U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

85–508 PDF 2015

S. Hrg. 113–542 

EXTREME WEATHER IN ALASKA: 

STATE AND FEDERAL RESPONSE TO IMMINENT 

DISASTERS IN THE ARCTIC 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY 

MANAGEMENT, INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS, 

AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FIELD HEARING IN ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2013 

Available via http://www.fdsys.gov 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Minority Staff Director 

TRINA D. SHIFFMAN, Chief Clerk 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Hearing Clerk 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, INTERGOVERNMENTAL 

RELATIONS, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JON TESTER, Montana 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

PAT MCQUILLAN, Staff Director 

BRANDON BOOKER, Minority Staff Director 

KELSEY STROUD, Chief Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statement: Page 

Senator Begich .................................................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES 

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2013 

Vivian Korthuis, Project Development Director, Association of Village Council 

Presidents ............................................................................................................. 4 

Thomas Ravens, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of 

Alaska, Anchorage ............................................................................................... 5 

Melanie Bahnke, President of Kawerak, Inc. ........................................................ 7 

David Miller, Associate Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration .......................................................................................................... 18 

Kenneth Murphy, Regional Administrator, FEMA Region X .............................. 20 

Colonel Christopher D. Lestochi, District Commander Alaska District, Pacific 

Ocean Division, Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ..... 21 

John W. Madden, Director, Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management .............................................................................................. 23 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Bahnke, Melanie: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46 

Korthuis, Vivian: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35 

Lestochi, Col. Christopher D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 21 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60 

Madden, John W.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 65 

Miller, David: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 18 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

Murphy, Ken: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

Ravens, Thomas: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

APPENDIX 

Questions and responses for the Record from: 

Ms. Korthuis ..................................................................................................... 71 

Mr. Ravens ........................................................................................................ 109 

Ms. Bahnke ....................................................................................................... 114 

Mr. Miller .......................................................................................................... 115 

Mr. Murphy ....................................................................................................... 119 

Mr. Lestochi ...................................................................................................... 121 

(1) 

EXTREME WEATHER IN ALASKA: STATE 

AND FEDERAL RESPONSE TO IMMINENT 

DISASTERS IN THE ARCTIC 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2013 

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT,

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS,

AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee on Emergency Management, Intergovernmental Relations, and the District of Columbia of the U.S. Senate 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs met, 

pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in Anchorage, Alaska, Hon. Mark 

Begich presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEGICH 

Chairman BEGICH. Thank you, for those that have rearranged 

your schedules. I was just joking that we can fly to the moon, put 

things on Mars. We can go to the bottom of the ocean. We can drill 

5,000 feet under the ocean floor, but when it rains in Washington, 

you can not get a plane off the ground. It is the most amazing 

thing. So thank you for being patient while I traveled here today 

and again, good afternoon, thank you and welcome. 

This is the Subcommittee on Emergency Management, Intergovernmental Relations, and the District of Columbia. As I said, many 

of you have traveled a great distance to be here today, so thanks 

for being here and welcome to Anchorage. I apologize again for the 

hectic schedule. As you know, the weather made a big difference. 

We appreciate your flexibility and willingness and we thank 

Nana Regional Corporation for allowing us to use this great room 

here. We appreciate them allowing and changing the schedule a little bit. 

Today, at this Subcommittee’s first field hearing, we will examine the impacts of extreme weather on Alaska Native villages and 

long-term strategies for mitigating risk associated with the changing climate. Alaska’s unique position as an Arctic State presents 

both advantages and challenges, as we work to support and preserve our State’s economy, social and cultural structure. 

One of the most immediate challenges is how we are adapting to 

the evolving threats of extreme weather. Alaska’s remote location 

and unique vulnerabilities put our State on the front lines to ex-
2 

pose gaps and highlight the need for flexibility is disaster related 

policies across the Federal Government. 

There are many things you can learn from Alaska’s experience 

and we have an opportunity to lead the way in reducing risk and 

supporting sustainable communities. Tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, and I have to say for a second, the DC staff, I know experienced an earthquake, I think it was yesterday. So they got a good 

feel. We like to welcome them when we are doing emergency preparedness, let’s just have an earthquake to start it off. 

They occur with little warning and happen quickly, but erosion 

and flooding and sea level rise are long-term events that can have 

far reaching effects without meeting the threshold of a disaster as 

defined by the Stafford Act. I like to call these prolonged disasters. 

Coastal or river erosion may not be enough to qualify a community for Federal disaster declaration, but extreme weather can 

often make these issues worse, leaving communities at higher risk. 

Over the years, Congress and other members of the Federal Government have examined the threats of erosion and flooding to Alaska Native villages. In 2004, the Army Corps of Engineers was directed by Congress to conduct an Alaska erosion baseline study released in 2009. 

In addition, the Corps was provided with the authority to carry 

out, at full Federal expense, structural and nonstructural projects 

for storm damage prevention and reduction of coastal erosion and 

ice and glacial damage in Alaska, including relocation of affected 

communities and construction of replacement facilities. 

While authority was provided for this action, sufficient funds 

have not been appropriated. The Energy and Water Appropriation 

Act of 2005 contained Section 117, which provided direct assistance 

for coastal erosion in nine Alaska villages and by all accounts was 

quite successful. 

However, this authority was replaced in March 2009, against my 

objections. Earlier this year, the Senate Committee of Appropriation, of which I am a member of, passed an energy and water appropriation bill for the fiscal year (FY) 2014, that supported language which provides 30 million dollars in a larger shore protection 

funding category that could go to Alaska projects. 

While we still have to pass the appropriation bill in the Senate 

and then reconcile it with the House version before final passage, 

I am committed to seeing this language survive and look forward 

to working with the Corps to assure the funding remains available 

for the critical projects throughout the State. 

The Corps’s 2009 assessment identified 26 immediately threatened villages, some of which are represented here today on our second panel of witnesses, actually first panel. Unfortunately, the list 

of 26 has grown over the years and shows no sign of getting smaller. 

More immediately threatened villages have been identified by 

various agencies and organizations and the list of critically vulnerable villages has grown to 31. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), at least 12 of the 31 immediately threatened villages have decided to relocate in part or entirely, or to at 

least begin to explore relocation options. 
3 

The villages at greatest risk would have to move on a tighter 

timeframe since they continue to suffer flooding and erosion and 

have limited evacuation options should their situation worsen. 

Other at-risk villages that are considering relocation have the option of gradually migrating to a safer location over time. 

The seemingly ad hoc approach to community relocation does little to make strides toward a risk reduction strategy. At the request 

of Congress, the GAO has published research into Alaska Native 

villages threatened by erosion and flooding. 

In 2009, the GAO, released a report on Alaska Native villages, 

limited progress has been made on relocating villages threatened 

by flooding and erosion. The report ended with recommendations 

that have yet to be acted on and could provide a road map for future committee action. 

I look forward to working in my capacity as Chair of the Subcommittee to ensure the GAO continues to focus on Alaska’s issues 

and updates their recommendations to reflect the State’s most current needs. Alaska’s an indiscernible State with a common goal 

promoting thriving communities in the face of increasingly uncertain and extreme weather. 

We live in a State that challenges to confront the realities of a 

changing climate sooner than any other State, but what we learn 

here in Alaska must not be confined within our borders. We have 

a responsibility to help make the Federal policy as flexible as possible, so the Nation can adapt to new climate realities. Without a 

plan to incorporate evolving threats and hazards into community 

planning, critical infrastructure will remain incapable of surviving 

the long-term effects of climate change. 

Until we have a comprehensive picture of the risk our citizens 

are facing, we will continue to struggle to lessen our risk in support 

economically, culturally and socially viable communities here in 

Alaska and around the country. This is not just an Alaskan priority. It is a priority for the Nation and I look forward to hearing 

the testimony today as we continue this discussion. 

This meeting is called to order and let me just say that we have 

done a couple of things here, and I appreciate the staff putting this 

together. Usually, you see committee hearings that the four witnesses are there and they are facing this way and everyone sees 

their backs. 

The last two we have done, we do them this way, because as we 

talk about these issues, we want them to feel as comfortable as 

possible, they are not just talking to me. So we appreciate the folks 

that are here. I know we are trying to tie someone in by phone, 

is that true? Are they connected? 

Unidentified SPEAKER. Yes. 

Chairman BEGICH. OK, let me introduce the first panel. Again, 

we thank everyone for being here. We thank you for adjusting your 

schedule. First, I will introduce all three and then I will ask them 

to each start with their testimony. The first one is Vivian Korthuis, 

right? 

Ms. KORTHUIS. Korthuis. 

Chairman BEGICH. Korthuis, and currently serves as Project Development Director for the Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP). Vivian is originally from Emmonak on the Lower 
4 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Korthuis appears in the Appendix on page 35. 

Yukon River and you are here probably for Myron, I bet. Thank 

you very much, Vivian. 

Thomas Ravens is a professor at the University of Alaska, Anchorage. Dr. Ravens’ research is focused on two principal areas. 

Coastal processes and renewable energy includes field, laboratory 

and modeling work. Thank you for being here. 

Online, we have Melanie Bahnke—is currently the President 

Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Kawerak, Incorporated, regional 

nonprofit tribal consortium in the Bering Strait Region of Alaska 

where there are 20 federally recognized Tribes. Do you all want to 

do them in this order—do we want to—OK. 

Let me start with Vivian and then I will go to Thomas and then 

Melanie, I will have you on last and hopefully, you can hear us OK 

here. Vivian, thank you very much again for being here. 

Ms. KORTHUIS. Is this on? 

Chairman BEGICH. It is on. 

Ms. KORTHUIS. Great, thank you. 

Chairman BEGICH. If it is red, it is on. 

TESTIMONY OF VIVIAN KORTHUIS,1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 

DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF VILLAGE COUNCIL PRESIDENTS, BETHEL, ALASKA 

Ms. KORTHUIS. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Committee 

Members. My name is Vivian Korthuis. I am the Project Development Director for the Association of Village Council Presidents in 

Bethel, Alaska. AVCP is the regional Native nonprofit corporation 

for 56 Tribes along the Yukon/Kuskokwim River and the Bering 

Sea Coast. 

Thank you for inviting AVCP today to address you regarding the 

Tribal issues related to disasters in the Arctic. The Arctic is changing, which means our homeland is changing. The Elders in our region are observing these changes. Our communities are being directly impacted. We have seen floods, extreme weather, rivers and 

streams changing course, and lakes drying up on the YK Delta. 

The impact of these events have had on our villages includes 

changes to our traditional hunting and fishing and relocation of 

whole communities. 

Over time, we have established community response teams which 

have included health aides, city and Tribal police, school administrators, Tribal administrators and local community leaders, who 

have taken it upon themselves to plan and implement local disaster responses. 

Many of our villages do not have adequate infrastructure that is 

required to take care of people in crisis. 

