Kurt Swalander, University of Southern California, CREATE, Applied Research in Environmental Science, UNC-EC; Lloyd Mitchell Ph.D., MPH, MS, RS, University of North Carolina: Elizabeth City St. Univ., USC Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terror Events and Anne Garland

Ph.D., R.P.A.; University of Maryland, USC Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terror Events, Working Together For A Safer Tomorrow; Brittany Friend, Elizabeth City

State University, USDHS CREATE, Working Together for a Safer Tomorrow; William Baker, Elizabeth City State University

Analysis and Comparison of Geohazard Management in Diverse Geographic

Locations Inhabited by Indigenous Communities

ABSTRACT This study is designed to assist leaders in and near indigenous communities through the fusion

of knowledge of relationships between geological hazards and politico-cultural factors,

especially in local decision making processes related to geohazard risks. People of tribally

Inclusive Geographic Areas (TIGA) from five international geographic locations were selected: 1)

Inupiat: Alaska’s North Slope, 2) Aborigines: Australia 3) Maori: New Zealand 4) American Indian

Tribes, USA, and 5) Wum, Nyos: Africa’s Rift Valley. Constructed weighted matrices were utilized

to rank geohazard risks. Three politico-cultural factors reviewed and analyzed: 1) Concept of

tribal sovereignty in government to government relationships, 2) Blood Quantum enrollment

(USA), and 3) politico-economic relationship with local, federal governments. Six geologic

hazards in TIGA were reviewed: 1) Tsunami and Ivu (North Slope), 2) Volcanic Eruptive Events

and Lahars, 3) Floods, 4) Geomagnetism, 5) Earthquakes, and 6) Landslides, roadside, and

roadbed soils degradation. Identification of common politico-cultural factors of indigenous

communities related to geohazard risk management were analyzed. Results to date indicate that

geomagnetic events are the least managed but pose primarily a temporary economic risk, and

where applicable, tsunami hazards and earthquakes pose the greatest risk. Results of data

collected from field site visits indicate, a.) Responses to geological disasters in TIGA worldwide

are inconsistent and significantly influenced by tribal politico-cultural factors, and b.) In the

United States, irresponsible sovereignty efforts actually increase geohazard risks, thereby not

always safeguarding all TIGA residents and guests. Future work will refine and add data across

TIGA worldwide.

Data Review:

All data review extracted information related to taxation,

politico-cultural influences, and geohazards management

I. Existing Documents

* U.S. Department of Homeland Security,

* U.S. Geological Survey

* Federal Emergency Management Agency

* National Geomagnetism Program

II. Field data collected from field site visits

*18 American Indian Tribal Communities

* Geological, Political, Economic

III. Field data from recent related studies

* On site TIGA, International field visits

Critical And Urgent Recommendations

1. Promote worldwide geohazard management by indigenous peoples

2. Provide assurance of equitable financial support distribution

3. Advocate nationally geohazard management for all

4. Acceptance of cultural sensitivity by federal government

5. Hold worldwide indigenous population geohazard management conference

Challenge Statement

To find conclusive information/data

sufficiently able to assist leaders

working with sovereign nations to

keep all people on Indigenous lands

safe as possible in the event of a

geologic disaster on tribal territory.

Selected References 1. Cascades Volcanic Observatory: Various sources

2. Casinos: native American Tribal Casinos- The Story of Native AmericanCasinosintwoStates. "http://www.libraryindex.comhttp://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1586/Casinos-Native-American-Tribal-Casinos- STORY-NATIVE-AMERICAN-CASINOS-IN-TWO-STATES.html (accessed September 18, 2011).

3. "Compact." http://www.merriam-webster.com/; http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/compact?show=3&t=1316018354(accessed September 14, 2011).

4. NOAA Weather. Spaceweather.com sponsored by NOAA.gov

5. Glassberg, David. “American Environmental History.” Lecture, University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA, Spring 2010.

