehanna River Basin
Commission has expanded its annual Susquehanna flood forecast
warning interagency committee meeting to include a discussion
with emergency managers and municipal officials to evaluate
system performance and share lessons learned.
Public Law 84-99 funding, which is the Corps' ability to
fix projects and inspect and rehabilitate flood damage:
Unfortunately, the time line for the process is long. Even if
projects are economically justified, funding may not be
available. Local sponsors like the authority do not have the
funding available to address damages caused by significant
flood events. Delays in addressing repairs puts individuals'
safety and property at risk.
Susquehanna Flood Forecast and Warning System: A permanent
solution to funding the $2.4 million annual expense of the
Susquehanna Flood Forecast and Warning System must be
identified. This system provides the data that is used to
forecast river levels and issue more accurate early flood
warnings. The system is extremely cost-effective, providing a
20:1 benefit-to-cost ratio.
Levee project funding: The levee-raising project started
immediately after the flood in 1972. Sadly, the project is
still not complete. While the major flood control portions are
complete, Federal funding for the mitigation program is not in
place. The lack of adequate Federal project funding since 2009
has prevented the mitigation program from being completed. With
adequate project funding, additional projects and properties
could have been done and we would have suffered less damage in
those communities.
Pennsylvania is one of the most flood-prone States in the
country. It consists of 67 counties with nearly 2,600
municipalities. Luzerne County alone has 76 municipalities.
Many of the communities are staffed by one person that handles
all administrative functions. Typically, the salaries are low
and turnover is high, and most do not have the technical
expertise or training to properly administer the flood
insurance program.
Major flood events are infrequent, and the small
municipalities are paralyzed immediately following an event. It
is at this point that FEMA assistance is most critical as
municipal leaders are bombarded with questions regarding flood
recovery. Whether there is a Presidential disaster declaration
or not, FEMA should immediately contact municipalities and
remind them of their responsibilities to enforce the
requirements of the flood insurance program. Visits to
municipalities must occur in a more timely fashion. Most visits
did not occur until 30 days after the event, and some
municipalities unfortunately have still not had their visits.
In addition, while FEMA has thousands of publications, it
does not have a Flooding 101 document. This manual would
consist of a comprehensive step-by-step reference regarding all
necessary actions a municipality must undertake following a
major disaster.
Failure to involve county officials in the recovery effort
is an error. County staff could act as the liaison between FEMA
and the affected municipalities and allow for a consistent
measure being presented. A more efficient means of dealing with
substantially damaged or destroyed structures must be
identified. Property owners will not even know if their
property is possibly included for acquisition until the end of
January 2012. A timeline for acquisition still has not been
determined. Individuals damaged by flooding cannot be expected
to wait the 1\1/2\ to 3 years that a typical hazard mitigation
project takes.
Finally, thank you for the opportunity to provide my
comments. Federal officials need to have a better understanding
of the challenges facing local governments and agencies and
evaluate modifications to their programs.
This concludes my testimony. Again, thank you. If you have
any questions, I will be glad to answer them.
[The statement of Mr. Brozena follows:]
Prepared Statement of James J. Brozena
November 29, 2011
Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, good morning and
welcome to Northeastern Pennsylvania. My name is James Brozena and I am
the executive director of the Luzerne County Flood Protection
Authority. Thank you for the opportunity to provide my insights into
lessons learned during the recent Tropical Storm Lee event and my
comments regarding the Federal response to recovery efforts.
To provide you with some background, the Authority operates and
maintains the Wyoming Valley Levee System located in the Wyoming Valley
in northeastern Pennsylvania. The Wyoming Valley Levee System consists
of approximately 16 miles of levees and floodwalls, 13 pump stations,
closure structures, and relief wells. The system provides protection
for approximately 65,000 residents located in nine communities from the
Susquehanna River. The Wyoming Valley Levee Raising Project, which
raised the existing levees overtopped in 1972 by Tropical Storm Agnes,
started construction in 1997. Work is still on-going.
TROPICAL STORM LEE--SEPTEMBER 2011
Levee System
On Monday, September 5, the National Weather Service Binghamton
Office provided its first briefing from its Warning Coordinating
Meteorologist. Briefings continued on throughout the week as the
situation worsened. The web-based briefings provided an efficient means
of informing Emergency Management personnel from all counties in the
region concurrently about current and projected river conditions. Also,
it gave Emergency Management officials the ability to understand issues
and problems occurring in neighboring counties. The ``local knowledge''
of all areas in the service area allowed for keen insights by the
National Weather Service meteorologists. If specific areas of concern
were observed, the National Weather Service and River Forecast Centers
were available for direct consultation.
As the projected river crests continued to rise, the Authority
contacted the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, to
request assistance in the emergency operations during the event.
Multiple teams arrived Thursday afternoon. The Wyoming Valley was under
a mandatory evacuation beginning at 4 p.m. Thursday as the river was
now projected to crest at 41 feet later that evening. Approximately
100,000 residents would be evacuated. The projected crest would match
the flood of record for Wilkes-Barre set in 1972.
The Authority was fortunate to have several professional engineers
from the county volunteer their assistance with the levee patrols.
Also, several Corps personnel that resided in the area volunteered
their help as well. In addition, a local contractor, Mericle
Construction, offered to stage equipment and material at several
locations in the event that it would be needed. All of their efforts
would be needed in the next 24 hours to contain the river.
Issues developed with the closure structure as the Market Street
Bridge in both Kingston and Wilkes-Barre as seals failed. A flood wall
in Forty Fort began to crack and the Corps provided the Authority
recommendations on an interim solution. Mericle Construction completed
the work about 2 a.m. Friday morning.
At that point it appeared that the river had crested at 38.5 feet;
however, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) gauge had reached
its operating limits. This information was not known by the Authority,
the Corps, the National Weather Service or the Susquehanna River Basin
Commission. During a review of the Forty Fort repair officials
determined that the gauge had failed and that the river had crested
early Friday morning, September 8, 2011 at 42.66 feet. This surpassed
the previous flood of record set during Tropical Storm Agnes in June
1972 and was 1.66 feet above the design height of the raised levee
system.
Additional problems arose Friday morning with boils in Forty Fort,
Kingston, and Plymouth. The water began to recede and residents in the
protected areas were allowed to return to their homes Saturday
afternoon. The Wyoming Valley Levee System had prevented approximately
$5 billion in damages.
Unfortunately, not all areas of the Wyoming Valley escaped
unharmed. Nearly 3,000 properties in unprotected communities were
flooded.
The early notification from the National Weather Service and the
River Forecast Center, the expertise of Corps and local engineering
professionals, the skills of local contractors and local municipal
public works employees, and the dedication of volunteers prevented
Tropical Storm Lee from becoming a much larger disaster.
The Luzerne County Board of Commissioners, the Luzerne County
Emergency Management Agency, the National Guard, the Red Cross, the
Pennsylvania State Police, the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation and all of the other county, State, and municipal
officials and especially the volunteers are to be commended for their
efforts during of the event. During a very difficult time, everyone
remained focused on accomplishing the tasks at hand to ensure the
safety of lives and property.
LESSONS LEARNED
Levee System
USGS Gauge.--USGS took action immediately after the flood event to
relocate the Wilkes-Barre gauge to a location that allows it to now
read river heights in excess of the top of the levee system. The new
gauge was installed within 30 days of the flood event. USGS is working
with the Authority to install a staff gauge in the event of a failure
of the electronic gauge. In addition, USGS has come to the realization
of its need to make data users aware of operating limits and gauge
heights of features. It has spurred a movement to accomplish this
Nationally within the USGS.
Corps of Engineers Emergency Management and Preparedness.--As local
project sponsors struggle with budgetary constraints, less and less
qualified staff is available for levee patrols. The involvement of
Corps engineers on site is crucial during major flood events. Also, the
Corps should develop High Water Operations training and hold annual
training sessions for local project sponsors. A training video should
be created and made available that would allow for additional local
training opportunities.
Interagency Coordination.--The Susquehanna River Basin Commission
has expanded its annual Susquehanna Flood Forecast and Warning
Interagency Committee meeting to include a discussion with emergency
managers and municipal officials to evaluate system performance and
share lessons learned during Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee.
PL84-99.--After major flood events, the Corps has the ability to
inspect and rehabilitate flood damage reduction projects.
Unfortunately, the time line for the process is long. Even if projects
are economically justified, funding may not be available. Local
sponsors, like the Authority, do no have the funding available to
address damages caused by significant flood events. Delays in
addressing repairs put individuals' safety and property at risk.
Susquehanna Flood Forecast and Warning System.--A permanent
solution to funding the $2.4 million Susquehanna Flood Forecast and
Warning System must be identified. The system uses radar and a network
of stream and rain gauges to provide the data that are used to forecast
river levels and issue more accurate early flood warnings. The system
provides the National Weather Service the critically important data
necessary to issue flood warnings. The System is extremely cost-
effective, providing a 20-to-1 benefit-cost ratio.