We have seen this recently with the example of the flood in 

Crooked Creek. In this situation, we witnessed the resilience of our 

people and our communities. As a regional Native Tribal Consortium, we must address every disaster in our region with the resources that are available to us. We rely on the Tribal Administrator to take the lead in planning for and responding to community disasters which may occur at any time of the year. 
5 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Ravens appears in the Appendix on page 38. 

Overall, our region is truly not prepared for a large-scale weather 

or industrial disaster occurring either along the Yukon River, 

Kuskokwim River or Bering Sea coast. Our 56 Tribes and communities will take the lead in anything that occurs within the village, 

but our villages will need help. 

The help our villages need sometimes comes in many different 

ways, including planning, preparing for and responding to the mitigating, long-lasting environmental impacts from erosion, floods and 

extreme weather. The best way we know how to do this is at the 

community level. We know what works in our villages and how 

best to prepare for either an unexpected crisis or a planned relocation of a community. 

Our region must improve the capacity to be disaster resilient. We 

recommend that every community have an emergency plan. Some 

villages are not prepared and some villages are. The key players 

in the community involve the Tribal Police or Village Public Safety 

Officer, as well as the City Managers and Tribal Administrators. 

The health aides play a key role in the community. Funding must 

be available for all communities to have community plans. 

The region also needs a centralized response and recovery plan. 

AVCP has been working on this for the past several years. We propose to develop the Western Alaska Emergency Response Center, 

which will aid in the coordination of all emergency responses in our 

region, and then I am going to jump to the end and say that again, 

the best way we know how to deal with disasters in the Arctic, our 

homeland, is at the community level and we are requesting assistance from both the State and the Federal Government to be completely prepared and ready to respond to any disaster along the 

Yukon River, Kuskokwim River and the Bearing Sea coast. Thank 

you. 

Chairman BEGICH. Thank you very much and just again, for the 

record, all your written testimonies are included in the official 

record, too. So I thank you for jumping to the end there. Let me 

go to Thomas, go ahead and do your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS RAVENS,1 PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT 

OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE 

Dr. RAVENS. Thank you, Senator, and welcome to you and other 

distinguished guests. I am a professor of Civil Engineering at the 

University of Alaska, Anchorage. I have been here for 6 years. 

Prior to Alaska, I was a tenured professor at Texas A&M University and before that, I did my Ph.D. at MIT on the east coast. 

So I am telling you all that because—to show you that I understand coastal processes, both from the Lower 48 perspective and 

from the Alaska perspective and things are really quite different up 

here is Alaska, especially the northern part of Alaska. 

In the Lower 48, the main cause of coastal change is mechanical 

processes. In Alaska, especially northern Alaska, thermal processes 

are very important. A good part of the coastline is permafrost and 

the thawing of that coastline allows the sediments to be readily 

transported away. 
6 

So approaches that may have worked in the Lower 48, really 

need to be changed to be successful up here in Alaska and we have 

done some preliminary work along those lines, which has been successful, but now, what I really want to talk with you today about 

is storm surge modeling on the YK Delta, which is on the west 

coast of Alaska. 

Now, the YK Delta is home for 40,000 Alaskans, including many 

Native Alaskans. It is also the home of the wildlife, the Yukon 

Wildlife Refuge, which is a world-class center for nesting birds, but 

unfortunately, the Delta’s very low elevation—only two meters 

above mean sea level and so it is very vulnerable to storm surges 

and that vulnerability will only increase, in fact drastically, with 

sea level rise. 

So the goal of some research I am reporting on now was to really 

quantify—well, how vulnerable is the YK Delta, in particular, its 

ecology, to sea level rise? We assumed a 40-centimeter sea level 

rise and for this initial work, we are just projecting changes to 

vegetation due to that sea level rise. 

We identified 10 historic storms. We simulated the inundation 

due to those storms. We calculated an annual inundation index, 

which is a measure of the expected amount of inundation on the 

Delta during a given year and the output of that is some kind of 

plot, like a contour plot showing exposure to inundation as a function of space and on the right, imagine a map of vegetation on the 

Delta and when you look at those two, you see a remarkable correspondence between the index, the inundation index, and vegetation type. 

So for example, an inundation index of one to two-meter days per 

year corresponds with the presence of brackish wet sedge meadow, 

OK, so—which is a very salt tolerant species, which is why it can 

handle that inundation. 

So we went back to the modeling and assumed, the second time 

around, a 40-centimeter sea level rise, recomputed the inundation 

due to that sea level rise, recomputed that annual inundation index 

and what we see is quite remarkable. 

That level of inundation in one to two-meter days per year that 

used to be on the coast—that is on the coast now, would move 

seven kilometers inland with just a 40-centimeter sea level rise and 

presumably, the vegetation would move along with it. 

So clearly, the Delta is very sensitive and vulnerable to sea level 

rise. The terrestrial life will also be affected. Sea level rise will also 

be impacting the water bodies in the areas. Rivers will become 

more saline causing change in species distributions. Ponds on the 

Delta will become more saline due to inundation. Those ponds are 

critical for the life cycle of the nesting birds in the Delta. So they 

are going to be very vulnerable. 

So we have these great tools that we have developed and we are 

interested in not just applying them toward ecology, but also indiscernible communities and we recently submitted a indiscernible 

proposal to do just that, to help the city of Hooper Bay plan for the 

future, take into account sea level rise. 

A lot of these coastal communities have water resources infrastructure, like drinking water infrastructure or waste water, that 
7 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Bahnke appears in the Appendix on page 46. 

are very vulnerable to sea level rise. Basically, water is going to 

get in their wells. They are going to get salty. 

I believe that with this approach that we have developed, we can 

look around the State and help assess the vulnerability of different 

communities and so I propose that as something that might be useful for you all to ponder. 

Another area that we have been working is, at least in our 

minds, is perhaps setting up a real-time—in a forecast system for 

inundation along the western Alaska coastline and I have talked 

with Amy Holman about this and the National Weather Service 

(NWS) people. 

We have, for a project on—funded by the Western Alaska Landscape Conservation Cooperative, we have a group from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), who is 

building a storm surge model that covers the Bering Sea with a 

coarse grid approach and that model is running, essentially in realtime and also in forecast mode. 

We can take that data and use our fine-scaled model to translate 

projections of inundation on very high resolution for individual 

communities, which I believe would be a big improvement over currently what we are doing for these communities. 

We more or less have everything in place and we just need to 

maybe do a demonstration project and that would make Alaska 

more in line with what’s done in the Lower 48 in terms of storm 

preparedness. Maybe I am at the end of my 5 minutes. Thank you 

very much. 

Chairman BEGICH. Thanks, Thomas. Let me go to Melanie online—I have been writing some questions down here, I want to ask 

the panel, but let’s go ahead and if Melanie’s online, go ahead and 

do your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF MELANIE BAHNKE,1 PRESIDENT OF KAWERAK, 

INC. 

Ms. BAHNKE. Yes, Senator, can you hear me? 

Chairman BEGICH. Yes, we can, thank you. 

Ms. BAHNKE. All right, thank you, Senator Begich, Senator Paul, 

and Members of the Senate Subcommittee for the opportunity to 

testify. I am Akighqukaaghaq, Melanie Bahnke and I am the President of Kawerak. I was raised on St. Lawrence Island, where you 

truly can see Russia from your house. Senator, we are looking forward to your visit tomorrow to Nome. 

Chairman BEGICH. I am looking forward to it. 

Ms. BAHNKE. Again, thank you for giving me this opportunity to 

present our challenges and recommendations. I am pleased that 

Congress and the Administration is focusing attention on tribal 

communities, erosion, disaster and community relocation issues. 

The Bering Strait Region of Alaska is about the size of West Virginia. The population in our region is over 9,000, and the region 

is not connected to the rest of Alaska by road or rail. Seventeen of 

the 20 villages are not accessible by road at all from our hub community of Nome, except for in the summer. In winter, the ocean 

freezes over and barge services are cutoff. Air transportation for 
8 

freight and passengers is thus costlier in the winter. All of the communities in our region are located on the sea coast or shores of rivers. 

Until compulsory education was imposed upon our people, Alaska 

Natives in our region often followed the game and established temporary settlements based on hunting and gathering seasons. With 

the influx of the missionaries, who were paid by the Federal Government, permanent settlements were established and in the 

1930s, the Bureau of Indian Affairs forced some residents to relocate to the coast to save on mobilization costs. 

We have seen the effects of climate change and erosion issue 

firsthand. Our organization has a Natural Resources Division and 

we have researchers who have collected data from hundreds of 

hunters and gatherers in our region, who have lived their whole 

lives observing the environment and they have witnessed many 

changes, such as a rise in sea level, later freeze-up, thinner ice, 

permafrost melting, changes in weather patterns, shorter winters, 

hotter summers, and due to later freeze-up of the ocean and absent 

physical protection from severe fall storms, several of our communities are experiencing rapid erosion of their shorelines and some 

may be better off relocated. 

The Bering Strait Region has five villages in imminent danger 

posing threat to life and property. The 2011 Bering Sea winter 

storm was declared a disaster by President Obama. The storm 

threatened coastal communities because there are no current revetments, sea walls, protection in our villages, except for in three. 

Flooding occurred. Power was cutoff. Air transportation was cutoff 

and communication to some of our villages was lost for several 

hours. People were literally stranded and cutoff from the outside 

world. 

Making things even worse, the threat of manmade disasters loom 

over our region as the increase in shipping through the narrow 

Bering Strait is being experienced. In 2012, we had an estimated 

480 transits through the Bering Strait. This number might not 

seem high, but when you consider that the Bering Strait is only 50 

miles wide at its narrowest point, is shallow and that the traffic 

is occurring in a condensed amount of time, there are risks for disasters. 

Our Federal, State, local and tribal governments are ill-prepared 

for both natural disasters and manmade disasters in our region. 

There’s no lead agency spearheading comprehensive efforts to prevent, mitigate and respond to disasters and there is a lack of coordination among the agencies that are tasked with carrying out 

the splintered components of these efforts. 

Resources to carry out projects in our region have been limited. 

Often funding opportunities require a cost/benefit analysis that factors in population or require a local cost-share that is prohibitive. 

Even when funding has been made available, we have experienced challenges in implementing practical solutions due to restrictive funding regulations. Excuse me, splintering funding sources together to address the comprehensive impacts of a community disaster is challenging, to say the least. 

We do offer some recommendations. We recommend that the Immediate Action Work Group (IAWG) be reinstated. This model is 
9 

an exemplary model of coordinating State, Federal, and local leaders to prioritize projects, coordinate resources and implement 

projects. Resources should be allocated to support the coordination 

of efforts. 

Priorities that have already been identified should be funded. We 

also ask that the U.S. Corps of Engineer’s 2009 recommendations 

report be implemented and if a cost-share structure is necessary, 

that cost-share structure should be between the Federal Government and the State government, not local communities who practically have no tax base. 