6. Minnesota Indian Gaming Association. "Industry Overview.www.indiangaming.com.http://www.indiangaming.com/industry/ (accessed September 14, 2011).

7. “Simple outline world map.” http://www.freeworldmaps.net/printable/index.html (31 October 2012)

8. National Indian Gaming Commission. "Growth in Gaming Revenues. “http://www.nigc.gov;http://www.nigc.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=ta0m2dzcB3k%3d& tabid=67 (accessed Sep 28, 2011).

9. U.S. Census Bureau. "2010 Census Data. http://2010.census.gov/2010census/.http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/ (accessed September14, 2011).

10. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency: Various Documents

11. Willman, Elaine (2005) Going To Pieces, Equilocus, LLC

12. Winston, Oretha. "Cherokee 2,800 Blacks From Tribe."http://elev8.com. http://elev8.com/news/orethawinston/cheokee -indians-banish-2800-blacks-from-tribe/ (accessed September 18,2011).

Acknowledgements Dr. Lloyd Mitchell, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, CREATE; Elizabeth City State University

Dr. Anne Garland, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, CREATE; University of Maryland

William Baker, Elizabeth City State University

Jeremiah Lancaster, U.S. Army National Guard; Applied Research in Environmental Science

Methodology 1. Review Qualitative Data

2. Identify indigenous territory in five geographic areas (Table 1)

3. Review specific geohazards within chosen locations

4. Discern sovereign status of indigenous populations (Table 2)

5. Segregate indigenous concepts of sovereignty (Table 2)

6. Identify politico-cultural factors within indigenous areas (Table3)

7. Categorize qualitative data (Table 3)

8. Rate politico-cultural factor impact on geohazard mgmt (Table 4)

9. Apply driving quantitative model (Model)

10. Create quantitative table.

Driving Model (Politico-cultural

factors)

Sovereignty vs. Geohazard Management

Ask Me!

Blood Quantum

Quantitative Model

x = ( population self resilience + existing agreements with other gov'ts - (probability of a

disaster occurring + distance of disaster from indigenous population) ) / (intensity of disaster)

Table 4. Factor Impact on Geo Hazard Risk Management: A Summary Rating

Indigenous

Population

Jurisdictional Sovereignty Blood Quantum,

Recognized Membership

Politico-economic Relationships:

Local and National Governments

1 Inupiat

Tsunami, Ivu

Volcanics

Floods

Geomagnetism

Earthquakes

Slides

2 Aborigines

Tsunami, Ivu

Volcanics

Floods

Geomagnetism ----------

Earthquakes

Slides

3 Maori

Tsunami, Ivu

Volcanics

Floods

Geomagnetism

Earthquakes

Slides

4 American Indians

Tsunami, Ivu

Volcanics

Floods

Geomagnetism

Earthquakes

Slides

5 Wum & Nyos

Tsunami, Ivu -------------- -------------- --------------

Volcanics

Floods

Geomagnetism

Earthquakes

Slides

Table 3. Politico Cultural Factor Summary Specific for Geological Hazard Disasters

Indigenous

Population

\/

Concept of Sovereignty in

Government to Government

Relationships

Blood Quantum or Recognized

Membership Criteria

Politico-economic Relationships: Local,

National Governments

1 Inupiat

Self-governance on tribal land:

*Village responds as village only

*TIGA collaboration (NSB, ANSCA)

*Request Fed, St, local assistance

*Contract out services

*Other, i.e. Arctic circumpolar pops

*All AI, BQ 25% + -, Fed support eligible

as U.S. citizen, i.e. FEMA loans, grants

*Federal: Villages eligible for separate

funding for geohazard planning

based upon # of enrolled at 25% + BQ

*State: Support varies per village, person

*Village: Support members via village gov

*Money allocated by Federal government to

villages for geohazard management.