Levee Project Funding.--The Wyoming Valley Levee Raising project
started immediately after the Agnes flood in 1972. Sadly, the project
is still not complete. While the major flood control works are
complete, Federal funding for the mitigation program is not in place.
The project contains a Mitigation Program that provides $23 million for
flood reduction activities in 53 unprotected communities located in
five counties. A GIS-based Flood Warning System has been used by
Emergency Managers for nearly 10 years to provide early notifications
that have allowed individuals to take protective actions during
flooding events. Hazard Mitigation Plans were developed. Approximately
20 homes have been acquired and demolished and numerous other
structural flood mitigation projects completed. However, the lack of
adequate Federal project funding since 2009 has prevented additional
projects from being completed. With adequate project funding,
additional projects could have been done that would have reduced
damages.
LESSONS LEARNED
Post-Event--Unprotected Communities
Pennsylvania is one of the most flood-prone States in the country.
Pennsylvania consists of 67 counties with nearly 2,600 municipalities.
Floodplain management responsibilities under the National Flood
Insurance Program fall to the municipalities. In Luzerne County, there
are 76 municipalities. Many of the communities are staffed by one
person that handles all administrative functions. Typically salaries
are low and turnover is high. Most do not have the technical expertise
or training to properly administer the flood insurance program.
Major flood events are infrequent and the small municipalities are
paralyzed immediately following an event. It is at this point that FEMA
assistance is most critical as municipal leaders are bombarded with
questions regarding flood recovery.
Whether there is a Presidential disaster declaration or not, FEMA
should immediately contact municipalities by phone or e-mail and remind
them of their responsibilities to enforce the requirements of the flood
insurance program. Visits to municipalities must occur in a more timely
fashion. Most visits did not occur until nearly 30 days after the event
and some municipalities still have not been visited.
In addition, while FEMA has thousands of publications, it does not
have a ``Flooding 101'' document. The manual would consist of a
comprehensive step-by-step reference regarding all necessary actions a
municipality must undertake following a major disaster. While I use
flooding as the topic, the manual should address all hazards.
Looking forward, FEMA should require the annual registration of a
municipal floodplain manager. In addition, video training or webinars
should be developed to continue to educate municipal officials
regarding the National Flood Insurance Program.
Failure to involve county officials in the recovery effort is an
error. County staff could act as the liaison between FEMA and the
affected municipalities and allow for a consistent message being
presented.
A more efficient means of dealing with substantially damaged or
destroyed structures must be identified. Property owners flooded in
September will not even know if their property is possibly included for
acquisition until the end of January. A time line for acquisition still
has not been determined. Individuals damaged by flooding cannot be
expected to have to wait the 1\1/2\ to 3 years that a typical Hazard
Mitigation Project takes.
CONCLUSION
Thank you for the opportunity to provide my comments on emergency
preparedness and response and the lessons learned during Tropical Storm
Lee. Federal officials need to have a better understanding of the
challenges facing local governments as the agencies evaluate
modifications to their programs.
This concludes my testimony. Again, thank you for this opportunity.
I hope that our actions today lead to a more efficient response for the
next disaster. If you have any questions, I would be pleased to answer.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Brozena.
Mr. Good, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JAMES GOOD, OWNER, AREY BUILDING SUPPLY
Mr. Good. Thank you, Chairman Bilirakis.
Arey Building Supply was substantially flooded September 8,
2011, from Tropical Storm Lee. It had never been flooded
before. There are about 18 to 20 businesses and 4 to 5 homes--
although that may be a low number on the homes--along the Wysox
Golden Mile, which is U.S. Route 6, that were flooded that day.
The store, warehouse, and sheds had almost 2 feet of muddy
water in them. Lumber had floated out onto Route 6, into
neighbors' yards and to other businesses. Employees and
neighbors gathered in all that they could find to return to the
yard area. Mud clogged the parking lot storm drainpipe and it
had to be replaced.
The store was only closed September 8, but for several days
customers were not allowed in the floor because of slippery mud
on the floor. Desired merchandise was brought to the door for
each customer's request. The store has been kept open 7 days a
week all through the clean-up and repairs. This caused problems
for employees and customers alike trying to find things that
were moved because of putting down new floors, tearing off
walls for new sheetrock and insulation and a new heating system
and new bathrooms. Repairs will be complete December 18 with
the installation of new shelving throughout the door.
The cost to Arey Building Supply is approximately $310,000,
although about $65,000 of that amount was due to renovations to
offices. We took the opportunity, since everything was a mess,
to make some changes to the store and make more store space
where there were formerly offices.
Approximately a week after the flood, I tried to gather
businesses together to see what we could do about the Laning
Creek, which had caused the flood. As I stated, it had never
been flooded before, that area of U.S. Route 6. We met in a
chamber meeting in October along the Wysox Golden Mile, and
since then there have been donations made to a fund to try and
get enough money together to dredge Laning Creek between U.S.
Route 6 and the railroad track. That area had plugged up with
debris and trees and that caused the flooding in that area.
The flood had occurred over a 12-hour period. In 12 hours
it had flooded everything there and went back down to the point
where we could get to the businesses, unlike river flooding
that lasts over several days. I believe that the problem in
that area could be averted if we were allowed to dredge Laning
Creek. The process to get a permit to do that is quite
cumbersome, and we have been working on that for 2 months
trying to get the paperwork in order to apply for a permit to
do that. We still have not--it has been turned over to an
engineer because frankly we are not capable of getting all the
stuff together. Hopefully that process will be complete soon
and we will be able to apply for a permit to dredge the creek.
That completes my report. Thank you.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
I am going to ask Mr. Marino if he would like to include
this article from The Daily Review into the record, sir.
Mr. Marino. Yes, Chairman.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Then without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Preventing Flooding
Published: October 6, 2011
By James Loewenstein (Staff Writer)
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Photo/JAMES LOEWENSTEIN.--Wysox Township businessman James Good, left,
and Wysox Community Chamber of Commerce President Bill Them discuss a
proposed debris-removal project to help prevent further flooding of
businesses in Wysox Township.
WYSOX TOWNSHIP.--A campaign is under way to raise $15,000 to clean
out a section of the Laning Creek in order to help prevent future
flooding of businesses on U.S. Route 6 in Wysox Township.
The project would involve removing trees branches, gravel and other
debris from the creek starting at a point behind the Comfort Inn and
ending at the bridge that carries the Lehigh Railway line over the
creek, said James Good, who is spearheading the project, and who, along
with his wife, owns Arey Building Supply in Wysox Township and Mountain
Lake Electric.
Over 20 businesses on Route 6 in Wysox Township were impacted by
the flooding that occurred during Tropical Storm Lee, said Good, who
discussed the project at a meeting on Wednesday of the Wysox Community
Chamber of Commerce.
``If we don't do something about the Laning Creek, the flooding
could happen again within the next year,'' Good said at the meeting,
which was held at A.J.'s Family Restaurant.
Good said that there is a curve in the creek behind the Bonanza
Restaurant and the Comfort Inn where trees became lodged during
Tropical Storm Lee, which caused water to flow out of the creek bed and
flood businesses along Route 6.
``The major problem'' that resulted in the flooding of businesses
along Route 6 in Wysox Township was water being diverted from the
Laning Creek, he said.
Good said he has lined up a contractor to do the debris removal,
and has applied for a permit from the DEP to do the work. He said the
process for approving the permit is 80 to 90 percent complete.
Good and Wysox Community Chamber of Commerce President Bill Them
both said they think the permit will be approved.
Good ``said the DEP told him they didn't think it would be a
problem'' having the permit approved, Them said in an interview after
the meeting.
Wednesday's Chamber of Commerce meeting was open to the public, and
several people who attended it said they thought there were additional
reasons for the flooding along Route 6 in the township. For example,
Budd Clark Sr., who co-owns Clark Furniture, said he thought a bridge
that carries CraftMaster Road over Laning Creek contributed to the
flooding, because it doesn't have enough capacity to allow the entire
creek to flow under it during the kind of flood conditions that took
place last month.
But in an interview after the meeting, Good said the bridge was not
a factor in the Tropical Storm Lee flooding of Route 6, because the
land at the site of the bridge is sloped southward, which would have
carried water that backed up at the bridge away from Route 6, not
toward it.
Good is asking businesses that were affected by the flooding to
donate toward the debris-removal project, and he said he is also
seeking donations for the project from the public and from the chamber
of commerce.
He said that if each of the businesses that was impacted by the
flooding donated $500, and if the chamber of commerce made a donation,
there would be enough money to pay for the Laning Creek project.
After the meeting, Them said there was a total of $1,500 in
donations lined up so far for the Laning Creek project.
Those who said they were donating toward the project included Good,
Them, and Beers Auto & Tag owner Wilbur Beers.
Retired local businessman Newman Benson urged business owners to
donate.
``Businesses can't survive without doing some of these things'' to
prevent further flooding, he said. ``You have to step up and cash
out.''
Good has asked the chamber of commerce to endorse the debris
removal project.
In an email that Them sent out after the meeting to all the members
of the chamber of commerce, Them wrote that the members of the chamber
of commerce who were at Wednesday's meeting were in favor of the
chamber of commerce making that endorsement.