I also recommend that red tape be eliminated. We need to identify and eliminate regulations and policies that are prohibitive to 

access of funds. Identify and consolidate disaster funding; the current splintering of funding sources for disasters is complicated and 

cumbersome. Disaster prevention, planning, mitigation and response for communities should be viewed holistically and the resources required to fulfill these functions should be consolidated 

and provide flexibility. 

Emergency preparedness support should be provided. Each community and region should have an emergency operation plan in 

place, as well as the equipment and resources necessary to carry 

out their plan should a disaster strike. Typically, when we are hit 

by storms, our storms are not hitting just one community. So therefore, we feel that it is necessary to have a regional disaster plan, 

emergency operation plan in place. 

We request that U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) presence in the Arctic 

be increased and that a permanent U.S. Coast Guard base in the 

Bering Strait, which is the choke point between Russia and Alaska 

is reestablished and last, we ask that a model for practical collaboration with rural communities and Tribes be implemented. 

The U.S. Coast Guard has actively established relationships, is 

communicating with and coordinating with Tribes in our region of 

Alaska. Other agencies, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Corps of Engineers and the Departments 

of Homeland Security (DHS), both State and Federal, should follow 

suit. 

Again, thanks for providing the opportunity to provide you with 

some insight to the issues and offer recommendations. The benefits 

of allocating resources proactively, as opposed to after a disaster, 

should be considered. No person in the most developed country in 

the world, regardless of ethnicity, should be subject to the threat 

of loss of life due to conditions that can be mitigated by governmental actions. 

The United States is an Arctic nation and has an obligation to 

assert its sovereign authority and protect national interests. With 

that authority comes responsibility for disaster prevention, mitigation and response, especially in an area such as the Bering Strait 

region, which is exposed to international ocean traffic. Kawerak 

stands ready to be a partner with our Tribes, local, State and Federal Governments toward this end. Thank you. 

Chairman BEGICH. Thank you very much, Melanie. I appreciate 

your testimony. I am going to spend a few minutes here asking 

some questions of all three and thank you, your last point there— 

I know some complain about government overreach, but this is 
10 

probably one place where the Federal Government has a role and 

responsibility. 

Let me first, if I can, with Thomas, I want to make sure I understand what you laid out there and the way I am going to analyze 

it or say is hopefully—it makes sense and you can tell me if I am 

wrong here, but the concern is because of the low level, the ground 

level of Alaska lands, the rising sea level, which is salty water, as 

it continues to erode—create erosion or erode the areas around the 

coast or it moves in as sea level rises, it is now contaminating, and 

these are my words, contaminating the fresh water, as well as 

other types of vegetation that the Alaska Native community lives 

on. 

For example, there may be areas, if you go seven kilometers in, 

you could wipe out an area, for example, where berry gathering is 

done because now you have salt water mixing in and you may have 

areas that are habitat for bird nesting, but also as potentially areas 

where there are egg collecting, as well as bird harvesting for subsistence use. So you may have impact on their habitat and they 

may not come back and then potential fresh water fish, now have 

salt water entering their areas. 

Putting that aside, you then have this water interfering with 

water systems that some of the communities are pulling water 

right out of the current lakes for their water resources. Am I saying that right? 

Dr. RAVENS. I think you basically got it right. 

Chairman BEGICH. OK. 

Dr. RAVENS. One thing I would just point out. 

Chairman BEGICH. Let me make sure, that was two kilometers 

versus four—I mean, two kilometers—two centimeters here versus 

this, right? That’s the distance we are talking about, the change, 

the two modelings you gave? 

Dr. RAVENS. The 40 centimeters sea level rise. 

Chairman BEGICH. Yes affirmative, 40 centimeters. 

Dr. RAVENS. So average sea level rise—— 

Chairman BEGICH. Over a year? 

Dr. RAVENS. No, whenever it happens, so—— 

Chairman BEGICH. Just a surge? 

Dr. RAVENS. So you know, the National Climate Assessment 

came out recently and they projected a number of possible scenarios for sea level rise, say by the year 2100 and .4 meters or 40 

centimeters is probably on the low end and then, 1 or 11⁄2 is right 

in the middle and then 2 is on the high end. So we are expecting—— 

Chairman BEGICH. So you’re measuring—your modeling is 

done—these are my words again, your—from two centimeters to 40, 

your extreme measure is actually the low measure? 

Dr. RAVENS. Well, I’m sorry, it wasn’t two centimeters, it was 

two meters. 

Chairman BEGICH. Two meters, OK. 

Dr. RAVENS. So the delta surface is two meters—— 

Chairman BEGICH. Right. 

Dr. RAVENS. Above mean sea level and then there is something 

like a meter or a meter-and-a-half tidal range. 

Chairman BEGICH. Right. 
11 

Dr. RAVENS. So as it is now, on a regular basis, there is flooding 

of the delta. 

Chairman BEGICH. Right. 

Dr. RAVENS. Almost every year, there is flooding with—— 

Chairman BEGICH. That’s the two centimeters? 

Dr. RAVENS. It varies. The amount of flooding in a given year— 

typically, you will have a surge of about 2, 21⁄2 meters, which is 

enough to inundate—— 

Chairman BEGICH. Lots of areas. 

Dr. RAVENS [continuing.] Tens of kilometers of the delta surface. 

Chairman BEGICH. Got you. 

Dr. RAVENS. And so what I am saying is if you add 40 centimeters on top of that—— 

Chairman BEGICH. And then the surges occur? 

Dr. RAVENS. Then the surges occur, then you are going to cover 

a lot more—— 

Chairman BEGICH. Got you. 

Dr. RAVENS [continuing.] Of the delta. 

Chairman BEGICH. And again, these impacts, and I was just over 

the area probably now 2 weeks ago with the Secretary of Interior 

and we flew to the Arctic. We went to Lonely Point and we could 

see literally the erosion as it occurs. 

It is not just a little bit of, people think that well, it is just a little bit of dirt falling off. It is big chunks because it is frozen. So 

as it eats away, and that chunk falls off and then it just starts to 

disintegrate. 

Dr. RAVENS. Yes. 

Chairman BEGICH. Because you are falling into the salt water, 

so the ice, it is disappearing very rapidly. 

Dr. RAVENS. Yes. 

Chairman BEGICH. And that dirt, literally just goes out. 

Dr. RAVENS. Right, so amazingly, the north coast of Alaska, most 

of it is 70 percent ice by volume. 

Chairman BEGICH. Right. 

Dr. RAVENS. So it is basically a dirty ice cube and the Bering 

Sea—— 

Chairman BEGICH. You mean that in a positive way, so let’s 

make sure that’s clear. 

Dr. RAVENS. And as the Bering Sea warms up, and it is warmed 

up very rapidly in the last 30 years or so, it is essentially just 

thawing those coastal bluffs and we are, in some places, seeing erosion rates of 50 meters per year and you are right, and it falls in 

these huge clumps. 

Chairman BEGICH. Right. 

Dr. RAVENS. It is called niche erosion block collapse and we have 

an excellent model of that process. 

Chairman BEGICH. But I saw the real live thing. 

Dr. RAVENS. You saw the real thing? 

Chairman BEGICH. I mean, these were huge pieces of ground. 

Dr. RAVENS. Yes, it is. 

Chairman BEGICH. It was not like a little piece like this. I mean, 

it was a pretty good size. So as it was chewing away underneath 

it. 

Dr. RAVENS. Yes. 
12 

Chairman BEGICH. It just literally came off. 

Dr. RAVENS. Right. 

Chairman BEGICH. And then it just disintegrates. 

Dr. RAVENS. Yes, and the size of those chunks is related to the 

polygons up there. If you were looking from the—— 

Chairman BEGICH. Yes. 

Dr. RAVENS [continuing.] Air, you see this sort of checkered 

board style—— 

Chairman BEGICH. We think people from somewhere else did 

that. 

Dr. RAVENS. Right, and so those lines, are ice edges. It is ice and 

that’s the weak point in the structure of the tundra, so—— 

Chairman BEGICH. Got you, kind of a fault line or the fracture 

lines? 

Dr. RAVENS. Those are exactly right. 

Chairman BEGICH. And if I can turn to Melanie, and I will come 

back to you, Thomas, on a couple of things—well, let me just finish 

with you. You had mentioned there is some work you are going do 

in Hooper Bay. How is that funded? Is that a sea grant or is that— 

how is that—— 

Dr. RAVENS. There was a national sea grant RFP that we responded to. They funded 4 out of about 25 proposals, but not ours. 

So we proposed this work, but it did not get funded. 

Chairman BEGICH. So the real-time forecasting, and this is very 

interesting what you are talking about, because I can imagine 

NOAA folks are just ecstatic about this kind of information that 

they can get their hands on. I do not know if they are here with 

us. 

Yes, this is the kind of stuff they love. There’s Amy in the back, 

so I am just guessing, this is like dreams for you to be able to do 

real-time forecasting. Is the issue, and I think I know the answer 

to this, but I just want to have you put it on the record, I mean, 

there’s not enough resource we are putting into this kind of research, is that a fair statement? 

Dr. RAVENS. Well—— 

Chairman BEGICH. I mean, we are doing some, but not enough? 

Dr. RAVENS. Basically, what we are doing now is, I am funded 

right now by the USGS. 

Chairman BEGICH. Right. 

Dr. RAVENS. And the USGS Climate Center and also the Western 

Alaska Landscape Conservation Cooperative and so we are building 

all these tools and all I am saying is that while these tools that 

we have built up, really for ecological research, could really be put 

to service to help human communities. 

Chairman BEGICH. Right. To do better planning and strategies? 

Dr. RAVENS. Basically, real-time, good information about; OK, we 

know a storm is coming. What is the best science that’s available? 

What does that tell us the surge—what is the surge going to be in 

front of my house? What’s it going to be over there? Is it going to 

be one meter? Is it going to be two meters 12 hours from now? 

Chairman BEGICH. Right. 

Dr. RAVENS. So that people have the information that they need 

to plan. This is really what’s happening in the Lower 48. There is 

not really a comparable system in place in Alaska at that resolu-
13 

tion, as far as I understand it. It just so happens that we have all 

the pieces in place to do this right now. We just need someone to 

say, ‘‘Do it,’’ and kick in a little bit of money and we could do it 

at a particular village as a demonstration project. 

We could demonstrate that, OK, these guys actually—they were 

not making it up. They can actually produce these projections. 

They’re very accurate and then we will see, aha, we can do this. 

It costs so many dollars. Is this something we want to expand to 

other communities? 

Chairman BEGICH. Can you, for the Committee, at some point, 

prepare something that explains doing a demonstration project, 

what it might entail, what kind of agency coordination and what 

kind of costing would be required? 

Dr. RAVENS. Sure. 

Chairman BEGICH. As best you can. 

Dr. RAVENS. Sure. 

Chairman BEGICH. I mean, it is not something, especially on the 

dollars, we would hold you, but just so I can get a better sense. 

Would you do that for the Committee? 

Dr. RAVENS. I would be happy to. 