*Villages contract out 1st responders, planners

*Binding relationship to state, Fed government

*Corporations support by Feds, State

*Other

2 Aborigines * Specified rights per Australian gov.

* Sovereign land areas recognized

* Recognized by governments,

but determined by Aboriginal clan or groups

*Australian gov. provides support to Aborigine

groups for geohazard management, but it is

integrated into local, regional, national plans.

*Cultural sensitivity in disaster discussion

3 Maori Land via Treaty of Waitangi.

Cultural Rights.

NZ gov. protects all citizens

New: Maori self-education

*Defined as “Anyone with Maori Descent.”

*All Maori included in geohazard mgmt. plans

*Reserved Maori Parliament seats;

*Access to funds

*Limited local representation

*Cultural sensitivity in disaster discussion

4 American

Indians

Self-governance on tribal land:

*Tribe responds as nation only

*TIGA gov collaboration

*Request Fed, St, local assistance

*Contract out services

*Other

*All AI, BQ 25% + -, Fed support eligible

as U.S. citizen, i.e. FEMA loans, grants

*Federal: Tribes eligible for separate

funding for geohazard planning

based upon # of enrolled at 25% + BQ

*State: Support varies per tribe, person

*Tribe: Support members via nation’s gov

*Money allocated by Federal government to

tribes for geohazard management.

*Contract out first responders, planners.

*Binding relationship to state, Fed government

*Other

5 Wum and Nyos Self- governing culturally *Born into tribe.

*No BQ requirement.

*Does not exist.

*Wum, Nyos recognized by African govs.

*Do not have strong G2G binding relationships

Table 2. Politico-Cultural Factor Review

Concept of Sovereignty in

Government to Government

(G2G) Relationships

Blood Quantum or

Recognized Membership Criteria

Politico-economic Relationships: Local,

National Governments

* Sovereignty status allows

Indigenous-led approach to

geohazard management

* Sovereignty status increases

expected level of responsibility

geohazard mgmt by all in TIGA

$ per person: management grants

$ per person: preparation, planning

$ per person: response costs

Support from members

Per person responsibilities

* TIGA collaboration strength

* Seek support or contribute support

* Ability to contract out

* National support in disaster event

* FEMA

* DHS

Table 1. Study Target Groups and Target Locations

Indigenous Population Location

1 Inupiat Alaska’s North Slope

2 Aborigines Australia

3 Maori New Zealand

4 American Indians Continental USA

5 Wum and Nyos African Rift Valley

Inupiat

American Indians

Wum and Nyos

Aborigine

Maori

Future Plans

1) Expand and share personal knowledge

2) Engage in field visits to both Africa and Australia

3) Incorporate quantitative data

4) Create a more precise plan of action for disaster preparation

SPACE WEATHER

NOAA Forecasts

Geomagnetic Storms: Probabilities for significant disturbances in Earth's magnetic field are given for three activity levels: active, Updated at: 2012 Oct 31 2200 UTC

FLARE 0-24 hr 24-48 hr

CLASS M 05 % 05 %

CLASS X 01 % 01 % Mid-Latitudes 0-24 hr 24-48 hr

ACTIVE 45 % 20 %

MINOR 15 % 10 %

SEVERE 01 % 01 % High-Latitudes 0-24 hr 24-48 hr

ACTIVE 10 % 15 %

MINOR 30 % 25 %

SEVERE 60 % 25 %

Geographic Locations

KEY

Status at Most Recent Review

Negative to geohazard management. Immediate

effort to use factor in a positive manner is

suggested

Some aspects of factor are contributing to

potentially negative geohazard management.

Revision steps needed ASAP.

Factor is not a negative contributor, but

improvements can be made to assure highest

level geohazard management.

Factor contributes to overall positive geohazard

management.

Practices should be shared with other

indigenous populations.

Non-Applicable, Limited Data “Culture and sovereignty are two of the most powerful tools indigenous people have

and we can use them to manage geohazards for all people on our lands”

Dr. Lloyd Mitchell, (Oneida) USDHS CREATE.