Anyone who cares to donate to the Laning Creek debris removal
project should make out a check to the Wysox Community Chamber of
Commerce, earmark it for the ``Laning Creek project,'' and mail it to
the Wysox Community Chamber of Commerce, P.O. Box 63, Wysox, PA 18854,
Them said.
If, for some reason, the debris removal project does not go
forward, the money will be returned to the donors, members of the
chamber of commerce said.
Mr. Bilirakis. Well, thank you very much. What we will do
is, we will alternate back and forth and have at least a couple
rounds of questions, and I will recognize myself for
approximately 5 minutes to begin and then I will yield to my
colleague here.
The first question is for Mrs. Tierney. As you noted in
your testimony, Mrs. Tierney, the Department of Homeland
Security released a National Disaster Recovery Framework on
September 23. How are you working to integrate the NDRF into
Region 3's recovery efforts, and more specifically, how have
you incorporated NDRF's six recovery support functions into
your response to these disasters? Have you received any
positive--what kind of feedback have you received from the
State and local first responders about the NDRF? Then again,
give me some feedback whether it has been positive or negative.
You are recognized, ma'am.
Mrs. Tierney. Thank you. We are in the nascent stages of
rolling out the NDRF within Region 3, specifically in central
Pennsylvania. From the outset of our major disaster declaration
even before the NDRF was issued, it was a priority of mine to
do a major activity in central Pennsylvania around the NDRF as
it was rolled out.
So as you mentioned, it was rolled out on September 23, and
we have been working with the Commonwealth through our
emergency support function 14, which is long-term community
recovery, to focus on doing an NDRF rollout session tentatively
scheduled for January 12 in central Pennsylvania. We
specifically selected that location given the magnitude of the
impact of Irene and Lee on the area and the ability to
capitalize on the coordination mechanisms set up in the NDRF
for the local governments, for the counties, and for the
nonprofit and private sector stakeholders to participate in
that rollout.
In the interim, prior to the complete rollout of the NDRF
in Region 3, our ESF 14 staff has been working with several
townships such as Athens Borough and Shickshinny, which were
severely impacted by the storms, to look at economic
development and recovery options and making those communities a
priority moving forward. To date, I have not specifically
spoken to any county officials. However, my conversations with
the Commonwealth indicate that this has been a fairly positive
experience for them. I look forward to the complete rollout of
the NDRF in early January to really kick-start the recovery in
central Pennsylvania.
Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Cannon, do you wish to comment on the
NDRF?
Mr. Cannon. We are working hand-in-hand with FEMA as a
pilot as the first rollout of this new program. We have a
number of community meetings with the ESF 14, which is long-
term recovery staff, and are getting very positive feedback. It
is a larger program than just finding immediate needs, recovery
things. It is getting the communities back on their feet
economically as well as kind of the social-mental issues that
have to be dealt with as well. So it is an all-encompassing
long-term recovery program, and we are in the very early stages
but we think it is an outstanding program.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.
Colonel Anderson, questions for you. In your written
statement, you mentioned that the Army Corps conducts flood
preparedness and response exercises with State and local
partners. Were exercises conducted in this area prior to the
recent flooding? If so, what were the findings of the exercise,
and did the exercise help in your response to the storms?
Colonel Anderson. A new framework has been developed, sir,
recently. It is a framework called the Silver Jackets program,
and basically when you think about the Corps of Engineers
coming to disaster, we have got our red coats on. You see some
FEMA blue coats here, and there is a lot of questions about,
you know, how does all this fit together? So under a recent
agreement with the Commonwealth, we have established the Silver
Jackets program here. The big idea is that flood risk--planning
response and rehabilitation to an event does require--it is a
team sport and requires local, State, Federal, lots of Federal
different agencies to work together. So we have taken an
important step, which is actually signing our Silver Jackets
charter.
With respect to the specific exercises, I don't have dates
to give you right now. Within the district, we did a tabletop
exercise in June 2010, very extensive use of modeling and
things like that to replicate an actual flood event. In this
case, it was a hurricane and how would we respond to it
internally. We did have members of our team that sit in Mrs.
Tierney's operations center as well as our folks that sit in
emergency operations centers as liaisons throughout that event.
So there can be key lessons learned that we take away from--
each and every time that we exercise for an event basically is,
No. 1, communications is absolutely critical. We need to know
each others' voices in the dark. We need to know who each
others' roles are and what our authorities are when it comes to
responding. We learn once again the value of having boots on
the ground. We have to have people out there walking around
projects, you know, in the rain, frankly, at risk in some
cases, to make sure that we know exactly what is going on. In
this case, as Mr. Brozena said, the floodgate challenge that we
had on the Susquehanna was really diagnosed and discovered by
people walking around on the ground. I think the main lesson
learned is that we just have to know each others' roles, we
have to know each others' responsibilities, we have to
understand each others' role in the process, and I think
sometimes there can be misunderstandings after the storms
happen and when the water recedes on what the Federal can and
should do, what the local can and should do and what the State
Commonwealth government can and should do. So we just need to
constantly work that with public service outreach so that folks
understand exactly who does what.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.
Mr. Good, we constantly hear about the obstacles that small
businesses face with regard to any natural disaster, and I am
familiar with it being from the Tampa Bay area of Florida. I
understand that you had about 17 feet of water around your
business but it was only closed for, I understand, 1 day, but
what mitigation, what steps did you take prior to the storms to
alleviate some of the--well, first of all, we want to reopen
our businesses as quickly as we possibly can, particularly
during these troubled economic times. Can you elaborate on the
steps that you took prior to the storms?
Mr. Good. First off, it wasn't 17 feet, it was 17 inches in
the store. We had approximately 2 feet in most of the buildings
on the property. We took no action ahead of the storm. It
totally caught us by surprise. It should not have happened. It
had never happened before. I believe it was mentioned in one of
the reports here that stuff has built up in the streams over
years and nobody has taken any steps to clean any streams. I am
old enough to remember Hurricane Agnes quite well, and I recall
that after Agnes there was a tremendous amount of clean-up in
the streams, removing debris and mud and rock and shale out of
the streams so that the next time there was a serious storm, it
wouldn't be as badly flooded. However, that was in 1972. Since
that time, very little has happened to keep any of the streams
clear of debris and sediment and so forth so they have
gradually built up, and like I said, this caught us totally by
surprise. It had never--that area had never flooded before.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Thank you very much.
Now I will recognize Mr. Marino for as long as he would
like during the hearing. Thank you for questions.
Mr. Marino. Thank you, Chairman.
I want to focus in on what Mr. Good was stating concerning,
some people referred to it as dredging the streams and cleaning
the debris. I refer to it as, you know, removing the gravel
that has been washed down into the streams and the trees. What
steps can we take in the future to remove the gravel bars, to
remove the debris, the trees, the stumps, the rocks coming off
of the mountainsides that build up somewhere in the streams and
rivers to divert that? So Colonel Anderson, can you help me out
with, is it possible to do this? We have thousands of miles of
streams and rivers in this State. How do we clean that up?
Colonel Anderson. Sir, I need to go back and check the
history on what happened earlier. I understand post-Agnes the
Corps may have been involved in some aspects of stream clean-up
after the storm, and you are right, removal of material from
streams within requires a permit from the Corps of Engineers,
and I will get to that in just a second.
But with respect to removal, typically, responses like that
start at the local level. So once the local and State level
have exceeded their capabilities to respond to something like
that, then they can request support, get the Corps involved
through FEMA through the Stafford Act type of thing. But
typically we don't get involved in things like stream clearing.
Typically that is massive debris removal on the scale of
Joplin, on the scale of Katrina, things like that. So the Corps
doesn't have a standing mission into a local stream and clean
it up. What we do have a responsibility for is ensuring that we
act expeditiously and efficiently on permit requests. We are
the Federal regulatory agency for section 404 of the Clean
Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act. Under those two
authorities, impacts to either navigable waters in the United
States or waters in the United States require a Corps permit.
For 15 years, we had had a State programmatic permit with
Pennsylvania, which we just renewed, and it is Pennsylvania
State Programmatic General Permit No. 4, and that has standing
authorities for folks to go in to do stream clean-up in
situations of immediate life and safety issues.
So after the waters go down, which is what Mr. Good is
talking about, local citizens, whomever, will submit a request
for a permit to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. They
screen it to see if it falls within that permit, if it is their
responsibility for the permitting approval or if it comes to
us. Generally speaking, it comes to us if it impacts more than
250 linear feet of the stream or impacts more than 1 acre. We
have tried really hard, worked very hard as we negotiated with
the Commonwealth on this last permit to make sure that we had a
pretty streamlined process and a fairly simple permit
application process.
Having said that, there is a fair amount of technical
information that is required on the application permit, and if
Mr. Good and his neighbors have made the decision to employ an
engineering consultant, a professional dealing with--that this
is what he does for a living, a professional engineer, that is
probably a good step to get that permit expeditiously
submitted. Our record since the programmatic general permit was
enacted is, we are well under 60 days. Once a complete
application is submitted to the State, we have a permit
decision easily within 60 days has been our track record.