Chairman BEGICH. Great. Let me, if I can, I am going to go to 

both Melanie and Vivian and you heard me kind of describe to 

Thomas—well, how I envision of this and I will start, if I can, with 

you, Vivian, because I think in your comments, you made some 

very positive statements about some of the work you are doing, but 

also, the concern you have is how it is affecting your, what is the 

right way to say it, your ability to harvest for subsistence and other 

uses. What was just described to me from an engineer/scientific, 

that is what you are seeing? Is that a fair statement? 

Ms. KORTHUIS. Yes. 

Chairman BEGICH. And do you think of your 56 communities, 

you had mentioned some have plans, some do not. Do you know 

how many do have plans now, roughly? 

Ms. KORTHUIS. Two years ago, we took a survey of our communities to find out of the 56 Tribes, who has current community 

plans, which obviously includes an emergency preparedness plan, 

and of our 56 Tribes, only seven had current plans. 

Chairman BEGICH. Current plans. 

Ms. KORTHUIS. And we have the survey that we took, we have 

plans in our region that are from the 1970s to 1980s and maybe 

the seven plans that were completed recently are actually 2 years 

old now. 

Chairman BEGICH. OK, and is—weighting the biggest stumbling 

block for the communities to develop those plans, is it financial resources? Is it expertise? Is it expertise within the Tribes? 

Ms. KORTHUIS. No, I think the communities have the ability to 

plan. 

Chairman BEGICH. OK. 

Ms. KORTHUIS. And I think the opportunity for those—the Tribe, 

like the tribal government, the city government, the health corporation, all the entities that are involved, the schools, is the—— 

Chairman BEGICH. The village corporation? 

Ms. KORTHUIS [continuing.] Opportunity for a facilitator to come 

in and help the community lay it out. 
14 

Chairman BEGICH. So you think that the tools are there, it is 

just someone needs to help just facilitate it? 

Ms. KORTHUIS. Yes, with the funding. 

Chairman BEGICH. That’s the biggest challenge? 

Ms. KORTHUIS. We would love to do that. 

Chairman BEGICH. OK, let me ask you, from your region, are you 

doing, one of the things we are talking about a lot here is not only 

preparing for the emergencies, but the mitigation of emergencies, 

getting prepared for what we know, like for example, if we had this 

real-time forecasting, you could probably see some of the villages 

that would, if certain surges occur, what could really happen. 

Do you have projects now that you are doing that are preparing 

or kind of mitigating or preparing for potential erosion situations, 

flooding situations, as the climate continues to change and the sea 

levels change? Is there projects that you are doing that you could 

describe? 

Ms. KORTHUIS. I can not point to a specific project, but we do 

have the ability to—our region is so large and we have so many 

communities. We have 48 permanent settlements. 

Chairman BEGICH. Right. 

Ms. KORTHUIS. And they are all along two major rivers and along 

the Bering Sea coast. I brought a map of our region, if you want 

to refer to that. 

Chairman BEGICH. OK. 

Ms. KORTHUIS. So the map indicates that we have 840 miles of 

coastline, just coastline, which does not include the Yukon River 

and the Kuskokwim River. So each village has its own particular 

environment. As a region, we are proposing to create, what we are 

calling the Western Alaska Emergency Response Center. 

Chairman BEGICH. Right, you had mentioned that. 

Ms. KORTHUIS. And encompassed in that is the ability to take— 

coordination of the whole region in terms of anything that we can 

witness; floods—— 

Chairman BEGICH. The erosion activity. 

Ms. KORTHUIS [continuing.] Erosion, all those different aspects of 

what’s happening in our villages. 

Chairman BEGICH. Is the idea of the center, would that be a 

local, State, Federal type of funding source or what’s your thinking 

there? 

Ms. KORTHUIS. Yes. 

Chairman BEGICH. OK. 

Ms. KORTHUIS. We would like to bring all the players together 

for that. 

Chairman BEGICH. Do you have a proposal already? 

Ms. KORTHUIS. Yes, I do have a proposal. 

Chairman BEGICH. Will you submit that to the Committee? 

Ms. KORTHUIS. Yes, I will do that. 

Chairman BEGICH. Fantastic. Let me ask Melanie, you have 

heard some of the conversation we had. Let me ask you, you had 

several recommendations and one of them, which you have talked 

about, was the ability of better coordination and lead agency. 

Would you be willing to expand on that and then, you mentioned 

an action work group? Can you kind of help me understand that 

a little bit more? I understand the lack of coordination, but what 
15 

is the action work that you are thinking of and then, would that 

help get to that challenge? 

Ms. BAHNKE. Yes, thank you, Senator. The Immediate Action 

Work Group began as an ad hoc group and it resulted in the U.S. 

Corps of Engineers’ 2009 recommendation report. Following that, 

the creation of the Alaska Governor’s Executive Subcabinet on Climate Change. 

The goal was to address known threats to communities caused by 

coastal erosion, thawing permafrost, flooding and fires. This working group was effective because key decisionmakers, who actually 

had authority for resource allocation, were involved from the various Federal, State and local governments. 

They all participated in the early stages of the project that were 

identified by priorities as the group were 100 percent federally 

funded from the Corps of Engineers under what was Section 117 

of the Energy and Water Development Act of 2005. 

The next stages would have required a local match of 35 percent 

and the Corps would have provided a 35 percent match and then 

the State would have provided the 65 percent funding. In 2009, as 

you are aware, Congress repealed Section 117 and then in 2010, 

Congress enacted Section 116, which requires projects to be costshared. 

One example of the amount of cost-share that would have been 

required for a revetment project in Shishmaref is that the local 

community would have had to come up with $6 to $8 million dollars. This project was not completed. 

So I think the model, itself, is a great model of coordinating 

State, Federal and local leaders to prioritize projects, coordinate 

their resources and actually carry out projects. 

Chairman BEGICH. If I can ask you now, does the Executive Subcommittee, the Alaska Executive Subcommittee on Climate still 

exist? Does any—— 

Ms. BAHNKE. I am not aware—— 

Chairman BEGICH. I will ask the next panel. I was kind of asking 

it through you, looking at the audience here. So I saw a couple of 

acknowledgments here, that I’ll be able to ask that on the next 

panel. Let me followup on this then, so the idea—one flexibility 

that you had also mentioned was, if there is going to be a required 

match, which as you remember, the 2005 117 required no match 

for these areas, but if there is going to be a match, then what you 

want to make sure happens is there is flexibility so it is not just 

local community, but the State can also match. Is that what you’re 

also wanting to see happen? 

Ms. BAHNKE. I would prefer that the State be required to provide 

the match. Our local communities have limited resources. We don’t 

have a tax base. 

Chairman BEGICH. Understood. 

Ms. BAHNKE. Kawerak has utilized their own funds and put 

them up as match toward several Corps of Engineer projects. In 

fact, we have several projects right now that we’re working on with 

the Corps where we are providing tribal funds as the match. 

Chairman BEGICH. Great. I know the other issue around the 

Corps, and that is this cost/benefit analysis, which I know I’ll talk 

to the Corps about on the next panel, but your point, and I want 
16 

to make sure I’m clear on this and I want to make sure this is part 

of the record, the way that cost/benefit analysis works really for 

communities of your size and Vivian’s communities, they are too 

small of populations and when you do the analysis basis with population as a significant part or a part of the equation, you can not 

compete against larger cities that have bigger problems. Is that a 

fair statement? 

Ms. BAHNKE. Yes, that is a very fair statement. 

Chairman BEGICH. And so what you are looking for is some, at 

least, recognition because—I will use an example. In a community 

with a big population, the erosion that may be occurring that the 

Corps is doing the cost/benefit analysis, it may be a small project, 

maybe it is a few homes, but because the population is so big, it 

makes sense because the cost/benefit analysis works, but in a village, you may have the whole village disappearing into the ocean, 

but if there is not a big enough population, the cost/benefit analysis 

does not work. Is that—— 

Ms. BAHNKE. Exactly. 

Chairman BEGICH. OK, and I think we have recognized this and 

it is something—we have talked to the Corps and we are trying to 

figure out the right solution here, because if we can find the right 

mix, and it may be that we have to recognize, as we recently did 

in the piece of legislation, we changed some language and we included what we call subsistence communities in one of the definitions, which is for small and boat harbor renovations, because what 

was happening, the definition was in the Corps bill that just came 

out of the Senate, the definition, it wouldn’t have worked for us. 

By adding that in, it creates an ability for small boat harbors, 

small areas, small populations, villages to be able to qualify for this 

money. So that is what, I guess, I am just speaking out loud here, 

maybe that is the kind of language we need to be speaking about, 

subsistence communities, because the impact is much more dramatic than just a few homes. It is the ability to survive. 

Ms. BAHNKE. Correct, and we can not just up and move. I mean, 

we are not connected to roads. 

Chairman BEGICH. Right. 

Ms. BAHNKE. It is not like if you are in a town in Washington 

where you can just move, pick up your bags and move to another 

town. 

Chairman BEGICH. Well, it is like what happened when—— 

Ms. BAHNKE. Permanent settlement where our people were 

forced to settle in for the most part when the compulsory education 

became a requirement. 

Chairman BEGICH. Very good. 

Ms. BAHNKE. I would like to point that out because the Federal 

Government had a hand in this. 

Chairman BEGICH. Yes. No, your history, I appreciate you putting that into the presentation. Because of time and we want to get 

to the next panel, again, I want to thank all three panelists that 

are here. We have your written testimony. There will be some additional questions I will submit and, I will talk about at the end of 

this meeting, I will submit for the record for further questions, but 

I really do appreciate the input and the folks who are on the 

ground, literally, living in a changing environment in Alaska and 
17 

Thomas, thank you for your information and some interesting ideas 

on how to get better data that can help us do better planning. So 

thank you all very much. 

We will pause for just a second while we change out panels here 

and they do a lot of nameplate changing here. Thank you all very 

much, Vivian, Melanie, Thomas, thanks. 

Again, thank you for the next panel, and as the panel is here, 

you heard some of the questions. The way I like to run, at least 

the committee hearings I have and listening sessions that I do, is 

you should feel comfortable as you are doing your testimony, if 

there is an answer you want to give to any of the questions that 

were derived in the first panel, feel free to do that. That is fine 

with me. We just want to keep them to the limits of time so I can 

kind of squeeze in as many questions as possible. 

I will do the same thing; I will introduce all of you and then I 

will just start in the same order I did introductions. First, David 

Miller is Associate Administrator for the Federal Insurance and 

Mitigation Administration with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. That is a big title. I am sure there is some abbreviation for it that you will tell me about. 

Mr. Miller has served in this position since 2011 and previously 

served as Administrator of the Iowa Homeland Security Emergency 

Management Division from 2004 to 2011. 

Ken Murphy is the appointed Regional Administrator for FEMA 

Region X. Mr. Murphy is responsible for developing, administering, 

coordinating FEMA’s mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery 

programs for the State of Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington. 