So, sir, we are more than happy to work with Mr. Good and
any of your constituents that would have concerns regarding the
regulatory permit process. It is important, it is incumbent on
all of us to make sure that we are operating transparently,
that people know what the requirements are for a permit so that
when they come to the State with that one permit application,
it can be complete, they know the requirements and we can
expeditiously act on it.
Mr. Marino. I think I read perhaps in an article that a
person is permitted or a township or a community or a county is
permitted to clear their area but there is a 50-feet maximum.
So they cannot go 50 feet beyond the conditions, beyond a
bridge, beyond a bridge abutment or a structure so----
Colonel Anderson. Sir, when a structure is built, when the
permit is proffered for the construction of a structure, be it
a pier, or in the case we are talking about most likely here is
the dam, that permit typically comes with a 50-feet requirement
so that the person, the organization or business or whomever
that is granted that permit is responsible for maintaining the
channels within 50 feet of the abutments. So the permit that
constructs the bridge grants them that standing, not just
authority but actually responsibility to maintain the channel.
So if you go outside of that 50 feet, then that is where
additional permitting requirements exist.
Mr. Marino. Who issues that permit? Is it a Federal or a
State permit that is issued?
Colonel Anderson. It is issued either by the Commonwealth,
if it is generally speaking less than 250 linear feet or less
than an acre, and if it exceeds those thresholds, then it comes
to the Federal Government. Again, this is the agreement under
the Pennsylvania State Programmatic General Permit No. 4. We
work very, very closely with PDEP as well as the Pittsburgh and
Philly districts that also oversee the same permit.
Mr. Marino. Does anyone else wish to comment on that issue
that has been brought up?
All right. Let us move to this. Homeowners, small
businesses do not have the equipment nor the expertise to start
removing gravel buildups from streams, start removing massive
tree trunks and stumps from around bridges. Am I correct in
saying that the rules say that it is the responsibility of the
homeowner, the property owner to take care of those matters?
Anyone?
Mr. Brozena. Traditionally, that is a responsibility that
falls to the local municipality. They should as part of their
operations have an annual stream cleaning type of activity.
However, unfortunately, with all of the other things that are
tasked to local communities, that is one that rarely, if ever,
gets addressed.
Mr. Marino. What is the No. 1 remedy that we can execute
that is responsible for a major portion of the flooding. Is it
cleaning the streams out? Is it cleaning the debris that builds
up around the bridges or is it something else? Anybody?
Mr. Good. I can tell you from the standpoint of our
business area, building supply, a dike from U.S. Route 6 to the
railroad would be very, very welcome. It would certainly
prevent future flooding. I mean, you have got an area there of
about a quarter-mile. I don't believe it would be an
extravagant expense, but that is out of my realm so I don't
know for sure.
Colonel Anderson. So Mr. Good, you know, has gone straight
to the, I guess you would say traditional things we think about
with flood control, which is structural, you know, build a dam,
build a levee, build a flood wall, right, but some structure
between the people and the water to allow us to go on with our
livelihood and our lives as close to the water as possible.
There are other authorities that do exist that we can utilize
pretty quickly, and we have one called Planning Assistance to
States. We have floodplain management services that the Corps
has standing authorities in, depending on what the service is,
low or no cost to the State or local government. We can assist
with, you know, certain actions. Again, these are not
structural events, structural solutions but it includes things
like, you know, flood warning systems. It includes things like
planning documents for responses. It includes mapping services.
There is a number of things that we can do at the Corps, you
know, at request of the local entity, a local municipality that
can help. Again, these are not structural solutions but it is
really looking at managing the floodplain.
Mr. Marino. Is it true that if we build a levee system in
one area or we put walls up in certain areas, it is going to
have an effect on an area above and below?
Colonel Anderson. That is absolutely correct, sir. When you
constrain the water in a manner that is contrary to how Mother
Nature had the water flowing is it going to impact--fluid
mechanics dictate that it will impact other places.
Mr. Marino. Now, Mr. Brozena stated that it is the
responsibility of the municipality to clean the streams, to
clean away the debris from bridges. What if the municipality
doesn't have the money? Mr. Cannon, what do we do from the
State level, and if the State doesn't have the money, Ms.
Tierney, Colonel Anderson, what do we do from that aspect?
Mr. Cannon. Actually, we had started looking at debris
removal from the streams early on. DEP has been issuing
literally hundreds of emergency permits to allow you to enter
the stream as a municipal government and actually on many of
our agriculture areas where farmers themselves needed a permit
to enter into the stream and using their own resources cleaned
the stream as it ran through their farms. We created a program
with the State Department of Agriculture and our conservation
districts. We thought it would be funded as an emergency
protective measure. It was not able to be funded with those
dollars. Therefore, we had no funds to be able to move that
program forward.
PennDOT as it relates to any State bridges will clean 50
feet on either side of the bridge. We will do that without
PennDOT resources when it is a State structure.
We have now created a debris removal taskforce as part of
our recovery effort trying to bring together anyone that has
resources to be able to help local governments. You have a
backhoe, you have got some dump trucks. You bring this in. We
will do what we can to try to coordinate those resources. But
it is piecemeal. There is not an overall program. We had
developed a program but we weren't able to fund it with State
dollars in our budget and we weren't able to get funding from
the Federal Government either. So that program didn't move
forward. It is a major issue but I do want to let you know that
we are issuing emergency stream permits. I mean, I will speak
to Mr. Good afterwards. I don't know why they are having
trouble getting a permit. Again, we issued hundreds of permits
to get into the stream. But it is a major issue in our entire
region. There is no question about it. Streams that may at one
time have been, you know, 8 feet wide are now 30 feet wide, I
mean, so most of the time there is no water in them, and in a
flooding situation, it just goes right over the banks. So it is
significant issue, an issue that needs a funding source to be
able to resolve it.
Mr. Marino. Do we have the money at the Federal level
within the Army Corps of Engineers and Homeland Security at
FEMA to do what needs to be done not only in Pennsylvania?
Because we are talking about flooding across the country. I do
want to add that Homeland Security is just not focusing on
flooding. We have had some disastrous fires out West too that
we have to deal with. You don't want a guy like me running a
bulldozer or a backhoe in a stream, believe me. You know, I
just can't imagine that we want, I am going to say allow just a
homeowner to get out there and, you know, rent a little backhoe
and start moving things around. It is a pretty dangerous
operation.
Colonel Anderson. Sir, you asked the question about what is
the status of our funding for activities related to response to
emergencies. That is covered under Flood Control and Coastal
Emergencies, FCCE account, and as you just mentioned, between
tornados, fires, flooding on the Missouri, flooding on the
Mississippi and then tropical storm and hurricane out there,
that account is very strained right now. So there has been
reprogramming actions around the Nation to try to get funding
at the right places in the Nation that need it, and that
account needs to be refreshed via, I believe, a supplemental
appropriation in order to get us the funding we need to support
those types of activities.
Now, those type of activities for us is rehabilitation of
flood control projects, not, you know, removal of debris from
streams. So, you know, those are to actually take a project,
for example, at Wilkes-Barre/Forty Fort area where you
personally witnessed the cracking of the wall and we would go
through a formal process to identify the problem, to scope an
engineering and design and then to get construction funding to
repair that and rehabilitate it so it is ready for the next
season.
Mr. Marino. My last question and then I will turn it over
to the Chairman, what do we do about eliminating or curtailing
the regulation that we have to go through, that a typical small
business owner or homeowner has to go through to secure these
permits and do what has to be done? Because I know that--I see
the regulations with the EPA. I see some lesser regulation with
DEP. How do we make this more constituent-friendly?
Colonel Anderson. Sir, we just finished negotiating the new
permit with Pennsylvania, and a lot of the focus was on how do
we do that, how do we let industries and individuals and
commercial interests and municipalities, how do we make them
aware of what the requirements are to submit a complete permit
action so that once it is submitted, the information is
available, we can act on it quickly? We have begun some
training on the new permit with local industries. We have had
our first training with industry, I believe one in Philadelphia
and one in central Pennsylvania, and we are going to continue
those so that folks know what the permit application
requirements are.
With respect to what can be done to reduce--to make it--to
lessen it, I mean, we believe that we are--the intent of the
regulatory program is to meet our obligations under the Clean
Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act, and we understand we
need to do that as transparently and as efficiently as we
possibly can.
Mr. Marino. All right. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Marino.
I have a couple questions, the first one for Mr. Cannon. I
am pleased you discussed the continued need for individual and
community preparedness. Of course, we are in agreement. I am
sure Mr. Marino is as well. I believe efforts like Ready.gov
and Ready PA can be so important because taking steps in
advance of a disaster can make all the difference when the
disaster strikes. As a matter of fact, Mr. Good said we would
save money in the long run if we did the proper mitigation. As
Administrator Fugate has stressed, it really does take the
whole community, and I agree, to develop effective preparedness
and response to natural disasters. Unfortunately, people don't
always heed the call to prepare. We must continue to work to
develop a culture of preparedness.