Thank you for being here. 

Colonel Christopher Lestochi, did I say that right? 

Col. LESTOCHI. Very close, Senator. 

Chairman BEGICH. Thank you very much, assumed command of 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District on July 2, 2012. 

I always will say this; we like that Alaska has its own district, just 

a little plug there. 

Col. LESTOCHI. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman BEGICH. John Madden is currently the Director of the 

Division of Alaska Homeland Security and Emergency Management and is not an unfamiliar face to this committee. He has testified more than once and was appointed in 2007. John, again, I was 

glad last night—was your last night as the President of the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) and I know 

they had the forum here and they presented you with a little recognition and again, congratulations for your national role in NEMA 

as the President of the organization and for Alaska, we thank you 

for kind of representing us on that national level. So thank you 

very much for doing that. 

Let me go ahead and start with David, and then we will just 

kind of go down this line here. 
18 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Miller appears in the Appendix on page 50. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID MILLER,1 ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL INSURANCE AND MITIGATION ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, sir. Chairman Begich, thank you for the 

invitation to appear before the Subcommittee. I am David Miller 

the Associate Administrator for the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration of the Department of Homeland Security—it is 

a long title. I agree, sir, and I do not—— 

Chairman BEGICH. I think the last comments from Melanie was 

cut the red tape. So maybe she may cut those titles down. 

Mr. MILLER. As far as I said, I am an Associate Administrator. 

I am not really an administrator. I just associate with them. It is 

an honor to be here today, though, with the other witnesses and 

represent the building of strong partners in our efforts to help the 

people of Alaska build, sustain and improve their capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from and mitigate 

against actually, not just the hazards, but the uniqueness of the 

hazards and the circumstances that you face here in Alaska. 

As the Subcommittee is aware, FEMA is the lead Federal agency 

responsible for coordinating disaster response, recovery and mitigation efforts following Presidentially declared emergencies and we 

use our programs and authorities that have been authorized by 

Congress and the President to meet the needs of the community. 

Our programs are intended to supplement that response activities 

and recovery programs of States, local governments and Tribes 

through grants, as well as through technical and planning assistance. 

Our mitigation programs are guided by the National Mitigation 

Framework, which serves as a common platform for coordinating 

and addressing how the Nation manages risk. The framework also 

offers guidance on how the whole community can work together to 

build resiliency and reduce long-term vulnerability. 

I would like to tell you about specific programs we offer to aid 

communities in Alaska and across America. Our Pre-Disaster Programs include the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program, the 

Flood Mitigation Assistance Program and the A National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). 

The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program funds mitigation 

projects and planning efforts identified and prioritized in State and 

local mitigation plans. This competitive grant program is funded 

through the annual appropriations process and includes projects 

such as the development of all hazard mitigation plans, seismic retrofitting of critical public buildings and the acquisition or relocation 

of flood prone properties located within flood plains. 

The Flood Mitigation Assistance Program provides funding for 

structures located in the NFIP, participating communities. It includes projects to alleviate, relocate and acquire flood prone structures, as well as projects to upgrade culverts, building detention 

ponds and improve local storm water management facilities. 

Flood Grant Programs in Alaska include $600,000 provided to 

the coastal village of Shishmaref in 1998 for relocation of nine 

homes to higher ground. The NFIP, the Flood Insurance Program, 
19 

currently has 32 participating communities in Alaska, representing 

boroughs, cities, towns and Alaska Native villages. 

Collectively, they maintain $735 million in flood insurance coverage. Since 1978, the NFIP has paid 581 claims for $5.9 million 

to Alaska residents. Twenty-eight of the 3,022 policies statewide, 

are subject to coastal flooding or 3,022 communities statewide are 

subject to coastal flooding and erosion hazards. 

Many of those communities have elected to participate in the 

NFIP—are also eligible to participate in the community rating system, which provides a flood insurance premium discount for property owners who engage in flood plain management activities. 

Community participation in the CRS in Alaska is relatively high 

when considering the State’s small number of NFIP participating 

communities in the national average, with 18 percent participating. 

Here in Anchorage, the community receives a 20 percent discount 

on their premiums through their participation in the NFIP and 

CRS. 

FEMA also offers assistance to State tribes and communities and 

individuals following disasters through its Public Administration 

Program, Individuals and Households Program and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). The Public Assistance Program offers 

assistance for the restoration of public and certain private nonprofit facilities damaged by an event and reimburses cost associated with emergency protective measures and debris removal. 

The Individual and Households Program helps ensure the essential needs of individuals and families are met after disasters so 

they can begin the road to successful recovery. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program provides grants to State, local, and tribal governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after 

a major disaster declaration. 

Of the $29.6 million in Hazard Mitigation Grant funds, obligated 

in Alaska since the inception of the program, $7.5 million or 25 

percent has been spent on relocation projects for Alaska Native villages. 

While erosion control may be an eligible project under the 

HMGP, the scope of erosion in Shishmaref, for example, would require a major project, generally implemented by agencies, such as 

the Corps of Engineers, which has specific authority for these types 

of projects. 

FEMA does not fund major flood control projects of provide assistance for activities for which another Federal program has a 

more specific or primary authority to provide. 

In conclusion, FEMA will continue to be an active partner in efforts to address the complex vulnerabilities in Alaska and we are 

committed to doing whatever is within our authority to help the 

people of this great State. We are aware of the unique challenges 

on the ground and will continue to work with our partners through 

our regional office to develop creative solutions to meet the needs 

of Alaskans resilient people. Thank you and I would be very happy 

to answer any questions you may have, sir. 
20 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Murphy appears in the Appendix on page 50. 

TESTIMONY OF KENNETH MURPHY,1 REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR REGION X, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Chairman Begich for the invitation to 

testify before the Committee today. I have seen many familiar faces 

in my last 3 years here working and improving with the State and 

local communities’ emergency management for all Alaskans. 

At FEMA, we are aware of the unique issues and challenges that 

Alaskans face preparing for and recovering from a disaster. We 

also appreciate and try to understand fully the environmental challenges and we acknowledge that FEMA is only part of the team 

dedicated to responders, who work together to ensure that we are 

ready to respond to imminent disasters in the Arctic. 

Together, we determine how to apply the right programs and resources in a way that prioritizes the needs of the survivors. We 

look to all of our partners to bring their best ideas and solutions 

to the hazards and the environmental conditions facing Alaskans. 

Survivors deserve the whole spectrum of services, resources and 

programs available at each level of the government. No single 

agency will be able to meet all the needs at one time. It is truly 

a whole community effort. 

Today, I will just highlight a few examples of what FEMA is 

doing in Alaska to improve our ability to respond effectively during 

extreme weather events and more importantly, provide some examples of ways we are supporting community and state-based efforts 

to identify hazards, reduce vulnerabilities and increase resilience. 

First and foremost, communities need to have access to current 

information to assess their vulnerability, create strategic plans, 

prioritize hazard mitigation strategies. Over the last 5 years, 

FEMA has provided over $2 million to the State to support local 

planning through Pre-Disaster Mitigation Programs. 

Ninety-three communities currently have an adopted mitigation 

plan. Each of these plans are formed by local feedback and in many 

cases, multiple jurisdictions participated in the entire planning 

process. With these planning efforts, we have also explored several 

low-cost projects to design community-specific vulnerabilities, including regionally, a 35,000 retrofit program project here in Anchorage and in Kodiak. 

Another crucial step in increasing community resilience is 

through active participation and large-scale exercises, like the upcoming Alaska shield exercise. Region X is partnering with the 

State of Alaska in its biannual exercise Alaska shield series going 

back to 2005. 

In 2010, FEMA sent over 50 staff and several emergency vehicles 

to Alaska to participate in this exercise. Through real-time simulations, we have tested the State and FEMA’s ability to perform critical functions in extreme cold weather conditions, as well as our 

ability to sustain first responders arriving in from the Lower 48 

States. 

2014, FEMA will again be committing to substantial resources to 

participate in the exercise celebrating the 50-year anniversary of 

the 1964 earthquake and we will be working on testing on the abil-
21 

1The prepared statement of Colonel Lestochi appears in the Appendix on page 60. 

ity to do our job in conjunction with the State to deal with severe 

disasters up here, survivors in extreme cold weather conditions. 

One final example of our regional capacity to meet the needs of 

rural Alaskan communities is our disaster response in the community of Eagle. In June 2009, the Yukon River flooded causing major 

damage resulting in a Presidential disaster declaration. During the 

earliest days of the response, we worked with the community and 

our partners of this State to develop a strategy to better understand how vulnerable the community was to spring breakup. 

Region X experts developed a series of products that helped the 

community and helped them make very difficult decisions to not rebuild in the hazardous areas of Eagle. Our priorities to create these 

tools and support the immediate and long-term recovery needs of 

local survivors. 

Eagle was flooded again this spring, but only six homes were 

damaged. The old village of Eagle suffered no impacts where we actually moved the homes. The citizens, as a group and as a community, chose to relocate outside the hazard areas defined by our 

analysis in 2009. Eagle is safer and a more resilient community 

today due to the collective efforts of many response agencies. 

We are committed to providing quality information, programs 

and products that give communities the tools they need to make informed decisions about risk. Harsh climates, environmental challenges necessitate proactive choices and a unified response. I am a 

firm believer that today’s preparations predict tomorrow’s outcomes. In Alaska, we are working tirelessly with our partners to 

ensure a safer tomorrow for Alaska. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BEGICH. Thank you very much. Colonel. 

TESTIMONY OF COLONEL CHRISTOPHER D. LESTOCHI,1 DISTRICT COMMANDER ALASKA DISTRICT, PACIFIC OCEAN DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF 

ENGINEERING 

Col. LESTOCHI. Chairman Begich, thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you today to discuss coastal storm damage and 

erosion issues in Alaska. Today, I will provide everyone a brief review of Corps erosion authorities and programs, highlight some of 

the challenges regarding coastal erosion affecting Alaska communities. 

The Corps has several civil works authorities to address flooding 

and erosion problems. These Congressional authorizations include 

the Continuing Authorities Program, the Planning Assistance to 

States Program, the Tribal Partnership Program, the Flood Control 

and Coastal Emergencies authority, and Alaska-specific authorizations, such as Section 116 of the 2010 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act relating to Alaska 

flood, erosion and ice damage. Each of these authorities has different implementing rules and limitations. 

In addressing erosion problems, the Corps works closely with 

local, State, Federal, tribal, and private interests to understand 

and incorporate the concerns represented by these various stakeholders. The Corps weighs the concerns, balances the needs, and 
22 

examines the risks, costs and benefits to determine Federal interest and to make technically, environmentally, socially, and economically sound risk-informed decisions. I would like to outline the 

authorities related to coastal erosion and what we’ve accomplished 

under them. Specifically highlighting two authorities, which I will 

call Section 117 and Section 116, which were created for the unique 

needs of Alaska. My written testimony contains information regarding the other Corps programs and authorities that can address 

erosion issues. 

Section 117, now repealed, of the fiscal year 2005 Consolidated 

Appropriations Act authorizes the Secretary of the Army to carry 

out at full Federal expense structural and non-structural projects 

for storm damage prevention and reduction, coastal erosion and ice 

and glacial damage in Alaska, including relocation of affected communities and construction of replacement facilities. The Corps has 

utilized this authority. At Kivalina, 2,000 feet of shoreline protection was installed between 2008–2009. At Shishmaref, 1,375 feet of 

shoreline protection was installed between 2007–2009, and at Unalakleet, 671 feet of shoreline protection was initiated or installed 

between 2007–2009. 

Section 117 was repealed in 2009. A new authority, Section 116 

of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010, provides a similar authority, however; Section 116 requires cost sharing of up to 35 percent non-Federal, 

whereas Section 117 had no cost sharing requirement. 

The only Section 116 construction project undertaken to date is 

at Unalakleet, under the Alaska Coastal Erosion program, where 

the existing 671 feet of revetment is currently being extended to 

1,500 feet. Appropriations under the heading of the Alaska Coastal 

Erosion program have been provided to fund projects using the Section 116 authority. 

As noted in the June 2004 Government Accountability Office report on Alaska Native villages affected by flooding and erosion, it’s 

often difficult for the majority of Alaska’s small and remote communities to finance and meet the multiple criteria required for Federal participation in implementing a solution. The remoteness of 

many of the areas, severe weather conditions, and the subsistence 

economies of the communities are major contributing factors. Perhaps the biggest challenges are the costs and risks associated with 

implementing erosion control solutions in these often remote communities. These include high mobilization costs, the limited construction season, and the difficulty of obtaining and transporting 

adequate rock and other materials. 

The March 2009 Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment identified 

178 communities that reported erosion problems. Twenty-six of 

them were deemed to warrant immediate attention. All 26 communities were contacted regarding ways the Corps could assist the 

communities. Six currently have active projects with the Corps. 

The remainder either did not request assistance or their projects 

were found to not meet the requirements of existing Corps programs or the non-Federal sponsor could not meet the cost-share requirements. 

The risks associated with the coastal erosion challenges in Alaska are complex. Risk considerations include determining the ac-
23 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Madden appears in the Appendix on page 65. 

ceptable level of protection from erosion and flooding, deciding 

whether to relocate or remain, and consideration of the economic, 

social, cultural and environmental impacts. 

The Corps has the technical expertise to address solutions based 

on a systems approach and the capability to communicate and assist with risk-informed decisionmaking associated with the complex 

storm damage and erosion problems in Alaska’s coastal villages. 

We are proud to work in collaboration with many Federal, State 

and local and tribal entities to assist in recommending and implementing solutions for coastal erosion challenges faced by these communities. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today and look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

Chairman BEGICH. Thank you, Colonel. John, thank you, again, 

for being here. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN W. MADDEN,1 DIRECTOR, ALASKA DIVISION OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

Mr. MADDEN. Well, thank you, sir, for this hearing and this opportunity to present the State perspective in this dialogue on preparedness for all of our Alaskan communities and especially those 

most directly affected by extreme weather. 

Our State faces an extreme range of hazards, from nature, from 

humans and from technology and we are no stranger to disaster. 

We have experienced a declared disaster on average every ninety 

days since statehood and the State of Alaska seems to create and 

sustain a posture of preparedness enabling a swift coordinated response, enabling an immediate comprehensive recovery. 

Our State handles most disasters with local and State resources. 

For the remainder, we do request assistance from the President, 

and here is just a short list, not a comprehensive list of our recent 

disasters; in 2007, a storm hit Kivalina with wave surges threatening to breach the barrier island. In 2008, three separate storms 

from the Pacific and Arctic and the Bering caused severe floods in 

Nenana and breached the seawall in Wainwright. 

In 2009, Mount Redoubt volcano erupted 19 times from March to 

July, during which we had pandemic H1N1 in April and the breakup of the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers in May flooding dozens of 

communities with Eagle, Stevens Village and Tanana, the hardest 

hit and 527 fires burned close to three million acres. 

In 2010, a late season Bering Sea storm through—sea spray 

drawn from rare open water onto power lines onto Savoonga causing widespread power outage. 

In 2011, Crooked Creek on the Kuskokwim lost many residences 

in May from extreme flood and ice, and an extra tropical typhoon 

in October damaged dozens of western and northwestern communities with storm surges and high winds. 

In 2012, intensive January storms brought record snowfall 

throughout the Prince William Sound communities and in September and October, other storms hit south central Alaska with 

damaging winds up to 130 miles-per-hour and widespread flooding 
24 

across 60,000 square miles and this year, in 2013, the Yukon River 

breakup, again, hit communities from Eagle to Emmonak with the 

heaviest damages at Galena and Circle. 

The common factor throughout all these events is that we cannot 

rely upon the 30-year weather averages to guide our planning, 

rather, we must expect the unexpected and plan for the uncertainty. 

In doing so, we consider the effects of the season, even the time 

of day, the demographics of the community, those with functional 

needs and we invest in the capabilities with the greatest probability of reducing risks, perhaps for more than one risk or hazard. 

Many of our recent disasters occurred for the first time in each 

location in 30, 40, or even 100 years. Decades without a disaster 

does not decrease the possibility or probability of one happening tomorrow. Early in its administration, the Governor directed us to 

develop essential capabilities that could be counted upon under all 

conditions and throughout the State. 

We have multi-tiered emergency communication system, completely independent of the commercial systems. We have a cache of 

emergency generators Arctic retrofitted and transportable by air, 

land and sea. We have a similar cache of water purification systems ready for deployment. In the last year, we developed the 

small community emergency response guide that distills many 

plans into a format for swift and decisive action. It even has a hole 

in it, so you can hang it on the wall so you can get to it very fast. 

The Governor’s priority and the consistent support from our Legislature have enabled the transformation of Alaskan preparedness 

from a reaction into a discipline. March 2014 does mark the 50th 

anniversary of our 1964 Good Friday earthquake and we will commemorate that event with the largest, most complex exercise in our 

history. 

In the Alaska Shield 2012 exercise, we will simulate breaks in 

our supply lines and work to fix them. We will simulate disruption 

to essential services and work to bring them back. We will simulate 

separation of families and strive to reunite them and the consequences of the catastrophic earthquake mirror those of the extreme weather. 

In summary, the State of Alaska faces threats, hazards and risks 

far disproportionate to our population and our people, our economy, 

even our culture, are at risk of severe disruption if we leave our 

preparedness to chance. 

Our experiences with extreme weather in recent years require us 

to learn from the past, but not be blinded by it. Our greatest risks 

are the ones that we do not anticipate and for which we do not prepare, but through the leadership of the State, support of our communities, involvement with all of our partners, Alaska is a leader 

in the Nation in emergency management and our citizens deserve 

no less. Sir, with that, I will yield for all questions. 

Chairman BEGICH. Thank you very much. Thanks to the panel. 

Thank you for all the information and again, the same thing with 

the last panel, all your written testimony will be part of the official 

record and I appreciate that. I’ll try to move through some questions. Time will limit me and I’ll probably submit some for the 

record for some followup. 
25 

Let me first, if I can, I want to start with the representatives 

from FEMA. A couple of things, first off, I know I had a hearing, 

I think it was a few months ago, where we talked about FEMA’s 

Preparedness Grant Program. They delivered about 50 billion in 

preparedness grants over the years since the Department of Homeland Security was created. 

Do you know how much, and if you don’t know this, maybe for 

the record you can get it for me, how much of that money in those 

grants for preparedness went to looking at mitigation capabilities? 

I don’t know if you know that answer. If you don’t know, don’t 

guess, because that’s a big chunk of money, since Homeland Security was started, but how much actually went to mitigation components? 

Mr. MILLER. I think the answer lies in this, Senator, in that 

within the mitigation programs and within the flood mitigation 

programs under the National Flood Insurance Program, there are 

some allocations for planning that we have every year and we can 

get you the answer on how much of that money has been used. 

Chairman BEGICH. That would be great. 

Mr. MILLER. That, notwithstanding, when you mentioned the 

Preparedness Grants—— 

Chairman BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. MILLER. These kinds of activities are also eligible under the 

EMPG Program, the grants—— 

I have the wrong acronym, John. 

Mr. MADDEN. Emergency Management Performance Grant. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, under those grants and the problem with 

the—— 

The problem with the EMPG grants is there is a lot of other eligible activities, too. So sometimes to pull out the planning activity 

and then how much of that is—— 

Chairman BEGICH. Yes, it may be difficult. 

Mr. MILLER [continuing.] Actual mitigation will be difficult. 

Chairman BEGICH. OK. If you can, for the Committee, get as 

much as that—as close as you can feel that, you can justify, this, 

we feel, is planning money for mitigation, because one of the 

things, as you know, in FEMA’s list and also in our jurisdiction of 

the Committee, it’s not only emergency preparedness, it’s not only 

first responders, but mitigation and when you talk about a lot of 

what’s happening here, besides the list that John gave, which is an 

impressive list in a negative way of all of our disasters, but good 

that we manage them, is how do we mitigate, especially as we are 

not looking at some of these issues with erosion and water temperature changes and other things. So if you could—that would be 

very helpful, I think. 

On top of that, you mentioned insurance and I want to, again, 

for either one of you, David or Kenneth, whichever one feels comfortable answering this, I know of the 225 Tribes or so, we have 

100, I think, are qualified or could go and get flood insurance. I 

know the FEMA administrator has said that they want to move 

Tribes on a higher priority in flood prone areas to really figure out 

how to engage them in this process. 

Can you tell me what efforts FEMA is doing? I know the administrators talked about this, of getting Tribes who are in flood prone 
26 

areas that could qualify for that insurance to get them focused and 

potentially applying for that. I do not know if you have an answer 

to that, but that, to me, is one of the parts of this equation, because 

if they are not applying, there is something—and they are qualified 

and the administrator has made it a priority, there is a gap. Somehow there is something missing here, so—— 

Mr. MURPHY. Senator, I know we work with the State on this all 

the time, to try and reach out together so that we combine our efforts. There is no formalized plan. We try and analyze the communities and then reach out to them to work with them to see what 

it would take to get them to join into the National Flood Insurance 

Program and preferably and hopefully become part of the community rating system, which can then decrease policy costs and that 

kind of thing, but we work through the communities and especially 

in each one of our disasters, if we have the opportunity, we will 

talk to the communities to see if they’re eligible and work with 

them. 

Chairman BEGICH. You heard again from the last testimony, especially from the two that represented communities, this frustration and I am, as well, frustrated and that is what—who’s the lead 

agency on this type of issue, extreme weather changes that are occurring? I will use Alaska to New York. 