My question is: What more can we do on this front and how
can this subcommittee be of assistance? First to Mr. Cannon and
anyone else who would like to comment, I would appreciate that
as well.
Mr. Cannon. Yes, sir. Absolutely, we need to develop across
our country a culture of preparedness. For these two storm
events, first, before Hurricane Irene made landfall, and
second, when the Lee remnants began flooding, the first storm,
we had over 1,500 Pennsylvania National Guard troops on station
in their armories with their Humvees, their high-water
vehicles, food, water, medical supplies ready to go out. The
second storm, we had over 1,800. We have a philosophy of
responding to these events called leaning forward. If you wait
until the event has occurred, you have lost already. So
preparedness is part of that leaning forward to be ready, and
it goes back to, to embrace the entire community is that
everyone that has a role down to the individual must be
involved in that preparedness.
We have been talking about floods. A few weeks ago, we had
a major snowstorm that was very unexpected in the Northeast
that early. Back in August, I think it was, we had an
earthquake tremor that for people in this part of the country
they are not used to that at all. When these events occur, it
oftentimes is beyond the capability of the emergency response
force to get there immediately. So it is necessary that people
prepare for their families, their neighborhoods and their
community. If you look at those tornados in Joplin, Missouri,
the first people that came out to help rescue were their
neighbors, people helping people. We now don't call them
victims any longer; we call them survivors, survivors who come
out and respond.
So it is very important that people take some
responsibility. We talk about a 72-hour window of having some
food, supplies, medicine, things that you would need in the
event that you or your family or your community were cut off
because of the nature of the event. Even to the point of losing
power, do people realize if you have canned goods, you can't
use your electric can opener once you have lost that power? Do
you have water enough for everybody there? So it starts at the
very local, home level in terms of preparedness, and the more
we can get people to prepare and the more we can get our
country to think about people assuming some of these
responsibilities themselves, the better we will be when each of
these events happen because people have taken the necessary
steps.
The other thing is that people need to accept the guidance.
You know, it would be better to evacuate folks nine times and
when it turns out they could have stayed in place then that
tenth time when they didn't evacuate. I was at FEMA when
Hurricane Ike came across Galveston and up into the Houston
ship channel. There were people there that were absolutely told
by the National Hurricane Center, if you stay there, you will
die, and that whole community was washed out to sea and those
people died because they chose not to heed that advice. So it
is very important that people prepare and listen to the
warnings and realize that their Government can't do everything
immediately. It takes a little bit of time.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much, Mr. Cannon.
Ms. Wenner, I think you want to comment. What can we do?
What can Congressman Marino do? What can I do? Any suggestions
on how we can be helpful as a subcommittee, as individual
Members of Congress? Public awareness? Do you have any
suggestions?
Ms. Wenner. I think I agree with Mr. Cannon wholeheartedly.
The Red Cross works closely with our Government partners in
preparedness in our communities. I think it is important,
educational process to engauge our schools in preparedness and
educate children to bring home this and have their families
prepared. I think it is really important that we provide
education in our businesses in our community and engauge groups
of people to work together in times of disaster. Japan has a
wonderful program where they have community responses to
disasters--where they train as communities to know what to do
ahead of disasters. That is the mindset that we need to have in
this country throughout our communities is to be prepared for
the inevitable of any disaster happening. People need to
understand, you know, to get resources into areas that have
been impacted by disasters takes time and that time that they
have those resources, that the community has those resources
and they are prepared to deal with it on their own is critical
to saving livings in communities.
I worked in Joplin. I was there the day after the tornado.
Those people in Joplin were prepared for tornados. They knew
what to do. They knew where to go. It made that operation so
much more comprehensive and the people cooperating and the
agencies all working together to rebuild that community. You
can see the schools opened up within months of absolutely being
destroyed there. We need to mirror that across the country, to
have resilient communities across the Nation that are able to
bounce back quicker after disasters happen, and that all lies
in the preparedness before they happen.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
Administrator Tierney, yes, please, you are recognized.
Mrs. Tierney. Thank you. Just to add to what the director,
Director Cannon, was speaking about, creating a culture of
preparedness in the United States is not something that is
going to happen overnight. If you think about the campaign to
eliminate drunk driving or for people to wear seatbelts, it was
a generational change in some respects, and I think with
preparedness, we are facing the same type of challenge. So
keeping the preparedness message on the forefront of the
National dialog is critical to ensuring that that generational
change occurs. I am certain that in 5 or 10 years we will be
having a much different conversation about preparedness, or at
least I hope we are, than we are now, which is, you know: How
do we move people to action?
One of the ways that I like to communicate to people about
moving themselves to action is that preparedness is not an
overwhelming task. These are very simple, practical, basic
things that you can do. You don't have to do them all at once.
You can do a little bit each week or each day. For example,
building a home emergency supply kit. It is not an overwhelming
task where you need to go to the grocery store and buy this
enormous amount of supplies. In many cases, people have the
supplies for a home emergency supply kit already in their home.
It is a matter of taking those supplies and assembling them in
one place and periodically checking them to ensure that they
are fresh and available for use in an emergency. The same thing
with developing a family emergency plan. There are many steps
involved in developing a family emergency plan but you don't
have to do them all in one night. You could, you know, say, on
a Monday select a meeting place. On Tuesday, identify your out-
of-state contact. On Wednesday, practice your plan. So I think
part of this is making it more accessible and reachable for
people as opposed to a very daunting activity that then just
ends up at the bottom of the pile of things that they need to
do every day in their life.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good.
Anyone else? Would you like to answer, Mr. Cannon?
Mr. Cannon. Just another comment for the committee.
Mr. Bilirakis. Sure.
Mr. Cannon. Since 9/11, we have built a tremendous capacity
and capability in our country to respond to these events, and
for a while, from 2001 until 2005, it was kind of focused on
terrorists and everybody and every dollar went to anti-
terrorism programs. After Katrina, it was recognized that we
need to prepare for all hazards that might affect the homeland,
not just a terrorist, and those dollars that went to fund those
programs were allowed to be used for both all-hazard disaster
response, emergency response, and anti-terrorism response. So
from 2005 until now, that is what has happened, whether it was
Joplin where they didn't need any outside rescue teams because
they had enough capacity and capability built in, ice storms in
Tennessee, tornados in Alabama, floods in Pennsylvania, we have
been able to use the equipment and the resources that were
purchased with those Homeland Security dollars that were
legally able to be used for both purposes.
Last year, the States were cut 50 percent in their homeland
security budgets. This year, it looks like it will be 59
percent, but because of the on-going situation and the C.R.'s,
we are not sure how much money we are going to get in
Pennsylvania. What will happen is--maybe you will remember
this. There was a time when buildings had civil defense
hospitals in their basements and they were abandoned in place,
those shelters and those hospitals and those supplies. We have
built Nationally a tremendous capability and capacity to
respond to disasters regardless of their cause, and without
this funding, there is no way to sustain those programs. So it
is my sincere hope that the committee will look at what is
happening as it relates to the funding of the State Homeland
Security Grant program and the Emergency Management Grant
program because as I--I belong to an organization called NEMA,
the National Emergency Managers Association. As I go to those
meetings and we talk as State directors, every one of us
recognizes that we have been able to respond to these
disasters. In Pennsylvania, for the flooding, we brought 23
swift-water rescue teams from the western side of our State and
they saved lives. We brought USAR teams here because our
Federal USAR team went to New Jersey and then New York, but our
State element was prestaged and went out. We had ambulances
prestaged that we sent 50 ambulances to New Jersey the day
before Irene to evacuate hospitals on the coast and then
brought them back to Pennsylvania. Those resources were
purchased and trained and exercised as a result of the Homeland
Security Grant program.
So with that point, when you ask what could the committee
do, that is a pretty strong point. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much. Point well taken. Good
input.
I have a question for Ms. Wenner. As I noted in my opening
statement, the subcommittee held a hearing last month to assess
FEMA's progress since the passage of the Post-Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act. From what I have seen, FEMA has made
great strides over the past 5 years. I said that in my opening
statement. You have had a long career with the Red Cross and
have responded to countless disasters, and thank you for your
extraordinary work. I am interested in your perspective on
working with FEMA. Have you seen improvements in FEMA's
response capabilities?
Ms. Wenner. Absolutely. Over the years, the Red Cross and
FEMA actually post-Katrina have worked hand-in-hand to manager
disasters. The sharing of information in the past 5 years has
been increased ten-fold. We staff the Emergency Operations
Center with a Government liaison person so that we can have
that seamless communication between what the Government is
doing and what the Red Cross is doing, because as we all stated
before, you know, it takes an entire community, an organization
to share resources to serve people after disasters. So I would
say our relationship with FEMA has improved and constantly we
are evaluating and assessing how we can work closer with our
Government partners. People don't care when they are affected
by a disaster who is handing them the ready-to-eat meal or who
is opening the shelter. All they care is that it is there and
it is provided for them. So it is really important for us as an
organization, for the Red Cross to work not only with our
Government partners but our non-Government partners and or
other VOAD organizations. So yes, I think across the board all
the relationships have been built pretty strongly and have
progressed in a positive direction.