We just saw an incredible surge and I just saw one of the maps 

that if, and I forget the exact language that Thomas used, but if 

it had changed just a little bit more in the sense of the sea level 

rising so many meters, how deeper that would have gone into New 

York, Manhattan, everywhere else, who is—or if there is not, what 

should be the right group to really take charge of this, and I am 

going to lead to this, because I am going to jump over to the Corps 

in a second, as well as the State, because what I am sensing is everyone’s doing kind of stuff and I think it is great, each piece, but 

there is this bigger picture of mitigation, because we don’t want 

you all to keep repeating, like I will use the example, which I 

thought was a good one, which was Eagle, if I remember right. 

By mitigating the future, by moving those homes, we prevented 

the homes you rebuilt from being flooded, which is exactly what we 

want to do and not just homes, but preventing communities—and 

we are in a situation where we know it is going to happen. Like 

in New York, it was like a storm that occurred that no one anticipated. We can tell by modeling what’s happening by sea level rise 

in communities where we are just a little bit above sea level and 

it is going to happen. So who is that person or that agency, whoever? David. 

Mr. MILLER. I think it is in two parts. If you look at climate and 

climate adaptation issues as we are going through it and the President’s directive on that—— 

Chairman BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. MILLER [continuing.] What we are finding is a lot of discussion on the data, how we look at the data and how it applies to 

existing programs and we are doing it within FEMA in our existing 

Stafford Act authorities and how we look at mitigation. 

We are looking at information on how we inform versus how we 

regulate within those environments, how we analyze data for benefit-cost and bring that in, but probably the better answer to your 
27 

question; over this last year, we developed the mitigation framework that was recently released. 

Within that framework, it talks about the Mitigation Federal 

Leadership Group. We have had our first meeting of that leadership group, but we have done something—— 

Chairman BEGICH. Who is the players in that? Do you remember 

right offhand? 

Mr. MILLER. I can get you the complete list, but—— 

Chairman BEGICH. Can you get us the list for it? 

Mr. MILLER. It virtually involves almost every Federal agency. So 

it is the Corps of Engineers. It’s the Department of Transportation 

(DOT), Department of Defense (DOD). It is—— 

Chairman BEGICH. And what’s the exact title they call it now? 

Mr. MILLER. The Mitigation Federal Leadership Group. 

Chairman BEGICH. OK. 

Mr. MILLER. But beyond that, a little bit different than the other 

leadership groups for the other components in that Federal piece, 

we are looking to expand our leadership group to include local and 

State partners and that’s the part we are working through right 

now. 

So whether we enjoy the association that John was just the 

President of, the National Emergency Management Association—— 

Chairman BEGICH. Indiscernible—speaking simultaneously—— 

Mr. MILLER [continuing.] The International Association of Flood 

Plain Managers, we are looking for that participation in the Mit 

FLG, as well as the Federal agencies that come in and local government agencies and roles, as well. We really want that mitigation framework, as it calls for, to exemplify the whole community 

aspects of mitigation and the investment and that may even include some private and private nonprofit enterprises in there. As 

that matures, to answer your questions and the coordination indiscernible—speaking simultaneously—— 

Chairman BEGICH. You see that as the evolution? 

Mr. MILLER. We will see that as the evolution. 

Chairman BEGICH. On top of that, I would recommend, and this 

is always—and I know the President has a directive on tribal consultation, to make sure that Tribes are part of this equation, because—— 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. 

Chairman BEGICH [continuing.] When you look at—it doesn’t 

matter if it’s just Alaska Tribes, but Lower 48 Tribes, water is land 

(sic) is the essence of being in the sense of their culture and their 

communities. 

Mr. MILLER. Right. 

Chairman BEGICH. And when there are floods or there are lack 

of resources now coming because of erosion or flood or other activities, they are unable to survive, so—— 

Mr. MILLER. Well—— 

Chairman BEGICH. When you list off, and I appreciate there were 

associations, the State agencies, but there is some good strong tribal organizations that I think would be very helpful in this mix of 

the next kind of layer. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir, and Tribes will be a big part of that. What 

we are working to understand now, as we go through this, plus the 
28 

changes in our relationship with tribal government, the ability to 

ask for declarations, those things that (indiscernible—speaking simultaneously)—— 

Chairman BEGICH. Right, which is a new part of the equation, 

which we really find as a great addition that—— 

Mr. MILLER [continuing.] Would be really (indiscernible—speaking simultaneously)—— 

Chairman BEGICH [continuing.] Now Tribes can request declaration of emergency, instead of waiting for the States—whatever 

their ability or their lack of ability, it is—— 

Unidentified SPEAKER. (Indiscernible—too far from microphone). 

Chairman BEGICH. Yes, I know, the number is—— 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, there are some required consultations that we 

do and one of—— 

Chairman BEGICH. Yes. 

Mr. MILLER [continuing.] The things that the staff is working to 

understand, especially with tribal governments, is the authorities 

they have. One tribal government is not the same as another. 

Chairman BEGICH. Exactly. 

Mr. MILLER. So land use authority is the ability to regulate, 

which—— 

Chairman BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. MILLER [continuing.] Dovetails with the authority to (indiscernible—speaking simultaneously)—— 

Chairman BEGICH. Like our Tribes, we have some that have land 

use authority. Some do not. 

Mr. MILLER. Right, but we will walk through all of those things 

and it is our goal to get representation from the Tribes within the 

Mitigation FLG and how we walk through those processes. 

Chairman BEGICH. Yes. Let me, if I can, This is going to be kind 

of a question here, but moving over to the Corps at the same time, 

and that is, do you right now, if, for example, the Corps has a list 

of, two or three projects or I think you mentioned six communities 

you are doing some work with or so you have a list. 

Do you take both of you guys’ lists and say, ‘‘OK, we’re about to 

do some preparedness planning in X community. You are doing 

some emergency planning or mitigation work or erosion work,’’ does 

that happen or is that going to be the future of this group, because 

here’s what I am going to use my simple way of looking at this. 

If I am the community, I will use Anchorage here, for example, 

I got to FEMA. I want some planning money. I want some preparedness money. So I apply for that, but I also have erosion 

issues, some other situations. So I go over here to the Corps and 

I talk to them. 

I am coordinating all the different things because I have to, but 

from the Federal agency standpoint, you are just getting these 

independent request, because I mean, my Corps request to you is 

not necessarily saying I am applying over here, even though they 

are different kinds of funding and different purposes or I am going 

to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and 

saying I need some of this dollar (sic) for replacement housing. 

Does that occur or is that something that we want to emphasize 

for this new group or is it something that we have to think of separately so we are not doing bits and pieces from each one? Does that 
29 

make sense? I don’t even know, John, from your end, I know from 

the State, you are doing your piece, but I can tell you, from a local 

government, I’m just sitting here thinking, I do not ever recall us, 

when we went to the Corps, we did not go to FEMA to tell you 

what we were doing with the Corps. I knew what we were doing, 

but then you did not know. So give me some feedback and then I 

will flip over to (indiscernible—speaking simultaneously)—— 

Mr. MILLER. I will have the Colonel speak to this, too, because 

the Corps has done some very extensive work in this area. For our 

part in FEMA, there are some requirements that we have, especially in the mitigation and insurance programs and how we look 

at risk to coordinate with the Corps, also with the National Weather Service and a number of other Federal agencies, both in the assessment of the risk and the projects that we coordinate. 

One of the things that we are active with the Corps with, and 

perhaps the Colonel can talk about and I was whispering to John 

or to Ken as we were sitting there, is the Silver Jackets Program. 

Chairman BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. MILLER. So you get an inner-agency cooperation and consolidation on top of that, but you are right, the further coordination 

and to move this along, even to a greater extent, will happen under 

organizational structures like the Mit FLG, because it is not just 

the Corps of Engineers and it also involves the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Transportation and others that 

play a role in mitigation projects and how we thread those together. 

Chairman BEGICH. I will give you one—as I flip over to the Corps 

here, I will give you an example. When I was Mayor, the first 3 

months of being Mayor of Anchorage, I remember, we had State 

roads. We have city roads. We had some local jurisdiction up in the 

hillside. So everyone was applying for their own thing. We had our 

road list for our Metropolitan Planning Area and then we had our 

Capital Grant money, different criteria of determining what’s a priority and honestly, I stopped it all and I said, ‘‘Here’s what we are 

going to do; we do not care who the roads are owned by. We are 

going to prioritize them at the same prioritization of what’s a risk,’’ 

and we created, I think it was 10 points of prioritization, safety, 

so forth, and then we said, ‘‘Wherever they fall, we do not care if 

they are State, Federal, local or local road district, wherever they 

fall, then we start down the list,’’ and we had a lot of, resistence 

from—and I don’t know if Thomas is still here, but I know from 

the Corps, I get it, if you are an engineer, and I do not know if 

you are an engineer by trade, but as an engineer, they are on a 

straight line, do not deviate. We are on a plan, do not start moving 

it around, and I remember we had lots of projects we had to say, 

‘‘No, they are not a priority anymore.’’ 

The end result was, to be very frank with you, in this city, we 

built more roads in 5 years than we built in 20, because we did not 

base it on jurisdiction. We based it on a mutual agreement of 

what’s a priority and then attacked the problem with all resources, 

State, Federal and local and the net result was for—the people who 

live here know how many roads were constructed very quickly. 

So in this situation, my worry is we have a list of 26 or so pretty 

risky villages, in the sense of what could happen to them with a 
30 

smaller list in there, a subset, and all hands on deck should be for 

those. So maybe you could additionally answer from that—I just 

want to give that example of where my concern’s coming from 

based on my experience dealing with multiple layers on road construction issues. 

Col. LESTOCHI. I think to your first point, sir, about lead agency, 

I really think it depends on the nature, the mission that we are 

talking about. If it is a coastal erosion mitigation effort, then clearly, that’s the Corps. If it is, housing, it is HUD. It changes from 

mission to mission. 

Chairman BEGICH. But let me pause you on that. If you are now 

dealing with erosion and there are houses falling into the water, 

someone has to lead this overall effort, because you—— 

Col. LESTOCHI. Yes. 

Chairman BEGICH [continuing.] You could say, ‘‘I’m going to solve 

the erosion problem,’’ and then HUD comes along and says, ‘‘Well, 

where are we going to build those houses? You just took all the 

land we were going to put it in.’’ So that’s what I’m thinking of, 

is what’s that body, and maybe it is this new group that says, ‘‘This 

is how it has to be done,’’ and then from there, there may have to 

me a regional approach to these issues because mitigation is so different than emergency response, because emergency response is 

immediate. Mitigation is prolonged emergency. When we look at 

erosion, we look at water depths changing, I will use tsunamis also, 

the debris that’s coming over, these are prolonged disasters that 

are kind of creeping up. We can actually map them and we know 

they are coming. It is just the question of; what do we do? 