Mr. Bilirakis. Anyone else wish to comment on that, on
FEMA's responsibility capabilities? Have you seen an
improvement? Anyone else on the panel? Yes, sir.
Mr. Cannon. Having worked there and now being a customer of
theirs, we have seen great improvement since the Post-Katrina
Reform Act was passed. You know, I think that after the
creation of the Department of Homeland Security, much of FEMA's
identity was taken, moved, dollars went to DHS rather than
staying at FEMA. The Post-Katrina Act kind of refocused on its
mission, and they have certainly become more attentive, more
focused, and understand that if you are going to make a
difference in saving lives, then you have to involve yourself
early on. As I have heard Administrator Fugate say, go big, go
fast. If we don't react that way to these disasters, then life-
saving missions become body recovery missions. They have turned
the corner, and I am very proud to have been a part of that,
and I am very pleased with the work they have done with
Pennsylvania.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Thank you.
Does anyone else wish to comment on FEMA? Okay. My final
question is to Administrator Tierney. You mention in your
written statement that FEMA in conjunction with State and local
partners completed Preliminary Damage Assessments in 39
Pennsylvania counties in a little over a month. Who
participates in these PDAs, the teams, and how are these
assessments scheduled? How is information shared with the teams
to ensure that you have the most complete information? You are
recognized.
Mrs. Tierney. Thank you. In FEMA Region 3, we have a
standard operating procedure for conducting Preliminary Damage
Assessments so pre-event, actually over this summer we spent a
considerable amount of time walking through the process for
conducting PDAs to ensure we were doing them in the most
efficient and expeditious manner. We were able to implement
that PDA SOP during the Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee
responses. PDA teams are primarily made up of FEMA Region 3
staff coupled with staff from the Commonwealth and the affected
county. It is important that PDAs be done jointly so that we
see the same picture at the same time and can compare and
contrast notes. The PDA team could also include other Federal
agencies such as the Army Corps or Housing and Urban
Development. Typically, our PDA teams also include the Small
Business Administration. This helps expedite any requests that
a Governor may make independent of a major disaster declaration
for SBA loans to be issued, activated within the State.
So basically there is a team leader. The team leader
coordinates with the Commonwealth and the county. Based on the
county coordinator--in the case of the Commonwealth, each
county has a county emergency management coordinator. The
county emergency management coordinator identifies areas that
they would like the PDA team to view. The PDA team reviews
those throughout the day. They caucus at the end of the day to
compare notes and then a situation report is provided to me and
to the Commonwealth.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
All right. Now I would like to recognize Mr. Marino for as
much as time as he would like to consume.
Mr. Marino. First, I failed to thank the security people
here, the college security people and the Pennsylvania State
Police for being here, helping us with security. I greatly
appreciate that.
I have about a thousand questions, and we don't have the
time. If you would, think about this when you leave and get
back to me in writing, and it doesn't have to be a thesis, what
you individually, what your agency individually could do to
streamline the system by which we permit, by which we ask for
help and by which we respond. If you could just zero in on one
area in your agency that if financing were not an issue, what
we could do to become more efficient and become more proactive.
That is it, what can do to become more proactive. Make it
simple, okay?
Ms. Wenner, I had the opportunity to spend some time with
your volunteers in the mobile kitchens. They were incredible. I
think these people were just from the Deep South that came up,
many of them from faith-based organizations. What can we do to
enable your organization to get those mobile kitchens out
faster?
Ms. Wenner. We get our feeding out as fast as we possibly
can.
Mr. Marino. But how can we help you?
Ms. Wenner. How can you help us?
Mr. Marino. Yes.
Ms. Wenner. Open the roads faster? You know, it is always a
challenge after disasters getting the resources needed in a
timely manner. I think, you know, it is a problem we are going
to constantly struggle with because we don't know what we are
facing, we don't know what the conditions are immediately after
a disaster. Usually communications are, you know, down. So I
really don't know how you could do any better than we do it
right now.
Mr. Marino. Are you in the loop quick enough? Are you
notified quickly enough----
Ms. Wenner. Yes, absolutely. As I said before, we are
staffed at the EOC, and we have as timely information as we
possibly can get from our Government partners. We work hand-in-
hand with our Government partners in getting that information
and getting our resources out as fast as possible.
Mr. Marino. Thank you.
I think it was Director Cannon, did you state that there
was a manual put together, or was that at the Federal level and
we just didn't follow through with it, a 101 manual, I think it
was referred to? Mr. Brozena.
Mr. Brozena. That is the concern that we have is that
immediately following an event, and traditionally, major flood
events don't happen all that often so you traditionally have
someone who has never gone through a flood event before, does
not know what to do. So while there are lots and lots of
publications from FEMA that tell you things that you can't do,
there is not one comprehensive document that says immediately
do this. The prime example that I speak to is that people who
live in special flood hazard areas are supposed to put their
properties back together so that they would now be in
compliance with the floodplain ordinance. The problem we have
is that in lots of communities, they don't even know that they
have a floodplain coordinator. So it is that type of thing,
that type of information that allows them to go down a
checklist so that they can provide correct responses to
residences as they put their houses back together so that they
don't do it incorrectly and put themselves at risk again.
Second, it allows all of the information to be made
available as quickly as possible because I live in West
Pittston, my house was flooded, and the borough officials
attempted that weekend to have a meeting, and everyone turned
out and the borough attempted to ask questions, and all they
ended up with was a bunch of frustrated flooded property owners
because they didn't have all the answers.
Mr. Marino. Can FEMA put together a succinct, easy-to-read
manual where you don't have to be a Ph.D. to educate we at the
local levels on procedures?
Mrs. Tierney. I don't see why we can't do that. I am
certainly going to take that back and discuss that with the
regional mitigation staff.
Mr. Marino. Would you mind working with me personally on
that project? I know it is not something that is going to be
done in the next 2 months, and what I would like to do is, if
FEMA was to prepare something, maybe PEMA could put some
thoughts down, maybe we could get some representatives from the
counties, the emergency service and put some thoughts down, get
that information back to myself or Mrs. Tierney, and we can
start compiling a how-to book that we go to. I mean, there are
enough manuals in Washington that they could be skyscrapers if
they were stacked but nobody reads them because they are all 3
feet thick and you need a couple of degrees to determine what
they are saying. But we can do this. We can apply common sense
here and put together a how-to manual, a quick reference that
we can go to. So I would enjoy working with you on that, and
Mrs. Tierney, if we can work something out.
Mrs. Tierney. We would be happy to do that. Anything that
makes the process easier for people makes everybody better off.
So certainly a checklist of some sort, that is what it sounds
like the gentleman from Luzerne would like. I am certainly open
to doing that. It sounds like it makes sense.
Mr. Marino. Here is another request I have of you people
sitting here on the panel, and you have been excellent, believe
me. I have learned a great deal of what you are going through.
Is there a possibility that if I can get all my emergency
services people together in the county, which I have 14
counties in my district, could you individuals or your
representatives, if we far enough in advance had a meeting, had
a little luncheon where we all could sit down and discuss the
issues that we are faced within the 10th Congressional district
and get some advice from you and perhaps we could give you some
suggestions, a little seminar, a learning lesson. From being in
industry until I was 30, I found the best way to build a
factory is not only have the engineers and the architects but
have the people who run the equipment there also. Is that
possible to do? I mean, would you all be willing to do that or
go back and ask your superiors if that is possible? I will have
my office contact you individuals and maybe we can set this up,
because I really would like to have my county coordinators
sitting at the table with you folks because we have a lot of
information that we can exchange.
I was in Forkston last night, and I know some of my
constituents are here, and one of the issues is the rerouting
of streams because of the flooding, and the rerouting of these
streams, if we get a rain with a couple of inches, these people
are going to get hit again. What can we do now, what can we do
starting tomorrow to prevent this? Colonel, I am sorry, but I
am going to go to you first.
Colonel Anderson. Again, going back to my previous
response, the traditional way of getting a flood control
structure, a structural solution to reducing risk is proving
very expensive and long to take care of it, I think it is fair
to say. We have capabilities that we can provide, standing
authorities at the request of a local community to help with,
you know, floodplain mapping, emergency warning systems, things
like that, the non-structural things we need to consider. But
if folks have located their property in a floodplain, that is
more problematic in terms of getting them--you know, protecting
or reducing risks for those folks. It is the non-structural
things that we can do very quickly at very little or no cost to
the local community.
Mr. Marino. So I have this straight for the people
listening, I live--when I was a kid in Williamsport, a young
kid--I emphasize the word ``young'', when Agnes came by--I saw
what my family went through. My dad was a fireman and I saw
where he had to go and what he had to do. It is devastating. So
in order to help mitigate the damage, is the first procedure
the homeowner gets with their municipality, their township
supervisors and says look, here is a problem here behind my
property and the rocks have washed off the mountain and they
need removed. Okay. Now, the township supervisors invariably
are going to say we don't have the money to do this. So the
next step for the township supervisor is what then? To go to
the county level? I mean, we have got to go through this
hierarchy, I imagine, and if the county says I don't have the
money and they go to the State and ultimately the State is
going to go to FEMA, is that the cumbersome procedure that
these people have to go through?
Mr. Cannon. If they want to--if they have been repeatedly
flooded, then as part of our mitigation program, we will move
people out of that area. Now, once you move out of that area,
that property cannot be developed, and because title then falls
back to the local municipality for that property, so were
exactly right in the beginning part. When people want to be
brought out, they must go to their local municipality because
they are the ones that actually submit their request to us for
the buyouts.
Mr. Marino. Who determines if they are going to be bought
out then?
Mr. Cannon. Well, there is actually a committee that sits
at the State level that is made up of a number of State
agencies that review those requests and make that determination
and then we submit them to FEMA, and ultimately the end result
is FEMA. We have probably removed about 1,400 homes since Agnes
and 3,500 people away from those flooded areas. The amount of
mitigation money we get to do this with is based on the size of
the disaster, and you don't know that until the end of--but we
are already taking the applications and we are already holding
the meetings much faster than it has ever been done before in
communities as it relates to mitigation.
Mr. Marino. I can attest to that for sure.
Mr. Cannon. So--and exactly. If we can move the homes out
of the flood areas, then we eliminate the risk of those people
being flooded.
Now, there are some issues that come up in municipal
governments. They don't want to lose the tax base for a number
of those people so they hopefully find another place to
relocate them within that municipality. But we are looking at
primarily getting the people out of those areas and getting
them bought out in what is done through an appraisal system of
pre-flood values of their homes. It is not certainly a flooded
home that gets evaluated.
Mr. Marino. Does this hold true for businesses as well?
Mr. Cannon. It does hold true for small businesses, yes.
Mr. Marino. I am going to play devil's advocate here for a
moment. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if someone refuses to
move, we cannot continue to--we will not have the funds to keep
rebuilding. Is that person then living in that particular spot
at peril, at their own loss, Mr. Cannon?
Mr. Cannon. I don't think that we can force people to move
from that area but there is an issue there with flood
insurance. MaryAnn, are you familiar with that?
Mrs. Tierney. Yes. There are currently about 41,000 homes
that were registered with the NFIP, the National Flood
Insurance Program. To date, we have paid out about 9,332
claims, about $127 million. Depending on the location of the
home and the severity of the flooding, whether or not they are
in a special flood hazard area, that is going to dictate kind
of the long-term consequences to that property. I would be
happy to get back to you with more specific information about
the NFIP. Obviously, as you know, it is a very complicated
program. I wouldn't want to speak out of turn on what would
happen with a particular home.
There are a variety of categorizations of homes. For
example, there are homes that have been flooded several times.
They are something called a severe repetitive loss list. Those
homes in acquisition receive priority for acquisition if the
benefit-cost analysis works out in their favor. So if you would
like, I could provide more detailed information or a briefing
to go through that with you.
Mr. Marino. A homeowner applies with FEMA for this or does
it go through the State first?
Mr. Cannon. It goes through the State first, and then we
forward them on to FEMA, who makes the final call.
Mr. Marino. Mr. Brozena.
Mr. Brozena. Mr. Marino, we seem to be talking about three
things at once here, and it got away from your original
question, which is, all of a sudden the stream is not where it
used to be, it is now in a new location and someone is at risk.
The issue comes down to that the definition of emergency
protective measures of FEMA does not allow actions to be taken
to relocate that stream back to where it should be and put it
in to pre-flood condition. That is the major issue.
Mr. Marino. Colonel.
Colonel Anderson. To add a fourth one in there, Jim, the
Pennsylvania State Programmatic General Permit that we just put
in place does indicate that--you asked what we can do to be
more proactive. As an example, activities, where the stream has
left its channel as a result of a recent storm event, channel
work is authorized to restore the stream flow to pre-storm
conditions under emergency permit application process with
PDEP, which is less--more streamlined, less onerous.
Mr. Marino. Who does this? Who is responsible then for----
Colonel Anderson. An emergency permit, using emergency
permitting processes, again, with this State programmatic
general permit, to restore the channel to its original----
Mr. Marino. Pre-storm route. So again, we started a process
with the local government, the township, the city, the county.
We go that route.
Colonel Anderson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Marino. But we can, there is a method by which we can
hopefully get that stream back to pre-flood conditions.
Colonel Anderson. From a regulatory permitting aspect, yes,
sir.
Mr. Marino. Do we have to do something legislatively in
Congress or is the regulation there?
Colonel Anderson. No, sir. This is a programmatic permit
between the State and the Corps of Engineers for how our
regulatory requirements would be executed. No further
legislative action is required.
Mr. Marino. Okay. What do we do to improve the warning
system, whether it is from the locals to the Federal Government
or from the Federal Government down to the locals? How can we
make that more efficient and more effective?
Colonel Anderson. Sir, if I could take that. We need full
appropriations for our mitigation components of our projects.
Mr. Brozena mentioned that unfortunately the project wasn't
complete at Wyoming Valley, although it just prevented, you
know, $3 billion or $4 billion of damage. The incomplete
portion he is talking about is the mitigation piece. Going back
to your previous question, do our projects create other
conditions in the river?--yes, they do, and in recognition of
that phenomenon of fluid mechanics, our projects include a
component for mitigation, to mitigate the deleterious impacts
that our projects may have in unprotected areas. For the
Wyoming Valley project, for example, we ended up with $37
million of funding. A couple components of the project were
actually removed because they weren't permittable or no longer
required. We still are awaiting full appropriations to enact
the mitigation pieces of that. There are 53 communities that
are eligible. Fifty-three communities are eligible and they
have some up with something like 660 potential projects that
they submit to the Luzerne County Flood Protection Authority
and Mr. Brozena's leadership and once those projects have been
selected that are the most effective, they come to the Corps
for reimbursement based on a 75/25 Federal/local cost share. To
date, we haven't received full appropriations for that, and
that would certainly help us enact some things like flood
warning systems.
Mr. Marino. Do we have to evaluate our floodplain not only
here in the 10th Congressional District or Pennsylvania but
across the country? Because I was at one area where there was a
mobile home park less than 50 yards from what looked like--it
was a stream but when I was there standing on the banks, it
looked like a raging river. The information that I was able to
collect was, it was okay to put that mobile home park there
because it was 2 feet above the floodplain. Now, we seem to
have left common sense out in the backyard when we are that
close to a stream and say oh, you know, we are 2 feet away from
it. I am not one to promote regulation but do we need to
tighten this up?
Mrs. Tierney. You have certainly ventured into an area that
is new territory for me. I am not an NFIP expert. I can speak
specifically to some of the things in Pennsylvania. For
example, in Lackawanna County, our maps, the re-study for the
floodplain was recently completed and our maps are preliminary.
They will go effective in less than a year. There has been a
lot of work Nationally to digitize the flood insurance rate
maps and to redo the flood studies. As I am sure you are aware,
there has been a lot of local, State, and National discussion
about that. I would be happy to provide or have, frankly,
people in FEMA headquarters in Washington, DC, provide
additional detailed information about your request, but I am
certainly not in a position to dive into the nitty-gritty of
the NFIP.
Mr. Marino. Who is responsible for determining the
floodplain? What Government entity? Is it locals or the Federal
Government?
Mrs. Tierney. It is FEMA through the National Flood
Insurance Program through the issuance of flood insurance rate
maps. Those determine the flood plain, both the 100- and 500-
year and the special flood hazard areas.
Mr. Marino. Okay.
Mr. Brozena. Let me just add a little bit more about the
map modernization program. Luzerne County is going through that
currently. There have been new preliminary maps issued in 2009.
They have not have gone final. But one of the difficulties with
the new maps is that we are using old data. Of the more than
800 miles of streams and rivers in Luzerne County, we only did
new studies on less than 10 percent of those. So we are using
data that probably dates back to the 1970s, and if there is one
thing that we probably should do, especially in light of the
events since 2004, 2005, and 2006 on the Susquehanna River is
that we should do a comprehensive review of the Susquehanna
River Basin to take a look and see what the floodplains really
are. We have been playing catch-up since the 1970s because of
development that has occurred throughout the watershed, and I
am not sure that we have an accurate depiction of what is going
on out there.
Mr. Marino. The gauge that maxed out--I am going to use
that term--we had no idea that it maxed out until after the
disaster?
Mr. Brozena. No. We had no idea what the limitations and
the operating limits of the gauge were. However, the repair
that we were doing in Forty Fort on Thursday evening, they
brought pictures back and they showed me them and I asked what
the dots on the wall were, and they told me that is where the
water was, and I told them it better not because we don't have
enough wall left based on where the river is at right now. So
it was at that point that we then went out and gathered some
on-the-ground information to make a determination as to what
the river reading really was and then address the plan from
that point forward.
Mr. Marino. Do we need a better system? Is there a state-
of-the-art system out there to determine this or is it simply
the gauge did what it was supposed to do but it got to its top
point and that was it?