So I do not want to totally disagree with you, but I am concerned 

that that’s the problem, because if you are taking away erosion, 

right, and we want you to do that, to solve that problem, but now 

the houses are gone, we have not solved a community problem and 

that the right place to do that erosion (indiscernible)? Maybe it is 

not. Maybe it is saying we should go somewhere else and relocate 

the village because the village decides they need to move to higher 

land. I do not know. Go ahead, I did not mean to interrupt you 

there, I just—— 

Col. LESTOCHI. No, that’s perfectly all right. I do not have the answer which Federal agency—I’m certainly not going to sign up my 

agency to be the—— 

Chairman BEGICH. I am going to sign you up right now. 

Col. LESTOCHI [continuing.] Federal agency for all things, but—— 

Chairman BEGICH. Do not worry, Colonel, I will just pass onto 

the folks back in D.C. you agreed. They will thank you for testifying. 

Col. LESTOCHI. But I do know we work closely with our agency 

partners on these matters. Take, for example, Kivalina—— 

Chairman BEGICH. Yes. 

Col. LESTOCHI. There, we built some shoreline protection, at least 

we got it partially completed and there was some discussion about 

relocation of the community, potentially, and so we do talk to other 

agencies about what their plans are and we provide them information from the engineering perspective, advise them on—— 

Chairman BEGICH. Do you think that idea would be helpful? 
31 

Col. LESTOCHI. I think there’s merit to it and just thinking along 

the lines of the FEMA model that we are using now, so we respond 

to a disaster in a place like Galena and we work together as an 

agency—— 

Chairman BEGICH. Right. 

Col. LESTOCHI [continuing.] To support the State. 

Chairman BEGICH. Right. 

Col. LESTOCHI. And now, we are getting to transitioning to a 

phase where we are looking at the long-term recovery of the community. 

Chairman BEGICH. Right. 

Col. LESTOCHI. And as we start down that road, there’s yet another committee, if you will, of Federal agencies that—— 

Chairman BEGICH. (Indiscernible—speaking simultaneously) efforts. 

Col. LESTOCHI [continuing.] Are coordinating the efforts with the 

State to come up with that long-term plan. Perhaps a model like 

that could be used for mitigation. 

Chairman BEGICH. In a broader sense for mitigation. 

Col. LESTOCHI. Yes, sir. 

Chairman BEGICH. Let me ask you, and I am going to jump to 

John here real quick, because I know my time’s running here, but 

under 116, the match that’s required, the Corps really does—I 

mean, does the language prohibit—well, I think what the local 

communities were saying is they want the State to pay for it all. 

I get that, but the language does not prohibit the State from paying 

for it or does it? 

Col. LESTOCHI. It does not prohibit the State. 

Chairman BEGICH. OK, because the Corps does not care where 

that match comes from, as long as there’s a match, is that a fair 

statement? 

Col. LESTOCHI. Yes, sir. 

Chairman BEGICH. John, do not worry, I will not say to the Governor you committed to 100 percent pay for it, but I have an idea 

I will discuss with you later, but the cost-benefit ratio, this has always been a struggle. Is that fair to say to the Corps, in Alaska’s 

situation? 

Col. LESTOCHI. Absolutely, I mean, you cited the example of the 

small remote subsistence harbors. 

Chairman BEGICH. Right. 

Col. LESTOCHI. One of those harbors competing on a benefit-cost 

ration using our rules with, the ports on the east coast, it will (indiscernible—speaking simultaneously) never work. 

Chairman BEGICH. We would never win. 

Col. LESTOCHI. So there were pots created—— 

Chairman BEGICH. Right, to help solve that problem. 

Col. LESTOCHI [continuing.] To help solve that problem. 

Chairman BEGICH. And from a Corps perspective, and I do not 

want to put words in your mouth, so if you do not want to answer 

this or disagree, feel free to, that is, I can only imagine, I mean, 

my father-in-law passed away about 2 years ago, he was a Corps, 

as you know, he was a Colonel in the Corps and I know these 

things frustrated him because he wanted to do the mission, but because of our rules, and I say ‘‘ours,’’ meaning the Federal Govern-
32 

ment legislatively, we set the rules and then you have to operate 

by them. 

There must be some level of frustration when you see these—it 

is just—when you see the project makes so much sense to go do, 

but you are restricted and the village ca not afford it and here you 

are looking at a project and you say, ‘‘Well, wish we could, but can 

not, because the rules are what they are.’’ Is that a fair statement? 

You do not have to answer if you do not want to. I do not want 

to put you in a box, but I used to know from the experience and 

discussions I had with people who work in the Corps, it is the most 

frustrating thing I hear. They know this is something they could 

go in and attack and go after. They see the mission, but they are 

just frustrated that they ca not do it because the rules are what 

they are and they have limited funds. 

Col. LESTOCHI. We are required to operate within the limits of 

our authorities. 

Chairman BEGICH. Right, I know. It is more of a rhetorical question, I guess, sorry about that, but I know the frustration. Let me 

close out with John, if I can? John, I asked the question earlier and 

I do not know if you could have answered it either, but on the— 

the Subcabinet on Climate, I do not know if it is still active, and 

then there’s underneath that, the working group or the subworking 

group, I do not know what it was called. Tell me, are either one 

of those active still and what’s their activity or—— 

Mr. MADDEN. Well (indiscernible—speaking simultaneously)—— 

Chairman BEGICH [continuing.] If you don’t have an answer, 

don’t—— 

Mr. MADDEN. Yes, sir, for a little bit of background, concurrent 

with the very powerful storm that hit Kivalina, that threatened it 

in September 2007—— 

Chairman BEGICH. Yes. 

Mr. MADDEN [continuing.] Governor Palin created the Subcabinet 

on Climate Change led by—— 

Chairman BEGICH. Correct. 

Mr. MADDEN [continuing.] The Commissioner for the Department 

of Environmental Conservation. 

Chairman BEGICH. Yes, I remember this here. 

Mr. MADDEN. The first action by that Subcabinet was to create 

two processes. One was a citizen engagement looking at infrastructure, invasive species, cultural, many of those public participation. 

The second part of it was the formation of the Immediate Action 

Work Group. 

Chairman BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. MADDEN. And I was a member of that, as well as the Corps 

of Engineers, State Department of Transportation, NOAA. 

Chairman BEGICH. A variety of agencies. 

Mr. MADDEN. Several, and she was right that we were charged 

with being the people with authorities and capabilities, but to look 

at the immediacy, what can be done, what must be done within the 

next 18 to 24 months as the longer public examination process took 

and the policy process (sic). 

Within that, the first thing we did was look at all of these studies, all the reports and determine the ones that were really greatest at risk that needed immediate action and that turned out to be 
33 

Kivalina, Shishmaref, Shaktoolik, Unalakleet, Newtok, 

Koyukuk—— 

Chairman BEGICH. Right, Newtok, right. 

Mr. MADDEN. And for those, some of them resulted in actual construction projects. 

Chairman BEGICH. (Indiscernible—speaking simultaneously) 

right. 

Mr. MADDEN. We appropriated within just a few months—— 

Chairman BEGICH. Well, like Newtok is moving, correct? 

Mr. MADDEN. And the primary one was on Kivalina, where the 

State committed that with our own appropriations to do a very—— 

Chairman BEGICH. A (indiscernible—speaking simultaneously)—— 

Mr. MADDEN [continuing.] Advanced shoreline stabilization for 

the southern part of the island and which the Corps then, through 

their authorities, we linked up. 

Chairman BEGICH. Got you. 

Mr. MADDEN. And that has held. For each and all of the other 

communities and many others beyond, we did a comprehensive 

suite of plans, full-blown hazard mitigation plans, full emergency 

operations and response and—— 

Chairman BEGICH. Preparedness. 

Mr. MADDEN. [continuing.] For each one of those, determined a 

safe haven so they can have an evacuation plan, that has continued 

to a great extent with hundreds of communities around the State 

and particularly on the Climate Change Subcabinet does not meet 

as such because we strove to put it into the mainstream. 

Chairman BEGICH. OK. 

Mr. MADDEN. To have climate and standards and the other 

things put into the mainline budget. 

Chairman BEGICH. Can I ask you this, John, and then again, I 

apologize, our clock is ticked here, I have some other questions I 

will submit for the record, that you can prepare from your office 

that says, ‘‘Here’s what we did in that Immediate Action Working 

Group and then here are kind of the actions we took? ’’ In other 

words, here’s what we said was the situation, here’s what we did 

and then, here’s what’s pending or not necessary or whatever the 

categories might be. Is that something you could prepare for the 

Committee? 

Mr. MADDEN. We can, sir. Much of that was captured in the archives and it is available online at climatechange.alaska.gov. 

Chairman BEGICH. OK. 

Mr. MADDEN. So all of the meetings and all of the reports are 

there. 

Chairman BEGICH. All right. 

Mr. MADDEN. I will provide a summary of those things that 

are—— 

Chairman BEGICH. That would be great. 

Mr. MADDEN [continuing.] Still being continued. 

Chairman BEGICH. OK, that would be great. Thank you very 

much, John. Let me say, again, to the panel, thank you very much. 

I have some additional questions I will put for the record. I know 

other Members of the Committee may also. Thank you for being 

here. Thank you for helping. One of the things that is clear, and 
34 

again, with Alaska, and I think again, a unique opportunity, if we 

do this right and think about mitigation, and I always say this on 

almost anything we do, that if we can do it here in Alaska, we can 

do it anywhere in the country, because of our conditions, logistics, 

the cost, the uniqueness of the State. 

If we can figure out how to plan and coordinate in a much 

stronger way when it comes to mitigating for future things that we 

know—it may be erosion, water depths changing, sea level changing, that the net result is we could probably do a lot better planning and utilization of our Federal resources. 

The purpose of this hearing today was, we start laying these 

issues on the table, especially in rural Alaska, where you can just 

map it and see what’s going to happen. It is not a question of if 

it is going to happen, is it 10 years? Is it 2 years? Is it 50 years? 

Being at Lonely Point, they were taking out an old hazard site, as 

you know, Tom, they are moving as quick as they can because literally, it is slowly being peeled away and that area’s going to be 

a big chunk of it is going to be gone over time and we have some 

old military operations there that have to be moved as quickly as 

possible, but these are the kinds of things we have to think about 

when we know the disaster is there and the question is; how do 

we coordinate our Federal agencies? 

How do we also look at the pieces to understand that mitigation 

is now in a lot of ways, it is a much more cost effective way to deal 

with disaster than waiting for something to happen and pick the 

pieces up afterward. It just makes so much sense. The problem is 

we have to think long-term and it is hard in the world we live in 

today to think beyond what’s happening at the moment and part 

of this Committee’s job, and as Chair of this Committee, is to think 

about the future, as well as dealing with the immediate response 

issues and I ca not wait for the earthquake one. We had a little 

preempt here earlier, but maybe next interference with recording 

long-range planning on building codes, if also that was part of the 

long-term thinking there. Thank you. This Committee stands adjourned with how many days, 14 days for additional questions by 

other committee Members. At this time, the Committee is adjourned. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 3:39 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(35) 

A P P E N D I X 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 

Æ