Mr. Brozena. Well, to USGS's credit, they recognized the
situation, and within 30 days, a new gauge has been installed
and in place. So that is good. The problem is, is that the
annual funding component for the Susquehanna River Basin gauges
is about $2.4 million, has a benefit-cost ratio of 20:1 and we
struggle annually to find the dollars to do that, and that is
how we come up with accurate river forecasts, and it makes it
very difficult as we use less and less data as more and more
areas become more populated.
Mr. Marino. Okay. I am getting to the point where I am
concluding now. Could each one of you take a moment and think
about what your agency would do over the next time we have a
flood? What would you do differently? You did so much that was
good, and I really, truly mean that. I have seen it. I was on
the ground out there. You prevented loss of life, the loss of
more property and personal effects. But the next time we have a
flood--and we are going to--what do we do to mitigate our
losses? Mrs. Tierney.
Mrs. Tierney. Thank you. As I mentioned in my oral
statement, one of the things that we would do differently in
FEMA Region 3 is--and this would be regardless of whether the
incident was a flood or a tornado or other type of emergency or
disaster--is with our Incident Management Assistance Team, we
will assist a full-time employee to handle mission assignments
with the IMAT collocated in the State's or Commonwealth's EOC.
We think this will significantly compress the time by which we
can mission assign agencies and enhance coordination between
the IMAT operation occurring in the EOC and our regional
response coordination center operation.
Mr. Marino. Colonel, could you respond to that, please?
Colonel Anderson. Sir, there is two sets of answers to
this. One is if we weren't in resource-constrained environment
and one is if we are. So if we weren't in a resource-
constrained environment, I would love to finish out all the
mitigation at Wyoming Valley. I would love to get flood
protection to places where it has already been authorized like
Bloomsburg. I would love to get, you know, max protection done.
But we live in a resource-constrained environment.
So there are other things that the Corps can do now to help
prepare, and those are those floodplain management sources,
planning assistance to States. I would like to get with some of
the communities that have these concerns and just make sure
they know what is at their disposal at the Federal level,
again, for little or no cost, to help them with some of these
challenges that they face. We do have a toolkit we can use. It
is non-structural, pretty quick and inexpensive. If I had it to
do over again, I would probably be back at these communities
and making sure that they know about them and how to request
them.
Mr. Marino. Director.
Mr. Cannon. We continue to review everything we did during
these events. A number of the things that were done were done
for the first time ever in Pennsylvania. A number of the things
we did happened faster than they ever happened before in
Pennsylvania. But in these events for the people that suffered,
nothing is fast enough, and so we will continue to review every
single thing we have done, every action we have taken to see
where we can improve on the performance that we had.
The thorny issue, and you both touched on it and discussed
it, is the issue of the debris removal in the streams where no
one seems to have the responsibility or the funds to be able to
deal with that issue. So we will----
Mr. Marino. Could I stop you there for moment, sir?
Mr. Cannon. Yes.
Mr. Marino. Excuse me. Who has jurisdiction? Who really has
the jurisdiction to get in and reroute those streams and clean
them out beyond 50 feet?
Mr. Cannon. We work--you know, I would have to get back to
you with the answer to that. That is what I said, we don't know
who has--different people have different responsibilities. We
thought if we facilitated permits to enter the streams--
because, remember, there are other people at the same time that
don't want us to enter the streams.
Mr. Marino. Sure.
Mr. Cannon. And----
Mr. Marino. Those are the people that haven't been flooded.
Mr. Cannon. They haven't been. Then there are other
agencies that we have to make sure that they are on-board with
the program.
Mr. Marino. Listen, I am a conservationist. I want to
protect the environment. I live out in the country. I want my
water protected. I love to see the bear and the deer come
through the yard. But I have a little problem when someone says
that a particular rock or a plant or toad could be in danger
relative to somebody losing their house, their personal
effects, and someone from their family. You know where my
precedent is going to go on that one.
Mr. Cannon. Well, and that is why we have been issuing the
permits to get into the streams.
Mr. Marino. Thank you.
Mr. Cannon. But the scope of the issue is so large, it is
my belief that it will take a Federal response to be able to
deal with it. It takes a program that large and it takes a
program that needs to be funded, because we see this--it is a
recurring issue every time there is a flood.
Mr. Marino. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Wenner.
Ms. Wenner. We have a meeting tomorrow in Harrisburg, the
Pennsylvania State Red Cross, to evaluate our disaster
response, but I can tell you the two things that I know ahead
of time which are going to come out of this meeting, and one
thing is that we need more trained local volunteers prior to
the event throughout the area. We bring in our resources from
all over the country to support--we brought in 1,800 volunteers
we had on the ground here. That costs us time and that costs us
money that, you know, we are in tight constraints like everyone
else, and if we had trained volunteers here ready to respond,
it would be savings in time and in money. We also need to
strategically place our supplies in areas that we have assessed
that have the greater needs for a quicker response too because
bringing in supplies as bringing in people is costly and time-
consuming. So those are two things that I definitely know are
going to come out of that meeting tomorrow.
Mr. Marino. Thank you.
Mr. Brozena.
Mr. Brozena. Well, it is interesting. I was just going to
say, I was going to steal the Red Cross's page because when you
look at who responds to these types of events from the Federal
level on down, it is an employee, it is an employee, it is an
employee, and then finally when you get to the local level, it
is volunteers that we have at the county level and especially
at the municipal level. Again, we need to do--so we need to
recruit volunteers, and there are lots of talents out there
that have gone untapped that we somehow need to get them to
become involved in their community in some way.
The second thing is, is that it is great to have a
volunteer but it is better to have a trained volunteer, and
maybe that is one of the focus things that the agencies should
look on is to develop means to provide us with tools that we
can, when we do our exercises, train people so that we are not
doing it as the river is rising, I am out there teaching
someone what they should be looking for.
Mr. Marino. I guess it gets back to, I am going back to my
18 years as prosecutor. It gets started at some point. The
warning needs to come from the technology that the Federal
Government has but the front line, the front-line operations,
people in the community, the emergency service people, and the
volunteers. No one knows more so what is going to happen. There
was a gentleman, 84 years old, who was standing at one place
and someone made a comment about when this is going to crest.
He said he learned over the years, over the 84 years, he called
that crest within a half a foot. Amazing.
Mr. Good, what would you like to see us do, Congress do,
the Government do?
Mr. Good. I was sitting here trying to think what all the
different comments and so forth, what could come out of that,
but I fear that in today's economy, the lack of available funds
is a huge problem.
Mr. Marino. Perfect segue. I have been in Congress for
almost 11 months now, and believe me, there is enough waste in
agencies and departments that haven't been efficient or
effective for the last 40 years. There is where we start.
Because we know we are going to have disasters--floods and
hurricanes and earthquakes and fires--and we are not going to
stop that, but we can mitigate our losses, and I know that the
Chairman and I and committee Members are devoted to making sure
that we get the best bang for our buck in the places where we
see the efficiency, and I want to commend each and every one of
you because you first of all have had a stellar performance
today. I learned so much from you and I hope to learn more. But
what you did not only in my community but across this country
on how your actions, your knowledge, and your quick service
saved lives and saved property. So I commend you for that.
Please continue to educate us. Please don't forget about, I
would still like to have the meeting in the 10th Congressional
District with you people or your peers.
Two thoughts I would live to leave with you. We have to
work on getting the funds that are available to the
municipalities faster, but if we have to do something in the
municipalities to help you get us that money faster, please
educate us. We didn't have anybody here today--the panel was
full--from the electric companies, and there were people that
went a long time without electricity, and I have spent a fair
amount of time talking with the executives and the workers from
the respective electric companies, and I just want to put out
there, just because you don't see a person right there on the
line does not mean that the electric company isn't working to
get grids up and functions like that, but we need to also find
out from these individuals, these companies what we can do to
help them restore electricity faster than we have been doing.
Again, I probably have another thousand questions but we
will do that at some other time. I want to thank you all so
very much for being here, and I certainly appreciate the
information you have given us.
Chairman, I know I have used time than if we had 20 people
up at this panel but I yield back.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, and I want to thank you, Tom, for
your extraordinary service to your constituents. I have seen
you work in the District of Columbia, and he works in a
bipartisan fashion and he demands results and he gets them. So
you are very fortunate, in my opinion, to have a representative
like Tom Marino. He truly cares about the people, and it shows.
So I have got to conclude here. I want to thank the
witnesses for your valuable testimony, and I agree, it was
great testimony, very productive, very informative. I also want
to thank the audience, and we will be available one-on-one if
you have any questions or if you would like to make some
comments for us. We will be available for a few minutes. We do
have to drive back to the District of Columbia for votes this
evening, but I am assured that we will get there in time for
the votes.
So the Members of the committee may have some additional
questions, and I know Tom has some, I have a couple too, of the
witnesses, and we ask that you respond in writing. The record
will be open for 10 days.
So I want to thank the college as well, and the
subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you very much for your
hospitality.
[Whereupon, at 11:17 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
